• Member Since 29th Oct, 2012
  • offline last seen 4 hours ago

Mr Stargazer

"Philosophy; it's like breaking the fourth wall, but in real life." - Mr.Stargazer

More Blog Posts2

  • 65 weeks
    Nazis and free speech.

    Hey guys, I was not expecting my new blog post would be on this topic.

    The short on that is that I have a good amount of words written and have thrown out a lot more. Thats the way it be.

    As for this new issue...well, I will not have my work on a site that doesn't support free speech.

    Even for speech I hate.

    Read More

    53 comments · 664 views
  • 146 weeks


    Hey guys, I have this patreon setup. The goal is to get enough for some artwork.

    If you feel like it please donate some.

    Hope you have a nice day!

    7 comments · 203 views

Nazis and free speech. · 4:40am Jul 19th, 2020

Hey guys, I was not expecting my new blog post would be on this topic.

The short on that is that I have a good amount of words written and have thrown out a lot more. Thats the way it be.

As for this new issue...well, I will not have my work on a site that doesn't support free speech.

Even for speech I hate.

Currently the statement is not to ban such content. But If such a ban does take place I will no longer be part of the site.

Do not worry, I will still finish the story and will post a link to its new location with a one month lead in before deleting.

Thank you for your time.

Report Mr Stargazer · 664 views ·
Comments ( 53 )

Hate speech is not free speech.

All speech must be allowed or no speech is free.

A reduction in one mans freedom is a loss to us all.

Should we ban communist stuff because I think it promotes violence?

Fuck yeah dude, anybody who actually believes the CCP or North Korea are good should shut the fuck up.

A reduction in one mans freedom is a loss to us all.

Not if they're Nazis!

I thought Knighty said they were maintaining the right to freedom of speech on the site.

Yes even to Nazi.

But I went with communism because its the other extreme.

What about Intersectionality, forth wave feminism? I think that is just as harmful and has lead to mountains of human death and suffering.

Who gets to decide which speech is hateful? If we went off what I think is hateful then we would be banning those as well.

No person should be making such choices.

So far they will only be preventing commenting, voting and preventing such content from appearing in the featured. Something I'm already against.

Maybe when the speech is so blatantly and inherently racist, like say the swastika or support of Nazis - totally random example I know - it's simple enough to understand the hate they spread. Whatever slippery slope you're afraid of where fimfic banning racist shit leads to societal collapse is ridiculous, you don't become Nazis by banning Nazis. That's how you stop them.

Are you still going to use discord, or have you found a new platform for that too?

Its not your option on what nazi content should be banned that would decide. It is someone else.

Who decides what content causes harm? Once that door is opened it has no bottom.

Its the devils bargain.

Not yet. I've been looking into it.

But I also don't have content on it.

Ah, I vividly remember the gruesome death tolls of fourth wave feminism and intersectionality. What a dire tragedy.

My option or my opinion? Banning outright Nazi imagery isn't vague so I'm not worried about it being mistaken for something not racist, I'm more worried they won't commit fully and backslide like Derpibooru. My opinion is that they should ban all of it. Racism has no place on a My Little Pony fansite.
The fear of what could happen is paralyzing you. It's that slippery slope I mentioned, this "devils bargain", which doesn't exist. Banning the swastika on fimfic isn't going to collapse civilization.

You are literally using fascist argument. You are using same arguments natsis used to justify what they did. Silencing peoples bad opinions makes people forget that they are in fact bad opinions.

If you start censoring speech, you don't decide what is censored. Who ever is in power does. And then stuff like china happens, where government stops you from speaking up about mass murders. You want to suppress people from talking about mass murders in the past. That's one step away from you wanting to suppress mass murders in the present, and that is not okay.

Free speech is a human right, and just because you disagree with someone does not mean they don't have other ideas that might be valid, but you newer know, since you silenced them. And it goes from "lets silence bad people" to "lets silence anyone who disagrees", to "lets imprison people with different politics" to "lets kill people in death camps" faster than you think.

Letting someone speak does not mean you agree with them. it means you are not trying to kill(or otherwise make disappear forever) everyone who disagrees with you.

Also I see you making a group all the same, and hating them to point you don't want them to have human rights. If thats not hate speech, I dunno what is.

