Doublethink, Doubledown, Deprogram: Ramifications of "the Big Lie"

[hollodero]

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You be the judge.  

Close call.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, because you made a direct call for illegal action.  You can say someone is evil and that you believe they've committed infanticide but the minute you state that someone should kill them you've crossed the line.

Got it. Reasonable. Though from an absolute puristic standpoint, this can already be regarded as a limitation of free speech. Which would be my stance, that there is no such thing like absolute free speech. There's always some kind of limitation (calls for violence, illegal activities, slander etc.)
And based on that I could already create some kind of slippery slope. Eg. QAnon members. That could be seen as maybe even calling for, but at the very least of actively approving of acts of domestic terrorism. I don't know if liking an incendiary facebook post qualifies for that, but in theory, inviting a QAnon member on a TV show, or allowing them to sit in Congress, and to use these platforms to increase their popularity, could be seen as giving aid and comfort to a domestic foe. Guess I could argue that for that reason, Ms. Marjorie should be more or less banned from public life. I don't really know if I'm in favor of that, but at the very least I would not find it chilling to think in that direction.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, there's certainly an element of hypocrisy there, some "good for me but not for thee".  I will cut the people of that time some slack as the atrocities of the NAZI regime were so mind blowing in scope that an overreaction like that is rather understandable.  I would counter that it's been quite some time since both Austria and Germany regained full autonomy, so keeping these laws on the books now falls solely on the laps of their respective governments.

Imho it was an absolutely good idea to implement these laws back then. There were still former Nazis or at least former NSDAP members in public office and elsewhere anyway, but at least they were deterred from pining for the good old days.

When it comes to abandoning these laws now, that's not quite that easy as one might think. There is a contract with the allied nations, after all. That aside from the prohibition law (the Austrian version of the Anti-Nazi laws) also ordered us to always stay neutral in military conflicts - literally forever -, never can join Germany (that was a bit of an issue when we joined the EU) and that no one of the Habsburg family can ever hold public office. Which imho is the most absurd and undemocratic of the bunch. But especially Russia kept reminding us time and again that we obligated ourselves to stay neutral and that we still can not just change that or those other laws on our own behalf.

When it comes to the Prohibition law, we practically can not rescind that one anyway, it would cost us our standing. The rest of Europe would scold us, express their deepest concerns and all that... which already happened when we took the right wing into our government. Eg. the Belgian foreign minster then declared that it's now amoral to visit Austria for a skiing vacation. At these points, our economic lifeline is severely threatened. We can't can the Prohibition laws, the optics would be devastating. We need our tourists.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, but you've just acknowledged two examples of exactly the type of slippery slope argument that is routinely fught agains in the US.

I know... I'm already feeling a schizophrenic seizure creeping up.
In the end, I guess I just don't have pity for Nazi sympathizers and can live with them being treated in a way I theoretically find less than ideal. But yeah, it's a compromise that is quite open to logical scrutiny.
And I'd like to say that it stopped there, but nope the slope remains somewhat slippery and I totally get your stance on that.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course there's an element of hypocrisy there, but the GOP is a private entity and can impose restrictions as a requirement of membership that the government could never do within the limits of the Constitution.  

So is twitter et al., and yet a whole lot of GOP members keep complaining how they get censored and silenced there and what a scandal that is. It gets hard to take them seriously facing examples like that. The hypocrisy was all I was getting at though, it was merely a sidenote really.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I would agree with that, although I don't think it would happen as quickly as you suppose, especially in today's climate.

Like I said, I think they're just more brazen about it. [...]  But you don't have to take my word on this.

I basically do take your word for it though. I was too busy checking out Norm MacDonald to also check out Donut Operator. It's on my weekend's to-do list though.
Also, I run out of steam to argue this point too much. I fall into the trap to defend elements of the MSM I really do not feel like defending too vigorously. I agree with your overall point of the media networks being too opinionated and biased and selective and agenda-driven and dominated by coporate America etc. to qualify as good news sources.