White Supremacist Terrorism

@oralloy,

A rather lukewarm response.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Perhaps its the "fact" that Hitler's free speech led to the holocaust just as Trumps free speech has led to group shootings all across the u s.

You are making a such a strong argument against Free Speech. "Argument by Hitler" is such a great rhetorical device that I have no answer for it. (Although it is ironic that Hitler wasn't a such a fan of free speech himself).

It still amazes me that people who call themselves "liberals" today are against Free Speech. In my opinion Free Speech, the ability to have and express dissenting opinions, is the most basic of human rights and the key to any democracy.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Nobody is against free speech, it's hate speech they're against. You've been asked time and time again why you support hate speech and you refuse to answer, because you have no answer.

That's something else you have in common with Oralloy, you ignore hard questions, neither of you has a sense of humour, you both want to make the thread about yourselves and you hugely overestimate your own understanding and importance.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

I do not ignore hard questions. You cannot point to any case where I have ever done so.

Your inability to perceive my humor does not mean that it doesn't exist.

I've never made a thread about me. Other people have made threads about me because I post facts, and they lash out with childish personal attacks against people who post facts.

I do not overestimate my understanding by even a little bit.

I don't consider people to be either important or unimportant.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Been up all night arguing with strangers on the internet again. You really are studying the secrets of modern success.

Btw, the insult was aimed at Max, nobody wants to be compared to an oralloy.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

You can not support free speech without also supporting the right to hate speech. It is impossible. There is no real definition of "hate speech"... things that you find hateful are acceptable to other people, and things you believe are true are hateful to to other people. You want to draw an arbitrary line between acceptable speech an unacceptable speech.

The important question is... who gets to draw the line.

Once you start telling people what they can say... and what they can't say, then there is no longer free speech. Trying to draw a line between acceptable speech and what you are calling "hate speech" is doing just that.

You can not restrict speech and have free speech. That includes anything you might decide is "hate speech".

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Izzy... I really touched a nerve didn't I.

Oralloy.... I probably owe you an apology.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Oralloy.... I probably owe you an apology.

I don't see why. It isn't your fault when other people can't make a factual or logical argument and instead resort to name-calling.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Been up all night arguing with strangers on the internet again.

Not really.

I'd have been happy to do so if those whiny leftists on another board wanted to keep whimpering about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it seems that I stomped on them hard enough that they don't want to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki anymore.

Mostly I was researching and preparing for the release of Vanilla WOW, and was just peeking in at a2k from time to time.

izzythepush wrote:

You really are studying the secrets of modern success.
Btw, the insult was aimed at Max, nobody wants to be compared to an oralloy.

You engage in childish name-calling because you are not capable of producing an intelligent argument.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Nobody is against free speech, it's hate speech they're against. You've been asked time and time again why you support hate speech and you refuse to answer, because you have no answer.

Just to make this abundantly clear I have answered this many many times. I will answer it again.

I support hate speech because hate speech is speech. Free Speech must include all speech... otherwise it means nothing. In every authoritarian society, from Iran to North Korea there is a line dividing acceptable speech from unacceptable speech. Acceptable speech is always free even under the most repressive regime.

Free Speech means that you can express any idea and any belief no matter how offensive it is to anyone else.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
Oralloy.... I probably owe you an apology.

I don't see why. It isn't your fault when other people can't make a factual or logical argument and instead resort to name-calling.

That was meant as a joke. Ignore it if it didn't make you chuckle.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Oh, sorry.

Just gave you a thumbs up on your free speech post previous to this post. Spot on.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You can not restrict speech and have free speech. That includes anything you might decide is "hate speech".

False premise.

You cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. You cannot induce panic by fear or intimidation by words or action.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Are you trying to start a fight for no reason, Neptune? We all agree on this.

You can't yell "fire" in a theater. But, you can shout "Death to the Patriarchy".

There is no sense in arguing where we agree.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Those restrictions are limited to punishing individuals only after they have caused serious harm to someone.

That's quite different from labeling someone's political views as hate speech and censoring them.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

If free speech IS free speech then your premise would be solid. But it has qualifiers. Therefore it is NOT free speech. Your argument is invalid.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

The fact that some restrictions are allowed under Strict Scrutiny doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist.

Restrictions are still struck down if they can't pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So, you agree, free speech has limitation.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

I think you are arguing just to argue, Neptune. You are saying that free speech is not a "solid" premise?

This is something most of us learned in fifth grade civics class (this isn't my principle). The government has a overriding interest to stop speech that is likely to cause immediate harm or constitutes a direct call to immediate violence. That is why "death to the patriarchy" is protected speech, while "let's go kill Republicans is not.

Do you have a point to make?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

So, you agree, free speech has limitation.

Yes. Free Speech has two limitations. The limitations have nothing to do with political ideology.

My main issue with Izzy's viewpoint is that he wants speech to be suppressed based on its ideological content. You can't have this in a democracy. Free speech means that every viewpoint or belief can be expressed. The only limitations are based on the immediate and direct incitement of harm, and they are applied to all political ideologies equally.

0 Replies

White Supremacist Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know