2 ms·
> I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take. That's because you turned "cheer for fascists" into "granting some leeway to peo
by PavlovsCat 8y ago
> I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take.
That's because you turned "cheer for fascists" into "granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals". Even just playing such word games is lending support, and that's even more than condoning something.
- contravariant 8y agoI'd consider mere wordplay closer to granting leeway than actual support. Either way I don't see how either would force me to condone actions taken in their name. I have to admit I'd have difficulty to decide between voting for them (which I'd consider actual support) or accepting laws as described in this post. Thankfully I haven't had to make such a choice, yet.
- PavlovsCat 8y agoThat support bit was snarky, I must admit. But the original comment still says they'd "cheer for fascists" because this proposal is so bad. Because that means they hate the EU, and just want to see it hurt. You instead are talking about how not restricting speech would also allow fascists freedom of speech, which is something else. That makes sense on the top level or attached to other comments, but in this "timeline", the boat has sailed, and "cheering for fascists" in preference to this proposal is what is on the table.
- contravariant 8y agoFair enough, but I still don't agree with your position that 'cheering for fascists' is that extreme an action in the face of legislation that infringes on free speech. Especially since as you've noted, being in favour of freedom of speech already means you need to grant fascists leeway (cheering them on is different, that much we agree on). Of course cheering on fascists is unlikely to to lead to more freedom of speech, so in that sense I don't think it's a truly worthwhile course of action.