These four hesitated to answer whether extreme rhetoric (like calling Trump Hitler, evil, or saying he must be stopped at all costs) "could lead to political violence." They avoided a direct response, fearing it might appear "unlibertarian" regarding free speech. While they are right to champion free speech, acknowledging that certain rhetoric can have consequences isn't a call for regulating speech. It's a moral recognition that inciting fear can lead to violence. This channel often posts videos on "unintended consequences," yet Nick and the team couldn't admit that persistent propaganda can lower barriers to political violence; Antifa anyone?! There is scientific and academic research supporting this, but they failed to address it. Recognizing this doesn't mean advocating for new speech laws. Libertarianism is a great philosophy that I agree with; it provides a valuable framework for understanding the importance of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. However, philosophy serves as a guidebook, not an answer to all things. While it offers foundational principles, real-world situations often require practical judgment and a willingness to take a stand. Beyond the confines of theoretical discussions, we must recognize when actions and statements cross the line into harmful territory. It is crucial to address these issues, as a culture, not new laws, directly and thoughtfully, ensuring that our adherence to philosophical ideals does not prevent us from confronting the negative consequences of extreme rhetoric or behavior.
right. what I keep wondering at with these guys and the msm is "IF TRUMP IS HITLER..." then WHAT would be OFF THE TABLE? are they advocating that the stance against political violence would and should extend to hitler too? and if not, what are people to take away from the assertion that someone is hitler? or an existential threat to democracy?
*tl;dr: YES. I just spared you an hour of wasted time.* Believe it or not, you can loudly condemn speech without calling for it to be legally regulated.
i agree with nick that political rhetoric is a free speech issue, and i am 100% for unregulated free speech. but that doesn't mean you are forbidden from privately criticizing idiotic speech while not seeking to abolish it from a legal standpoint. and calling anyone hitler for years and years and holding up severed trump heads, etc., is idiotic. it's the same as people who immediately call "racist!" when they don't have a better argument. that is idiotic speech and we are free to criticize it. the way that vance tweet was worded was probably not ideal, but i think the core message is that the left has used very cheap and unsubstantial rhetoric in avoidance of having a concrete argument.
@@chadjones4255 "The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation, which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism." If only you read the history book instead of just gawking over the picture of Hitler on the cover.
Well Hitler was a member of the national socialist german workers party aka nazi, was he not? That was a really cool explanation, not sure of the relevance though@@barrypops7499
@@barrypops7499 I'm aware of that. Fascism is a heretical branch of the socialist movement. But as a sister movement, it shares the bulk of characteristics. Much like the split between Catholic and Protestant or Sunni and Shi'ah. The distinction is important mainly to the true believers inside the belief system. This is how Hitler, and for that matter Trotsky, can be a "right-wing reactionary" Both believed themselves to be advancing the socialist cause For the rest of us on the outside, the word "socialism" or "fascism" can denote the entire materialistic movement of the Left which seeks to aggregate power by idolizing various nonsensical identities -- sometimes class, sometimes race, sometimes nation. Nowadays those false identities have proliferated but the movement from the outside is still the same genocidal monster.
Trump doesn't guide Republican thinking. That's just ignorant. Many of his supporters are very critical of his decisions in some key areas. I promise you.
Yes. My comment in regards to the Japanese former prime minister in a country with strict pew pew control has been deleted twice now. I'm not sure which word they're targeting. However it is alarming even though it's a private company.
half a dozen of mine that I attempted to post in frustration were deleted. including one talking about switching platforms because of this issue.@@richardaraujo3492
Of course it is. And it continues. Last video I watch After Assassination attemp Democracy Now reporter started with the word Hitler...right off the bat.
In the first days, all I heard from both ends of the spectrum was how staged this all looked. But now, the internet has convinced me that it's just lefties who think this way
Unsubscribed! After years of coming to this to hear more moderate, thoughtful and at least somewhat informed opinions and discussions, this show has become ridiculously banal. I remember Nick appearing on many other talk shows and podcasts and I was impressed. Now, the man seems to be void of intellectual thought.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter Nothing to do with emotions. It's about content. He's correct about a lot of these things. He's also getting less pragmatic about a lot of things.
@@jeffrp8388 the full saying, "this is not an airport, you don't need to announce your departure" Meaning that no one cares about your pedantic complaints that make you not want to watch. Simply stop watching instead of wasting your time writing, and our time reading. Unless you really think your complaints will change what Nick thinks?
You can make a link between fearmongering rhetoric and the actions of a shooter. Also, this isn't really a good question. Lots of things could have triggered the shooter, the rhetoric has kept people from condemning the shooting to the point where a third of Democrats think it was a hoax
"rhetoric" - honestly I would say ideology as a whole, It comes as a package deal. Postmodernism, moral-relativism (or lack of morality at all). Congratulations you got your "party of love" everybody.
@@SirBlackReeds Speaking from a Canadian perspective, I don’t see even obnoxious anti-free-expression companies like Facebook trying to ban people from internet access and sentencing them to indefinite house arrest because of hate speech they might commit one day in the future. But the Canadian government has.
