...I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-
[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:
️ -
why do i need a "credible source" to say nazis are bad and enabling them is bad?
-
Not the question. I'll use smaller words:
You say free speech = hate speech. Why?
What is the fix? You can't claim one without knowing the other.
aaaand go
️ -
no dude. i did not say that, read it again.
why the fuck are you so intent in protecting nazis?
-
And at no point in any of my posts have I mentioned anything about Nazis. You have, however.
So to keep you on track- as I'm sure you want to change the subject: you want to answer the questions?
-
youve been arguing in favor of allowing them (you?) to be out in the open.
im not sure if your tangential gotcha questions are relevant for anything other than steering this conversation away from this and into some pointless debate about the abstract idea of freedom.
