Far right hate speech. What should be done?

[fkizz]

Well, free market ideology asserts that markets are always good, but I'm afraid that the invisible right hand might eventually collide with the invisible left hand on a schizophrenic course.

You more or less proved in favour Heathen Hammer's nuance that left wing doesn't like/understand the concept of free markets, even if it's a free market of ideas.

[Ludicus]

You more or less proved in favour Heathen Hammer's nuance that left wing doesn't like/understand the concept of free markets, even if it's a free market of ideas.

I was kidding, off course.Except you, none of us took it seriously.
Let us talk seriously now. The neoliberal free market, my dear fkizz,is a delusion.There is no such a thing as a free market. A market is a necessary part of any economy, as you know quite well.A market society attempts to subject everything or almost everything that social life depends on.Namely, healthcare, social security, and even the right to earn a wage: these "commodities" should not be commodities.
I recommend reading the Social Theory of Polanyi, in " Reclaiming Humanity"; or read his seminal work, "The Great Transformation", a powerful critique of market liberalism. Half a century after Polanyi's death, his work is more relevant than it has ever been.Polanyi was anti-capitalist. Well, I'm anti-neoliberalist.
I would like to argue that neoliberalism is not synonymous with democracy.I'm among those who think that neoliberalism is a route of/to financial authoritarianism (1), a perversion designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of private companies/corporations.
In fact, neoliberalism and democracy follow different logics. Namely,
-unequally distributed property rights versus equal civic/political rights.
- profit oriented trade versus the common good.
- hierarchical decision-making by managers/capital owners/corporations versus majority decision making.
(1) Unsurprisingly...neoliberalists can see dictators as a good thing.
"As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government", says Hayek.

Are we free to disagree?

[Aexodus]

Ahem, neo-liberalism is not representative of capitalism as an economic system.

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, free market ideology asserts that markets are always good, but I'm afraid that the invisible right hand might eventually collide with the invisible left hand on a schizophrenic course.

Not really. Free market of opinions allows to determine right opinions how they should be determined - through a debate, rather then by some unelected official who always has political bias of his own (Russia, UK, Turkey, Germany, Iran, etc.). Ultimately it leads to less violence then control of speech by the state that requires violence and coercion to suppress "illegal" speech.
Not to mention that people who believe that hate speech laws and other dumb nonsense should be a thing subconsciously believe that ideas that they think are "hateful" are correct- hence why they are afraid that public will take interest in them.

[Vanoi]

Not really. Free market of opinions allows to determine right opinions how they should be determined - through a debate, rather then by some unelected official who always has political bias of his own (Russia, UK, Turkey, Germany, Iran, etc.). Ultimately it leads to less violence then control of speech by the state that requires violence and coercion to suppress "illegal" speech.
Not to mention that people who believe that hate speech laws and other dumb nonsense should be a thing subconsciously believe that ideas that they think are "hateful" are correct- hence why they are afraid that public will take interest in them.

You don't advocate for free market speech though. You yourself have said that free speech should extend to private entities and businesses. That's not remotely free market.

[Gaidin]

Might is right. Let me think, my dear Diocle.On a scale of 1-10 how athletic are you?

Society is so much more complicated. But I guess we can see what happens when we lose who can't maintain the power plants, the housing, the water treatment, the piping, the electrical lines, nevermind the more intellectual stuff that isn't maintenance. And that isn't to say maintenance isn't intellectual. Because, you know, that plumber has to figure out that solution based on the house he's called to. Funny that. But oh wait, Diocle needed security policies for his best and hardest earned secrets that keeps him and his people safe? Those...not really come up with by Might is Right...I should think.

Not free confrontation between ideas either. If someone finds out he knows these things someone figures out who gave him these things and someone dies. Oh wait. That's...complicated. We should think that through. Ouch.

Society. Big burn. Maybe not so tribal anymore. Right?

I mean, this stuff is just complicated. The government has a theoretical duty to let the people present ideas and basically whine back and forth. But...wow. If the government can't protect the people. Should we ask Diocle where the line should be drawn?

[Ludicus]

Far Right Hate speech:What should be done?

New Zealand rings a bell?

