this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
-1 points (42.9% liked)
Libertarian Discussion
337 readers
1 users here now
Place for discussion from a Libertarian perspective, meaning less top-down control and more individual liberty. In general, the intent is discussion about issues and not a discussion on libertarianism itself or any of its branches.
Be sure to respect the instance rules, and please keep discussion civil and backed by high quality sources where possible.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Understood. But when he said that about your conversation with him, I got annoyed, because you've never defended any Nazi newspapers.
But you're right, no need to stoop to their level.
My level being an accurate reference to specific events I'm prepared to source.
When you recognize you were wrong, your beliefs are supposed to change.
I don't think I was wrong. My beliefs haven't changed, and I stand by everything I said. My opinion of you hasn't changed whatsoever. But I also recognize that this isn't my community, so I will abide by the rules. But nah, fam, nothing has changed on my end. :)
The person in question told you I was right, and you agree with them, but still pretend I'm wrong.
Which is different from the ingroup-based reality I described... somehow.
I think you are misrepresenting his response, which is something you are prone to do. In fact, he said, "but I do think they’re misrepresenting it."
I won't give my real thoughts on you, as I don't want to go against the rules of the person who runs this community.
Again, I stand by everything I said. My opinion about you hasn't change at all. :)
'He kinda did.'
'I kinda did.'
Troll.
And again, I stand by what I said about you, and my opinion hasn't changed at all. But I don't wanna break the rules of this community, so I can say it. But I did say it earlier, and I still believe it. I just won't say it again here.
But don't worry, if I come across you in a more permissive forum, I'll gladly repeat it all. :)
Having said that, I agree with the article posted as well. :)
What's not permissive about this forum? Here's our list of rules:
That's it. This community essentially has no rules. Here's the modlog, there are two entries there, and both are from an admin of this instance.
I haven't picked any other mods because there's no mod burden. I intend to keep the rules very loose to keep it that way, because I value free speech.
Wasn't meant as an attack on you or your comm. I just want to call him names and stuff, like he attacks other people in his comments.
You have a great community. But he calls people names, so I'll call him names. Just not here. You and your community have class. I don't. So it's really a matter of me not wanting to disrespect your comm. :)
Yeah I've already saved this thread for when you lie about me to someone else. Called that in the first comment.
Meanwhile someone in your ingroup admits they did exactly what I said, but they said nuh-uh before repeating exactly what I said they said, so it doesn't count. Again: first comment.
Honestly, thank you for being an uncomplicated example of exactly what I'm talking about. I could put a sticker on your forehead and you'd try rubbing it off the guy in the mirror.
Good. Because again, i stand by everything I said. And thank you for reinforcing exactly what I have always thought of you.
And I also stand by the article I posted. :)
I kinda did though, but I do think they're misrepresenting it. It was in a different thread in a different context. I honestly didn't recognize the user was the same because I don't keep track of usernames unless they're an obvious troll.
Here's the discussion.
I was arguing for a "wait and see" approach to federation saying we don't have enough evidence to say maga.place is bad enough to defederate. The evidence presented was the domain name (90% seemed to stop there) and posts in their conservative community using sketchy sources and nothing about their admins or mods.
The discussion shifted to the sources themselves, and they asked whether I'd support a ban on "Der Sturmer" (Nazi publication prior to WWII) and I said no, but I wouldn't read it because I don't like obvious propaganda. I don't believe in banning any media and instead think good media should crowd out the bad. I'd say the same for any extremist propaganda because freedom of speech is very important to me.
I think it was meant as a gotcha question, since that seems to be how that user argues. I absolutely don't read or support any Nazi anything, but I will defend their right to publish just as I would for anything else I disagree with.
Does should mean will?
Disinformation is not erased by correction. Brains don't work that way. Reactionary radicalization must be prevented, because curing it is a thousand times harder. This is protecting people from harm through speech, as much as censoring directed threats or bigoted abuse. Polite phrasing on intolerable beliefs is just mobster speak: 'it would be a shame if anything happened to your children.'
It was meant as a universal touchstone. Surely, I thought, everybody recognizes literal nazi propaganda should have been stopped, at some point. But no: that obvious extreme was met with milquetoast 'well I wouldn't read it.' Neither did the Jews, buddy. Didn't help. Systemic problems aren't about you.
By the by, calling pointed questions "gotchas" is also a conservative tactic. I opened gently with acknowledgement that at one point the nazi party was just some schmucks. But not only did you suggest the problem with pro-holocaust propaganda was sourcing, you outright invited modern fascists to the table, so long as their racism is scientific racism. You can't wedge yourself under a low bar and claim it was a trap.
No, one of the core tenets of libertarianism is that freedom means dealing with the freedoms of others. People will use their freedom in ways you don't like, and that could be sieg hieling they way down the street or publishing a nazi newspaper, but exercising that right does not restrict yours. A popular saying in libertarian circles is, "your rights end where mine begin," and that goes both ways.
I strongly disagree that allowing someone to exercise their freedom of speech harms anyone else, outside of extreme cases like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Speaking filth doesn't itself harm others, the harm to others comes from what others do in response to that speech.
It was a pretty extreme question given the context, and that's frequently a type of "gotcha" question. It's a form of reducto ad absurdum, which means arguing the most extreme logical end (i.e. "I support free speech" -> "So you support Nazi newspapers?"). Whatever the intent, it looked like a "gotcha" question.
I didn't say anything to that extent. Saying someone should have the freedom to say what they want isn't "inviting them to the table." Inviting them to the table means having them on a popular TV network to discuss their views or something, inviting them into the bar is like having their newspapers on display at your store. What I'm talking about is just not kicking them out of your city for having bad ideas.