6 ms·
"Basic rights" is a subjective term and they're often in conflict with each other. Pro-choice vs pro-life being the classic example. If you believe freedom o
by tom-_- 6y ago
"Basic rights" is a subjective term and they're often in conflict with each other. Pro-choice vs pro-life being the classic example.
If you believe freedom of speech is a basic right, then you should also believe in protecting the right of bigots to spread diatribe.
- ethanbond 6y agoAnd I do believe that right ought to be protected. Nowhere in this thread is someone advocating that the state exercise its power to throw people with despicable beliefs in prison. This is about our society’s ability and justification to categorize beliefs into respectable or not. Some ideas are simply not deserving of respect, though of course all ideas are deserving of legal protection. Nazis are allowed to march down 5th Avenue and the people who call those beliefs despicable are not “just as bad as the other side.”
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago> "This is about our society’s ability and justification to categorize beliefs into respectable or not." Yes, and that ability does not include harassment, doxxing, threats, and attempting to induce employers and customers to end their relationships with them. That _is_ just as bad as the other side.
- ethanbond 6y agoWithout implying a defense of the behavior you listed: Maybe you should read more about the other side.
- ThrowawayR2 6y agoI know what their views are but thank you for your kind suggestion. However, I also know where rhetoric about "society’s ability and justification to categorize beliefs into respectable or not" leads. I stand by my opinion.
- cycomanic 6y agoSo are you OK with Isis advertising videos on YouTube? I'm asking because pretty much everyone has limits to what they say is acceptable free speech. Also the US (like many other nations, they are just the biggest kid on the block atm) has been constantly categorising what people in other countries are allowed to say, under the very real threat of violence. Is it OK if a country is doing it?
- legulere 6y agoIt often is, but sometimes those rights are only imagined rights. Does a right extremist have a right to have his race free from other races? You say yourself that rights are sometimes at conflict with each other. That requires that sometimes rights are restricted to a point that other rights are not infringed. For instance we lock up dangerous people. Why do you think is freedom of speech is some kind of super-right that triumphs over every other right? Is freedom of speech more important even when it’s used to incite genocide?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tom-_- 6y agoTherein lies the subjectivity. One person interprets neo Nazis rallies as inciting genocide. Another interprets it as a bunch of harmless nuts on parade.
- kls 6y agoNot to mention the act of genocide is the issue at hand. We keep talking Nazi's but there are people from all walks of life and races that would like to eliminate races unlike them. If they never put those thought into action they are harmless and those that advocate free speech are believers in intellect and rationalism as the winner of the day over ignorant thinking such as this, as it cannot be eliminated, and to completely eliminated it would necessitate genocide, the logic has a circularity to it. The issue at hand is some people want instant results where tolerance is a long game, that does not give them their click and get it now satisfaction.