Charles writes:
> If you sent money to pro- and anti-choice movements
at the same time, wouldn't that be supporting both at the
same time ? If you support fascists' right to speak and
you support non-fascists right to speak at the same time,
then you are supporting fascists' right to speak.
Nice try Charles, but the analogy is flawed. Sending money to a group is materially different from advocating for the right to speak. To say people have a right to speak is one decision and to endorse the content of that speech is another. You are conflating two actions into one in order to make your argument turn out the way you want it to.
^^^ CB: The difference between sending money and advocating the right to speak is not pertinent to what was being discussed. Wendy had said that it would not be possible to support pro and anti-choice groups at the same time. Whether with money or verbally, if you render support to opposite sides in a dispute , then one is supporting both sides. If one "supports" ( in anyway) fascists and non-fascists, the support for the non-fascists doesn't mean you aren't supporting the fascists. The actions might be absurd or self-contradictory or a "wash", but they aren't impossible. That was the point. Not what you address above.
^^^^^
> Ok tell me what interest we have in protecting fascists
making abstract speeches that don't effect anybody else.
Brian:It is the interest we have in ANYONE making abstract speeches.
CB: We don't have an interest in anyone making just any abstract speeches. You are overvaluing abstract speech and thought. There is no value to society in somebody making an abstract Nazi speech.
>Actually, neo-Nazis and KKK's have killed Jews and Black
people, et al. and are incited to do it by the speeches of
their leaders.
Brian: Boy, human autonomy is sure taking a beating today on LBO.
CB: You seem to mean "free will" by "human autonomy". Humans are social individuals, not isolated or autonomous individuals. Our most important and salient characteristic is that we influence each other, especially based on speaking to each other. Your "human autonomy" model is bourgeois individualist. We don't want "human autonomy". We want human sociality. It's good to beat up on "human autonomism " Robinson Crusoeism. Pursuing the goal of making us a bunch of autonomous individuals will destroy us.
^^^^^^
> The fact that it is not immediately after a given speech, but
may take years to germinate in one racist murderer's mind
doesn't make a difference to the person killed.
Brian: So just because it does not matter to the person killed, we should ignore the material facts of human autonomy and in the intervening time the racist was probably exposed to other, non-fascist speech?
CB:. You seem to be saying we should hold the murderer responsible for the murder, i.e. individually responsible for their actions. We should. Outlawing fascistic racist speech and organization does not imply not prosecuting fascists for their non-speech _actions_ such as murder. You didn't think I was saying don't prosecute the fascists as individuals for their individual _actions_ ,only prosecute them for their speech, did you ? Because I'm not saying that. We would still recognize "human autonomy" and prosecute the perpetrator of their humanly autonomous fascist act of murder . See what I mean ?
^^^^^^
> Nazism is conspiracy to commit murder, period.
An interesting definition, but then I can say that Communism under Castro was a conspiracy to murder and imprison queers.
^^^^ CB: You can say it.
^^^ Where does that get us? ^^^^ CB; Gets you into making a false statement. Saying Nazism is a conspiracy to commit murder is a pretty accurate statement. Saying Communism in Cuba is a conspiracy to murder and imprison queers is a very inaccurate statement. Nazism had as a main explicit principle murdering certain categories of people. Communism has no principle at all of murdering or imprisoning queers.
^^^^^
Should Castro's speech have been banned since it was homophobic?
^^^^^ CB: It should be criticized , but Castro shouldn't be prosecuted.