Instead of silencing them, you should just make good counter arguments, that demonstrate they are wrong, and that their way of thinking is bad, making sure that everyone can just laugh at their bad ideas. That's all you need to do. use your free speech to discredit them with true facts. instead of going "O no people should be silenced for being stupid, because i can't handle someone having a bad opinion". Grow up, and think with your head, not emotions. You are trying to recreate and use natzi ideology of "fuck everyone who disagrees", proving them right, instead of having free speech, and using it to demonstrate how wrong they are. Like what the fuck is wrong with you? You are literally believer in ideology you claim to oppose. Please read a book on free speech, and how it works, or at least google it, there are some youtube videos explaining it.

I am not paralyzed. I'm firm and certain.

If its banned then I'm gone.

Its not fear that stops me from supporting censorship. Its conviction.

I've read enough and heard enough to know where such thinking leads.

And even if it didn't lead. I can't be apart of an action that would HELP the nazis.

When you don't expose people to bad ideas they cannot be inoculated against them. They because easily convinced when they find the hidden information on the internet.

Worse, it weakens the arguments against the fascists. So when they do speak no one has any answers against them.

to put it bluntly, there is no better way to give terrible ideas power than to ban them.

All I can say really is in that video. I hope you don't leave, dude.

Well, Mr Stargazer, I'm glad I can count you among the modest ranks of sane people left here, those of us that argue that free speech is a basic human right. My god, I cannot believe I have to say those words.


Also I see you making a group all the same, and hating them to point you don't want them to have human rights. If thats not hate speech, I dunno what is.

I've had to make this argument a lot lately. Their argument is that Nazis think some people are not people. So Nazis are not people. So no free speech for Nazis. But then, they become equally as guilty as the Nazis they hate so much. Then they come up with some bullshit excuse and think they are not hypocrites.
5314433 If we permit infringing people's basic freedoms here, then it becomes acceptable elsewhere. As it basically has on other internet platforms already. If it becomes acceptable there, it will become acceptable everywhere, even in real life. This is the slippery slope argument. Apparently you disagree with it, but I think letting a basic human right like free speech be selectively taken away from someone - anyone - is a slippery slope, and very well could lead to major societal problems. I mean, you could open a history book and read about the Nazis you hate so much. They did much the same thing. As well as the communist and fascist states.

No I'm saying fuck Nazis, sorry I know the difference between "silencing all opposition" and telling Nazis to fuck off.
You have it backwards, welcoming Nazi ideas into your space will drive away those who would argue against them. I would say being honest and open about why these things are banned is the way to go to keep people informed. Somebody doesn't need to debate a real Nazi every time an explanation is needed as to why they are bad. Not to mention those inexperienced in those types of situations are vulnerable to manipulation and Nazis will take advantage of that, expecting them to be honest and fair is foolish.

You're right I think the slippery slope argument is fearmongering horseshit.

Uh what story does this blog post relate to? I’m out of the loop on this.

No idea, I think this is mostly about this.

Ah, the classic, Paradox of tolerance.

5314661 At least we can agree that each other's opinions on the matter are horseshit. :moustache:


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall

The Nazi Party was banned on November 9th, 1923.

You are not fighting nazis. You are arguing against freedom of speech to write works of FICTION. Feel free to comment whatever the fuck you want on those works, thats your freedom of speech. But if you ban them, you are discriminating and working against human rights.

Also you are singling out a single group of evil people over all other evils who you ignore. You are taking hypocritical bigotry really serious. Nazi are as bad as any religion that calls to torture and kill people. Which is most of them.

Remember this is FICTION. You don't have to hold beliefs of your characters, or anyone who wrote a character who was criminal would also be criminal, and that is not the case.

Here watch this video, and please look up how actual free speech works. Censorship seems good at first, but in fact it usually has the opposite effect. Emotional arguments of not liking someone should not overshadow ideology of free speech, since it is only real alternative to violence.

Zup StarGazer, been a while.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. I'm Romani, some of my older relatives still can talk about being in concentration camps.
I don't care what people think should or shouldn't be okay; Silencing nazis and their sins is the same shit as covering it up and pretending it never happened. It makes you once-removed from denying the holocaust.
Let them be portrayed, let them be openly mocked and laughed at. No sensible person is going to go "Put everyone that disagrees with me in a camp and kill them" and go "Yeah seems reasonable."
What people don't seem to realize is that even if it's their forum, It's not their place or their obligation to silence everyone that has a different opinion.
It's not like the fourth Reich is going to rise from an MLP Forum 6 years after the fandom started dying off.

