5 ms·
The point is not just that it is false, but that it leads to a political discourse that is incompatible with the established democratic system.
by felipeerias 11y ago
The point is not just that it is false, but that it leads to a political discourse that is incompatible with the established democratic system.
- zo1 11y agoIncompatible in what way?
- felipeerias 11y agoAre you seriously asking that?
- magicalist 11y agoConsidering that there's a very large segment of the HN population that lives in a country (the US) that (ostensibly) believes that not to be the case, I would give good odds they were seriously asking that. The First Amendment is a hill I would personally die on, but I think it's very useful to discuss with people from other countries' their beliefs and laws of freedom of expression, if only for Americans to learn that intelligent people can hold informed opinions on the rights to expression that are in some ways fundamentally incompatible with our own. I personally find it fascinating given how almost axiomatic I think of it...that's ideology for you, I guess :)
- zo1 11y agoYes, I am... From my point of you, I have no idea how to interpret what you said. I asked, because if you elaborated, i might be better able to understand your points/argument on the matter. And then, subsequently, able to respond/engage with you on the topic or what you're saying.
- tomp 11y agoDoes it? Is that a hypothesis or a fact? I.e. did it, when it was still legal, lead to "incompatible political discourse"? Btw, I don't think that any political discourse is necessarily incompatible with democracy, as long as it's just discourse (and not e.g. violence).