Nah free speech means the government won’t stop you. It doesn’t mean we gotta listen to you or give you a platform for the hate whether it’s irl or online. Gotta read that first ammendment a bit more throughly my dude
I mean let’s be real, to 90% of these right wing nuts “freedom of speech” really just means “freedom to force other private parties to support, amplify, and endorse MY speech as I stifle the speech of those who disagree.”
Haha I’m guessing he was just in an argumentative mood and assumed all replies would be fighting with him. Sometimes that adrenaline kicks in when you see an Inbox notification.
See? You just totally abdicated any responsibility to allow others to speak. Why would you be so concerned with making sure it’s only government which has that responsibility, if you didn’t hate free speech?
Responsibility can only be taken, not given. So yeah, if you say that’s not your responsibility, then it’s not your responsibility. But choosing not to adopt that responsibility does indeed make you a hater of free speech.
I don’t hate free speech. There’s just nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation. Especially all the hate and misinformation that’s put me in danger for years because of me being queer or neurodivergent.
There’s nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation
Except for the concept of being open minded. The ethical imperative to face new information that’s not easy to process, so that you can respond to it instead of being blindsided by it.
Free speech is a responsibility held by all members of society, to maintain those channels of communication.
Just like a good general has a responsibility to hear emissaries of his enemy, no matter how bitterly hated that enemy is. There’s nothing that says he HAS to listen to that emissary … other than his responsibility to his troops.
Except when that is hate towards me for being queer or neurodivergent. I can and will block out hate speech towards me or other minorities that’s not based in reality. There’s a point where I will listen except when vitriol is spewed towards me for no reason. You’re attaching a tolerance to intolerance as if we have to listen to n@!is, racists or bigots just attacking everyone else for no good reason other than fox or Trump telling them so that these minorities are some threat that they’re not.
Take a step back and consider how stupid that sounds. The onus isn’t on others while you say stupid shit.
I mean consider even now… I’m not infringing on your free speech by telling you what you just said was misguided at best and as stupid as it sounds at worst.
You still got to say what you want. You can say it again too. Still sounds stupid the second time.
The reality is this isn’t about a person’s ability to say something so much as their bullshit argument.
When someone says “but I have the right!” what they’re really saying is they aren’t intelligent enough to have a good reason or justification. They’re instead screaming “well just cause I can!” It’s a privileged, ill reasoned, temper tantrum of an argument that amounts to “just cause I can.”
Yes, it is. It is natural to want to try and shut people up. Resisting the urge to manipulate and control others is work. We all have a responsibility toward a healthy society.
That’s why it’s prosocial when someone steps in for a person who’s being shouted down and puts his own skin on the line to say “let him talk”.
The fact you choose not to carry that burden doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
It’s weird to have someone argue that when the context of all this is support of antisemitism.
Of course it’s a positive to help support the voice of someone who might have theirs oppressed. But why go to such extremes to support the oppressor?
Why do you argue that we must advocate for the oppressor? Are we not allowed the freedom to speak up against those that oppress others? Is that speech not allowed?
You see how it’s a stupid circle of inductive reasoning that does nothing to help anyone? Bottom line is a rigid absolute, a utopia is a more destructive and stupid approach than the free speech for which you claim to advocate. Freedom isn’t possible is you tolerate intolerance.
Why does a foreign country have the absolute say on a principle/ ideology/ human right whatever you want to call it?
It doesn’t make sense. Are you telling me the ideology of freedom of speech only existed and only continues to exist because it is on a bit of paper written in a far away land?
In that “far away land”, yes, because the meaning of freedom of speech (as people, with great fatigue, have tried to tell you) is about consequences related to the government of that “far away land”
If we want to get to the heart of the matter, that people aren’t fond of your Musk fellating, inceldom riddled comment history that you possibly, unfortunately, decided to export from some sewer on Reddit, that’s not them hating free speech.
The meaning of those words is absolutely some law, whether natural or governmental, and depends entirely upon the context of the power structure involved.