[Aexodus]

Clamping down on hate speech is exactly what the shooter wanted

[fkizz]

Let us talk seriously now. The neoliberal free market, my dear fkizz,is a delusion.

I don't understand why you think I'm a neo-liberal, I've been consistently sceptic of neo-liberalism, one of the reasons for my distrust of Merkel was her continued attachement to Neoliberal economic policies, there was some synch with the left for they also saw the problems of neo-liberalism, but then the left suddenly loves Merkel and implicitly "forgives" neo-liberalism. To rub salt on the wound add the disappointment of Tsipras and Syriza, the only interesting thing was Varoufakis.
This marks the big disappointment with the left, it more or less capitulates to neo-liberalism.

I recommend reading the Social Theory of Polanyi, in " Reclaiming Humanity"; or read his seminal work, "The Great Transformation", a powerful critique of market liberalism. Half a century after Polanyi's death, his work is more relevant than it has ever been.Polanyi was anti-capitalist. Well, I'm anti-neoliberalist.

Don't worry, some of my favorite economists are sceptics of neo-liberalism, like Ha Joon Chang. I'll add your suggestion, but my reading list is full of books piling up.

I would like to argue that neoliberalism is not synonymous with democracy.I'm among those who think that neoliberalism is a route of/to financial authoritarianism (1), a perversion designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of private companies/corporations.
In fact, neoliberalism and democracy follow different logics. Namely,
-unequally distributed property rights versus equal civic/political rights.
- profit oriented trade versus the common good.
- hierarchical decision-making by managers/capital owners/corporations versus majority decision making.
(1) Unsurprisingly...neoliberalists can see dictators as a good thing.
"As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government", says Hayek.

Are we free to disagree?

I'm not a big fan of Hayek. He became famous since Stagflation hit Economies and Keynesianism didn't find a way around it, and when that happened, Keynes had been dead for 3 decades, so Keynes himself was no longer present, while Hayek was alive, the Hayek alternative was tried, because there was not much else to be done.

I don't see Neo-Liberalism as anti-democratic or "evil", I just see it as a system which is more inefficient than plenty of economic models already developed and tested. Plenty of the biggest rates of economic growth were under 1) Keynesian policies (see: post-WWII growth rates and New Deal) 2) Classical Liberal Economics policies (see: pre-WWI growth rates)

We should seek a balance between Keynesianism (Keynes too pedantically attacks the Laissez Faire concept, creating needless enemies) and Classical Liberal Economics, from characters such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo or John Stuart Mill. Neo-Liberalism just tries to revive "liberalism" while ignoring why Keynesianism had sucess for so many decades.

Ahem, neo-liberalism is not representative of capitalism as an economic system.

It's one of the faces. Keynesianism (and Fordism, both same epoch) go for the "you need a strong middle class to have purchasing power for companies to have sales" aproach.
Neo Liberalism goes for the "You have to cut costs more and more, even if it means lowering wages or preventing their rise yet again, while putting too much leaps of faith in the Free Market" (when in truth there's lots of imperfect competition thus anulling the lyrism of such concept)

In the end both work, but seems Neo Liberalism has been failing to deliver its expectations as a functional system since 2007-2008.

[Diocle]

.. Might is right. Let me think, my dear Diocle.On a scale of 1-10 how athletic are you?

Just to give a direct answer to your direct question, in the hope of not being off-topic (but, since nobody removed your post, I deduct your post was on topic, so that, it seems to me right and kind trying at least to give you an answer):
I'd say 7 or 8, which, considered my age and my size (1,90 mt. x 84 Kg.), it's pretty good; consider that the sport I practiced more (6 years) was Savate (an old noble art of kick boxing, born in the docks of the port of Marseille, and from there, arrived to the docks of Genoa the town where I was born), so, at least, when I talk of punches and RL, we might say I know the matter pretty well.

That said, let me say once again that the Left is bankrupt everywhere in the world, their last resort it's trying to prevent people's free speech using the lunatic concept of 'hate speech', in the hope at least of slowing down their putrefaction process, but if that strategy may work on the fake world of social media, it doesn't work in RL, because in RL to silence a man, you need some strength, but strength is what actually lack among the keyboard warriors, barricaded in the last laughable redoubt of leftism and mondialism: Internet.

