The ethics of that, if it's true, are:John_fi_Skye wrote:Yep. I don't know if I believe it myself, but I've heard the argument that one reason for having wars like Vietnam (and so I suppose The Falklands and Afghanistan) is to get some of those people away into another country, where they can either channel their aggression into something other than what they'd be doing at home, or they can get killed.Schneibster wrote:So it's the same justification as the Germans have for getting upset about Nazi stuff and Holocaust denial. I can hang with that. I'm glad we haven't had stuff here in the US where it's as much of an issue to where people might get killed over it. We've got slavery to deal with, of course, and the KKK, that we view kinda the same sorta way if you see what I mean, but there haven't been organized killings in decades and the last non-criminal slavery in the US was a century and a half ago, though civil rights were fought over only fifty years ago, and some people died, too. We've made movies where we pilloried such people. And movies about the capture and punishment of the people who did those killings, too. I dunno if it amounts to the same thing.
1. Have some restriction of free speech, on hate speech, defined by the majority and regularly reviewed.
2. Kill off a portion of each generation to get rid of the hotheads.
The choice is pretty stark.
But not at all clear.