If you got slapped in your goofy ass face every time you said, well let me just pull up a real, actual quote from you:
"Women do not want to help men but they expect help from them.
That doesn’t make me miserable that’s just accepting the world the way it is and it’s a life lesson men tend to learn the hard way."
If they slapped your extremely goofy, unserious face and called you a generalizing, pathetic, and small person, that wouldn’t be them hating free speech.
Hell, they’d be exercising it! How wonderful!
Now, if the government came to your door and impounded your 4 wheel drive incompetence with relationships, then you might have a victorious day in court.
Freedom to assault and freedom of speech are two different things.
I respect your right to say I got a goofy ass face and generalizing, pathetic, and small person. I’m truly happy you are able to do that. I just don’t think you disagreeing with me gives you the right to assault me.
Obviously that thread was full of generalisations and that wasn’t a all women situation it was more about the everyday occurances of everday men. It was written like that for simplicity rather than needed to and “not all but a lot of” every 5 seconds. Still stand by the spirit if that point, which was the important thing.
Uh yes actually if you physically strike a person when they say something you find “pathetic”, or any other adjective, you are in fact against free speech.
No that’s excercising freedom expression. You are free from persecution from the government, not ostracization socially. Nazis should be punched, not protected. There’s no such thing as free speech for Nazis. Same thing in this case, you say bullshit, people are “free” to react how they will to it.
Replace fellating with whatever synonym floats your puritanical boat brother. Nothing wrong with fellating dong but I don’t see the win in pleasuring fascists or otherwise awful people be it literally or figuratively
Nah free speech means the government won’t stop you. It doesn’t mean we gotta listen to you or give you a platform for the hate whether it’s irl or online. Gotta read that first ammendment a bit more throughly my dude
Lol cracks me up that there are people out there thinking free speech means people have to pay them advertising money no matter what you say.
I mean let’s be real, to 90% of these right wing nuts “freedom of speech” really just means “freedom to force other private parties to support, amplify, and endorse MY speech as I stifle the speech of those who disagree.”
You misread me, first ammendment protects you from the govt, not from others refusing to listen to you. Man you’re dense
They’re in agreement with you I believe ^^^
Ironic that you said they misread you…lol
Haha I’m guessing he was just in an argumentative mood and assumed all replies would be fighting with him. Sometimes that adrenaline kicks in when you see an Inbox notification.
See? You just totally abdicated any responsibility to allow others to speak. Why would you be so concerned with making sure it’s only government which has that responsibility, if you didn’t hate free speech?
Yeah not gonna gaslight me, buddy. It’s not my obligation to give anyone a platform for anything. Try again.
Responsibility can only be taken, not given. So yeah, if you say that’s not your responsibility, then it’s not your responsibility. But choosing not to adopt that responsibility does indeed make you a hater of free speech.
I guess I hate free speech, too, because I’m blocking you now. Die mad about it.
I probably won’t. I don’t even know who you are.
I’m just curious if I can still reply, when you’ve blocked me.
I don’t hate free speech. There’s just nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation. Especially all the hate and misinformation that’s put me in danger for years because of me being queer or neurodivergent.
Except for the concept of being open minded. The ethical imperative to face new information that’s not easy to process, so that you can respond to it instead of being blindsided by it.
Free speech is a responsibility held by all members of society, to maintain those channels of communication.
Just like a good general has a responsibility to hear emissaries of his enemy, no matter how bitterly hated that enemy is. There’s nothing that says he HAS to listen to that emissary … other than his responsibility to his troops.
Except when that is hate towards me for being queer or neurodivergent. I can and will block out hate speech towards me or other minorities that’s not based in reality. There’s a point where I will listen except when vitriol is spewed towards me for no reason. You’re attaching a tolerance to intolerance as if we have to listen to n@!is, racists or bigots just attacking everyone else for no good reason other than fox or Trump telling them so that these minorities are some threat that they’re not.
“Responsibility to allow”…?
Take a step back and consider how stupid that sounds. The onus isn’t on others while you say stupid shit.
