4 ms·

If I had enough points to flag this or downvote it, I would. What you've said here is not at all useful to anyone. You've expressed nothing except "what about

If I had enough points to flag this or downvote it, I would. What you've said here is not at all useful to anyone. You've expressed nothing except "what about those people I don't like?" So what? You don't like them. You've spent an awful lot of your post name-calling all the people you don't like. However, not everyone shares your view of a) the people you don't like or b) how they should treat the people that you, personally, do not like. This other user has created a platform that seems useful, and made very clear where their line is on what is and is not acceptable on their platform. It's quite obvious that they hold different views on how the people you, personally, do not like should be treated, and their view is one that I think is consistent with a) the historically prevailing view, at least in America, and b) the historically prevailing view in the hacker community. It is you who are the outlier, and while it is fine to be the outlier, you cannot and ought not impose your repressive views on everyone else.

russdpale 5y ago
The prevailing view in the hacker community is to coddle and make safe havens for fascists? When did that happen?
- brigandish 5y ago
  Fascism (and other forms of tyrany) can't exist in the face of free speech which is why tyrants always seek to control and limit all forms of communication. The coddling of fascism happened in Europe in the first half of the 20th century because speech was not free. America, however, even allows Nazis to march and it's doing better than places like France and Germany with their web of speech laws. In short, you have it the wrong way round.
  - russdpale 5y ago
    weaponized speech isn't free speech.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      There is no such thing as "weaponized" speech, speech cannot be a weapon as it does not do physical harm. It can certainly provoke the use of weapons but we already have laws against the use of weapons and as speech is not a necessary cause in the vast majority of cases then it would be silly to make a rule against it. If you disagree then my rebuttal is to urge everyone who reads this to go on a killing spree. I confidently predict that no one will follow that exhortation, and if they did, that would be down to them as others could quite clearly control themselves better (the clue is in control themselves). Secondly, "hate" speech, "weaponized" speech, objectionable speech, rude speech, loud speech, pick whatever adjective you like… are all free speech as long as they are free to be uttered without punishment, especially with respect to the law. You may claim the opposite but that would be you redefining what free speech is in a way that no one who has ever advocated for free speech has. You may as well tell people who are in a place where cannabis is legal that legal cannabis is not legal. You would simply be redefining things in a way that only suits you, but it would not be via reason and it certainly wouldn't be persuasive.
pinepage 5y ago
Thank you Gollapallli, said better than I could!

russdpale 5y ago

The prevailing view in the hacker community is to coddle and make safe havens for fascists? When did that happen?

brigandish 5y ago
Fascism (and other forms of tyrany) can't exist in the face of free speech which is why tyrants always seek to control and limit all forms of communication. The coddling of fascism happened in Europe in the first half of the 20th century because speech was not free. America, however, even allows Nazis to march and it's doing better than places like France and Germany with their web of speech laws. In short, you have it the wrong way round.
- russdpale 5y ago
  weaponized speech isn't free speech.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    There is no such thing as "weaponized" speech, speech cannot be a weapon as it does not do physical harm. It can certainly provoke the use of weapons but we already have laws against the use of weapons and as speech is not a necessary cause in the vast majority of cases then it would be silly to make a rule against it. If you disagree then my rebuttal is to urge everyone who reads this to go on a killing spree. I confidently predict that no one will follow that exhortation, and if they did, that would be down to them as others could quite clearly control themselves better (the clue is in control themselves). Secondly, "hate" speech, "weaponized" speech, objectionable speech, rude speech, loud speech, pick whatever adjective you like… are all free speech as long as they are free to be uttered without punishment, especially with respect to the law. You may claim the opposite but that would be you redefining what free speech is in a way that no one who has ever advocated for free speech has. You may as well tell people who are in a place where cannabis is legal that legal cannabis is not legal. You would simply be redefining things in a way that only suits you, but it would not be via reason and it certainly wouldn't be persuasive.

pinepage 5y ago

Thank you Gollapallli, said better than I could!