4 ms·

> I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that'

by cmh89 4y ago

> I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind You're acting as though the likely outcome of neo-nazi groups is some skinhead trying to fight you. What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue. >Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. This is simply nonsense. Pretty much every group in the country has a contingent that wants speech against them regulated

wonderwonder 4y ago
There are always consequences to freedom of ideas. Some good, some bad. The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship. I think people that attack others verbally for who or what they are are bad people. I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse. It's all good when the leaders we like are in power and stifle the speech of those we disagree with. It's not so fun when the pendulum swings and those we disagree with have that power. "What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue." Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? The only way to eliminate violence based on ideals is to eliminate free will. 1984 here we come.
- cmh89 4y ago
  >The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship. That's not true. Nazi ideology is banned in Germany, and they are a far healthier democracy than the United States. > I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse. So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot? > Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? You're making up things that I 'believe'. I don't personally think that nazi ideology should be banned. I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense. The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism, not street fights you can be prepared for or defend yourself against.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    "So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?" That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder. "I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense". Cool, I still support near absolute free speech. Nazis are banned in Germany as a result of WW2 and was part of their rehabilitation. Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? Biden? Trump? Desantis? Elizabeth Warren? The supreme court? I agree Nazis are bad, I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      >That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case. >I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder. Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction. >Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? That power already resides with Congress and then hypothetically the Supreme Court. Functioning democracies can have conversations and then decide when, where, and how to restrict speech. We've been doing that for 250 years. >I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas. We've already established that you think the government can and should restrict ideas. 'Free speech absolutist' are rarely actually absolutist.
      - wonderwonder 4y ago
        Never claimed to be an absolutist. In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence." There are likely other crime related caveats. Now with that said I am not advocating for freedom from social consequences just preventing the state from using its lock on violence to implement those consequences. "I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction." I do think its an appropriate reaction. Again large difference between saying something mean about a group of people and calling for their murder. I think anti-trans people are bad, just like I think the same of anti anything people. I just think banning speech is worse. I support government restricted speech in the context of preventing physical harm, that's pretty much it. You are right that congress creates the laws but in most cases the supreme court is going to prevent things that are overruled by the 1st. As it should be. My main point is that saying speech is violence makes no sense. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. We spend 99% of our time worrying about things that in reality have no effect on our lives. If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Stop worrying about pointless nonsense.

by cmh89 4y ago

wonderwonder 4y ago

There are always consequences to freedom of ideas. Some good, some bad. The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship. I think people that attack others verbally for who or what they are are bad people. I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse. It's all good when the leaders we like are in power and stifle the speech of those we disagree with. It's not so fun when the pendulum swings and those we disagree with have that power. "What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue." Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? The only way to eliminate violence based on ideals is to eliminate free will. 1984 here we come.

cmh89 4y ago
>The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship. That's not true. Nazi ideology is banned in Germany, and they are a far healthier democracy than the United States. > I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse. So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot? > Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? You're making up things that I 'believe'. I don't personally think that nazi ideology should be banned. I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense. The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism, not street fights you can be prepared for or defend yourself against.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  "So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?" That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder. "I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense". Cool, I still support near absolute free speech. Nazis are banned in Germany as a result of WW2 and was part of their rehabilitation. Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? Biden? Trump? Desantis? Elizabeth Warren? The supreme court? I agree Nazis are bad, I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
  - cmh89 4y ago
    >That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case. >I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder. Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction. >Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? That power already resides with Congress and then hypothetically the Supreme Court. Functioning democracies can have conversations and then decide when, where, and how to restrict speech. We've been doing that for 250 years. >I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas. We've already established that you think the government can and should restrict ideas. 'Free speech absolutist' are rarely actually absolutist.
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      Never claimed to be an absolutist. In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence." There are likely other crime related caveats. Now with that said I am not advocating for freedom from social consequences just preventing the state from using its lock on violence to implement those consequences. "I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction." I do think its an appropriate reaction. Again large difference between saying something mean about a group of people and calling for their murder. I think anti-trans people are bad, just like I think the same of anti anything people. I just think banning speech is worse. I support government restricted speech in the context of preventing physical harm, that's pretty much it. You are right that congress creates the laws but in most cases the supreme court is going to prevent things that are overruled by the 1st. As it should be. My main point is that saying speech is violence makes no sense. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. We spend 99% of our time worrying about things that in reality have no effect on our lives. If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Stop worrying about pointless nonsense.