On the other hand, I certainly support elbowing nazis in the gut and kicking them in the balls.

We're (mostly) not school children anymore. We all have the choice to dislike a story and if we feel that they are truly taking it too far (The entire story just being a pony running around "RACE WAR NOW, GAS THE JEWS" with no ther content) to the point that it's not even comedic, it's just a nazi mouthpiece, then we can report it.

Most of this site is adult men, some of us women, some of us teenagers. We're not some five year old babies that barely know how to read.

I'd say if someone supports nazi's let them be. I'll point out the flaws in their comments...

Oh wait...they allow blocks on comments

It will be sad to see you go :pinkiesad2:

It would be quite terrible. I've been here for a long time.

For now I'm not, but if it gets worse...


I fully agree with the first half of your post and generally lean towards the rule "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". That's why I know quite a bit about the history of the Nazis, and why I'm generally bothered by the destruction or censorship of the bad parts of history. If you censor the holocaust or slavery, you're asking to bring that stuff back as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I strongly disagree about getting violent. Laugh at them, explain why they're idiots, or ignore them. All of those options make it clear their ideology is bad. Attack or ban them like Wiemar Germany did, and you just make them stronger.


those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

I think "History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes" is more accurate

And who judges what hate speech is ? Because, as right now, it seems anything can be tagged as hate speech. Even Jesus Crist himself. And Mount Rushmore. And vitrals on churches.

Or even trying to discuss the problem.

I'm usually not violent myself, however IIRC I just made a quip about elbowing nazis; I didn't go into any lengths about it.

Being from where I am, I often face racists and nazis (No, this is not a joke.) On a fairly daily basis. And I'm not using "Nazi" as an advanced term for racist biggot.

Don't know If you can click on these individual links but It gets pretty bad. Hopefully google's auto translate can sort you out.


I did some digging (I've literally never heard of this party before today), and it looks like the media is full of their usual bullshit and is just smearing people for pushing back on their agenda. Looking at their website, I can certainly see how you could draw some similarities with phrasing like "the global Zionist elite", but the fundamental politics are very different. Their platform includes positions like "The right to freedom of speech will be extensive and protected." and "All those who have completed their [compulsory] military service will retain their weapons and equipment." which are much more in line with the US constitution than Hitler. The closest thing I see to a real concern is ejecting the various other people who have flooded Sweden lately, but based on my understanding of the scale of the problem there I can't call that irrational. I won't pretend to have anything approaching a comprehensive understanding of the situation since I don't follow Swedish politics, but they look more kooky than dangerous to me.

Really, the key point to remember is that the media is pure propaganda these days. They've completely abandoned any pretense of telling the truth, so you need to make extra sure you go to the source like I did here to figure out what they actually believe and how you should feel about them

The alternative issue to this is that you can claim and write just about anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Speaking of the topic, Hitler didn't exactly portray himself as a mass murdering bigot to the masses.


Yes and no. I haven't read Mein Kampf myself, but my understanding is that he lays out just about everything he would later do in it. The fact of the matter is that when groups like this directly tell you what they want/believe, they're almost always honest so you should always take their word at face value there.

You also need to make sure to get all sides of the story, especially when things get violent, and ideally track down a full-length video of the incident as well before you pass judgement. That's especially true when the "news" says they're bad because the media has completely abandoned any pretext of telling the truth these days as demonstrated perfectly in the clip below:

Now, I don't read or speak Swedish and I don't have the cultural context to pick out critical nuance so I'm not going to try to get to the bottom of this myself, but the fact of the matter is that "Nazi" label reeks of the same nonsense I see every day in the US. Now, it's certainly possible I'm wrong on that in this case, but whatever the truth of the matter is, it seems fairly clear to me that you haven't done your due diligence to understand these people and judge them accurately.

I understnd the slippery slope argument, but also think that slippery slope argument has been used to stop a lot of good progress in the past. It is 100% possible to equip the people with the knowledgeable tools to combat hateful ideas without permitting people to spew such hateful ideas.
HOWEVER, the way to equip people without allowing the spewing of these ideas is to WRITE about these ideas IN stories and DISCUSS them. I think it is wholly possible to allow these conversations and educate while still punishing/reforming people who actually believe in such hogwash as racial separation and ethnic annihilation.
In summary; free speech good, we need to discuss these topics in SOME capacity, but allowing nazis COMPLETELY free reign to spread their filth is just as bad an idea as completely eliminating the presence of their ideas. Radicals being completely free to do whatever they want is part of the reason why we have had increasing issues with right-wing terrorism in America.

