[ SECRET POST #2951 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2951 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The To-Do List, Brandy/Willy]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Avatar: Legend of Korra]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Amazing World of Gumball]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Agents of Shield]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Galavant]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Soukyuu no Fafner Exodus]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Jamie Dornan from "The Fall"]


__________________________________________________



10.
(Neil Gaiman)













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 054 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Because thought-policing is bad, and we've seen what happens when we downright prohibit speech. Today's goodthink can be tomorrow's badthink.

Besides, I'd a lot rather know who those people are and keep them where I can see them than drive them underground.

[sarillia]

How is policing what people say outloud in a public space thought-policing? It's not about the thought but the action. I understand where you're coming from but people are way to quick to use that phrase.

[(Anonymous)]

Because "freedom of speech" also means "freedom to say things others might find offensive."

I mean, I get offended when people using "fucking" as Jesus's middle name, but you don't see me all over here policing that, even though it's dead common.

[sarillia]

That is indeed what freedom of speech means and it is an admirable goal. But thoughts and speech are different things. I was objecting to your use of the term "thought-policing", so I'm confused by how this is a reply to my comment.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I don't make the same distinction between thought and speech that you do. How free is my thought if I'm not allowed to voice it?

[(Anonymous)]

There's a difference between saying stuff to people on an individual level and organizing large public demonstrations by people who are all reinforcing their opinions in public and are extremely visible.

[(Anonymous)]

Then organize a counter-demonstration. It shouldn't be hard, since Neo-Nazis are vile and that's something that most people agree on.

[sarillia]

Well the Thought Police were more invasive than any government that has actually existed in real life and I just don't feel like it helps anything to exaggerate.

Speech is an action in my mind because it acts on other people. It has effects on them that privately thinking the same things doesn't. The thought still feels plenty free to me even if I'm afraid to voice it because I can still think it all I want without consequence. Maybe it's because I do too much thinking and even when it never results in anything tangible or anything that involves other people it's still important to me. But I understand what you're saying. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[feotakahari]

You're misunderstanding what "freedom of thought" means. It's not "freedom to have thoughts." It's "free exchange of thoughts." This isn't a case of two separate definitions--that's how the term has historically been used.

[sarillia]

You're right, but I stand by my annoyance at people pretending that discouraging certain types of speech is analogous to the Thought Police. True thought-policing would be scary beyond anything a lack of free speech looks like.

I can accept that I'm being ridiculously literal and all the dystopian fiction I read has warped my brain.

[insanenoodlyguy]

Yeah, but that other lesser thing is still goddamn scary.

[(Anonymous)]

Because holding rallies and shit is how they recruit more members. And also makes their targets feel incredibly fucking unsafe (well I'm just speaking for myself here).

When they're driven out of public spaces we're not depriving them of thoughts, we're depriving them of an audience. Which I damn well support.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I don't think outlawing the organizations does deprive them of members. I mean, it might deprive those specific groups of members, but there are still going to be plenty of people who are violent racist bigots and assholes and extremists. They're just going to be in groups with different names and iconography, but that doesn't make them less harmful. Arguably it makes them more harmful, because we don't immediately realize they're Actual Fucking Nazis.

I'm also not sure whether outlawing the groups doesn't fuel the persecution fantasies that seem to drive a lot of this kind of behavior and the conspiratorial mindset that underlies them.

I'm really sympathetic to the argument about feeling unsafe, though.

[kaffy_r]

I'm also not sure whether outlawing the groups doesn't fuel the persecution fantasies that seem to drive a lot of this kind of behavior and the conspiratorial mindset that underlies them.

This is absolutely, scarily true. Persecution fantasies and Armageddon fantasies combine in these folks' brains - "we're driven underground by the mud races and race traitors (to grab a couple of the lovely phrases that get tossed around by Nazis/Aryan Nation/Posse Commitatus types), but then we'll come out of hiding, Just Like The Kids in "Red Dawn" and we'll win The Big War, and there will be a big party after we kill everyone we don't like, (but there won't be blood and guts everywhere and the bodies will magically disappear, just like on TV or in this or that game), and all the girls will date us!"

