zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
All the buzzwords are there, toxicity, harassment, safe spaces, sanction, ban, inclusivity. All to promote/cement the viewpoints that we now understand to be ,self evidently, the correct ones.

>>stormd+v2
The most tolerant societies end up tolerating the intolerable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

>>TheSpi+d3
I'll embrace that. Yes, the most tolerant societies tolerate the intolerable, and that's good and right.

something something paradox of "please ban things I don't like" something what good is tolerance if people end up disagreeing with me

>>Feepin+t5
Tolerating the intolerable is much worse than that.

A society ends up nourishing something that destroys it, because the intolerable is under no obligation to play fair.

Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons.

>>shadow+Dt
> Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons.

Citation needed.

Germany has had strict censorship laws since forever. They obviously did not stop the Nazis. If you're arguing that censorship is required to stop the Nazis, that's a point you should address, especially given that they had specifically added censorship laws against right-wing extremists in the Weimar Republic in the Republikschutzgesetz.

>>luckyl+wH
What I'm missing is signal on how those laws were enforced. The Weimar constitution included (translation) "No censorship will take place," which does make me wonder how effective the existing laws were.

>>shadow+tI
Emergency decrees could freely override any such provision, and became increasingly common during the Weimar Republic (particularly so in the early 1930s) as a result of gridlock within Parliament. The no-censorship provision, while real, was not enforceable as a matter of fact.