• Yggstyle@lemmy.world
    1·
    4 months ago

    So lets boil this down -

    nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.

    Because they werent allowed to be in the open as if what they do is considered normal and acceptable.

    With you so far - clearly. I think my comment was: Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be… [continued]

    They were rightfully considered a threat and treated like so.

    … which is exactly what free speech enables. People say shit - other people respond. Freedom of speech/expression does not mean everything said is ‘okay’ or ‘legal’ - it means you are protected in your right to say it. It doesn’t protect you dealing with the backlash of saying something stupid or hateful. How people choose to respond to it is also a freedom: and most people do not care for nor tolerate hate groups. It works itself out… and from the statement you made: I think you get that.

    People frequently will say freedom of speech allows for hate speech - and reality is simply that you cannot stop hate speech from happening no more than you can stop any other crime. You can punish it though - after the fact. We cannot prevent things that haven’t happened yet. This isn’t minority report - we don’t have espers or precrime.

    …Which is the point I was making. So to be clear - you disagreed with my statements because…?

      • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 months ago

        You keep saying this and not providing any credible points as to why two unrelated things are, indeed, the exact same thing.

        We should have a vow of silence and no longer speak: then it’s impossible to have hate speech!

        This is, in essence, the jump you are making. If not - detail for us - how you prevent hate speech. No generalizing.

        Aaaand go: ⏱️

          • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
            1·
            4 months ago

            Not the question. I’ll use smaller words:

            You say free speech = hate speech. Why?

            What is the fix? You can’t claim one without knowing the other.

            aaaand go ⏱️

              • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
                1·
                4 months ago

                And at no point in any of my posts have I mentioned anything about Nazis. You have, however.

                So to keep you on track- as I’m sure you want to change the subject: you want to answer the questions?

                  • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    4 months ago

                    Nice edit.

                    Alright you want to play on this path I’ll update the question.

                    Sure, Nazis are bad, obviously. But you want to talk about it so here we go:

                    How would you, @umbrella@lemmy.ml , stop Nazis from nazi-ing. Specifically.

                    I have no issue posing the question again regardless of the topic change. So let’s hear it. ⏱️

                  • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    4 months ago

                    Them? That’s your inference. What you are doing is making a bad faith argument which others have called out. It’s a common tactic by people who are trolling or looking to derail a discussion.

                    There is nothing wrong with my views on freedom of speech. You’ve made nothing but generalized comments and accusations - and provided no meaningful discussion or answers. The second I pressured you to provide specifics you shifted to an extreme accusation to change the topic. It’s textbook. I’m simply engaging with you because it’s funny to watch you dance around giving a direct answer: because you can’t.

                    If I’m wrong then you should be able to provide a direct answer to those questions above. ⏱️