3 ms·

>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).

>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.
- ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
  > I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with either end of the political spectrum. There is no possible way this can simply be seen as as a disagreement between "two sides". Your attempt to equate this to the Israel/Palestine conflict is equally absurd. The Hamas and the government of Israel are both committing heinous acts of terrorism in the name of hatred, bigotry and racism.
  - alt227 2y ago
    Thats fine, we can disagree :) I dont agree with your definitions or opinions and thats OK, we have the right to do that. Are you affording me the same courtesy? Because it sounds like you are not.
    - ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
      Yeah, sure, you can have your opinions, I have never claimed otherwise. My opinion is that your opinion is absurd and apologetic of hatred and racism. It does not matter how politely you formulate your opinion if it legitimizes racism by reduction to a "two sides" argument. Merely existing as a religious or ethnic group is not the same as expressing an opinion, and it doesn't legitimize the expression of unqualified hatred towards the same group. We should tolerate the expression of opinions which we disagree with, but I think there is a limit, and we should not tolerate intolerance.
      - alt227 2y ago
        > It does not matter how politely you formulate your opinion if it legitimizes racism by reduction to a "two sides" argument. The problem is, and I'm sure you wont agree here, is that what constitutes racism is subjective. This is because the strength of the definition of 'prejudice' differs from person to person. Some people say racism is when you make big decisions that negatively affect a whole race of people, other people say its when you say a rude word to a black or gay person. See this enojoyable opinion of a black man on white peoples ideas of racism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8k5uj8AyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8k5uj8AyA There is no universal definition of racism which the whole world subscribes to. If you think there is, then you need to see that thats just your opinion and you have made yourself think everybody else agrees with you. It seems that you think you have your definition of racism wrapped up with a bow, and that the rest of the world should agree with you on what that is. Unfortunately the world doesnt work like that, and unless you are willing to discuss these things without calling the other side 'absurd' and actually start exploring these topics properly then it will always devolve into a 'sides' argument. > we should not tolerate intolerance But right now you are being intolerant of me, so should I not tolerate you back? Again, the definition of tolerance is subjective. Until we can all tolerate every other persons opinion to the point we can calmly debate it, then we will not get anywhere in purging prejudice from the world.

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.

ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
> I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with either end of the political spectrum. There is no possible way this can simply be seen as as a disagreement between "two sides". Your attempt to equate this to the Israel/Palestine conflict is equally absurd. The Hamas and the government of Israel are both committing heinous acts of terrorism in the name of hatred, bigotry and racism.
- alt227 2y ago
  Thats fine, we can disagree :) I dont agree with your definitions or opinions and thats OK, we have the right to do that. Are you affording me the same courtesy? Because it sounds like you are not.
  - ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
    Yeah, sure, you can have your opinions, I have never claimed otherwise. My opinion is that your opinion is absurd and apologetic of hatred and racism. It does not matter how politely you formulate your opinion if it legitimizes racism by reduction to a "two sides" argument. Merely existing as a religious or ethnic group is not the same as expressing an opinion, and it doesn't legitimize the expression of unqualified hatred towards the same group. We should tolerate the expression of opinions which we disagree with, but I think there is a limit, and we should not tolerate intolerance.
    - alt227 2y ago
      > It does not matter how politely you formulate your opinion if it legitimizes racism by reduction to a "two sides" argument. The problem is, and I'm sure you wont agree here, is that what constitutes racism is subjective. This is because the strength of the definition of 'prejudice' differs from person to person. Some people say racism is when you make big decisions that negatively affect a whole race of people, other people say its when you say a rude word to a black or gay person. See this enojoyable opinion of a black man on white peoples ideas of racism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8k5uj8AyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8k5uj8AyA There is no universal definition of racism which the whole world subscribes to. If you think there is, then you need to see that thats just your opinion and you have made yourself think everybody else agrees with you. It seems that you think you have your definition of racism wrapped up with a bow, and that the rest of the world should agree with you on what that is. Unfortunately the world doesnt work like that, and unless you are willing to discuss these things without calling the other side 'absurd' and actually start exploring these topics properly then it will always devolve into a 'sides' argument. > we should not tolerate intolerance But right now you are being intolerant of me, so should I not tolerate you back? Again, the definition of tolerance is subjective. Until we can all tolerate every other persons opinion to the point we can calmly debate it, then we will not get anywhere in purging prejudice from the world.