FA+
Shop
The Limitations of Free Speech & Expressions of Guilt
7 years ago
Thank you to my friends for their help in shaping and improving the thoughts below.
* * * * *
Prior to posting my 'Nazi Prevention' article, I made a prediction:
That Dogpatch Press editorial staff would maliciously poison the well, and that their readership would be rabidly unreasonable.
I've seen several good things occur post-article, and the one which makes me happiest is being proven wrong about the Dogpatch readership. True that a handful resorted to party-line insults, but a plethora of reasonable people came forward, to agree and disagree, in good faith. Most of them only felt comfortable doing so through private channels. This is a fact which stands out in my mind.
The best public response I could find was by Darkend, a talented editor at Sofawolf press. Rather than resorting to ad-hominem, he focused on well-reasoned disagreement directed at the ideas we presented. He was considerate enough to post his thoughts as a journal, and I would encourage everyone to read it. (links at the bottom.)
The community is currently riven with fear and loathing. I'm hopeful that placing emphasis on thoughtful good-will interactions can improve things. So to that end, please express appreciation to Darkend for being willing to speak, and I hope he'll be open to reading if I clarify some of my positions.
Brevity was among my primary concerns in the initial article, which led to me excluding... Well, everything in existence outside of those 2,000 words. That has opened the door to some misinterpretations, which I'd be pleased to address. One interesting, and one troubling.
Interesting:
Darkend believes that the article "fetishizes" free speech, to the exclusion of all other values, considerations, and consequences.
I think he's entirely correct that elevating one value above all others, and using that abstraction to subordinate everything, is a bad idea. In fact, such thinking often constitutes the very worst ideas, manifesting as totalitarian ideologies.
Conceptual systems like these can be identified by their tendency to have one utopian solution for every problem. For Nazis, the solution was ethnic homogeneity. For Stalinists, forced equality of economic outcomes. Others enshrine the idea of free markets, or individual responsibility, or diversity. When totalizing systems are imposed fully scaled and uncompromised upon reality, they degenerate quickly into hellish suffering.
Simple solutions are tempting in a complicated world- in fact, they are necessary. None of us are capable of fully comprehending the complexity. Abstractions are an a-priori requirement for making value judgments and decisions.
On an individual level, I think it's healthy to have a handful of different lenses, and more so on a macroscopic social level.
For whatever harm a misguided individual may inflict with their totalitarian obsessions, an entire society can magnify it. And virtually everyone wants to avoid that. In fact, I think we have a common desire:
The minimization of unnecessary human suffering.
So far, it appears that individual rights and freedoms have served that end better than any previous system of concepts. Partially because free speech helps uncover and defuse bad ideas early. Which is why the next perception of Darkend's was troubling to me.
His perception of free speech entailed no philosophically inherent limitations, up to and including stabbing a political opponent in the throat (or punching them in the face.) Blurring the line between speech and murder is dangerous, and for that reason I think it's worthwhile to briefly reiterate what I think most people mean when they are talking about free speech:
Free speech is a mechanism by which the interaction of a diversity of ideas is facilitated.
Information is exchanged, reasoning examined, and suppositions assessed. Using open inquiry to identify bad ideas provides intellectual immunizations that can be shared with those who may be susceptible. Good ideas can be identified and likewise shared.
Conceptualizing free speech in this manner introduces immediate and obvious inherent limitations. Murder and physical violence are used to suppress ideas, not engage with them. Though it may be expressive, throat-stabbing a political opponent is clearly not covered under this definition of free speech. Neither is shouting down a lecturer with obscenities, destroying Berkeley with a riot, pulling fire alarms during speeches, or bringing airhorns into the classroom. Violence, aggression, mislabeling, and bad-faith tactics all obstruct the beneficial mechanics of free speech.
Because this definition provides explicit boundaries and substance to the idea of free speech, I find it more useful, and it's generally what I have in mind. That's why I agree with Darkend when he points out,
"The purpose of some forms of speech, specifically harassment and intimidation, are designed to suppress the speech of others. It's a way to say, 'If you speak up, you'll be next.'"
I spoke up with my article. Subsequently I received a small but implacable contingent of furries mislabeling me as a Nazi, Nazi sympathizer, and advocating for my ostracization, as publicly as they possibly could.
Observers might class such behavior as harassment and intimidation. Those same observers do not want to be next.
I believe that is why the majority of thoughtful responses to my article are being shared with me in private. People are afraid.
