communism is when you can’t say ■■■■■■!?!?!
1 Like
he keeps doing it
1 Like
but that is literally all I am proposing
it has very little to do with their position
here i will paste motte and bailey
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]
if he wants to tell me how actual hatespeech laws that already exist would oppress him he is welcome to
i’ve seen exactly zero arguments about why absolute free speech is better than limited free speech (used by literally every first world country except america)
and you asked me to describe policy implementation in 70 year old countries instead of discussing the pros and cons of each system
Fact: if libtards were an actual oppressed class they wouldn't be arguing for increased authoritarianism (something u only argue for from a position of power)
Fact: auth left is the worst shit that ever happened. downright embarrassing. At least with christian moms in the 80s (most recent wave of auth right) you can admit that even if MTG & rock-and-roll aren't literally demonic they are probably still corrupting the youfs just the same (see: Gamut)
2 Likes
well the existence of genocide following hate speech was your first argument you brought for hate speech laws existing
you are free to make any other arguments for it unprompted
i havent seen anything self evidently compelling yet but im still open
USA does have limited free speech already
I will make a deal with you insom if you will refrain from watching MSNBC for a year I will refrain from saying the ■■■■■■ word for that same time period
i don't watch any American news lol
You're Othering people who say ■■■■■■
that's a depiction of some examples of of how far rightism takes hold and becomes violent and a description of how hate speech was involved in it
the dots i need connected are how hate speech laws reliably prevent this. i will probably not believe this until i see the first world countries who actually do implement this stuff [or even better, a more tumultuous state implementing this stuff] successfully not go far right for an extended period of time
im not ruling it out as effective im just not taking it for granted
I think timing matters a lot with hatespeech laws. Like in Germany they have had their's long enough that it's just normal. But I think at this particular time if you enacted hatespeech laws in America, it would become a huge weapon for conservative media and weirdo extremists would do a terrorism after they get riled up over it. I think we can handle hatespeech well enough without the government during this time when enacting hatespeech laws will have unintended political consequences.
But that's easy for me to say I guess. I don't have to deal with hatespeech much.
yea that is legitimately a big part of my skepticism
is that the attempted implementation in itself might be a catalyst for more dramatic fracturing
well you can't go back in time and find that out
but in like 10 different examples hatespeech was a major factor in pushing people towards violence so hatespeech laws seems like a pretty obvious way to try to combat that
even in the soviet union they justified atrocities against the kulak class in Ukraine with hatespeech and propaganda it happens on all sides of the political spectrum
look at Maos cultural revolution
We already have laws against hate speech and speech inciting violence
The auth left position is to broaden/strengthen those laws & to label increasingly more things as hate speech/violence incitement but then retreat to "well you just shouldn't say ■■■■■■" when challenged