That toxic and unholy mix of 12-year-old boy, hate-filled loser, survivalist, movie acolyte, fearful xenophobe ... yeah. Persecution fantasy doesn't begin to cover it, but it sure is an excellent shorthand.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 for being fucking terrified seeing them :(

and I got to agree with you, I think that limiting their audience is worthwhile

[(Anonymous)]

Most of those groups don't get member by speaking randomly in public.
They target people that can be susceptible to their ideas and that's something they would do even if it was illegal.

[(Anonymous)]

But they do get them by being televised...at least here.

[(Anonymous)]

That's is weird and creepy.

Do they pay to the television networks to be broadcasted or something?

(Here, it's far more common for both nazi-like groups as well as armed groups to target specifically groups [mostly adolescents and young adults] and they get as far as to threaten any possible good influence the targets may have [mostly teachers])

[(Anonymous)]

Well, my country's situation is rather bizzare in this sense, because at some point the neo-nazis organisations and the nationalist ones decided to organise a march demonstrating their "patriotism" (on the Independence Day) and got joined by some semi-legit conservative circles, and it's been growing ever since. It's all about the country and patriotism and you have some legitimate parties there, but also *fucking* neo-nazis organisations, and it's definately doing a lot to legitimse the worst kind of scum. Every year the demonstration gets bigger, every year there are some violent incidents, some clashes with police, water cannons last time, people throwing parts of pavement at each other two years ago...And, obviously, it's live on TV, and then the organisers saty "it was a provocation" and "few bad apples" and generally we're awesome and patriotic, and the left will say "but the riots! and the fascist organisations!", and it all gets turned into a right vs left, us vs them story, and next year, tehre is even more people there - I just hope they don't acctually get recruted into the worst organisations...

It's ridiculous, that's what it is.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a really bizarre situation.

Here the media is very careful about covering demonstrations and usually any coverages always point to the instigators as the wrong ones and politically, most extremists barely have any support so they don't get much attention or political power.

Of course, we have an armed conflict and no one want to add fuel to the fire so there's that.
(Things may be change since at least one armed organization may end as a legitimized political group which is creepy and has several worrisome implications, but I don't want to freak out before anything happens)

[(Anonymous)]

Are you talking about America? Because it seems to me like every time I hear about hate groups meeting up for any kind of protest, they are met with MASSIVE groups (much bigger than them) that ridicule, mock, and counter-protest. Neo-Nazis are not on the rise, and the type of person that would join up with them probably didn't need to see the rally to be convinced that they are themselves a racist fucker.

[(Anonymous)]

Driving them out of public spaces also lets them recruit more members, because it gives them an additional weapon against the people they hate. We're not talking about logical, reasonable human beings here. They won't look at a ban on demonstrating and say "oh, yes, I see, we were violating these strictures against incitement to illegal activity, won't do that again". They'll see themselves as being oppressed and silenced by a government controlled by their targets.

And then they'll go preach that to susceptible people - people who already harbor bigotted ideologies, or people who are looking for someone, anyone to hate for their own misfortunes - and now instead of just spewing delusional babble about being persecuted, they'll have something to point to and say "we're being persecuted, and this is how". Which, in the particular political climate that exists in the USA with regards to free speech and any limitations placed on it (or who should be allowed it in the eyes of any given group), that kind of rhetoric is shockingly effective.

Other countries don't allow them to demonstrate. Other countries have also historically been a lot more discerning about where someone's free speech should end, so it is a hell of a lot harder for extremists to scream "we're being silenced" and have anyone listen.

[(Anonymous)]

this.

banning it is not going to stop it. it will make them feel special though.

[(Anonymous)]

Here's the thing about free speech in America. We have so many people spouting out the most ridiculous and sometimes hateful things 24/7 that most of it is white noise to us. What would get a rise and a gasp to say an English person would make your average American yawn. For example in England you can get charged for verbal assault for name calling someone. Like calling someone a "Fucking asshole cunt." To a New Yorker that's a morning greetings. Though strange enough having been around many nationalities I find that Americans curse less on average than say their Australian or Scottish counterparts.