And I'm not talking about white supremacists. Pro-LGBT conservatives, libertarians, egalitarians, liberals- they are afraid to speak up, because they know what will happen. They might just get called a Nazi and be banned forever.
Is there persecution being conducted along party lines?
I don't know. Politics has gotten so ugly it seems defined now by deception. False flags and misinformation are the norm.
But I do know a few facts.
I have been accused, publicly and repeatedly, of being a Nazi and a Nazi sympathizer. These accusations are categorically false, and often attached to coy ultimatums, hints that obedience might end the abuse.
I have clarified my position calmly, publicly, and truthfully. Such clarifications are rejected out of hand. It is made clear that only capitulation will suffice.
I also know for a fact that I am not the only person who has been falsely and maliciously labeled a Nazi or sympathizer. These labels are used by a small and unhappy group within the community as moral justification to act on their feelings of hatred and to exercise social power. Which brings us to another good point that was shared by Darkend.
"Loosely defined laws restricting speech are almost always turned into tools to oppress minorities."
I believe he meant 'minorities' here to refer to the birth characteristics of an individual, but his point holds true even for literal numeric minorities of people. Even for subdued majorities.
My personal experiences above lead me to assess similar anecdotes with credence. And while I'm grateful that I can simply shrug off the lies and social pressure, those who are less established are often not so fortunate.
Darkend touched on some additional points that merit brief mention.
"
1) FA isn't the government and as such is largely free to choose who they do and do not wish to host. This isn't anyone's free speech issue.
2) "Exluding (sic) the speech of people will only turn them into nazis" is the abuser's "Look what you made me do!"
"
He's correct on point one- private platforms are free to make their own rules, and fair moderation is necessary to maintain a healthy functioning atmosphere. But it is possible for corporations to infringe on individual rights, and by some accounts, that appears to be happening.
The second point, I'm not sure how Darkend equates a cause-effect observation to an assignment of guilt. Acknowledging incentives and results doesn't inherently require a scapegoat.
However, seeing this objection appear repeatedly on twitter makes it appear salient. It is being used as a justification for the moral rectitude of social purges, and indicates preoccupation with blame.
Perhaps it means that people feel guilt, and are eager to redirect it.
What's the truth, and what's spin? I don't know for sure.
I'm not advocating for or against AltFurry. I'm not particularly keyed in to the politics of the furry community, and I'm not certain what any of these groups actually stand for, so any endorsement- or denouncement- would be hollow. I tend to be quite detached, scribbling away at drawings rather than reading furry news or tuning in to the latest gossip. But when that gossip is resulting in mass expulsions predicated on group affiliation... Well, when an oblivious chap like me can see that things are getting bad, they must be very bad indeed.
I'm hoping that examination and consideration might help us start fixing things together. I would like to thank Darkend for sharing his thoughts, and hope that he finds my response agreeable.
Readers may be interested in digesting more points of view. Below is the original Dogpatch Article I submitted, with the thoughts and feelings of their editorial staff. In the following days QuQu-media posted an article, and 2-Gryphon posted a video which deal with the same subject matter. Also below is a link to redacted screencaps of some of the private notes we received and Darkend's journal.
* * * * *
Initial Dogpatch Press article and Staff Commentary "The Milo Story, Nazi Prevention, and A Simple Hope" http://dogpatch.press/2018/05/21/th.....zi-prevention/
Darkend’s Journal response: https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/8743858/
QuQu-Media "Why political extremism within the furry fandom should deeply concern you." https://ququ-media.com/2018/05/23/w.....y-concern-you/
2-Gryphon "Bird Bawks- Altfurry" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44B_GphVpAI
Redacted private commentary: https://steemit.com/dreamkeepers/@d.....ate-commentary
* * * * *
Prior to posting my 'Nazi Prevention' article, I made a prediction:
That Dogpatch Press editorial staff would maliciously poison the well, and that their readership would be rabidly unreasonable.
I've seen several good things occur post-article, and the one which makes me happiest is being proven wrong about the Dogpatch readership. True that a handful resorted to party-line insults, but a plethora of reasonable people came forward, to agree and disagree, in good faith. Most of them only felt comfortable doing so through private channels. This is a fact which stands out in my mind.
The best public response I could find was by Darkend, a talented editor at Sofawolf press. Rather than resorting to ad-hominem, he focused on well-reasoned disagreement directed at the ideas we presented. He was considerate enough to post his thoughts as a journal, and I would encourage everyone to read it. (links at the bottom.)
