Xitter is a haven for Nazis because Musk deliberately made it that way. That makes Musk a Nazi in my book.
So, let me explain how nazies work. The nazies don't want to be seen as nazies, so they claim their opponents are nazies. Putin does this, Israel, Trump, Musk, right wing politicians all over Europe, etc. They are all fascists or national socialists yet they claim they are fighting nazies or are a victim of nazies.
It's like a plumber who keeps screaming an electrician is a plumber, and to prove his point he's going to break into the electrician's house to fix his plumbing while murdering his family.
Aren’t you actually the one saying people are Nazis?
Touche!
If it talks and acts like a nazi, I call them a nazi. I do not call anyone opposing me a nazi no matter their political opinion. For example, Trump and Musk call leftists nazis. That makes no sense. Israel calls anyone opposing their right wing extremism, apartheid, annexing and genocide a nazi. It's like Hitler calling the allies nazis.
I'm not calling anyone a nazi, I label people who are actual nazis based on their opinion and acts.
If it talks and acts like a nazi, I call them a nazi
For instance, if they classified people into “desirable” and “undesirable” and proposed that the undesirables should have fewer rights or be outright eliminated?
For instance. But are you going in the direction of "how about you then"? Because I do not approve of nazis, but imo everyone should have the right of their opinion an no one should be silenced or eliminated. I prefer them not to have any power, but that is my preference yet I still believe they should have as much right to be elected as I am. I just hoped people would be less dumb and recognize fake news and propaganda when voting. But yeah, people have a right to be dumb and fuck up the world and no one should be stripped of those rights.
everyone should have the right of their opinion an no one should be silenced or eliminated
You are contradicting yourself. Tolerating nazis literally means allowing a group that sports the core dictum that they are justified in silencing and eliminating whomever they deem fair game. The topic has been discussed and the result is settled since 1945. We had a whole war about it. The group of people who think they should get to kill everybody they say is inferior to them does not get to participate.
I never aid I tolerate them. I'm fighting hard against fake news, propaganda and their protests. Just because I fight them, doesn't mean I believe they have less rights to their opinion or less rights to live. I just don't agree with them and I want to fight them. I don't want to be the same as them by putting them beneath me, taking away their rights. They have a right to their opinion, they have a right to protest and they have a right to get a beating whenever they protest against LGBTQ+, other ethnicities, or what so ever or when spreading Russian and other right wing propaganda. We can't just silence, imprison and kill people we don't agree with, that's what nazis do.
We can show them they are wrong, we can fight them, we can show others what's behind their mask, we can convict them of their crimes when they make them.
Freedom of speech doesn't have an amendment saying "only if you agree with me".
You may be surprised to hear that the situation is a bit more nuanced than that because freedom of speech is not, in fact, an unlimited freedom. Wherever different rights and freedoms overlap and endanger each other, every society must weigh them against each other and sometimes give preference to one freedom by limiting another. That means that certain ways of using free speech are not protected. One layman's example that one keeps hearing would be shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Certain calls for violence can be criminally prosecuted because they would endanger other people's right to live, for example.
The reason behind these limitations to freedom of speech is the so-called "paradox of tolerance". In essence, it says that a democratic society that tolerates even attempts to overthrow its core tenets will be upended by destructive ideologies unless active steps are taken to prevent that. While the absolutely tolerant society is basically a buffet to slaughter and usurp for authoritarian ideologies, a democratic society that wants to survive needs to be a defensive democracy that limits attacks on its core values. And there's an excellent case to be made that the nazi ideology is in its very core not compatible with a democratic society, so much so that in multiple countries like for example germany, it is illegal to shout "heil hitler" or use one's freedom of expression to further the nazi ideology. And they are speaking from experience.
Yeah I completely agree. But there's a difference between silencing your opposition by banning their opinion and banning certain harmful words. I believe we shouldn't silence them because we do not agree, we just need to fight their idiology and propaganda, and them whenever they endanger anyone else.
We shouldn't ban anyone from speaking out their opinion, we should disapprove their opinion and argue they are wrong.
That's a cute sentiment. I applaud your enthusiasm and confidence. However, you're not the first one to try to engage people who've gone full nazi on a discourse-level. At the stage where they can be encountered in a legal environment by discussing their worldview with them, appeasement and discussion have historically not been effective means to dissuade nazis themselves, even though attempts were not lacking.
The reason for that is that, in order to logic someone out of their worldview, they must have adopted that worldview due to logic. However, being a nazi is not the result of weighing the scientific pros and cons and then deciding, that yes, the particular race you were born as is objectively speaking indeed superior to all others and thus your race is perfectly legitimised to send other races to their deaths because the nazis happen to have the right hair and eye colour and their victims don't; no, that opinion is exactly that: an opinion that is used to justify atrocities commited by people who just really want to commit atrocities and will use any fig leaf of an excuse to actually do that with impunity. Their goal is traditionally not convincing anybody, but rather biding their time and growing their influence until they no longer need to talk to reach their goals.
Historically speaking, the gist of attempts at discussion has been running along the following lines:
"I believe nazis should have the right to murder whomever they please because we are better than everyone else."
"I disagree, you should NOT have the right to unilaterally murder people at a whim because you're not, in fact, better than everybody else."
"Yes we are."
"No, you aren't."
"Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Let's continue this discussion at a point in time where we've amassed enough support and power that we could -hypothetically- round up any and all dissenters and murder them wholesale, if -again, purely hypothetically- we chose to do so."
Allowing this cancer to fester until it's good and ready to seize power violently or at least without further resistence - as is the very goal of the ideology - just means giving them more time. If they confess to being nazis, their playbook will most likely not suddenly switch to wholesome and legal aspirations. The nazi endgame is well defined and well-known. The nazi ideology is firmly defined in terms of content, it has no leg to stand on from a scientific point of view and at this point in time, believing that it is in any way, shape or form "correct" or in need of discussing its merits, is simply inexcusable.
Allowing such well-known notorious destructive groups to plot unhindered would be just as irresponsible as throwing guns at people who are obviously not responsible enough to be trusted with them and then just sitting back to see what happens. And then, when it happens, repeatedly, being surprised, every single time. Nobody would do that, right?
Right?
Because I do not approve of nazis
You say that, but you do approve of a group that separates people into desirables and undesirables and desires to eliminate the undesirables. Not just from their society, but from the Earth entire.
So I don’t believe you when you say you’re not a Nazi.
be real with me, are you just pretending to be this stupid?
Hahaha ooooh snap! You got me xD
No, you're wrong.
Xitler.
From the article:
“Elon Musk’s had more positions on free speech than the Kama Sutra,” Shorten said in an interview with Australian radio.
Hahahah
That is to say 0, as, to my knowledge the Kama Sutra says exactly nothing on free speech.
I think that the joke flew right over your head
I misunderstood, I thought Shorten was making a argument for musk.
All media companies need to be held responsible for not doing due diligence against the spread of disinformation. Disinformation is currently the main tool enemies of different nations are using against each other
Edit to make the statement more general
While I agree there's a responsibility for combating misinfo, you can't rely on nation states to decide what is misinfo. Authoritarians do and will abuse this to silence criticism of their regimes.
they passed a law banning TikTok, why is X any better?
This is about Australia, TikTok is not banned here.
waoh, free speech....
I'd love for this clown to explain how fines for spreading disinformation = fascism.
Because the fascists are the ones who will tell you which truths are “disinformation.”
Depends on what the misinformation is.
Depends on how they define and decide what "misinformation" is.
To reprise a bit of schoolhouse wisdom,
whoever smelt it dealt it.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.