...I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-
Countries like the UK that lock of people for mean tweets, yeah.
Not so interested
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
CNN has been like this ever since Zaslav took over and it’s EXHAUSTING to hear my parents constantly having it on in the background
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Seize power?
He was given power by Hidenburg to get a working Reichstag coalition to stop the Communists and other far Left groups from gaining ground.The existing power structures were then very happy to work with him and saw him as a tool until it was clear he was unassailably in power. Then his annexations of Austria and The Sudentenland were massively popular domestically, even with people who didn't like him.
People were too happy to overlook the antisemitism, homo/transphobia, and racism in general (especially against Roma, Sindi, and other travellers as well as Slavs) in return for feeling their nation was strong again.
That said, I think I agree with your overall idea. Just being a "terminally online nitpicker".
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I am genuinely curious about your perspective—when you say the left can act in a fascist manner, could you provide some specific examples of what you mean? Also, how do you personally define fascism in this context?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
It's hard because there's so much reshuffling going on. I personally have to clarify now that I'm a constitutionalist liberal, because liberal means too many different things to different people.
-
Yes, very true. Always.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Oh, look, an ad hominem. Cool.
Firearms are not, themselves, the problem, despite however much people want to treat them as though they are. Likewise, in the UK, kitchen knives and scissors are not the problem, although the gov't treats them as though they are.
Guns, knives, sticks, cars, and yes, even explosives, are tools. If you eliminate the causes that turn people to violence, you eliminate the use of the tools to commit violent acts. But no one is willing to discuss violence as a result of things like economic warfare or systemic racism; they insist that violence exists because the tools used in violent acts exist.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
The discussion was never about the guns, dumdum (this, btw, is an ad hominem)
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
until it was clear he was unassailably in power
Yes, that part where power was seized.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Maybe it's just to me that "seized" implies taking something that others are not willing to hand over, rather than giving it without coercion.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I question your reading comprehension.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
This is like saying guns don’t kill people
This you?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Still missing the point.
The criticism was on your "words don't kill people" part.
Neither guns nor words spawn out of nothing.
-
Why couldn't they do what they were doing before?
Because they werent allowed to be in the open as if what they do is considered normal and acceptable. They were rightfully considered a threat and treated like so.
-
So lets boil this down -
nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.
Because they werent allowed to be in the open as if what they do is considered normal and acceptable.
With you so far - clearly. I think my comment was: Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be... [continued]
They were rightfully considered a threat and treated like so.
... which is exactly what free speech enables. People say shit - other people respond. Freedom of speech/expression does not mean everything said is 'okay' or 'legal' - it means you are protected in your right to say it. It doesn't protect you dealing with the backlash of saying something stupid or hateful. How people choose to respond to it is also a freedom: and most people do not care for nor tolerate hate groups. It works itself out... and from the statement you made: I think you get that.
People frequently will say freedom of speech allows for hate speech - and reality is simply that you cannot stop hate speech from happening no more than you can stop any other crime. You can punish it though - after the fact. We cannot prevent things that haven't happened yet. This isn't minority report - we don't have espers or precrime.
...Which is the point I was making. So to be clear - you disagreed with my statements because...?
-
you are overthinking this way too much.
why is "nazis should not be allowed to be nazis in peace" so bad to you?
-
You keep saying this and not providing any credible points as to why two unrelated things are, indeed, the exact same thing.
We should have a vow of silence and no longer speak: then it's impossible to have hate speech!
This is, in essence, the jump you are making. If not - detail for us - how you prevent hate speech. No generalizing.
Aaaand go:
️
