3 ms·
Yes, but I think trying to map out indirect violence gets into very dangerous territory. So, that's why I draw the line at "directly" advocating violence. Of c
by ryankemper 6y ago
Yes, but I think trying to map out indirect violence gets into very dangerous territory. So, that's why I draw the line at "directly" advocating violence.
Of course, the lines as always get blurry. To use a random example that comes to mind, when Kathy Griffin posted the severed head of Trump - was that a direct call to violence? That's a tough one to answer. My first intuition is that it does cross the line, but I could very easily see an argument that it's not.
So unfortunately there will always be that difficulty, unless we committed to an absolutist position of not removing ANY speech. I drink a lot of the kool-aid, and even I don't go that far.
- cutemonster 6y ago> not removing ANY speech. That causes genocides to happen though -- are you okay with that or did you not know
- ryankemper 6y agoSorry, can you clarify? Are you saying removing speech causes genocides, or not removing speech at all?
- CamperBob2 6y agoNo, people with guns and uniforms cause genocide. People with pens and typewriters have never harmed a hair on anyone's head. To disagree is to argue that human beings are nothing but programmable devices. If that's your position, fine, but we'll have to disagree.
- hef19898 6y agoGoebbels might want to have a word.
- CamperBob2 6y agoReally? Who did Goebbels kill, and with what implements? He certainly did a number on his family, but he used cyanide pills for that, not words. (If words are weapons, are downvotes assaults?)