WaxedWookie @ WaxedWookie @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,078

Joined

2 yr. ago

Accusations being projections and whatnot...

Just casually glance at literally any conservative media age who funds it.

It's not a strawman - it's a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don't belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don't understand, and putting forward arguments you don't believe.

If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you've stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?

Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.

Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven't bitten that bullet.

So you were wrong when you said that not all censorship is bad.

If paedophilia were legalised, you'd defend it? If not, why would you raise legality in a conversation about morality?

I don't know what you're trying to control for, but I'm trying to stop genocidal groups from consultating power. You've got nothing to contribute other than hoping there's someone left to hold the genocidal dipshits to account after they've committed that genocide.

Causing a stampede by shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not the same thing as expression of free speech.

You're stopping that expression - it's censorship. It might be censorship you like, but you can't pretend it's not censorship.

distributing, and downloading CSAM are most certainly criminal acts. And rightly so.

Again, this is squarely within the definition of censorship. I don't know why you'd raise the legality in a discussion of morality - surely you don't think legalising genocide would make it acceptable.

Banning membership of a group that aims to oppress and kill huge groups of people is a pro-freedom move.

Please don't make me put a dictionary in front of you.

This stuff is a social contract - if people are free to break the social contract and be intolerant or fuck with peoples' freedoms, it harms peoples' freedom to tolerate that behaviour.

Your argument is akin to saying that using force to stop someone that's currently committing a mass shooting justifies that mass shooting - it's moronic.

Stopping people from saying something, and literally censoring CSAM isn't censorship - got it.

I've been avoiding people management for years - and about a year ago, I was apprached by a company I've worked with for an exec gig. Dream job that would have shot me forward 10+ years in my career.

I lost it because I haven't managed people since I worked in retail. It's held me back pretty seriously, and I understand now that it's better me leading a team than most of the schmucks I've worked for.

Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?

Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.

I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them!

I think you're confused about thought - it's got nothing to do with anything I said.

Making threats, triggering a stampede, downloading CSAM, and participating in a group whose objective is are all actions with tangible consequences.

What's the utility in protecting these things? As far as organised crime organisations go, what's more serious than genocide?

They're not leftists - they're just red-coded fascists.

The clearest evidence of this is the total disregard for worker enfranchisement and meaningful decommodification.

All censorship is bad?

Death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child porn?

Beyond that, protecting the freedom of speech of the likes of Nazis, who would use that freedom to harass and intimidate, consolidate power, then take away all freedoms, and commit a string of genocides is anti-freedom.

It's the paradox of tolerance - this shit is a social contract - you get freedoms on the condition you don't fuck with the freedoms of others.

Being locked up is a pretty charitable assumption about what will happen given the Nazis' history and current rhetoric.

It's super-weird that you'd defer to what's legal when you're asked if something is moral - particularly when you imply there's a risk legislation will turn against you at some point.

There's a bunch of reasons bad ideas circulate, but they're generally a product of the interests of those with economic/political power. That's a far broader, more difficult issue to solve than the proliferation of genocidal ideologies.

You want this problem solved?

• Here's the definition of genocide (the UN one works fine).
• Genocidal groups are now outlawed.

As far as organised crime goes, there's not really a higher bar, is there? The likes of BLM that you cited earlier don't meet this bar - not by a long shot.

Phoney Stark contradicting himself, backing reactionary conspiracist grifters, and running his mouth, announcing shitty decisions that'll further devalue his companies?

It'll be news when he's not doing this dumb bullshit.

If there were aliens, there's zero chance Trump could resist bragging that he knows all about them.

I can't speak for this particular practice, or for Mormons, but things like the poophole loophole and the clapper are definitely nonsense tricks to try and get one past an omniscient creator - to an outsider (in my case, one that lived in Provo for a short stint), it's plausible.

Work like it's a crippling addiction - it's not as though crackheads have miserable lives, their bodies literally falling apart as their minds figuratively do the same, until they either muster the incredible willpower to endure the intense suffering required to drop the habit, enduring lifelong consequences, or die an early death.

As far as red flags go...

It's in Victoria, not Australia wide (and came in response to a huge amount of Nazi fuckery), but that's beside the point. Even when a Nazi dipshit stood outside a courthouse in Melbourne, next to Tom Sewell, shouted "HEIL HITLER", while doing a Nazi salute (after appearing in court for attacking 6 backpackers), then shouted "Australia for the white man, heil Hitler.", there was zero consequences.

The violence is the ideology. The very simple answer to "This is a slippery slope - where does it stop?" is when it becomes a problem. Protecting genocidal morons is a problem - stopping them is both a moral imperative and social good.

Death threats too? Shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Again, this speech reduces freedom, has no meaningful utility, and very directly leads to, encourages, and spreads the violence - with all this in mind, it's unfathomable to me that anyone would defend it.

Outside the disagreement, I'll also say I'm pretty wary of free speech absolutists - I can't speak for you, but they tend to drop their principles the moment someone says something they don't like - see Musk for an example of this.