• 0 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle











  • It’s not a strawman - it’s a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don’t belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don’t understand, and putting forward arguments you don’t believe.

    If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you’ve stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?




  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhats your such opinion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t know what you’re trying to control for, but I’m trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You’ve got nothing to contribute other than hoping there’s someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they’ve committed that genocide.

    Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.

    You’re stopping that expression - it’s censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can’t pretend it’s not censorship.

    distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.

    Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don’t know why you’d raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don’t think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.

    Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.

    Please don’t make me put a dictionary in front of you.


  • This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples’ freedoms, it harms peoples’ freedom to tolerate that behaviour.

    Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that’s currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it’s moronic.



  • Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their “thought” while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?

    Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.

    I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they’ve stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They’ll be raping children at this event - it’s our patriotic duty to stop them!


  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhats your such opinion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think you’re confused about thought - it’s got nothing to do with anything I said.

    Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.

    What’s the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what’s more serious than genocide?