Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
Yes, why not. If you can find analogies from Revolutionary Way, find analogies from Wilhelm Reich, be my guest.
I'm amazed that this time, you want talk of the Nazi regime to only be historical. Speaking of thought police 
If anything, that analogy is even better now, after your last post. Thank you so much. So here is my version:
First they came for the people that had "immora"l thoughts, but I applauded that, because I agreed.
Then they came for people talking about Nazis, and I applauded that, because I don't like Hitler's name.
Then they came for ...
Edit:
No. This is yet another strawman in this thread: I am not, and neither is anyone else, standing up for the right to be paedophile, we're standing up for the right to have those thoughts. And there's a huge difference between that, and when you pretend it should begin "First they came for paedophiles". You seriously need to stop stuffing an opinion like that down the throats of others. |
Umm... This is a discussion on an internet forum. Stating my opinion about what I find boring, distasteful, or tiresome is not a "thought police" tactic nor is it cramming my opinions down the throat of others. I see two problems here: a.) an over identification of real life with the internet, so that stating that one ought not to mention something for aesthetic or intellectual reasons becomes tantamount with advocating censorship and b.) a transference (which you correctly noted that the other side was making) between the word and the deed. Stating my opinion that talking about Nazis adds little to the discussion (which, frankly, has not advanced since Worldwalker's excellent contribution) is not advocating censorship in any meaningful sense of the phrase. It is a critical and aesthetic judgement. People are free to disagree with me, ignore me, whatever. I think the gross intolerance you and Kenny C are showing towards someone who is in fundamental agreement with your political stance on this issue, and over a mere tactical criticism at that, is more fitting to our opponents than to the defenders of free speech.