3 ms·

> Except they don't - because the people yelling most about "free speech" are the first to throw a hissy fit when someone uses "free speech" to suggest that the

> Except they don't - because the people yelling most about "free speech" are the first to throw a hissy fit when someone uses "free speech" to suggest that they're being racist or sexist or whatever. What do you mean by "throw a hissy fit"? There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they should not be allowed to say what they are saying. People who are saying that they are "triggered" when someone uses the word "rape" and therefore people should not be able to say the word "rape" are against free speech. If someone calls me sexist for saying that, I'll ridicule their opinion because their opinion is ridiculous, but I still they should be allowed to state their ridiculous opinion. The former is anti-free speech. The latter is not. Simply telling someone they are wrong is not taking a stance against free speech.

taco_emoji 11y ago
Amazing. Person A: "Certain conversations are sometimes hard for me to deal with, and trigger warnings are good and helpful for me." Person B: "I agree, and I think that you're even kind of a jerk if you don't provide such warnings." Delusional outrage addicts: "YOU GUYS WANT TO BAN WORDS"
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  Uh, have you even been on Reddit? There are definitely people who want to ban words. But even without going that extreme, Person B in your example is way off-base. There's nothing wrong with Person A, they're just experiencing an unfortunate mental illness. But Person B is creating this moral obligation for everyone to participate in the treatment of Person A's mental illness, and that's an obligation which simply does not exist. It sucks that Person A is sick, and I'd even be happy to devote more of my tax dollars to help them, but I don't think that we should be curtailing our free speech to help treat the vast array of possible mental illnesses we might encounter on the internet.

taco_emoji 11y ago

Amazing. Person A: "Certain conversations are sometimes hard for me to deal with, and trigger warnings are good and helpful for me." Person B: "I agree, and I think that you're even kind of a jerk if you don't provide such warnings." Delusional outrage addicts: "YOU GUYS WANT TO BAN WORDS"

copsarebastards 11y ago
Uh, have you even been on Reddit? There are definitely people who want to ban words. But even without going that extreme, Person B in your example is way off-base. There's nothing wrong with Person A, they're just experiencing an unfortunate mental illness. But Person B is creating this moral obligation for everyone to participate in the treatment of Person A's mental illness, and that's an obligation which simply does not exist. It sucks that Person A is sick, and I'd even be happy to devote more of my tax dollars to help them, but I don't think that we should be curtailing our free speech to help treat the vast array of possible mental illnesses we might encounter on the internet.