The community is currently riven with fear and loathing. I'm hopeful that placing emphasis on thoughtful good-will interactions can improve things. So to that end, please express appreciation to Darkend for being willing to speak, and I hope he'll be open to reading if I clarify some of my positions.
Brevity was among my primary concerns in the initial article, which led to me excluding... Well, everything in existence outside of those 2,000 words. That has opened the door to some misinterpretations, which I'd be pleased to address. One interesting, and one troubling.
Interesting:
Darkend believes that the article "fetishizes" free speech, to the exclusion of all other values, considerations, and consequences.
I think he's entirely correct that elevating one value above all others, and using that abstraction to subordinate everything, is a bad idea. In fact, such thinking often constitutes the very worst ideas, manifesting as totalitarian ideologies.
Conceptual systems like these can be identified by their tendency to have one utopian solution for every problem. For Nazis, the solution was ethnic homogeneity. For Stalinists, forced equality of economic outcomes. Others enshrine the idea of free markets, or individual responsibility, or diversity. When totalizing systems are imposed fully scaled and uncompromised upon reality, they degenerate quickly into hellish suffering.
Simple solutions are tempting in a complicated world- in fact, they are necessary. None of us are capable of fully comprehending the complexity. Abstractions are an a-priori requirement for making value judgments and decisions.
On an individual level, I think it's healthy to have a handful of different lenses, and more so on a macroscopic social level.
For whatever harm a misguided individual may inflict with their totalitarian obsessions, an entire society can magnify it. And virtually everyone wants to avoid that. In fact, I think we have a common desire:
The minimization of unnecessary human suffering.
So far, it appears that individual rights and freedoms have served that end better than any previous system of concepts. Partially because free speech helps uncover and defuse bad ideas early. Which is why the next perception of Darkend's was troubling to me.
His perception of free speech entailed no philosophically inherent limitations, up to and including stabbing a political opponent in the throat (or punching them in the face.) Blurring the line between speech and murder is dangerous, and for that reason I think it's worthwhile to briefly reiterate what I think most people mean when they are talking about free speech:
Free speech is a mechanism by which the interaction of a diversity of ideas is facilitated.
Information is exchanged, reasoning examined, and suppositions assessed. Using open inquiry to identify bad ideas provides intellectual immunizations that can be shared with those who may be susceptible. Good ideas can be identified and likewise shared.
Conceptualizing free speech in this manner introduces immediate and obvious inherent limitations. Murder and physical violence are used to suppress ideas, not engage with them. Though it may be expressive, throat-stabbing a political opponent is clearly not covered under this definition of free speech. Neither is shouting down a lecturer with obscenities, destroying Berkeley with a riot, pulling fire alarms during speeches, or bringing airhorns into the classroom. Violence, aggression, mislabeling, and bad-faith tactics all obstruct the beneficial mechanics of free speech.
Because this definition provides explicit boundaries and substance to the idea of free speech, I find it more useful, and it's generally what I have in mind. That's why I agree with Darkend when he points out,
"The purpose of some forms of speech, specifically harassment and intimidation, are designed to suppress the speech of others. It's a way to say, 'If you speak up, you'll be next.'"
I spoke up with my article. Subsequently I received a small but implacable contingent of furries mislabeling me as a Nazi, Nazi sympathizer, and advocating for my ostracization, as publicly as they possibly could.
Observers might class such behavior as harassment and intimidation. Those same observers do not want to be next.
I believe that is why the majority of thoughtful responses to my article are being shared with me in private. People are afraid.
And I'm not talking about white supremacists. Pro-LGBT conservatives, libertarians, egalitarians, liberals- they are afraid to speak up, because they know what will happen. They might just get called a Nazi and be banned forever.
Is there persecution being conducted along party lines?
I don't know. Politics has gotten so ugly it seems defined now by deception. False flags and misinformation are the norm.
But I do know a few facts.
I have been accused, publicly and repeatedly, of being a Nazi and a Nazi sympathizer. These accusations are categorically false, and often attached to coy ultimatums, hints that obedience might end the abuse.
I have clarified my position calmly, publicly, and truthfully. Such clarifications are rejected out of hand. It is made clear that only capitulation will suffice.
I also know for a fact that I am not the only person who has been falsely and maliciously labeled a Nazi or sympathizer. These labels are used by a small and unhappy group within the community as moral justification to act on their feelings of hatred and to exercise social power. Which brings us to another good point that was shared by Darkend.
