3 ms·

i see your point, but we should draw a line between malevolence that we teach our children so they're well-informed and malevolence that borders on hate crimes.

i see your point, but we should draw a line between malevolence that we teach our children so they're well-informed and malevolence that borders on hate crimes. such behavior will never go away, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take actions against them. when TikTok says the comment that told them to end their life has "no violation," it's deeply hurtful and traumatic, and there's no life lesson to be learned here. we have laws and guidelines for a reason. we enforce them so that we have a functioning society.

wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
There are many lessons to learn here. Dont be thin skinned online. Evil is real, etc. Dwtermine your value by your own self estimation, not an anonymous vote. (extremely important lesson in a social media world) Many many lessons. We have laws, but that mere fact is not an excuse to make any and every law so it is not a very strong point. Besides, free speech is law, and it is constantly enforced. It is law. And it was a law very intentionally created so that we can have a functioning society, explicitly made from the perspective of someone who was subjected to restrected speech from another government. Free speech is a rare liberty that only the most prosperous nations enjoy, and had to be payed for with millions of bodies and blood. I highly recommend talking to an older person who fled the soviet union. Side point, I do not believe in hate crime as distinguished from crime. Crime is crime. If I murder someone is it twice as immoral if they are black? There should be no distinction. The mere existence of a legal distinction violates my good sense.
- seanvelasco 2y ago
  let's just agree to disagree. my point is, hate speech such as pushing others to commit suicide or promoting their genocide, should definitely removed in any platform. saying "don't be thin-skinned" to a person who just received death threats is pathological. hate speech is definitely not free speech. and addressing hate speech does not limit free speech. on your advice on talking to an older person, i do have grandparents who were silenced by an oppressive regime. my advice to you is, talk to the people who were actually receiving these hateful comments, perhaps you'd be enlightened.
  - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
    Hate speech should be allowed if we had real free speech. Until someone physicially violates your body or your property it should not be a crime. It is legal to vehemently dislike someone/something for arbitrary reasons. It should be legal to both think and advocate for whatever you want. It should be legal to have any qualitative experience short of violating someones physical property. Every male under 35 has been told to kill themselves on teamspeak/xbox live 1000 times and were fine. Just ignore it. Stop advocating to put us all in a police state because some people dont know how to not look at their phone screen for five seconds, or close their laptop. Its tiktok. It is 90% ads and 9.9% trash anyways. Just uninstall the app.

wegfawefgawefg 2y ago

There are many lessons to learn here. Dont be thin skinned online. Evil is real, etc. Dwtermine your value by your own self estimation, not an anonymous vote. (extremely important lesson in a social media world) Many many lessons. We have laws, but that mere fact is not an excuse to make any and every law so it is not a very strong point. Besides, free speech is law, and it is constantly enforced. It is law. And it was a law very intentionally created so that we can have a functioning society, explicitly made from the perspective of someone who was subjected to restrected speech from another government. Free speech is a rare liberty that only the most prosperous nations enjoy, and had to be payed for with millions of bodies and blood. I highly recommend talking to an older person who fled the soviet union. Side point, I do not believe in hate crime as distinguished from crime. Crime is crime. If I murder someone is it twice as immoral if they are black? There should be no distinction. The mere existence of a legal distinction violates my good sense.

seanvelasco 2y ago
let's just agree to disagree. my point is, hate speech such as pushing others to commit suicide or promoting their genocide, should definitely removed in any platform. saying "don't be thin-skinned" to a person who just received death threats is pathological. hate speech is definitely not free speech. and addressing hate speech does not limit free speech. on your advice on talking to an older person, i do have grandparents who were silenced by an oppressive regime. my advice to you is, talk to the people who were actually receiving these hateful comments, perhaps you'd be enlightened.
- wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
  Hate speech should be allowed if we had real free speech. Until someone physicially violates your body or your property it should not be a crime. It is legal to vehemently dislike someone/something for arbitrary reasons. It should be legal to both think and advocate for whatever you want. It should be legal to have any qualitative experience short of violating someones physical property. Every male under 35 has been told to kill themselves on teamspeak/xbox live 1000 times and were fine. Just ignore it. Stop advocating to put us all in a police state because some people dont know how to not look at their phone screen for five seconds, or close their laptop. Its tiktok. It is 90% ads and 9.9% trash anyways. Just uninstall the app.