4 ms·

>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 eno

by 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.
- cmh89 4y ago
  >Never claimed to be an absolutist. You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship" >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." That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaningless term in regards to actual regulation and laws. >e. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. The focus is on people who have their loved ones massacred because of people who were riled up online. >If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case. If if was, there wouldn't be very many people left at all. 99.999999% of the time JewHater99 is just going to go about living a normal life and continue posting anonymously on the web.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      >hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.
      - wonderwonder 4y ago
        Pretty sure it was. "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." "The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism" "Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might"

by cmh89 4y ago

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.

cmh89 4y ago
>Never claimed to be an absolutist. You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship" >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." That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaningless term in regards to actual regulation and laws. >e. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. The focus is on people who have their loved ones massacred because of people who were riled up online. >If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case. If if was, there wouldn't be very many people left at all. 99.999999% of the time JewHater99 is just going to go about living a normal life and continue posting anonymously on the web.
  - cmh89 4y ago
    >hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      Pretty sure it was. "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." "The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism" "Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might"