"Loosely defined laws restricting speech are almost always turned into tools to oppress minorities."
I believe he meant 'minorities' here to refer to the birth characteristics of an individual, but his point holds true even for literal numeric minorities of people. Even for subdued majorities.
My personal experiences above lead me to assess similar anecdotes with credence. And while I'm grateful that I can simply shrug off the lies and social pressure, those who are less established are often not so fortunate.
Darkend touched on some additional points that merit brief mention.
"
1) FA isn't the government and as such is largely free to choose who they do and do not wish to host. This isn't anyone's free speech issue.
2) "Exluding (sic) the speech of people will only turn them into nazis" is the abuser's "Look what you made me do!"
"
He's correct on point one- private platforms are free to make their own rules, and fair moderation is necessary to maintain a healthy functioning atmosphere. But it is possible for corporations to infringe on individual rights, and by some accounts, that appears to be happening.
The second point, I'm not sure how Darkend equates a cause-effect observation to an assignment of guilt. Acknowledging incentives and results doesn't inherently require a scapegoat.
However, seeing this objection appear repeatedly on twitter makes it appear salient. It is being used as a justification for the moral rectitude of social purges, and indicates preoccupation with blame.
Perhaps it means that people feel guilt, and are eager to redirect it.
What's the truth, and what's spin? I don't know for sure.
I'm not advocating for or against AltFurry. I'm not particularly keyed in to the politics of the furry community, and I'm not certain what any of these groups actually stand for, so any endorsement- or denouncement- would be hollow. I tend to be quite detached, scribbling away at drawings rather than reading furry news or tuning in to the latest gossip. But when that gossip is resulting in mass expulsions predicated on group affiliation... Well, when an oblivious chap like me can see that things are getting bad, they must be very bad indeed.
I'm hoping that examination and consideration might help us start fixing things together. I would like to thank Darkend for sharing his thoughts, and hope that he finds my response agreeable.
Readers may be interested in digesting more points of view. Below is the original Dogpatch Article I submitted, with the thoughts and feelings of their editorial staff. In the following days QuQu-media posted an article, and 2-Gryphon posted a video which deal with the same subject matter. Also below is a link to redacted screencaps of some of the private notes we received and Darkend's journal.
* * * * *
Initial Dogpatch Press article and Staff Commentary "The Milo Story, Nazi Prevention, and A Simple Hope" http://dogpatch.press/2018/05/21/th.....zi-prevention/
Darkend’s Journal response: https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/8743858/
QuQu-Media "Why political extremism within the furry fandom should deeply concern you." https://ququ-media.com/2018/05/23/w.....y-concern-you/
2-Gryphon "Bird Bawks- Altfurry" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44B_GphVpAI
Redacted private commentary: https://steemit.com/dreamkeepers/@d.....ate-commentary
Greetings from Poland. o/
Maaaaybe its time you did a little research to figure out what they're actually all about? When the debate is behavior of people and private websites, not governments, context is king. And it comes off insulting when one is told that we gotta do everything we can to play nice with someone, to bring them into our homes, to give them hugs, when there are explicit statements by showing they seek our destruction. I've listened to the altfurrys/alt right folks. I've heard their voices from well before they got those titles and despite my best efforts I'll continue to hear their racist message. And yes, they got the right to free speech. But they don't have the right to my time. They don't have the right to a platform to amplify their message. They don't have the right to invade our social spheres without us reacting in some way. And they don't have the right to prevent someone giving a response to their rhetoric of discord.
And in the end, all this hand wringing about 'oh, if we cut them out of our lives we'll make them champions of free speech' is ignoring the very fact that telling them to get bent is the rest of us using our right of free speech. Cutting them out of our social groups and kicking them off our privately owned platforms is us using our right to choose who we associate with (another 1st amendment associated right by the way). To claim that its terrible that we use our rights in the course of our private interactions is something you are totally free to say. Because that is your right to do so. But its still rather bonkers.
And it is also the rights of others to see your naivety as a sign that you not only are you accepting of extremist views, but endorse them. And no amount of 'oh golly they made me feel bad and thus are totally in the wrong, give me sympathy' will change that. It might encourage some less engaged folks to sign up as sympathizers, but won't encourage an evolution of the dynamic. However, what might do that is learning something about the people involved in the conversation, what their actual motivations are. And the easiest way to get started on this is to ask them why they are doing certain behaviors. And from there compare that with their behavior to determine better their reliability as narrators. You might learn something. Its easy to get on a soap box and make large pronouncements about the validity of one's opponents. Its much more difficult to understand them and to figure out who is actually right and who is actually wrong.
