YEwSdObPQT

> No, it does not stop people from thinking that (and of course that is not what is made illegal). It stops them from publishing and spreading those thoughts, because that is what is actually made illegal

No it doesn't stop that either. They just distribute it more covertly and use coded language which then the government justifies to take away more rights and ban things like E2E encryption.

> So you don't actually have an argument against it?

Sorry that is backwards. You need to show me that it is happening if you are trying to justify taking away people's rights. Repeating a sound bite that is repeated by politicians and journalists isn't an argument or evidence. BTW I've heard many of the arguments present and the "research" and frequently they were found to be lacking.

> Then be happy that you haven't met such people. They most definitely exist

So your examples are extremists which is a small number of people by definition. This is not representative of the whole.

> That is exactly what is happening all over the internet. You have to wear pretty big blinders not to see it.

No it isn't. You think it is because you go looking for it. This is known as cognitive bias.

> And those aren't gonna be a lot of people, so they won't be able to recruit others easily, and they won't start to think they're majority.

They can't recruit others easily because most people recognise immediately that these are nasty people and they want nothing to do with them. This is fantasy that a significant percentage of people will be sold on the "Hitler did nothing wrong" idea. It is a meme on the internet because people were making fun of internet neo-nazis.

> That slippery slope argument is so silly. There is no country on earth that has ever had absolute freedom of speech. Including the USA.

It isn't a slippery slope fallacy when we are sliding down the slope in the UK with people being arrested for "offensive tweets" and "posting offensive song lyrics".

So don't gaslight me about this. The fact is that we have been sliding down the slope in the UK for years now and people like you tell me erosion of speech rights isn't happening, when it has been clearly documented to happen in the UK. The same happens in Germany as well, I have spoken to ordinary Germans (not neo-nazis or extremists) that have found themselves in trouble for basically jokes.

As for the argument "the USA doesn't doesn't do it perfectly that it is okay to deny people of free speech somewhere else" isn't an argument. Also I am in the UK, not the US. I don't care about what happens in the US. You seem to be hell bent on throwing your liberties away.

> Germany has had very clear, well-defined hate speech laws since 1960, and it's ranked higher than the USA in the Press Freedom Index.

Telling me that the laws that curtail freedom of speech have been around for a long time and are well defined isn't an argument to whether they should exist or not and just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it should be done.

Don't care how great the freedom of speech is for people that in the right club (in this case journalists). It has to be for everyone including odious people.

As for hate speech that is a made up concept to curtail speech rights and has been used against ordinary people in the UK (not neo-nazis or extremists just normal people).

-------------------------

I am so fed up with people (like yourself) who constantly gas light about these laws and tell me civil liberties haven't been eroded because of these laws, when they literally have and you can find example after example where this is the case.

More generally I was out of work for 9 months because of my government's response to COVID. It depleted me of most of my savings and I am now in debt which will take me like a year or two to pay off, I had zero debt before the COVID lockdowns. SO I don't trust the government to tell me the truth, I don't trust them to be able to do anything competently and they certainly shouldn't be able to legislate what can and what can't be said.

> Yeah well, or the opposite.

No it isn't the opposite. Again the last 2 years has shown me by how government and media have responded to recent events proves it. I have seen rioters burn down a cities in the US and call them "peaceful protests" while other normal people just simply protesting in Europe and Australia because they literally can't go to work or run the businesses be labelled far right.

So save me this gas-lighting that you and many others do where you literally telling me things didn't happen and I know they've happened.

> Only discovered by accident, because a bank robbery went wrong. The police was assuming it was all gang related crime and the secret service knew nothing, even though they were indeed quite close, or rather, well connected to the terrorist. And now we have networks in special forces and police who plan for day x. National revolution.

Sounds hard to believe.

Even if it was true, the number of people involved would be tiny percentage of the population (as I said earlier) and you are literally falling for the same old crap that the white nationalist uprising is happening any minute.

> And they do try to creep in everywhere, usually in disguise. I had quite some encounters with them, from early on in schools to later in alternative, ecological and spiritual groups. Where they target suitable, meaning vulnerable recruits.

No they don't. My step brother is a Neo-nazi and people like this and they tell you exactly what their beliefs are. They do not hide it.

> Now with corona and many antivaxx people getting desperate to seek shelter from the "poison system"? They have vast growth.

Some people are anti-covid vaccine (due to them being novel), covid vaccine hesitant (like I was so I waited) and are anti-vaccine mandate. This is not the same as anti-vax.

