8 ms·

>>Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? Maybe (if it's about black or white), but anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in t

>>Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? Maybe (if it's about black or white), but anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world.

alt227 2y ago
> anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with?
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  >So are we seeing full free speech in action? Even free speech has its limits...for example calling for the extermination of a race. >Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with? Correct, most of the time it is, and that is exactly why laws (esp. international ones) exist and Justitia is/should be blind.
  - alt227 2y ago
    > Even free speech has its limits It doesnt though, thats the point. Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business. With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listening to that person. They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence. In reality, people are weak and do not do these things. They keep buying the terrible products because they dont want to have to think about looking for a better alternative. They keep listening to the hate speech because its easier to respond in anger than to ignore the person. The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world. Again in reality this wioll never happen, and so people will keep shouting and shouting about what they dont like until the world ends up destroying itself through hate and anger.
    - robin_reala 2y ago
      The free market on its own doesn’t work, that’s why we have regulation in place to guide it to a place that minimises the long term damage while consumers try to maximise the short-term benefit. It’s an interesting analogy to free speech.
      - alt227 2y ago
        > It’s an interesting analogy to free speech. I agree, thanks for pointing that out. There are nuances on both sides which make it an interesting thought experiment to apply to the other side.
    - manwe150 2y ago
      Free speech in the US means they cannot make specific laws against proposing ideas, but a long history of legal cases does mean there are cases when you can be civilly or criminally liable if your words lead others to harmful actions
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Its a weird grey area for sure. The best rationalization I have ever come up with is that when speech involves a legitimate threat to do harm, for example, that skips past just speech and can be seen as a step in actively planning to do harm. In certain situations, like murder or terrorism, we've agreed that simply planning to do it is a crime. Combine the two and it isn't that you said something that is illegal, its that the statement is interpreted as a clear signal of actively planning to do something which itself is illegal.
        Y_Y 2y ago
        That's a good rationalization indeed! It makes sense that you should be able to think and say "Y_Y is a jerk who deserves to die", but if you say it to my face then I might be reasonably upset to the point of considerable emotional harm, or if you say it from your pulpit it could reasonably be interpreted by one of your followers as an instruction to commit murder. The speech alone isn't the crime, but you can certainly commit different crimes purely by speaking (though the context is determinative).
  - scarab92 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - edmundsauto 2y ago
      I see it a bit differently. Progressives tend to believe speech can have limits, and generally support private citizens and companies enforcing it through shame etc. Elon touts being a free speech absolutist, but limits speech on his platform in a … whimsical … manner.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      There's nothing inconsistent with people who don't call themselves "free speech absolutists" not being free speech absolutists. There's a lot inconsistent with someone masquerading as a "free speech absolutist" whilst actually drawing the line in a different place, in this case a place which has all sorts of arbitrary new offences like references to the word "cis", ADS-B feeds, and parody accounts and whatever else has annoyed him recently whilst removing more posts at government request than his predecessors, but is mostly cool with racial hatred.
      - scarab92 2y ago
        [flagged]
        fzeroracer 2y ago
        Elon Musk literally said he's a free speech absolutist multiple times.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600
    - BSDobelix 2y ago
      >Pick a lane. No, a good society should not pick lanes, but cherries.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence. I make no claim against you, but this framing represents the insidiously successful repackaging of hate as an "equal right", which racists have used to mainstream hateful ideas that, at-scale, ultimately infringe on the rights of groups of people. This can include (has included) incitement to violence. The latter is famously a limitation of free speech, and all rights are generally circumscribed by their infringement on the rights of others, in any case. The other insidiously misleading argument around this issue is that Twitter is enforcing "free speech" in the first place. Only the government can infringe on the right, as it restrains only the government. Twitter is no "protector" of free speech, because it cannot be. It can, however, make the choice to allow and promote hateful speech against others, and that's exactly what it's doing. So, the argument here is not whether promoting rights is good for society. The argument is whether promoting hate is good for society.
  - throwaway93140 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - alt227 2y ago
    > To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence. I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist' or any other word. You are applying your opionin and bias to other people arguments to paint one side better than the other. Take this same opinion and apply it to Israel/Palestine, and suddenly it becomes not so clear cut. Both sides claim something about the other side, and both are killing each other because if it. In this instance, who would you call hateful and racist? It completely depends on who you sympathise with as there is no correct answer here. It is no different to any other groups of people who you are not part of.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
immibis 2y ago
[flagged]
- alphan0n 2y ago
  Pro-Palestinian usage of the slur coined by David Duke on Twitter is a clue there.
  - immibis 2y ago
    I had to look up what word you could possibly be talking about. You mean "Zionist"? How is that a slur? It's what the movement calls itself. That's like saying "Nazi" is a slur against Adolf Hitler.
    - alphan0n 2y ago
      Zio is the slur. Obviously David Duke did not coin the term Zionist.
hiddencost 2y ago
Pretty much anytime sometime says "antisemitism" these days what they mean is "opposing genocide". The Jewish people who are against genocide really do not appreciate people like you staining them with that lie.
- guappa 2y ago
  In Italy even saying "stop genocide" without further elaboration on state tv is enough to get the Israelian ambassador to call the prime minister. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2024/02/14/travaglio-a-la7-se-ghali-dice-stop-al-genocidio-e-israele-si-incazza-vuol-dire-che-hanno-la-coda-di-paglia-botta-e-risposta-con-sechi/7445976/ https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2024/02/14/travaglio-a-la7-...
  - cowboylowrez 2y ago
    yeah but thats like saying I as an american have to be personally responsible for trump's behavior
    - guappa 2y ago
      That's completely different. People criticise trump without being accused of wanting to exterminate the entire population of the USA. But if you criticise israel, that's the standard answer you get.
      - cowboylowrez 2y ago
        I think part of the problem is that so many folks think its somehow Israel's job to absorb terrorist acts without any military response. I for one won't be part of that. Gaza seems to me to be little more than an Iranian military outpost from which they can launch attacks on Israel. I don't blame folks for being tired of this, but Gaza chose this route just like we in the US chose ours. Gaza made an extremely gross and unwise decision to go with the hamas losers. Its natural when a country picks poor quality folks to run their government that there may be consequences for their unwise choice. That goes for any country who picks the wrong leaders. I'm sure during world war 2 the civilians inhabiting axis territories probably experienced things you guys would call genocide. All people need to do is to come up with something other than the complete destruction of Israel, and maybe there could be the start of a peace process.
LocalH 2y ago
"Antisemitic" is also being thrown around a lot towards people who aren't actually saying antisemitic things, but rather criticizing the government of Israel and their actions that take place under color of law.
- dartos 2y ago
  That is true, but Jew hating people are quite prominent on Twitter. Just look how many likes Ye’s “I AM A NAZI” tweet has…
- bad_user 2y ago
  You're not wrong, but lately, criticism of Israel includes its right to exist, and while anti-Zionism isn't technically anti-Semitism, in practice it is. Furthermore, the pro-Palestine crowd includes many textbook anti-Semites.
- diggan 2y ago
  Yeah, lots of name-calling going around everywhere for sure. We used to have to word "Anti-Zionist" for people against like what Israel is engaging in now, but at one point it feels like the term was "hijacked" and Zionist/Anti-Zionist is now part of forgotten terminology. "Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > "Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again. Another part of the issue is that especially among young people, words have lost their meanings. Everything is toxic, a genocide, sexual assault, rape, cultural appropriation, god knows what else - the room for nuances in discussion has been entirely lost because large parts of society lack the vocabulary to talk about it, 1984 says hello. The combination of hyper-social media, ever shorter dopamine feedings / gamification and a complete lack of awareness for the importance of basic education and history are disastrous.