[ioannis76]

Just to give a direct answer to your direct question, in the hope of not being off-topic (but, since nobody removed your post, I deduct your post was on topic, so that, it seems to me right and kind trying at least to give you an answer):
I'd say 7 or 8, which, considered my age and my size (1,90 mt. x 84 Kg.), it's pretty good; consider that the sport I practiced more (6 years) was Savate (an old noble art of kick boxing, born in the docks of the port of Marseille, and from there, arrived to the docks of Genoa the town where I was born), so, at least, when I talk of punches and RL, we might say I know the matter pretty well.

That said, let me say once again that the Left is bankrupt everywhere in the world, their last resort it's trying to prevent people's free speech using the lunatic concept of 'hate speech', in the hope at least of slowing down their putrefaction process, but if that strategy may work on the fake world of social media, it doesn't work in RL, because in RL to silence a man, you need some strength, but strength is what actually lack among the keyboard warriors, barricaded in the last laughable redoubt of leftism and mondialism: Internet.

It's really lovely that the OP is basically all for "free speech" as long as free speech is just variations of the same idea. As the song "Come be PC" goes,
"different opinions are OK,
as long as they're different in the same way".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeSGwVBoao

Thus, calls, for example to "Kill all white men" are acceptable and not violence-inducing, calls for "nazi-punching" are also ok, (nazis are defined as anyone who disagrees with us).

If someone questions all that, we have thinly veiled threats against them, asking them personal questions irrelevant to the subject, trying to figure out if they would make a good target for physical attacks.
And if an encounter WERE to take place, which we would apparently lose monumentally, hell, we can use that, too. A "violent attack by a nazi" against an "innocent person who was just minding their own business". "See how violent "nazis" are?" Who wouldn't rally for the underdog?
If, of course by some freak accident (or by ratios of 15 against 1) the Social Justice Warriors were to achieve victory, then "the nazi got a taste of his own medicine".
So, to sum up, free speech means:
Terrorist attacks committed BY muslims are hushed up or at best labelled as "isolated cases".
Terrorist attacks AGAINST muslims are fully advertised, and are NEVER isolated cases (even though they literally ARE the product of some sicko acting alone, and never, to this day has there been an organised Christian militant group equivalent of ISIS).
If we get our butts kicked by our would-be victims we weaponise it.
If we beat our victim (swarming him/her zombie style) we weaponise it, too.

Soros Wins!
Flawless victory.

[Heathen Hammer]

You don't advocate for free market speech though. You yourself have said that free speech should extend to private entities and businesses. That's not remotely free market.

If such private entities are oligopolies, then I don't see any reason why should businesses be not subjected to constitutional laws.

[TheLeft]

It's really lovely that the OP is basically all for "free speech" as long as free speech is just variations of the same idea. As the song "Come be PC" goes,
"different opinions are OK,
as long as they're different in the same way".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeSGwVBoao

Thus, calls, for example to "Kill all white men" are acceptable and not violence-inducing, calls for "nazi-punching" are also ok, (nazis are defined as anyone who disagrees with us).

If someone questions all that, we have thinly veiled threats against them, asking them personal questions irrelevant to the subject, trying to figure out if they would make a good target for physical attacks.
And if an encounter WERE to take place, which we would apparently lose monumentally, hell, we can use that, too. A "violent attack by a nazi" against an "innocent person who was just minding their own business". "See how violent "nazis" are?" Who wouldn't rally for the underdog?
If, of course by some freak accident (or by ratios of 15 against 1) the Social Justice Warriors were to achieve victory, then "the nazi got a taste of his own medicine".
So, to sum up, free speech means:
Terrorist attacks committed BY muslims are hushed up or at best labelled as "isolated cases".
Terrorist attacks AGAINST muslims are fully advertised, and are NEVER isolated cases (even though they literally ARE the product of some sicko acting alone, and never, to this day has there been an organised Christian militant group equivalent of ISIS).
If we get our butts kicked by our would-be victims we weaponise it.
If we beat our victim (swarming him/her zombie style) we weaponise it, too.

