Originally posted by Smurph
Freedom of expression doesn't (or shouldn't, depending on where you live) extend to threats or hate speech.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
you should put that energy into defending against violations that are actually happening like book and speech bannings.
Originally posted by ODG
For not caring that a reasonable American would see the burning of a Pride flag as a threat of violence or dehumanization of those who identify as LGBTQ.
Originally posted by ODG
No problem so long as you're not waving a burning pride flag in their face.
Originally posted by ODG
Acting like your intolerance is solely limited to 5-yr old trannies is disingenuous.
But you missed the point. There are undercurrents of the LGBT movement that warrants criticism, and one way to bring attention to issues of any ideology is to burn symbols related to that ideology.
Originally posted by AstnerAsk an LGBTQ person who is confronted by a burning Pride flag what they think.
No reasonable person would see a flag burning as a threat of violence in of itself. It can be a part of a threat of violence, but so can anything else.
Originally posted by AstnerSure. Just like Black people could have walked away from burning crosses and hung effigies.
You're reconstructing the scenario in your head as you go. No one is talking about waving a burning object inches from someone's face. We're talking about a flag burning. If you don't like it you can just walk away.
You have no idea what minorities in America have had to deal with and it shows. Peddle your sheer, utter, complete, absolute, downright, consummate ignorance somewhere else.
Originally posted by ODG
Ask an LGBTQ person who is confronted by a burning Pride flag what they think.
Originally posted by ODG
Sure. Just like Black people could have walked away from burning crosses and hung effigies.
Originally posted by ODG
You have no idea what minorities in America have had to deal with and it shows.
At the end of the day, taking offense to an insult is a matter of choice, and the only reason anyone would think differently is if they've been emotionally conditioned to respond to it in a particular way. This is something that becomes obvious when you examine honor cultures, of which practitioners may explode into a fit of rage over seemingly insignificant remarks. It's more productive to decondition this behavior rather than to reinforce it by justifying it.
Originally posted by AstnerBecause you're a piece of garbage who mistakes freedom of speech with freedom of thought.
No. Because I'm not interested in what they think about it.
Maybe you didn't see it but I gave you several avenues to walk such irrepressibly ignorant beliefs back.
Pedophiles will pedophile. And bigots will bigot.
Originally posted by ODG
Because you're a piece of garbage who mistakes freedom of speech with freedom of thought.
But no. I do know the difference. In fact I don't even think it's worth discussing the freedom of thought because I don't think any regulation of it could be enforced.
Originally posted by ODG
Maybe you didn't see it but I gave you several avenues to walk such irrepressibly ignorant beliefs back.
Originally posted by ODG
Pedophiles will pedophile. And bigots will bigot.
Originally posted by Astner
In contrast non-violent bigotry only amounts to hurt feelings, and I don't think people should be penalized for that.
It literally leads to violence.
its not even a slippery slope argument, its been documented for all of human history in every country ever
The jews
The gypsies
the ughars
pick a continent and it wouldnt be that hard to find something
Originally posted by Gecko4lif
It literally leads to violence.
Threats and incitements of violence may lead to violence, but I've already condemned that.
But why would Person A insulting Person B lead to Person A assaulting Person B? Alternatively Person C to assault Person B. Presupposing that neither Person A nor Person C intended to assault Person B to begin with. Because that's what we're arguing.
Originally posted by Astner
Can you outline how? Because I don't think it does.Threats and incitements of violence may lead to violence, but I've already condemned that.
But why would Person A insulting Person B lead to Person A assaulting Person B? Alternatively Person C to assault Person B. Presupposing that neither Person A nor Person C intended to assault Person B to begin with. Because that's what we're arguing.
It makes it ok. When things are ok they escalate
Example. The gypsies. Originally they were just people. Then after Christianity and catholicism grew they became people with the wrong religion. And as it became more mornal isnt wasnt simply enough they had the wrong relgion, they had to be converted. Obviously they resisted that, so it became oh you're actually just evil and criminals, which continued to spiral
You dont even need religious differences literally anything can be as reason.
Sub saharan africa just being born a couple of miles in the wrong direction is enough. Ends in violence
In the arabian penisula just being born a woman is enough or even an effeminate looking man, not even gay. Ends in violence
In america, political party or socio economic status. Ends in violence
There litterally examples everywhere
Threats and violence rarely are the starting point but they come almost as an inevitability
Originally posted by Gecko4lif
It makes it ok. When things are ok they escalateExample. The gypsies. Originally they were just people. Then after Christianity and catholicism grew they became people with the wrong religion. And as it became more mornal isnt wasnt simply enough they had the wrong relgion, they had to be converted. Obviously they resisted that, so it became oh you're actually just evil and criminals, which continued to spiral
You dont even need religious differences literally anything can be as reason.
Sub saharan africa just being born a couple of miles in the wrong direction is enough. Ends in violence
In the arabian penisula just being born a woman is enough or even an effeminate looking man, not even gay. Ends in violence
In america, political party or socio economic status. Ends in violence
There litterally examples everywhere
Threats and violence rarely are the starting point but they come almost as an inevitability
All true, no one is disputing words can lead to bad shite. Not just violence, but David Koresh/Church of Scientology style cults.
But the problem is to suppress "bad speech" and allow "good" speech, someone has to decide whats good and bad. Ideally you'd have someone who isn't a lunatic making these decisions, but as you know life doesn't work that way.
You suppress Neo Nazi speech today, and tomorrow MAGA takes power to suppress whatever you're into.
And THAT is why "free speech". It's a pick your poison scenerio, where you tolerate the bad so you can have some good.
All or nothing means you're SOOL when the scales tip against you.
Originally posted by Gecko4lif
It makes it ok. When things are ok they escalateExample. The gypsies. Originally they were just people. Then after Christianity and catholicism grew they became people with the wrong religion. And as it became more mornal isnt wasnt simply enough they had the wrong relgion, they had to be converted. Obviously they resisted that, so it became oh you're actually just evil and criminals, which continued to spiral
You dont even need religious differences literally anything can be as reason.
Sub saharan africa just being born a couple of miles in the wrong direction is enough. Ends in violence
In the arabian penisula just being born a woman is enough or even an effeminate looking man, not even gay. Ends in violence
In america, political party or socio economic status. Ends in violence
There litterally examples everywhere
Threats and violence rarely are the starting point but they come almost as an inevitability
We're talking about whether or not people should be allowed to offend others when they have no intentions of bringing about physical harm to those they offend. I think people should be allowed to do that. The freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of a free society, and the moment you start to chip away at it to compromise the position of your dissidents you're paving the way for authoritarianism.
This is why I think Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it," is one of the most noble sentiments one can hold.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Much of the last two pages, (not Astner), look like they were generated by a large language model trained against an autist 419 scammer. Grammatically, relatively accurate, but overly verbose and lacking reasoning. Chatgtp beta perhaps?
Hey I'm the guy who openly admitted to being hooked into those stupid machines with the flashing lights that measure brain activity because I have disabilities, dunno what everyone elses excuse is. 🤑