Pro-censorship Idealists vs. Nazis, Anti-LGBT Radicals

(I apologize in advance if the contents of this post seem insensitive)

I originally didn’t want to make this thread, because it seems so…insensitive, but lately I’ve been thinking more and more on it and I want to know if I’m being unreasonable with this.

Is it a stretch to argue that people who are generally in favor of thoughtcrime are comparable to Nazis and other fascistic and authoritarian types?

I know the subjects are are completely distinct, we all know someone who is anti-censorship but fervently anti-Nazi.

But when you’re talking about advocating for the imprisonment of people over things like drawings, dolls, etc. over baseless, spurious, and preference-driven assertions regarding the content of said drawings are different and not comparable to things like the Nazis, and it might come off as insensitive.

But when you really break things down, it really doesn’t feel that different. A lot of people fail to realize that Nazis and fascists are generally socially conservative and believe in suppressing anything and everything that offends their idealistic status quo, even at the expense of individualism. This includes furthering the prejudices of the ruling regime and validating them on all levels, almost with the expense of human life and liberty being tantamount to solidifying to those how serious they take these ideals.

This is where the prospect of “legal moralism” and social authoritarianism arises and becomes inherent, wherein the application of force and power is directed in service of an ideological position, rather than a valid interest like harm or the prevention of it.

If we break down the core beliefs and principles of authoritarian regimes (like the Nazis or Confederates/Secessionists and theocrats), you find that they share a great deal of common ground but disagree on a handful of issues,with the brunt of their opposition to Nazis/fascistic regimes being based on “they’re not us and they were hostile to us, so we hate them”.

I’ve taken a lot of time to study the rationale behind fascism and authoritarian ideals in general, and quite frankly, I genuinely do not believe it’s a stretch to argue that if you support putting someone in jail over a fictional story or doll that does not harm someone, directly or indirectly, regardless of how offensive, vulgar, or distasteful that material may be, YOU are supporting fascism by imposing harm on someone.

I know that it’s far more nuanced, some people support criminalizing it because they believe it’s harmful and worth banning, but those claims are generally unproven and the conclusive evidence available suggests the contrary.
Most people who are introduced to these facts ease up on their positions.

But outside of those people, who are unconvinced of the reality, and even those who support said prohibitions, who knowingly and deliberately put their preferences and prejudices before reason (by ‘reason’, I mean conforming to reality and not trying to force reality to appear as though it’s in-line with your beliefs or biases), yeah. I’d argue that those people are no different than the segregationists during the Civil Rights era, as well as Nazis, even.

People need to realize how harsh and severe something like imprisonment can be, especially in the US where no consideration is given to the well-being of undesirable criminals.

But even with these types, these fascistic and authoritarian mindsets, they’re not just born in a vacuum or out of a desire to cause harm. It CAN be, but usually it isn’t.
These are people whose ideals and beliefs are sincere. The Nazis genuinely believed in all of the anti-semitic conspiracies which have promulgated throughout history for centuries, in addition to maintaining their war-like mentality with regard to social and political matters. They don’t humor liberal ideals because they view them as wrong.

The Nazis aren’t good.
Segregationists weren’t good. Anti-LGBT individuals aren’t good either.

But I base my standard of goodness on the type of harm they’re willing to not only tolerate, but perpetrate in the name of their ideals, which are like ours, but with opposing viewpoints.
They view sexual positivity as harmful to society.
They view LGBT acceptance (if not its mere existence) as harmful to society.
They view their morality as the only morality for society, preaching ideals of moral absolutism, rather than pluralism or even relativism.

It is this rejection of basic, long-standing principles of moral pluralism and relativism that makes them and their ideals, when imposed, so objectively harmful.

Adult-child sex is viewed as child sex abuse because of the harm inherent in its acts, and our interest in protecting children from abuse is validated by that observation.
Anything that is not that, by which I mean, the product of a real-life act of it, is not and cannot be regarded the same way, nor can this be overlooked, empirically or colloquially, without upending and undermining the interest in protecting them by extending those interest in areas that simply do not apply.


While I generally agree that the two groups’ pro-unjust incarceration stances justify such a comparison, I believe those with pro-censorship views are a much more diverse group. I have seen advocates for censorship ranging from Nazis to LGBTQ people.


Yeah. How would you suggest refining this to where it’s more sensible? I genuinely do believe that the comparison within this context is valid, but I want to be able to present this as an argument in such a way that doesn’t offend valid sensibilities.


I think the most reasonable way to compare the two would be to specify that you’re talking about incarceration stances. Nazis and other hate groups advocate for a lot of harmful things - unjust incarceration is one of them. Some pro-censorship people also advocate for other harmful things, but it’s not an inherent attribute of that group. Obviously sharing any views with Nazis is still a significant problem, so don’t think such a qualification would detract from the strength of your statement.

I will also say, I didn’t personally find the argument you presented to be offensive at all, but I’m not sure whether that’s because it doesn’t come across as insensitive as you think or because I’m just desensitized due to years of online harassment.



I think I’ll hammer home on that point, the authoritarian aspect. In my OP I admit that a lot of people who have these views can be convinced out of them or at the very least, can become skeptical of them when shown how the material in question is ultimately harmless and that it’s not to be conflated with actual CSEM.

But that ultimately depends on the conclusiveness of the findings/citations presented, in addition to how it’s presented, with regard to how persuasive it can be.

I tend to notice correlations and patterns more often than not when it comes to analyzing things, and when you take the ‘red pill’ and dive into the core ideologies of these groups, like… what motivates and grounds them, their echo becomes louder and louder.

I don’t face much harassment, but observing the type that’s expressed against others, especially MAPs, even ACNOMAPs, it becomes more and more apparent.


And that’s why I love wars with more than 2 sides (famously, for example, 3 Kingdoms), given that it, one way or another, blows moral absolutism out of the water (again, metaphorically or literally). If both of your enemies are “evil”, it forces you to either side with one of those “evils” or be forced into a battle on 2 fronts (which usually ends poorly). If you think that one of those sides is “good”, then why are you not formally united, rather than making an alliance or armistice? The fairy tale fight between good and evil ultimately implies 2 factions.

1 Like

Judge Nicholas Barker pointed out the extensive period in which Lee’s victimless offenses took place, but said it was “right to take into account the defendant’s challenging upbringing and his volunteering in Ukraine”, and that Lee was “the ‘very example’ of a defendant suitable for an alternative sentence to custody, focused on rehabilitation.”

Lee was sentenced to a three-year community order with 25 rehabilitation activity days, must attend the Sex Offender Treatment Program, will be placed on the Sex Offender Register for five years, and must carry out 120 hours of uncompensated work.

“suitable for an alternative sentence to custody, focused on rehabilitation”

Or how about you just leave him alone? He looked at cartoons. This man suffered from alcoholism and risked his life to stop Putler, and this is his reward? There’s no evidence here to suggest he’s a danger to himself or others, nuts to this registry/rehabilitation nonsense. Save it for actual CSAM viewers!


Modern day version of Dracula becoming disillusioned with the Christian Church after fighting for it for so long.


Same psychological drive, really. Even among the ‘woke’, ‘anti-bigotry’ section of the pro-censorship crowd (coughfandomantiscough), I swear if these people were just born a century earlier, they would NOT be the ones at the frontier pushing for the rights of the very groups they care so much about right now.

(Something something moral foundations theory something)