I mean consider even now… I’m not infringing on your free speech by telling you what you just said was misguided at best and as stupid as it sounds at worst.
You still got to say what you want. You can say it again too. Still sounds stupid the second time.
The reality is this isn’t about a person’s ability to say something so much as their bullshit argument.
When someone says “but I have the right!” what they’re really saying is they aren’t intelligent enough to have a good reason or justification. They’re instead screaming “well just cause I can!” It’s a privileged, ill reasoned, temper tantrum of an argument that amounts to “just cause I can.”
Yes, it is. It is natural to want to try and shut people up. Resisting the urge to manipulate and control others is work. We all have a responsibility toward a healthy society.
That’s why it’s prosocial when someone steps in for a person who’s being shouted down and puts his own skin on the line to say “let him talk”.
The fact you choose not to carry that burden doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
It’s weird to have someone argue that when the context of all this is support of antisemitism.
Of course it’s a positive to help support the voice of someone who might have theirs oppressed. But why go to such extremes to support the oppressor?
Why do you argue that we must advocate for the oppressor? Are we not allowed the freedom to speak up against those that oppress others? Is that speech not allowed?
You see how it’s a stupid circle of inductive reasoning that does nothing to help anyone? Bottom line is a rigid absolute, a utopia is a more destructive and stupid approach than the free speech for which you claim to advocate. Freedom isn’t possible is you tolerate intolerance.
Why does a foreign country have the absolute say on a principle/ ideology/ human right whatever you want to call it?
It doesn’t make sense. Are you telling me the ideology of freedom of speech only existed and only continues to exist because it is on a bit of paper written in a far away land?
In that “far away land”, yes, because the meaning of freedom of speech (as people, with great fatigue, have tried to tell you) is about consequences related to the government of that “far away land”
If we want to get to the heart of the matter, that people aren’t fond of your Musk fellating, inceldom riddled comment history that you possibly, unfortunately, decided to export from some sewer on Reddit, that’s not them hating free speech.
People can hate or love whatever that bit of paper is.
But freedom of speech (the meaning of those words not some law) is not something most of the world likes.
The principal meme is that the bottom text is incorrect. He is wrong.
But he isn’t wrong people do hate freedom of speech.
The meaning of those words is absolutely some law, whether natural or governmental, and depends entirely upon the context of the power structure involved.
If you got slapped in your goofy ass face every time you said, well let me just pull up a real, actual quote from you:
"Women do not want to help men but they expect help from them.
That doesn’t make me miserable that’s just accepting the world the way it is and it’s a life lesson men tend to learn the hard way."
If they slapped your extremely goofy, unserious face and called you a generalizing, pathetic, and small person, that wouldn’t be them hating free speech.
Hell, they’d be exercising it! How wonderful!
Now, if the government came to your door and impounded your 4 wheel drive incompetence with relationships, then you might have a victorious day in court.
Freedom to assault and freedom of speech are two different things.
I respect your right to say I got a goofy ass face and generalizing, pathetic, and small person. I’m truly happy you are able to do that. I just don’t think you disagreeing with me gives you the right to assault me.
Obviously that thread was full of generalisations and that wasn’t a all women situation it was more about the everyday occurances of everday men. It was written like that for simplicity rather than needed to and “not all but a lot of” every 5 seconds. Still stand by the spirit if that point, which was the important thing.
Uh yes actually if you physically strike a person when they say something you find “pathetic”, or any other adjective, you are in fact against free speech.
No that’s excercising freedom expression. You are free from persecution from the government, not ostracization socially. Nazis should be punched, not protected. There’s no such thing as free speech for Nazis. Same thing in this case, you say bullshit, people are “free” to react how they will to it.
Oh look a leftist using sexual imagery as an insult. What a surprise.
Is…is that all?
Did you get triggered because of an analogy?
Replace fellating with whatever synonym floats your puritanical boat brother. Nothing wrong with fellating dong but I don’t see the win in pleasuring fascists or otherwise awful people be it literally or figuratively