Almost nobody is going to join the Neo-nazis from any of the groups above. The media wants to conflate all the groups as far right when they aren't. Most are normal people that disagree with the consensus. You are doing the same and just repeating the same old lies that is told on media.

It is pretty obvious you have fallen for a lot of the propaganda that is in the news after talking to you and many others. I used to trust the news, media and government as well. Until they were caught constantly lying about things.

I agree. I was playing devil's advocate to an extent. At the time Rails was the first modern MVC framework as we understand it.

> Rails was highly productive,the problem is that the concept of the service makes scaling non-trivial.

Didn't they rewrite everything in PHP during the last 2000s due to Rails at the time just not being able to scale?

It ultimately depends at what scale. I think most people to be fair are talking about building a clone of what was present back in the mid 2000s. You could build a twitter clone that could handle a few hundred users in a few weeks with modern tech stacks.

The fact that there are at least 3 twitter clones that are less well put together with a decent amount of users handling in the load proves that it is possible.

> Small amount?

Yes. There is a small amount of these people in the Western world. I would estimate it as less than 1% of the total population.

The state and the media want you to believe they are just waiting to crawl out of every crevice and take over the world again to justify taking your rights away.

> He is still admired worldwide. Just not so much openly in most places. Just look, how many Hitler documentaries are still made and that you can still buy Mein Kampf worldwide.

In the Islamic world maybe. Not in the Western world. You are delusion if you think that lots of people genuinely admire Hitler in the Western world.

Reading a book doesn't mean you support it. I have books from all sorts of people that were / are awful and it doesn't mean I believe it. I have a copy of Mein Kampf, I am not a nazi though (though I am sure some people would like to smear me as one).

Lots of people watch Hitler and WWII documentaries because quite frankly they are easy to make (lot of archive footage) and it was the first mechanised large war that encompassed the globe and Historically it had many iconic people involved in position of political and military power.

> In either case, communist organisations do regulary face prosecution in the west, as well as islamist groups.

Good. They are both evil. Many people have died because of both groups.

> But - the difference between communist and nazi ideology is, that communist want a better world for everyone. Nazis only for a certain race, while enslaving the "lower" races. This might be a reason, why che is more accepted (despite being a sociopath on closer look) and hitler is not.

This myth needs to die. Communists do not want a better world for everyone. Many of the communists that aren't students are the ones wishing they were the ones in power. All communism is, is theft justified by the thief.

Communism violates private property rights (which almost all other rights are obtained) and once they are eroded individual rights are next. They have no good intentions. In fact I think the Nazis were better, they are at least honest about their intentions.

> And I do not really feel like fighting for nazi freedom, despite being more tolerant in theory.

I would not expect you to. I would expect someone to fight for theirs. By protecting everyone's individual rights, you protect your own and other marginalised groups and unfortunately that includes odious people like Neo-nazis.

> That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source

Obfuscate the discussion with numbers when it entirely misses the point I was making. So I will spell it out for you.

It is totally okay to bring into question the numbers and whether it happened when it comes to the crimes of the communist regimes. However if you deny the holocaust that is too much and must be criminalised. That is a double standard.

Either let everyone deny any event occurred or don't let them deny any genocide. If you are going to denounce Nazism and essentially make it illegal, you must also do the same for Communist, Jihadism or any other extremist group. But it is only done for Nazis because they must justify curtailing your freedoms by pointing to the very small amount of people that still think the Failed Austrian Artist with a Charlie Chaplin moustache might have had some good ideas.

> There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with taking the widest, most encompassing definition.

Whether or not the Communists regimes killed more or not doesn't really matter. The problem is that there is a double standard. That wearing a Nazi Swastika is somehow beyond the pale, but waving a communist flag with Che T-Shirt is somehow acceptable. Both the Nazi and Communist regimes committed atrocities.

BTW Far-right apologists do the same. Try to obfuscate the issue by talking about numbers and whether the numbers were true. I've been to the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Cambodia. I know what I saw there.

> One should wonder then, what number would we get if we apply the same definition to pro-Western/capitalist countries?

I am essentially a Anarchist (I don't like putting labels on myself, but for most intents and purposes that is what I am). So I am completely on board with criticising the state's wars done in the name of "spreading democracy and freedom". I was against the Iraq War, The War in Afghanistan, Drone Strikes. People bring this up as some sort of gotcha. I don't support any War other than one of purely defence.