Who determines what speech is bad?

How do you determine if they can just this appropriately?

How do you prevent them from enacting abuse?

Well, I mean, if you ask me, the only things that could be considered 'bad' at a basic moral level is advocating for the harm of other persons who have done nothing to damage them. Harm can be in the form of discrimination.

I mean, honestly, is it THAT hard to teach our future generations "hey, everyone else is a human like you, we shouldn't hurt someone who hasn't hurt us, and we're all on the same journey so you should never look down on anyone who hasn't looked down on you." Without allowing massive organizations of people advocating for discrimination, segregation, murder, etc.
I say shame on anyone who ISN'T capable of that very basic moral compass

"Is this discriminatory? Nope. Are they saying that a group of people or an individual deserves death just for being who they are? Nope. Passes the test!"
And of course stories of any variety are okay. I LOVE stories with complexity that explore very negative attitudes; they generate conversation and deep thought. It's straight up stupid to me to think that it's difficult to legally separate things that actually harm people from things that generate conversation.

I note that in your three comments you did not answer any of my three questions.

I agree, you should be able to tell, but that doesn't address my question. Because your statement admits that there are people who couldn't tell. It also ignores that there are people who would choose to tell incorrectly.

People are dicks. Such power to silence should be in no ones hands. It does no long term good.

I apologize, your second question I wasn't quite sure what you meant becuse of what I assumed to be a typo, and I meant to answer your third question in a bit of a roundabout way. The states would decide what warrants hate speech with an amendment to the constitution that would very clearly designate speech that causes harm. There isn't much working around a part of the constitution, "no speech that does not advocate for the physical harm or discrimination (race, religion, sex, etc) of others shall be censured," an amendment like that, legally, does not leave much room for abuse. Any case about it would have to go through judges just like any other case, can go through the appeals process just like any other case. From a purely legal perspective, it's REALLY not hard to prevent abuse of it.

Who defines what is discrimination.

For instance, there are countries where its illegal to call a trans person by their biological gender. There are people who believe that playing into thier dysphoria does them harm.

Will this amendment force people to use terms and do what they believe will cause harm?

Who desides what is hate, who desires what is discrimination?

Unfortunately people will expand their definition and push the envelop.

Just look to England, a man makes a joke about a nazi pig and he is STILL being dragged through the courts, his life ruined over eight years later.

Who desides what is advocating? What is parody? What is hate or discrimination?

I go back to my questions. How do you guarentee this power wont be abused? Amendments are abused all the time.

Just look at the 2nd amendment.

On principle I largely agree with you. I trust no individual, group, or institution to draw the line which separates what is and isn’t acceptable speech. Thus, no line should be drawn. Limited censorship often does little to halt the spread of ideas, philosophies, and ideologies. All it does is funnel talk into areas in which moderating and contrary voices no longer exist, eliminating all discourse an any given issue. Furthermore, as seen here, it encourages moderate voices to leave the original forum, causing the same problem. Thus polarization and stratification occurs within a community. Hatred and misunderstanding festers. Time and time again history has shown this to occur, yet as ever it continues.

Real question though, have you decided to cease posting on this site? If so will you post elsewhere?

I have not. But if I do then I'll let everyone know and setup a new location to post before moving and deleting everything.

Uhm, what the hell else is doscromination supposed to mean besides "treating an individual unfairly/differently because of factors other than their behavior"
The 2nd amendment gets abused because of it's open meaning "the right to bear arms" which is wholly different because arms describe a wide range of weapons. Discrimination is just that, discrimination, there is no wide array of meaning for the word discrimination.
Discussing that you should kill, or segregate, a whole faction of people IS advocating, you shouldn't be allowed to freely discuss killing all vay people unless you're discussing why you SHOULDN'T. Discussing why you SHOULDN'T, clearly is not. Again, I tell you, the states decide what is discrimination, by simply wording it "no speech that encourages the physical harm or segregation of a faction shall be considered free speech" it'd be JUST like how, in the legal system, you can joke about wanting an individual dead, but if you start saying "I'm going to tie him up, I'm going to pit my glock in his mouth" it becomes conspiracy to murder.
As a trans woman, I fully support a cointry making it illegal for others to call me by my SAB, and anyone who simply 'believes' that allowing me to live my life will cause me harm cn kindly fuck off. That sort of thing CLEARLY doesn't constitute physical harm or segregation, it is ay worst an emotiomal harm that should not be covered by law.

