...I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[email protected]

Surely, as he was in reality. I'll be paraphrasing this, thanks.

[email protected]

This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?

This past election was very eye-opening in that everyone on the left was so absolutely confident that Trump wouldn't win. So much so they had already started laying things out for their own fascist takeover.

And yes, the left can act in a fascist manner.

[email protected]

Defending the right to unpopular and offensive speech is not the same as compromising with the speech. You can truly abhor what someone's saying and not try to some them.

[email protected]

Well hey then that makes it their achievement! No idea but it wouldn't be surprising.

[email protected]

Remember that bill that would strip non-profit status from any group, based on the whim of the president? With no hope of appeal? That was very popular with Democrats, until Trump won.

Even if you assholes don't abuse something like that, you know that you aren't going to be in office forever? There's an election every 4 years, remember?

Don't go conflating Democrats with the left, though. There's some overlap, but they aren't the same.

[email protected]

Setting aside that the discussion was never a legal one (and either way, what is legal does not mean is moral);

The tool is still very relevant. If you have the intent to kill many but only a stick, you probably won't get as far because sticks are not as dangerous as guns, or even words for that matter, when used.

[email protected]

There's a big difference between defending your country within your borders and crossing a border to fight in another country.

[email protected]

I see you haven't been paying a lot of attention to the news.

Schadrach

This is the fundamental issue with people arguing against free speech: I can never tell if they know they behave fascisticaly or not. Are they ignorant, or do they know?

People who support censorship always believe the censors will always side with their preferences. They never consider what happens when people they oppose control the censors, and for them merely not having allied censors in place feels like they are being silenced (see conservative Christian types who inevitably get angry any time Christian-focused language isn't enforced [aka War on Christmas or anyone else requesting a display when there's a public religious display on government property]).

[email protected]

Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely.
If it means demonstrable harm, then they're fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.

From context

Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties

and key words

only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe

and my direct statement

speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty

I'm stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech.
Speaking one's mind doesn't cause harm.
Harm requires an act.

Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts.
That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl's conclusion consistently.
That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.

[email protected]

Understand that this also means no wars of liberation and no wars of mutual defense

[email protected]

Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.

By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?

[email protected]

I'll defend the right for anyone to speak their mind, but I'll allow the masses to take their pound of flesh

This is a contradiction. Something isn't a right if you allow open season for others to actively target and suppress.

Otherwise, Stalinism is also technically "free speech": you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences.

Be clear about what you mean.

[email protected]

Okay, so terrorist beliefs like islamism as well?

Or maybe also terrorist beliefs like any show of support for Luigi Mangione? Or anyone who has read Ted K? Or anyone who advocates for radical change?

Great precedent for a government to selectively lock up anyone they want.

[email protected]

Show me you don't know what fascism is without actually saying it.

[email protected]

Thanks for the strawman, I see now you're arguing in bad faith (or are one of those Americans hyper focused on guns)

[email protected]

It's actually perfectly simple and not contradictory as long as you don't conflate basic rights and absolute impunity.

Having the right to say something abhorrent without the government punishing you for it ≠ having the privilege to say whatever you want and face no consequences.

Conflating the two to the point of censoring dissent is how fascism, anarcho-capitalism, Stalinism, and other inherently abusive ideologies that look attractive to some when not closely examined take root and thrive.

[email protected]

With no wars, there's no "wars of mutual defense,"
wars and without oppression, there's no need for wars of liberation either.

So yeah, in the absence of the unreasonable, only reasonable number of wars IS 0.

[email protected]

Complaining about semantics isn't the argument you think it is.
Meanings & distinctions matter.

The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice.
If you're willing to undermine rights for expressions that won't actually harm/threaten, then I don't care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.

By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes?

No & already answered.

[email protected]

I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government.