3 ms·
It took 2000 years of anti-Jewish hatred and even then it required violence for Nazis to "win" that argument. The anti-Jewish hatred was protected by blasphemy
by brigandish 6y ago
It took 2000 years of anti-Jewish hatred and even then it required violence for Nazis to "win" that argument. The anti-Jewish hatred was protected by blasphemy laws, and the Nazis were banned in the 1920s and several of them prosecuted under hate speech laws. And then there was no freedom of speech in Nazi Germany.
Hardly a glowing recommendation for limits on speech. It's easy to argue against National Socialism and it's easy to argue against anti-Semitism as long as free speech is allowed. Allow people to argue instead of fight violently and the better argument will win.
If you don't think you have a better argument than a Nazi then I'm really worried for you.
- anarchop 6y agoThe actions of the police officers was an atrocity. However I think the Milgram experiments have more to say for this than racism. Free speech ‘ain’t about the speech that is acceptable , it’s about protecting that which is despicable. As for underlying causes for the riots: government bailouts, financialisation, destruction of the American dream, welfare dependence, media sewn division of racism but not actual racism. Where is the data to support anything but equal social progress of local born African American’s on average visa vi “whites”? Where is the data to show that skin colour matters in America, despite Asian American’s and Nigerian American’s exceeding economic outcomes of average American’s by significant double digits levels?
- metalgearsolid3 6y agoWas I making an argument?