Too unstable. Windows keeps changing shit, advertising shit. Dump it and move on.

SteefLem is a 47-year-old scuba instructor and retired lion tamer from Winnipeg who has just learned the colloquial meaning of the phrase "pulled it right out of my ass."

NGO: Non-governmental organization

GDPR: General Data Protection Regulation. A set of European laws intended to empower individuals to control personal data held by companies.

"noyb" is a European privacy rights organization, who appears to prefer to style their name with lowercase letters. The name is an acronym for "none of your business".

You can pay her for sex, you just need to sell the tapes.

Replace "Hitler 2" with "Fred Phelps" of the Westboro Baptist Church, and you can see how that scenario turned out for Fred. Basically, yes.

In a society that values free speech, the idea of "how they hate whatever group and want them dead" is the antithesis of that philosophy. Any time he "talks to others" about the people he hates, they recognize he is preaching an opinion contrary to that philosophy. Consequently, they shun him, rather than follow him. They leave him to say what he wants, but his speech alienates people instead of helping him consolidate power.

Fascism is destroyed when nobody - not you; not Hitler 2 - has power to silence dissent.

correct me if I am wrong

You are wrong

You will wait until then even though Hitler 2 has talked daily about how the target groups are less than human and should be removed from society.

Hitler 2 can go ahead and preach that as much as he wants.

All of this talk while Hitler 2 is rising in power

A society that shares my free speech values recognizes that "removing people from society" is an offensive act. They do not share his values, so he never rises to power in the first place.

Fascists can only rise to power when the people demand the right to remove their enemies from society. Which is exactly what you are doing. The powers that fascists need to cause harm are the exact powers that you are demanding for yourself. When you have those powers, so do they. When those powers are denied to you, they are denied to fascists.

Karl Popper's Paradox of Intolerance tells society that in order to avoid fascism, we must become fascists ourselves. We must annihilate our enemies, so that society is safe for us. The intolerance paradox is fascism. It's just a form of fascism that "we" happen to agree with.

The Nazis didn't think themselves the bad guys. They thought they were doing the right thing for their society. They thought they were protecting themselves, their kids, their way of life. They never bothered to consider the possibility that they would regret their actions just a few years later. They never considered that their grandchildren would despise them for their behavior.

My "alternative" is for everyone to consider the possibility of regret long before committing to violence. To promote the virtues of Freedom of Speech. To celebrate the exercise of our right to speak, in all its forms, even as we denounce what is actually being said.

We answer speech with speech; we answer violence with overwhelming force. A fascist should be able to scream in my face about how much he hates me and wishes I was dead. That same fascist should kill me if I escalate to violence before he does. If you want to destroy a fascist, you can wait until he crosses the line from committing "speech" to commiting "violence".

What did I say that was an ad hominem? You raised a point:

Listen, I will tell you a big difference between me, racists, and fascists. I only use violence if they don't keep their ideas to themselves.

I am rebutting the point that you raised. You indicated you would use violence if they didn't keep their ideas to themselves. I took that to mean you would commit violence in response to their speech. My argument was that an inciting "speech" was not sufficient to justify a violent response, and that such a violent response is more egregious than the inciting speech.

That is not an ad hominem. I am not rebutting your argument on the basis of you being a bad person. I am arguing against the idea you raised, not you as a person.

Have I demanded a non-violent approach? I don't think so. You have not identified an acceptable point at which violence may be used, which is why I haven't discussed the possibility of violence.

So far, the actions you have discussed are far more egregious than those of the people you have identified as your enemies. So far, you are answering "unpleasant speech" with a physical attack. That is not a reasonable response.

.

Listen, I will tell you a big difference between me, racists, and fascists. I only use violence if they don't keep their ideas to themselves.

Hitler only used violence on public enemies that didn't keep their ideas to themselves. You don't seem to comprehend that whatever authority you grant yourself, you also give to the fascists. When you allow yourself to silence your enemies, you allow them to silence their enemies, including you.

History shows that really bad stuff (genocide) happens when fascists take power.

Which is why I am begging and pleading with you not to grant anyone that power, not even yourself. Because as soon as you claim it for yourself, you give it to them as well.

Do not wield a power you do not wielded against yourself.

Somehow the racists and fascists would have to wake up tomorrow no longer being those things and then no new person could become those things.

Why?

Why do we need that sort of people to stop existing? Why do we need to exterminate them? Why do we need to load them up in boxcars and ship them off to death camps?

You're not quite understanding that those racists and fascists only have those powers that society would use against them. When society decides that words alone can never justify a suspension of rights, that curtails the ability of the fascists who want that power much more than it affects anyone else.

When you demand the right to silence and suppress a fascist who offends you, you grant that same right to the fascist that you offend, and he gets to use it much more broadly than you ever would. When you defend that fascist's right to speak, you strip him of his power to infringe on your rights, as well as the rights of everyone else.

After Hitler gets his political power by creating Jews as a common enemy.

How?

Remember: in this hypothetical, German society values free speech. In this society, Hitler gains no more power than David Duke. Because he staunchly opposes the freedom of Jews to speak, he opposes the ideological principles of the nation, and never gains that power in the first place.