Originally posted by Robtard
"Florida is investigating a teacher who showed Disney movie with a gay character The film, Strange World, tells the story of a family of explorers and includes a character who has a crush on another boy." -NPROh Rightist, always trying their best to be good Nazis.
I saw it a little while back. Wasn’t a bad film.
Originally posted by Astner
Yes. Ideological differences may result in violence, but that has nothing to do with the argument.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.
That is a great quote and I tend to agree with it in most cases.
But to spring off Gecko's point, do you feel that freedom is unlimited? Because Nazi Germany did not spring up overnight, it starred with a small group of angry White guys ranting in bars, then they grew and started ranting on the streets, I'm sure you know the rest.
Originally posted by RobtardOn the flip side, you just posted a story about Florida suppressing free speech and (rightfully) compared them to Nazis.
That is a great quote and I tend to agree with it in most cases.But to spring off Gecko's point, do you feel that freedom is unlimited? Because Nazi Germany did not spring up overnight, it starred with a small group of angry White guys ranting in bars, then they grew and started ranting on the streets, I'm sure you know the rest.
I agree with you and Gecko for the most part, but cmon, we can't say that protecting free speech is what stops us from being Nazis and also we need to curtail free speech to stop us from being Nazis. Can't have it both ways.
All that said, wtf Florida.
Originally posted by Smurph
On the flip side, you just posted a story about Florida suppressing free speech and (rightfully) compared them to Nazis.I agree with you and Gecko for the most part, but cmon, we can't say that protecting free speech is what stops us from being Nazis and also we need to curtail free speech to stop us from being Nazis. Can't have it both ways.
All that said, wtf Florida.
I was mostly just picking Astner's brain there for his pov, but I can see where you see that. My point and if you see my comment on the "defend your right to say it" quote, is that there are limits to that. I will generally defend someone's right to say/do whatever they want, but if they're provoking violence, your rights end.
The Florida story thing is more than just free speech, it's another direct attack on gay people. Because I am sure if that same male character had a crush on a girl, Florida/DeSantis would have no problem with the cartoon being shown.
Originally posted by Robtard
I will generally defend someone's right to say/do whatever they want, but if they're provoking violence, your rights end.
I'm not sure what's so confusing about my position. I don't condone violence, or the threat or instigation of violence. As for free speech, I believe anyone should be allowed to voice whatever concerns they may have in whatever manner they see fit.
Originally posted by AstnerIf it's the same as Canada, then I think provocation in the sense you're referring to isn't a criminal violation per se, but might be raised as a defence for otherwise criminal conduct - sortof like self defense, "I was provoked". And I actually agree with you, I think that mostly sounds like bullshit.
Yeah, I disagree with those. I don't think you should be held accountable when you're the one who've been subjected to physical harm.
But then there are also laws against inciting violence. So, using expression not to threaten or provoke someone to harm you, but to whip a mob into a frenzy.
Like, Trump.
Originally posted by Astner
Yeah, I disagree with those. I don't think you should be held accountable when you're the one who've been subjected to physical harm.
I'm referring to people provoking. eg I'll defend someone's right to stand on a box in a public park and rank through a bullhorn how 'the Jews' control all the money and Asians create disease, even though I find those beliefs deplorable. But when that person starts adding that Jews and Asians need to be attacked to stop them, that's when their freedom of speech ends and they're just inciting violence.
Originally posted by Robtard
That is a great quote and I tend to agree with it in most cases.But to spring off Gecko's point, do you feel that freedom is unlimited? Because Nazi Germany did not spring up overnight, it starred with a small group of angry White guys ranting in bars, then they grew and started ranting on the streets, I'm sure you know the rest.
Simplistic poppycock. Lets just ignore the poverty, joblessness, miserable living conditions for many Germans, and how standards were raised across the board thanks to the Nationalist Party.
Funnily enough the exact same living conditions used to justify arson and looting today..
Originally posted by Smurph
If it's the same as Canada, then I think provocation in the sense you're referring to isn't a criminal violation per se, but might be raised as a defence for otherwise criminal conduct - sortof like self defense, "I was provoked". And I actually agree with you, I think that mostly sounds like bullshit.But then there are also laws against inciting violence. So, using expression not to threaten or provoke someone to harm you, but to whip a mob into a frenzy.
Like, Trump.
If he really did believe he was robbed and was just voicing it, and that whipped his supporters into a frenzy, and he was recorded telling those same supporters not to riot....
Yeah you can criticise his sanity or good faith, but hindsight. A guy ranting about being a loser couldn't really be expected to know how mobs would react. And barring ranting lunatics is back to barring free speech...
I mean sometimes bad things just happen, if a legal gun owner shot himself in the foot you don't ban guns because of it. Not in the US anyways.
This scares the shit out of me:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/comingracewar.htm
Post article from 1996. It's like they were predicting the future.
I don't remember things being that bad in 1996 though, yeah shit happened but no George Floyd.
Call me crazy, and call this a conspiracy theory, I'm starting to seriously wonder if some groups are intentionally trying to provoke a race war.
But why would anyone ANYONE even want that? Makes no sense, nobody wins in a war except the arms dealers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt
On 1 May 1776 Johann Adam Weishaupt founded the "Illuminati" in the Electorate of Bavaria. Initially Illumination was designated for a group of outstanding and enlightened individuals in the society. Indeed, the word was adapted from a Latin root, Iluminatus, which directly translates to "enlightened." He also adopted the name of "Brother Spartacus" within the order. Even encyclopedia references vary on the goal of the order, such as Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) saying the Order was not egalitarian or democratic internally, but sought to promote the doctrines of equality and freedom throughout society;[18] while others such as Collier's have said the aim was to combat religion and foster rationalism in its place.[19] The Illuminati was formed with the vision of liberating humans from religious bondage and undermining corrupted governments.[20]The actual character of the society was an elaborate network of spies and counter-spies. Each isolated cell of initiates reported to a superior, whom they did not know: a party structure that was effectively adopted by some later groups.[18]
The Illuminati is real?? 😱
Always figured it for a myth.
Ranted against Democracy and promoted idea of abolishing human coalitions by AI trained to recognize any and all human gatherings and respond with scorched earth responses in order to keep a perpetual state of anarchy.
Essentially, I reasoned if guns cause deaths and you solve the problems by banning guns, then humans working together is the "gun" that gives you Adolf Hitler, and therefore ban humans from working together.
May need to not go onto Quora for awhile until this blows over..
Me watching Peaky Blinders;