>>Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? Maybe (if it's about black or white), but anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world.

alt227 2y ago

> anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with?

BSDobelix 2y ago
>So are we seeing full free speech in action? Even free speech has its limits...for example calling for the extermination of a race. >Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with? Correct, most of the time it is, and that is exactly why laws (esp. international ones) exist and Justitia is/should be blind.
- alt227 2y ago
  > Even free speech has its limits It doesnt though, thats the point. Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business. With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listening to that person. They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence. In reality, people are weak and do not do these things. They keep buying the terrible products because they dont want to have to think about looking for a better alternative. They keep listening to the hate speech because its easier to respond in anger than to ignore the person. The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world. Again in reality this wioll never happen, and so people will keep shouting and shouting about what they dont like until the world ends up destroying itself through hate and anger.
  - robin_reala 2y ago
    The free market on its own doesn’t work, that’s why we have regulation in place to guide it to a place that minimises the long term damage while consumers try to maximise the short-term benefit. It’s an interesting analogy to free speech.
    - alt227 2y ago
      > It’s an interesting analogy to free speech. I agree, thanks for pointing that out. There are nuances on both sides which make it an interesting thought experiment to apply to the other side.
  - manwe150 2y ago
    Free speech in the US means they cannot make specific laws against proposing ideas, but a long history of legal cases does mean there are cases when you can be civilly or criminally liable if your words lead others to harmful actions
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Its a weird grey area for sure. The best rationalization I have ever come up with is that when speech involves a legitimate threat to do harm, for example, that skips past just speech and can be seen as a step in actively planning to do harm. In certain situations, like murder or terrorism, we've agreed that simply planning to do it is a crime. Combine the two and it isn't that you said something that is illegal, its that the statement is interpreted as a clear signal of actively planning to do something which itself is illegal.
      - Y_Y 2y ago
        That's a good rationalization indeed! It makes sense that you should be able to think and say "Y_Y is a jerk who deserves to die", but if you say it to my face then I might be reasonably upset to the point of considerable emotional harm, or if you say it from your pulpit it could reasonably be interpreted by one of your followers as an instruction to commit murder. The speech alone isn't the crime, but you can certainly commit different crimes purely by speaking (though the context is determinative).
- scarab92 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    I see it a bit differently. Progressives tend to believe speech can have limits, and generally support private citizens and companies enforcing it through shame etc. Elon touts being a free speech absolutist, but limits speech on his platform in a … whimsical … manner.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    There's nothing inconsistent with people who don't call themselves "free speech absolutists" not being free speech absolutists. There's a lot inconsistent with someone masquerading as a "free speech absolutist" whilst actually drawing the line in a different place, in this case a place which has all sorts of arbitrary new offences like references to the word "cis", ADS-B feeds, and parody accounts and whatever else has annoyed him recently whilst removing more posts at government request than his predecessors, but is mostly cool with racial hatred.
    - scarab92 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - fzeroracer 2y ago
        Elon Musk literally said he's a free speech absolutist multiple times.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    >Pick a lane. No, a good society should not pick lanes, but cherries.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence. I make no claim against you, but this framing represents the insidiously successful repackaging of hate as an "equal right", which racists have used to mainstream hateful ideas that, at-scale, ultimately infringe on the rights of groups of people. This can include (has included) incitement to violence. The latter is famously a limitation of free speech, and all rights are generally circumscribed by their infringement on the rights of others, in any case. The other insidiously misleading argument around this issue is that Twitter is enforcing "free speech" in the first place. Only the government can infringe on the right, as it restrains only the government. Twitter is no "protector" of free speech, because it cannot be. It can, however, make the choice to allow and promote hateful speech against others, and that's exactly what it's doing. So, the argument here is not whether promoting rights is good for society. The argument is whether promoting hate is good for society.
- throwaway93140 2y ago
  [flagged]
- alt227 2y ago
  > To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence. I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist' or any other word. You are applying your opionin and bias to other people arguments to paint one side better than the other. Take this same opinion and apply it to Israel/Palestine, and suddenly it becomes not so clear cut. Both sides claim something about the other side, and both are killing each other because if it. In this instance, who would you call hateful and racist? It completely depends on who you sympathise with as there is no correct answer here. It is no different to any other groups of people who you are not part of.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

