Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, Nazism is inherently racist, discriminatory, and inconsistent with democratic values. Marxism is not.
To argue that all ideologies are the same and should be treated with equal respect is illogical.
Yes, but I was specifically speaking of the connection to supposed violence which has been a justification for hate-speech legislation.
In that regards, if fear of actual harm is a concern, Marxism is worse than Nazism.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Racism, sexism, and Nazism do not provide any benefits at all, and have already been discussed ad nauseum. We have even experimented with having these as our ruling ideologies. We have given these ideas every chance. They end in death camps.
Marxism has ended in more death camps of greater lethality.
This is not an argument against having views of racial prejudice and traditional views regarding gender and the relation of such to democracy.
You seem to be confusing suffrage with democracy, which are not the same thing, but even if it they were the same, such does not address the point.
WHY should anti-democratic views not be permitted to be discussed if they are not directly inciting violence?
For instance, if Nazism should be opposed for being anti-democratic with censorship, should every variant of marxism and every writing in Marx that could be construed as a threat to the democratic order likewise be censored?
Meanwhile, should other racist ideologies in the New Right
that do believe in representative government and universal suffrage within a nation, remain uncensored?
I doubt that is the outcome you would want, but thats the point of free-speech. Its not about what we want, its about what is right.
I may not want marxism to exist, but its not right for a state to prevent marxists from speaking about their views.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Marxism has been democratic in the past. It is not inherently undemocratic like Nazism.
It also provided the world with the most intolerant and genocidal regimes in human history; whereas, people holding to racist and sexists views were arguably the creators of democracy itself in the first place.
Pants-of-dog wrote:We also still have a lot to learn from Marxism. What do we have left to learn from Nazism?
Besides being purely dependent on the perspective of the idealogue in question, this point would needlessly derail the conversation into philosophy, and I would argue that Marxism is a failed philosophy in a manner commensurate to nazism, but nazism atleast acknowledges the need for the natural order's social structures for the perpetuation of western civilization, or any meaningful civilization. Hence, we have more to learn from Nazism than Marxism in my opinion.
However, this is all irrelevant,
why should speech be censored merely because it isn't intellectually contributive? Can you imagine the implications of that highly subjective criteria?