You fixate on the rights of private platforms to fairly curate the content they permit, and we're both in agreement there. I think that moderating a community is dependent upon the purpose of that community. Let's use an easy example- a math classroom.
Bullhorns obstruct the exchange of ideas, sure. But so does a group of students incessantly talking about politics in the middle of an algebra lecture. Because the purpose at hand is learning math, other content gets in the way.
Furaffinity, to return to our situation, is not intended to be a forum for political extremism and recruiting, as specified by their Terms of Service. I think we're both in agreement there: No Nazi or Antifa proselytizing. If a person is doing things that are not permitted on a platform, they can be removed from that platform. (Not for what their opinion is, but for their behavior within the platform.)
That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Which is why the current situation is unacceptable.
Things are not working the way they are supposed to work.
Normal everyday people, as has been extensively established, are being mislabeled, banned, and slammed into blocklists.
Now, do people have a right to lie about others, as you claim? To me, it’s the same as asking whether people have the right to irreversibly demolish their own credibility.
They certainly do. And they certainly are.
If a fringe group were seeking power over a community and lying about their motives to justify a social purge, it might look a lot like what we’re seeing.
If you believe effective community curation is needed, I’m sure you’ll agree that a massive and fast-spreading lack of trust in the motives of the moderators is not helpful. You speak in an ‘us versus them’ manner, so hopefully you are not just cheerleading for these mistakes, but are in contact with some of those making them.
Please help them do better.
On the purpose of community and the math classroom. The comparison is not very apt as a math class room, primarily one run as part of public education, is a very different venue compared to a private website. A math class room is indeed established as a place for learning about a specific subject. While a private media platform of any type can be about what ever the controllers of it decide it should be about. Tomorrow FA could decide that its a website about Naruto fanfic and nothing else. And it would be an insane move, but it within their options to make such a change. And thus the purpose of the website would change, people would be angry, many would leave, and the end. Compare this to a math class room, which has particular standards of education to uphold under the law. The teacher does not possess to change the purpose of that class room by fiat. Potentially the government can of course, but as we're focusing on those most relevantly in charge of the situation, going up through the system seems irrelevant.
Similarly, when one looks at the community that exists as a part of a website (not the moderators, administrators, or other top end folks), it has a certain degree of autonomy independent of the venue it uses. I have observed numerous times when a community ended up evolving well beyond the initial scope of the bare bones idea or fandom that brought them together. Comic fans organizing dance parties and game nights, gamers start podcasts about star trek, political activists starting guilds in world of warcraft. To claim that a community's 'purpose' is only what exists in the terms of service of the website they opt to use is rather limiting. As the people that exist to establish that community have many more wants and dreams and motivations, and yes, purpose, than can ever be laid out in a document from on high. And thus actions they seek to take to protect themselves from hostile independent of that administration (be it through building block lists or informing each other of the behavior of others in the community), they have that option. One can quibble about the rightness or wrongness of every individual instance of this, but to claim that there is an objective wrongness to community policing itself is absurd. If you feel you have been labeled in all of this incorrectly, the answer is to not shout out oppressions and my rights are being violated, as this is not the case at all. It is to seek out the why of the being on the outs and to attempt to address the concerns that resulted in it. To do otherwise, to constantly proclaim some non-existant high ground of rights while ignoring those of others, is hypocritical and non-helpful. And will contribute to those who view one with suspicion continuing to not trust.
Or in short: Its easy to proclaim truths. But the lazy way won't get anyone who distrusts you to change their mind.
On if people have the right to lie, well, generally they do. Unless we're say in a situation where they're under oath or dealing with a criminal investigation or a few other specific legal situations, people can lie about anything they like. And yes, there is indeed the issue of credibility to consider when one chooses to lie. But if one feels they have been lied about, then it is up to that person to provide the counter evidence to refute the lie, if they so choose. Again, this gets back to being active on the merits of claims as opposed to standing on the easy hill of absolute truths and rights.
As for my part in all of this, I can be in contact with individuals who I've come to know who are involved in moderation. But I have no intention in doing so. Nor have I talked with them about any of this and don't plan to. If you have a beef to sort out there, that's your job, not mine. Journals like this inherently are for public consumption and interaction, and that is why I commented in the first place as its on a subject of interest to me.
