Could you please define exactly what you mean by “left-wing”?

Disgusting. At least, it seems that their (ie Fidesz-KDNP, Jobbik, and Our Homeland Movement MPs: Péter Balassa and Imre Ritter ^[1]) public support is dropping ^[2].

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

[…] If you don’t support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people’s land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.

To me, it feels like you are conflating some things here: I draw a distinction between how I try to conduct myself (and, by extension, how I think society should conduct itself), and how I think a government should conduct itself. Any common overlap, while it may theoretically draw from the same core personal beliefs, is more of a coincidence in practice, imo. Yes, I think that society should not socially tolerate any of these behaviors, and I think that society should take an active position to socially oppose them; but I don’t believe that a government should take action unless the well-being of an individual is actively under threat.

I could be wrong in my interpretation, but all of your examples seem to simply a be a difference of opinion (no matter how abhorrent and unpalatable an opinion may be). I don’t believe that one should be legally punished for a difference of opinion. The only one that may have some legal ground, in my opinion, as I currently understand your examples, is

Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal

but that would depend on how you are defining “support”.

Thank you for verifying 🙂

Hm, my guess would be either “cube control” or “cube C-T-L”.

EDIT (2025-02-28T09:02Z): Hm, actually, given that it’s for Kubernetes ^[1], maybe it’s “koob control” or “koob C-T-L”… ^[2]?

Do you mean /ɲiɲks/?

Here are the sounds for each:

• ɲ ^[1]
• ŋ ^[2]

No ^[1.1].

EDIT 2025-02-28T10:17Z: Actually, @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org, I was wrong in my initial interpretation ^[1.2]. So, from what I can tell, you are, in actuality, the only one itt! 😊

Basically, every search engine has incorporated LLMs and are shoving them down your throat. If we are talking about tools that I would find useful I’d rather have a reverse image search. […]

So, for clarity, are you saying that a reverse image search tool is more useful to you than AI integration, yet search engines are pushing for AI integration rather than reverse image search tools, and they may not have reverse image search tools at all?

Edit: damn, that down vote hurt. Must be an llm developer, I guess.

If you are accusing me, I would like to clarify that, as of writing this, I have not downvoted your comment ^[1].

Could you elaborate? I don’t understand what you mean.

…it’s not “curl”?

EDIT (2025-02-27T04:15Z):

cURL (pronounced like “curl”, /kɜːrl/) […] [1]

🤔

“The President has invited you to the Gulf of Laogai.”

I agree, through the lens of unfetted capitalism, but, with adequate regulation, I don’t think this is a necessary outcome. Although, perhaps “unfetted capitalism” isn’t capitalism?

[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

I think you’ve made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech ^[1.1]. Freedom of speech doesn’t negate one’s freedom of association ^[1.2]; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship ^[2]. Censorship requires active suppression of speech ^[3[4]]; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren’t actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one’s distaste of them).

All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one’s political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one’s political philosophies derive from one’s personal morals.

[…] So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?

It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.

Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.

[…] I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that. […]

I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?

[…] Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what’s socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them […]

Hm. Your statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis” is an important distinction; however, I think it also crucially depends on the distribution of nazis throughout the populace (assuming the society in question in governed by a majoritarian democratic system). The statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis”, I think, infers the potential of monopolistic behavior in that ownership of the market becomes consolidated in the hands of those who are nazi-sympathetic. In this case, assuming the nazis were a minority of the populace, the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition ^[1]; however, if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place ^[2], assuming they had a monopoly on power (as if they didn’t, it’s plausible that the minority with a monopoly on power would revolt), and I think it would be plausible that they would create a market regulating body that is favorable to nazi-sympathetic entities.

[…] not only does imprisonment do [social shunning] […]

I don’t agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn’t necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).

[…] The thing is, these groups don’t start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.

Presumably, this is under the assumption that education and awareness are insufficient means to that end.

[…] Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they’re gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but “soft” social intolerance very obviously is inadequate. […]

For my own reference, do you have any empirical sources to back up the claim that opinions sympathetic to fascism are accelerating? I’m not disputing your claim — I just like sources.