Small bit of additional JS defeats the point of doing it at all. The moment you end up having to go outside one of these things you end up with one problem or another. The fact of the matter is that you will always have to deal with HTML, CSS and JS somewhere and you can try abstract it out and it always breaks down near the edges.

Also as a bit of an aside and it is a bit of a moan.

Coming from someone that can write everything from scratch and doesn't need framework. All of these things are horrible to work with (I've had to work with a bit of Blazor) and they just make it incredibly difficult to actually find out what is going on (especially when stuff doesn't work as advertised) as they just obfuscate what is going on.

Every job requires you to know some horrendous framework these that has about 10 layers of Rube Goldberg madness in there for one reason or another. People will be surprised what can be achieved with `document.createElement()` a few classes and a pub / sub class.

I am not a fan of these things. Much like big JavaScript frameworks whenever you need to do something outside of the mechanisms they provide things become very difficult very quickly and you still need to use JavaScript, HTML and CSS anyway as others have pointed out.

> If removing threats of violence is considered censorship, then the word "censorship" has no meaning. Think about it: how does censorship really occur? Do governments cast a magic spell that makes it so that the words can't come out of your mouth? No. They threaten violence[0], in order to punish you for saying the thing you don't want to say, which creates a chilling effect. This is no different than what Nazis do - they threaten violence against people whose speech they don't like.

Denying the holocaust didn't happen isn't a threat of violence. It is saying that something didn't happen.

Also a threat of violence has to be credible.

> At that point, the choice is not between "freedom of speech" and "censorship". It's "censor the Nazi" or "let the Nazi censor everyone else". You must choose the option that preserves the most freedom of speech.

This is a false dichotomy.

> And this goes for every other entity that threatens violence - not just Nazis. I'm only mentioning them because we're talking about the German legal conception of freedom of expression. Nobody says "I'm going to kill you" for the sake of it; they say it to terrorize other people into doing things they want, including things like not saying words they don't want spoken. This also goes for threatening violence against groups of people rather than speakers of certain words, and political speech that proposes using the state as a means to do the above. All of that is censorious, and as far as I'm concerned a definition of freedom of speech that does not include freedom from threats of violence is incomplete.

Your conception of freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech. It is "freedom to hear things that aren't too unpleasant".

As for the the chilling effect might work with some people. It won't work with others. With me it wouldn't work. I would tell them to "fuck around and find out". I won't live in fear.

Unless I am presented with some hard evidence (that isn't from the German state) then I find it hard to believe.

It still doesn't justify curtailing individual liberties anyway.

> If you the idea is crap and it proved that it's crap by leading to genocide why would we award it any protection?

Lots of communists say that the Soviet Union wasn't "real communism". Yet I never hear the same outcry against that.

I am not saying it should be "protected". I am saying that individual liberties should be protected and one of the most important (after private property rights) is the freedom to speak you mind.

> Do tou think next time around, it will lead to something beneficial to mankind?

No.

> It did not lead to genocide. The first time it does I hope it's banned to hell.

When people questioned the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe people were punished for such ideas. So that has kind of already happened.

You are advocating for throwing the baby out with the bath water.

> It's hard to seriously argue that this wouldn't happen, given Germany's post-WWII history. (Also I'm not sure why you're bringing up the 'last two years', the prohibition has been in place for far longer than that.)

The German government (not the German people) are the ones that are giving themselves a bad name by denying people their individual liberty. Those liberties include (and are not limited to), the right to speak freely even if that speech is unpopular.

Regarding the last two year. During last two years we have had individual rights eroded all over the western world due under the guise of controlling the spread of COVID. Just like we had our rights eroded due to the threat of terrorism at the hands of Islamic extremists.

Personally I was unemployed for 9 months because of the economic uncertainty caused by lockdowns and it depleted me of almost all my savings and almost killed my business. I owe about £25,000 (bank loans and credit cards etc) and it will take me another year to pay it all off at least.

> You don't think, there are limits to the things I should be allowed to say about you?

No.

The only concession I would consider is a call to violence if there is an real and immediate threat. Not internet death threats.

The second I may concede would be defamation under a very strict standard e.g. You were claiming someone broke a law.

> Or about the things I think other people should do to you?

People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me.

> (are you aware, that there is a difference btw. between literally killing people and people dying of starvation because of incompetence? Apparently not.)

If you are talking about the Communists. The communists killed and imprisoned a huge number of people. Also some of the famines were entirely predictable and in some cases were deliberate.