No, I decry the KKK. And the FBI infiltrated the KKK, and private lawsuits have largely bankrupted the KKK. The KKK gets plenty of push-back, and deserves every bit of the push-back it gets.
Obviously there will be times they will step out of simply just speech and opinion, and for that they should be punished. If they act out on their hate and prejudice that is. But if all they are doing is expressing an opinion then let them, for it is not for you to judge who shall have the right opinions in this country. If you disagree, simply ignore them, for truth shall hold them accountable and you shall be vindicated without effort. But if you condemn their thoughts then you exhibit fear. For any righteous man would not fear a wrong idea, because reality shall not let a wrong idea prevail. So if you truly believe your ideas are right then let those who disagree do so in peace. Reality shall punish them enough for their ignorance.
Also our laws are designed to encourge only ignoring. Why else can't we just jail them right there? Because there is no thought police, and you shalln't be one either!
EDIT: It may be true that they do deserve all negative actions directed towards them. I just want to make it clear that I do not support the KKK. I think physical and emotional attacks from the KKK do justify corrective action against them.
I'd also like to add that the best way to raise a child is to ignore them when they get angry, not punish. I think that was researched somewhere or something.
But if all they are doing is expressing an opinion then let them, for it is not for you to judge who shall have the right opinions in this country.
Allow me to disagree openly with that opinion by posting a reply. :) The KKK opinions are so disrespectful to my fellow citizens, so factually mistaken, and so verified historically as causes of violence and social backwardness that I don't just ignore them. I dispute wrong opinions such as those of the KKK. (And I dispute similar opinions posted here on HN, even at the risk of my comments being downvoted, because it is important to provide refutation of such opinions for onlookers.)
About your legal advice, you are mistaken. The current law on free speech in the United States is precisely designed to allow (and, indeed, encourage) open and continual refutation of mistaken ideas on public policy. That is the whole point of the American experiment in free speech.
About your parenting advice, as the father of four children I call on you to provide references to your sources if you expect to convince me that you have useful advice on parenting. Who did the research, and how?
> The current law on free speech in the United States is precisely designed to allow (and, indeed, encourage) open and continual refutation of mistaken ideas on public policy. That is the whole point of the American experiment in free speech.
You're right. And the whole point of not punishing for their opinion is so that you can criticize them openly. Imagine if we didn't let the racists make their argument, then we can not refute them by reason because there would be nothing to refute. So to let them express their opinions, then everyone else can openly see how ludicrous they are, rather than trying to hide them and their so obviously wrong ways.
The parenting advice is something I picked up from various sources. And it's based on the idea that we should constructively criticize, and not scold. I'm sure you've heard the advice to show young children the right way, rather than to tell them explicitly that they are wrong. I have a very young sister that was born when I was 16 (I think) and this is why I even listen to such advice.
I'm not a parent, but I was a child, as has everyone. And being a parent does not necessarily legitimize any specific parenting tactic one has, especially with regard to long term effects.
So the example I gave about showing kids the correct way to do things instead of scolding or telling them they are wrong is probably a better example. I'm not exactly sure where I saw the advice for ignoring annoying behavior to stop it, but let's forget that example.
But this example is more analogous to our current argument. Instead of telling people they are wrong, it's simply better to show them, and others, the better way. The better way should be enough convincing and any need to artificially make it better (by denouncement) would be prone to human error. But to have to show someone the better way would require cooperation by reality if you know what I mean. And such cooperation by reality would only happen if your proposed idea, opinion, or whatever is truly better.
In essence, I'm proposing that we humans do the upvote, because nothing bad comes out of doing that, and let reality do the down voting.
So by only allowing up vote we better prevent people from artificially marginalizing an idea.
No, I decry the KKK. And the FBI infiltrated the KKK, and private lawsuits have largely bankrupted the KKK. The KKK gets plenty of push-back, and deserves every bit of the push-back it gets.