3 ms·

I would argue that they removed the first one who was dumb enough to out themselves with a like button click. There are many more who will just keep a lower pro

I would argue that they removed the first one who was dumb enough to out themselves with a like button click. There are many more who will just keep a lower profile. Regardless, I just can’t bring myself to accept the idea that clicking a thumbs up emoji can send you to prison. I don’t care how bad the picture is. That doesn’t sit right.

luckylion 6y ago
Sure, others may keep a low profile, but one less on the street is a good thing. And I doubt that most of them can keep a low profile - only the elite of islamists can pretend not to be, the vast majority is obvious. The same applies to all extremists. I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mulmen 6y ago
  > I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow. This is a dog whistle. There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. I completely reject that kind of racist, xenophobic nonsense. This is also incredibly shortsighted. Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? It’s the most elementary freedom of speech argument.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. No, but you can't deport citizens, and you can deport foreigners. There's no point in dealing with trouble makers if you can just avoid them. > Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? Those are good points, and I don't have the answers. I'm not suggesting actual policy, I'm saying that you can't ignore them or "agree to disagree" with them and keep a free and open society. You have to choose, and I value society more than being nice to every person on earth.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      The dog whistle is that "troublemakers" are somehow correlated with immigrants in any meaningful way. The laws on speech should apply equally to citizens and immigrants because if they are based on preventing harm to society then it doesn't matter who commits them. If the laws on speech are designed to target immigrants disproportionately then they aren't really based on preventing harm, they are simply xenophobic.

luckylion 6y ago

Sure, others may keep a low profile, but one less on the street is a good thing. And I doubt that most of them can keep a low profile - only the elite of islamists can pretend not to be, the vast majority is obvious. The same applies to all extremists. I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mulmen 6y ago
> I don't like the concept either, but short of deporting them wholesale, there's little other possibilities if you wish to live in a society tomorrow. This is a dog whistle. There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. I completely reject that kind of racist, xenophobic nonsense. This is also incredibly shortsighted. Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? It’s the most elementary freedom of speech argument.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > There appears to be an implication that only immigrants or minorities need to be charged for their speech and that only immigrants or minorities can be radicalized. No, but you can't deport citizens, and you can deport foreigners. There's no point in dealing with trouble makers if you can just avoid them. > Who decides what is severe enough to justify charges? What if your ideas are deemed too harmful? Those are good points, and I don't have the answers. I'm not suggesting actual policy, I'm saying that you can't ignore them or "agree to disagree" with them and keep a free and open society. You have to choose, and I value society more than being nice to every person on earth.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    The dog whistle is that "troublemakers" are somehow correlated with immigrants in any meaningful way. The laws on speech should apply equally to citizens and immigrants because if they are based on preventing harm to society then it doesn't matter who commits them. If the laws on speech are designed to target immigrants disproportionately then they aren't really based on preventing harm, they are simply xenophobic.