4 ms·
Exactly and what he writes about Germany is wrong: > Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet No you can criticize all y
by WA 1y ago
Exactly and what he writes about Germany is wrong:
> Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet
No you can criticize all you want. You just can’t insult them. Free speech is different in Germany than in the US. Insulting people isn’t covered by free speech.
Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate, but Durov’s statement is plain wrong.
- rockskon 1y agoSounds like a recipe for the powerful dehumanizing people using polite words and those being dehumanized being handcuffed in the range of legal responses they can make in return.
- oblio 1y agoAt the end of the day, powerful people will still have the upper hand anywhere in the world, you're bringing up a red herring. It's not like by going for an ad hominem you automatically win back the argument.
- rockskon 1y agoNo, but denying people the ability to express part of the human condition under reasonable circumstances is cruel.
- oblio 1y agoAren't you grasping at straws, at this point? The rule says: don't insult. Is it so hard to verbally destroy a person's stance on something without insulting the person itself?
- lostmsu 1y agoIt might be if the other side is allowed to insult.
- oblio 1y agoAre we talking about kids in a backyard here or about "powerful people", presumably engaged in a political struggle? Has insulting anyone ever stopped anything?
- lostmsu 1y agoThe answer is, unfortunately, yes. The problem is the court of public opinion can easily be swayed by insulting someone, and if that someone can not insult back, that's a political instrument that gives asymmetrical power to the current rulers.
- oblio 1y agoI'm guess I'm too European for this discussion to make a lot of sense.
- lostmsu 1y agoThis shit was literally invented in Europe. > No one can say that your propaganda is too crude or low or brutal, or that it is not decent enough, for those are not the relevant criteria. Its purpose is not to be decent, or gentle, or weak, or modest; it is to be successful. From https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb54.htm https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb54...
- oblio 1y agoThis discussion has officially fallen off any reasonable rails.
- rockskon 1y agoWhen you are some random person on social media, you aren't likely gonna be debating a policymaker or talking head. Not being allowed to express anger without risking legal penalties is cruel. I stand by that.
- andrewflnr 1y ago> powerful people will still have the upper hand anywhere So just give up on trying to keep the powerful in check with laws? No? Then what are you saying? Why not consider how this notion of banning "insult" is guaranteed to be abused?
- esseph 1y agoThe CEO of that healthcare company probably thought the same thing.
- oblio 1y agoYeah, that sure showed those greedy healthcare CEOs in the US. The US almost managed to get universal healthcare out of it. Sarcasm aside, what kind of argument is that? And how is it related to what I'm saying?
- esseph 1y ago> Yeah, that sure showed those greedy healthcare CEOs in the US. Yeah, it scared the hell out of them: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/corporate-america-boosts-security-spending-after-unitedhealth-murder-filings-2025-04-28/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unitedhealth-spent-1-7-million-084000038.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unitedhealth-spent-1-7-millio... ... avoiding losing C-level executives could very quickly become an exercise in corporate cost avoidance, as the expenses of additional layers of security cost more than a change in corporate behavior... where paying more attention to customers reduces shareholder risk in executive turnover.
- sam_lowry_ 1y ago> You just can’t insult them Oh those snowflake politicians! When do they grow thick skin? /s