• Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Do you think Nazis should also be allowed to say anything they want without restriction?

    The only answer to this can only ever be a complete and utter, yes. It’s that or we need to stop pretending that free speech is actually a thing. Either speech is free for every single person, no exceptions, ever, or it is NOT free. The reciprocal of that is (and absolutely should be) that anyone can simply choose not to listen and tell them to shut the fuck up, something for which you are trying to take full advantage of right now I’m sure

    Language should NEVER have even the slightest hint of a restriction placed upon it, that is always a slippery and dangerous slope that has historically led to people losing their social autonomy and civil rights. The ONLY exception to this is if the language is used to directly harm, then it is no longer language, it is a weapon and should definitely be restricted. I am completely fine with being beholden to those restrictions, when they are applied properly.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You can say what ever you want in your own place. This place isn’t yours and we reserve the right to show you the door.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Free speech is not what you think it is. Free speech means the government won’t stop you from speaking. It doesn’t mean you are allowed to say anything you want. You need to go back to middle school civics.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

      If there is no limit to tolerance, the intolerant will abuse that and we end up with an intolerant society. Tolerance is a social contract. If you break it, you are no longer tolerated.

      The ONLY exception to this is if the language is used to directly harm, then it is no longer language, it is a weapon and should definitely be restricted.

      Cool. Then stop using that word. It is directly harmful to some people.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Do you not agree that using a word that refers to some people’s mental abilities to refer to a deer’s mental abilities implies those people have the mental abilities of those deer? How are you so incapable of seeing how your language applies beyond it’s intent? I think you may need to take an IQ test yourself.