Discrimination under some interpretations can be a joke, or a statement that contains facts the person finds abhorrent. There are people that say words themselves are violent after all. There are those that claim there are forms of discrimination that require no intent from the person perpetuating it. In your own definition you use the word 'fair'. Some people think that fairness can only be obtained through discrimination against those who have 'unearned' privilege. That to give equal opportunity is in fact discrimination. I'm actually taking a class at my work where this view is being pushed right now.

Even if your definition of discrimination is sensible, you have no garentee that the person defining it will be. You don't get to decide the definition or who decides it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Arms specifically refers to 'weapons of war' under English common law. This is the language used when writing the constitution to prevent confusion. Arms had and has a specific legal definition of weapons of war. Its not specific because the statement is meant to apply to ALL weapons of war. Including artillery, explosive, horses, Bayonets, swords and weapons not yet invented.

To give an example the use of rifles without bayonets would be given as 'shoulder your fire-lux' but when the bayonet was attached the term would change to 'arm'. The second amendment is VERY specific, but people with a vested interest to misinterpret have done so.l DEPSITE us having literally hundred of pages of them explaining why they made the second amendment and what it means. It was even meant to pertain to artillery pieces but multi shot rifles nahhh. Despite that such rifles existed at the time.

"no speech that encourages the physical harm or segregation of a faction shall be considered free speech"
I've literally heard people say that disagreeing with leftist dogma concerning IQ or transexuals causes physical harm. Heck, JUST last week there was several city and state governments that declared racism was a public health crisis. They argue that merely the perception of racism causes physical harm, how much more the things that they define as racist opinion.

As a trans woman there are those who argue that telling you that your a biological male is an attack against you and is in fact a form of discrimination. You won't get to define what is acceptable.

There is also a fundamental disagreement me and you have. I don't think that banning 'hate speech' stops it from growing. I don't think it weakens those movements. You can't know the arguments against bad ideas unless you have those arguments. You can't inoculate society against them. I think you don't know the arguments made by the fascists. Heck, I'd bet you don't even know what a fascist is. I hope that I'm wrong about that. How can you know though if you don't hear their arguments.

I'll tell you a simple one. A very simple one to debunk.

Have humans found other species to have different traits and ability's, both psychical and psychological dependent on their environment?

Of course it wouldn't completely stop it, something like that is impossible to completely stop. However, as I've previously stated, we are more than capable of exposing our future generations to it and teaching them how wrong it is, without allowing organizations of hate to freely indotrinate others. You obviously know what a book is, and how much information they can hold, the conversation they can generate in the classroom.
Ofc I know what fascists are, and have heard at least some of their arguments, who doesn't? Government and law are my favorite subjects, it'd be willfully ignorant of me to NOT have some knowledge of the subject.
Unless it's actually relevant and necessary to the conversation, it IS pretty hateful to shove my assigned sex in my face.
I think the argument of "it COULD be used badly!" Has stopped way too much progress in the world. If we shied away from every action that could either be a great boon or a curse, we wouldn't be nearly as far as a society today. If hate speech gets banned, and some cases go too far, you fight that in the courts just like any other law, you fight so that no one else in your situation also doesn't get unfairly punished. Nothing is perfect from the get go, that's why we have a system that is capable of growth, change, and refinement. Not everyone is gonna share the same opinion on whether or not certain things are hateful, at the same time, a lot of people aren't at all affected by what they deem 'not hateful' and therefore don't even deserve a voice on that specific topic. A lot of the stupid opinions would quickly get weeded through the court systems. Yes, things can go wrong, but they can also go incredibly right. If things go wrong, they can be corrected; if things go right, the people who deserve to win, win.

You still seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying that this can go wrong.

I'm saying it has gone wrong, that it does oppress and is used to silence true things people don't like.

I don't have to wait and see, its already happening.

Who defines progress?

When and how did this go down?

Login or register to comment