immibis 2y ago

[flagged]

alphan0n 2y ago
Pro-Palestinian usage of the slur coined by David Duke on Twitter is a clue there.
- immibis 2y ago
  I had to look up what word you could possibly be talking about. You mean "Zionist"? How is that a slur? It's what the movement calls itself. That's like saying "Nazi" is a slur against Adolf Hitler.
  - alphan0n 2y ago
    Zio is the slur. Obviously David Duke did not coin the term Zionist.

hiddencost 2y ago

Pretty much anytime sometime says "antisemitism" these days what they mean is "opposing genocide". The Jewish people who are against genocide really do not appreciate people like you staining them with that lie.

guappa 2y ago
In Italy even saying "stop genocide" without further elaboration on state tv is enough to get the Israelian ambassador to call the prime minister. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2024/02/14/travaglio-a-la7-se-ghali-dice-stop-al-genocidio-e-israele-si-incazza-vuol-dire-che-hanno-la-coda-di-paglia-botta-e-risposta-con-sechi/7445976/ https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2024/02/14/travaglio-a-la7-...
- cowboylowrez 2y ago
  yeah but thats like saying I as an american have to be personally responsible for trump's behavior
  - guappa 2y ago
    That's completely different. People criticise trump without being accused of wanting to exterminate the entire population of the USA. But if you criticise israel, that's the standard answer you get.
    - cowboylowrez 2y ago
      I think part of the problem is that so many folks think its somehow Israel's job to absorb terrorist acts without any military response. I for one won't be part of that. Gaza seems to me to be little more than an Iranian military outpost from which they can launch attacks on Israel. I don't blame folks for being tired of this, but Gaza chose this route just like we in the US chose ours. Gaza made an extremely gross and unwise decision to go with the hamas losers. Its natural when a country picks poor quality folks to run their government that there may be consequences for their unwise choice. That goes for any country who picks the wrong leaders. I'm sure during world war 2 the civilians inhabiting axis territories probably experienced things you guys would call genocide. All people need to do is to come up with something other than the complete destruction of Israel, and maybe there could be the start of a peace process.

LocalH 2y ago

"Antisemitic" is also being thrown around a lot towards people who aren't actually saying antisemitic things, but rather criticizing the government of Israel and their actions that take place under color of law.

dartos 2y ago
That is true, but Jew hating people are quite prominent on Twitter. Just look how many likes Ye’s “I AM A NAZI” tweet has…
bad_user 2y ago
You're not wrong, but lately, criticism of Israel includes its right to exist, and while anti-Zionism isn't technically anti-Semitism, in practice it is. Furthermore, the pro-Palestine crowd includes many textbook anti-Semites.
diggan 2y ago
Yeah, lots of name-calling going around everywhere for sure. We used to have to word "Anti-Zionist" for people against like what Israel is engaging in now, but at one point it feels like the term was "hijacked" and Zionist/Anti-Zionist is now part of forgotten terminology. "Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > "Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again. Another part of the issue is that especially among young people, words have lost their meanings. Everything is toxic, a genocide, sexual assault, rape, cultural appropriation, god knows what else - the room for nuances in discussion has been entirely lost because large parts of society lack the vocabulary to talk about it, 1984 says hello. The combination of hyper-social media, ever shorter dopamine feedings / gamification and a complete lack of awareness for the importance of basic education and history are disastrous.