Soros Wins!
Flawless victory.

I don't want to interfere with your rather amusing (and tbh quite strange) rant, but do you honestly think there are gangs of roaming leftists looking to attack people who disagree with them? Are there any such gangs in the South London area? Should I be worried?

Do you have a source for any of this?

[ioannis76]

do you honestly think there are gangs of roaming leftists looking to attack people who disagree with them?

Actually, here is a video of just such a gang:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTICRE0EMs8

They call them "Antifascist Patrols" here in Greece.
There are many more such videos from various cities in Greece.

If you were to cross their path and you happen to "look like a fascist" to them (ie you have your head shaved, you are muscular, or whatnot, you would be in trouble, attacked by multiple assailants).
There are numerous examples of individuals who have, actually being attacked by such gangs.
But you shouldn't be worried. I am sure that you would be perfectly safe from them.

Happy?

[Vanoi]

If such private entities are oligopolies, then I don't see any reason why should businesses be not subjected to constitutional laws.

Being an oligopoly is irrelevant. The the Bill of Rights does not apply to private entities or people.

So much for "free market" free speech.

[NorseThing]

https://twitter.com/patcondell?lang=el

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins

https://twitter.com/jihadwatchRS

https://twitter.com/PamelaGeller

I left here some accounts on twitter that they have one purpose:To spread hatred against muslims. If you study these accounts, almost all their twitts have the specific task of attacking muslims. I dont have a problem with free speech but i am wondering when you draw the line with people that have the task of inciting hatred against a minority. These people try to cause problems. Its quite strange for me that despite the fact that thousands of accounts are banned every year in places like twitter, far right accounts that spread hatred against muslims are thriving. Should twitter take measures against them or not?

I have avoided posting in the thread for a number of reasons. First the title has nothing to do with the topic. Hate speech is hate speech. Political leanings have nothing to do with it. Twitter is a private company and is subject to all the rules that all such companies are subject to. Within the rules, it is simply their decision. I for one have nothing to do with twitter, but not because of hate speech. It is simply not interesting to read short posts of rage or aggression or dissatisfaction. I want more to know why and the details than can be provided by a short senseless tweet. The discussion on TWC interests me because it is the members expressing not simple and short posts, but giving some indication for why they oppose or support ideas. Twitter fails and I hope the next century is a century without twitter. I doubt it though. Human nature rules on this.

[Infidel144]

If you were to cross their path and you happen to "look like a fascist" to them (ie you have your head shaved, you are muscular, or whatnot, you would be in trouble, attacked by multiple assailants).
There are numerous examples of individuals who have, actually being attacked by such gangs.

Hell, you dont even have to have a shaved head. You could be a Bernie supporting Democrat and have the totally uncowardly, ungutless, unpathetic, unNazi-antifa display their great and tremendous bravery by jumping you in a group from behind, hitting you with clubs and putting you in a hospital, because you have an American flag.

[Heathen Hammer]

Being an oligopoly is irrelevant. The the Bill of Rights does not apply to private entities or people.

So much for "free market" free speech.

I don't think corporations are allowed to enslave people or rape them either. i don't see how its different. Why should corporate CEOs be allowed to determine what can be said on the Internet?

[Vanoi]

I don't think corporations are allowed to enslave people or rape them either. i don't see how its different.

Rape and slavery are crimes. Being an oligopoly is not. Free speech not extending to private entities isn't a crime either.

Why should corporate CEOs be allowed to determine what can be said on the Internet?

They control what said on their platforms as I their right as a business. They don't control the Internet.

[TheLeft]

Actually, here is a video of just such a gang:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTICRE0EMs8

They call them "Antifascist Patrols" here in Greece.
There are many more such videos from various cities in Greece.

If you were to cross their path and you happen to "look like a fascist" to them (ie you have your head shaved, you are muscular, or whatnot, you would be in trouble, attacked by multiple assailants).
There are numerous examples of individuals who have, actually being attacked by such gangs.
But you shouldn't be worried. I am sure that you would be perfectly safe from them.

Happy?

Yes, I can see why you'd be utterly terrified. It must be the way they were calmly and peacefully handing out leaflets and putting up posters.