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Personally, I'm all for the alt-right being driven off of Furaffinity, since that movement (if we can call it as such) was started by white supremacists and neo-Nazis as an attempt to rebrand themselves and make themselves more acceptable to young people. Good riddance to them.
The pleasure of excluding others is not to be underestimated; but when it requires mislabeling and harming the mental health of real people, and when it enables extremists to recruit more effectively, I think perhaps it's time for certain people to give up that pleasure and stop defending it.
Legit White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and other hate groups walk a VERY thin line with freedom of speech. When their protests and such actively call for bloodshed, I think that's the point where they step over the line. The problem is that this is a group whose leaders are actually fairly intelligent, so they do their best not to cross that line. Certain opposing groups, who are also extremist, cross that line as well by calling for unprovoked assaults. The problem I have with the latter and that I've personally encountered is that, as you and other have pointed out, is that disagreement with that sentiment (that unprovoked assault should be frowned upon/free speech should not be infringed on) is on par with supporting, sympathizing with, end/or even being part of the group yourself. The thing that really bothers me about it is that it's not really concern for Neo-Nazis, etc. that I'm against that. It's because I don't want people getting in trouble and starting horrific violence where there shouldn't be.
Methods and tactics used are only making people more extreme. You can't fight hate with hate, you really can't. If they directly threaten you, do what you need to. But if you call for acts of hate against those people and even people with the loosest affiliations? You're not any better.
Frankly though? I don't care for politics in the furry community. For me, this is a hobby and fandom to have FUN. I'll discuss politics and such, sure, but at the end of the day I just want to look at art, read or write some stories and talk with friends.
I find your views refreshingly liberal in the original sense ("On an individual level, I think it's healthy to have a handful of different lenses, and more so on a macroscopic social level.", "Individual rights and freedoms have served [the minimization of unnecessary human suffering] better than any previous system of concepts.", "Free speech helps uncover and defuse bad ideas early." etc).
Unfortunately, this seems to stand in opposition to what's colloquially referred to as "liberal" in some circles (I mean circles that more or less openly display a detest for or negation of anything that's not in line with a set of cemented assumptions that are picked and preached instead of examined and reflected upon -- something I get from the preface written by Dogpatch Press).
The old story of a child crying wolf still holds truth. There're some wolves in the wild and they'll eat other animals if they catch them and people should be careful to correctly identify the wolf and to know how to approach it. But if almost anything can be called a wolf and everyone fears hidden wolves all around and separates himself from alleged wolves who are actually only black sheep, then people will neither notice the real wolves moving in nor will they be able to fight them off, because they no longer know what a wolf is and they don't know what the wolf will do to them or how to react to it. All they can do is scream "wolf!" for the thousandth time.
And worse, if everyone believes there're wolves everywhere, then people will start questioning what's so bad about them, because most "wolves" they see aren't hunting and aren't eating any animals. The term "wolf" will have become meaningless, but there will still be an unnamed creature running around in the forest hunting and eating animals which once was a wolf but now has been made indistinguishable from black sheep that are slaughtered in fear.
And regarding minorities, since it came up: I believe the most significant and the most endangered minority is the individual.
Because they are thick, short-sighted, and egotistic, I would posit.
Just reading comments on the article and any random youtube video or many forums where divides happen due to manufacturer or political alignments (Intel vs AMD vs nV, droid vs apple, etc etc...) makes it blatantly obvious that people have extremely poor grammatical or reading comprehension capabilities for starters; not to mention opinions on criminal behaviour and rehabilitation or that its ok to "fight hate with hate" or use reverse racism to place your own self above your fellow human being rather than have a reasoned discussion, or use of protest groups to avoid reasoned discussion completely.
People either do not have the mental fortitude for discussions of this nature or are being ignorant with intent.
Honestly i'm afraid of where the world is going these days.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's easy to situationally promote silencing people, but you don't really see the problem in it as a principle until it's turned around on you for someone else's interests.
You cannot do good deeds with the devil's tools, so to speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tlPHYnzkvE
When you can't even differentiate Nazi symbolism from Nazi behavior, the point is rendered moot.
Besides which, I have no preclusion just dismissively calling Nazi accusers 'Commies'. It has about the same weight and merit as a pejorative. You just switch out mass genocide and an ethnostate for ill-informed revolution, gulags, and mass-starvation. The philosophical tools of destruction differ, but the results are both godawful.