vpilcx

Maybe that was a while ago, because almost all of the personality tests that I've had to take are, question: "I enjoy the challenge of collaborating with my coworkers" answer: strongly agree, slightly agree, neither agree nor disagree, slightly disagree, strongly agree

With the questions all being like that with different wording, "I find myself getting frustrated in high stress situations.", "I enjoy high stress situations because they are exciting.", "Being around a lot of people all the time can be annoying", etc.

Over and over and over again for about fifteen minutes.

I think it's 'dead' in comparison to the way it used to be used.

I was actually just looking for RSS feeds for some of the top news sites, and a lot of them have specialized RSS feeds for a certain category but not for the entire site. (I had to eventually settle for Newsweek)

I genuinely don't know, so this is an honest question. Nowadays, outside of podcast feeds, what's the incentive for media outlets to provide RSS feeds? Isn't it just a fringe assortment of techies still using it? (To be clear, I'm part of that fringe.)

> The thing is, as a person of color, the onus isn't on me to convert your racist grandparent or uncle from being a racist piece of shit. Fuck them. That puts me in the subordinate position of having to placate a white supremacist and that, in of itself, is fucking white supremacy. Fuck. That.

Yeah, I remember during World War II, the Fascists were really giving the Nazis hell. Just classic fascism.

> There is no guarantee that Nazis will not again take advantage of a population that is used to follow the state's lead, this time to silence you, or that another group won't do the same.

And that's fine. This argument keeps being brought up over and over again, but if this happened, nothing would please more because it would remove the ambiguity from the situation.

> It's frankly incomprehensible to me how anyone who doesn't support totalitarianism can look at history (or present day) and dare to normalize any amount of state control over speech.

I mean, the fact that you can look at The Holocaust or Jim Crow and think that any amount of tolerance should be shown to Nazi'ism or white supremacy is beyond incomprehensible to me. But that's the issue.

For a certain type of person, any legislation curtailing 'free speech', even if that is done to stamp out white supremacy is an existential threat to freedom in America.

But to people of color, allowing white supremacists to spout intolerance publicly with no repercussions (other than maybe getting 'cancelled') is an existential threat to THEIR freedom in America.

I mean, that's a pretty common narrative. "They were being ATTACKED for being racist so they became MORE RACIST." And?

There's this black guy. They did this documentary on him a while back. He went and befriended KKK members and skinheads. Through his individual action, he was able to get people away from white nationalism. White liberals absolutely love him. They point at him as an example of what all people of color should aspire to. Turning hate to friendship through personal interaction.

(Speaking generally, not to you specifically.) The thing is, as a person of color, the onus isn't on me to convert your racist grandparent or uncle from being a racist piece of shit. Fuck them. That puts me in the subordinate position of having to placate a white supremacist and that, in of itself, is fucking white supremacy. Fuck. That.

I mean, if banning Nazi'ism is considered 'state censorship' then yes, I wholeheartedly support state censorship. If that's 'imposing someone's truth on everyone else', so be it.

Name three podcasts since there are 'a lot of black supremacists'.

Honestly, I would prefer that over the ambiguity. I'd much rather live in a state in America where being a Nazi is illegal with the side effect of knowing, unequivocally, that I need to leave another state because my existence is in peril.

> I don't care if I'm on the receiving end of threats or actual violence because of free speech. Giving up your rights due to being scared is cowardice and allows actual authoritarians to take over your mind.

And assuming that people of color should be the victims of violence because you, personally, aren't concerned with violence is selfish and narcissistic.

> Is it a coincidence that their movements grew significantly with the amplification of messages against them and social media censorship against them. Various right wing figures used this as leverage to increase their virulence.

Or did we just have a black president and a political party that leaned into white supremacy dog whistles?

> It would be great if we could magically eliminate nazi ideology

You mean like criminalizing it like the way it is in Germany? That magic?

> Surely you cannot think restricting speech helps you in any way? Do you think it helps turn those that dislike you on your side?

I think it removes the ambiguity. If you find laws that prohibit someone from being a literal Nazi disagreeable and would choose not to live in a state because of it because of 'free speech', that's fine. Just as I'd be fine for not living in Florida or Mississippi for the inverse of that reason.

I think that's really easy to believe in - when you're not at risk in any kind of way.

I mean, if you're a white guy, what do you give a fuck about someone turning America into a white ethnostate? Sure, theoretically, it's morally bad, but you're not really going to be directly affected.

If you're not trans, being characterized as a groomer pedophile has no effect at all to you.

I think it's easy to take a stand in favor of free speech when speech is only speech, but that's a remarkably naive and gullible viewpoint to have. Do you think white supremacists that lynch black people don't use hate speech beforehand and talk about exterminating non-whites beforehand?

"But that's violence. That's diferent.", you might say. How do you think these people meet each other and collaborate with each other and normalize this kind of behavior? Through 'free speech'.