Spotify, SoundCloud and other platforms have pulled the song, but its spread underscores the challenges tech platforms face in removing content that violate their policies.
Spotify, SoundCloud and other tech platforms have worked to remove a new song from Ye that praises Adolf Hitler, but the song and its video have continued to proliferate online including across X, where it has racked up millions of views.
On various mainstream and alternative tech platforms this week, Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, has been able to share his latest song, titled “Heil Hitler,” along with its companion title, “WW3,” which similarly glorifies Hitler, the architect of the Holocaust.
While some platforms have taken steps to attempt to pull down the song, others have seemingly let it spread freely.
You need to spend some time thinking on the (misnamed) “paradox of tolerance”. The idea you’re espousing is exactly the most critical, fundamental misunderstanding of tolerance as a moral value.
The “paradox of tolerance” is the idea that one must even tolerate the intolerant - it would be a paradox because this tolerance ultimately ensures the unbridled spread of intolerance. Folks weakly on the left have misunderstood this forever.
But there is no paradox, never has been. Tolerance must never be given to the hatefully intolerant. Nazism can never be tolerated, it must be defeated as quickly as possible everywhere it sprouts up. And I do absolutely mean violently, I am not talking about just simple ostracism or censorship.
A society that tolerates the hatefully intolerant is fully doomed. Please, come to realize that you are not advocating for anything high-minded, you are advocating for the destruction of all things beautiful, art or otherwise.
While I can’t read what you’re responding to, that doesn’t follow (it can be ignored or protested) & no, they haven’t.
The paradox of tolerance doesn’t lead to a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls’:
Accordingly, constraining some liberties such as freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty. However, violence or violations of rights & regulations could justifiably be constrained.
A point of clarification: tolerance has a number of paradoxes identified in the SEP, and the paradox in discussion is more precisely called the paradox of drawing the limits.
Opposing basic civil liberties like freedom of expression is very authoritarian & small-minded. Basic rule on policymaking: don’t give yourself powers you wouldn’t want your opponents to have.
Quoting A Man of All Seasons
Sacrificing basic civil liberties when they don’t suit you is a threat to everyone. Their willingness to do that is why everyone hates authoritarians. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.
There are better ways to beat these shitheads, and it’s been done before. Contrary to what you wrote, defending civil liberties regardless of whose is high-minded & defends everyone.
That’s a lotta words to say we should tolerate things I say we shouldn’t. We can disagree, but I’m not all that interested in getting scholarly about it - the writing’s on the wall, we have real - not theoretical - fascism headed our way within this 4 year presidency and we’d better be ready to fight.
Enjoy your Stanford political philosophy. I’m gonna keep watching for further sieg heils on national stages, and I know what I’ll do if they become too widespread.
I wish you well.