(no title)
uvnq | 2 years ago
In another thread about Ireland's new law to jail people for "hateful content" on their personal devices, when I said that I believed future measures could go further, sliding towards mass murder, due to the ideologues believing hate speech is literally violence and genocide (because the logical conclusion is to then allow violence to be used to stop the ill defined "hate speech"), I got 1 comment supporting consequences for free speech, citing the common anti-free-speech strawman "you are wrong in that free speech doesn't have consequences" and another comment supporting "the removal of bigots from society, violently if necessary" [1]
Read it for yourself, maybe I am misinterpreting it? I don't want to feed into some culture war flame war thing, but this is extremely disturbing to me. It's not about the comments, it is about the underlying beliefs of these ideologues in power, and the logical conclusion of their beliefs. Historically, it seems to me that peoples' behavior can be predicted by taking their beliefs to their logical conclusions.
freedude|2 years ago
There is only one solution to "hate speech" and that is not making it taboo and subjecting it to censure. The solution is more better speech. That being said one must define "hate" and it's opposite corollary, love. The modern misconception is love is nice. That has and always will be incorrect. Love is not nice, but love is kind. Kindness will always warn a person away from destruction, even if they don't like or welcome it. Hate is "nice" to the person that hates and only tolerates a person. It does not hold inherent value in the person but only in their status and ability to serve the desires of the hater.
Warning others in kindness and love can only be achieved when our speech is free.
uvnq|2 years ago
pessimizer|2 years ago