https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
702 points (92.2% liked)
Comic Strips
13509 readers
3065 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Within reason.
The line is very clear: You have those rights ... so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.
If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc... Sure: they're free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.
Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it's important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It's important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.
Moderates fuck this up frequently... and I'm saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.
Edit:
It's been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result.... genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed... but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff ๐ป
Thank you boys. Thank you.
their speech organizes and hate and destruction though
Hateful people will find each other regardless of my or anyone else's views on free speech. Very ominous statement though.
With that said:
Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be. It forces them to find proof and facts where there are none. It makes them look bad.
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.
the free speech thing is beautiful in theory but in practice its just being used as an excuse to enable fascists. let me see socialists have the same openness in the media and we can start to talk about the minutiae of it properly.
Alright so expand on this:
We're half way there. Why couldn't they do what they were doing before?
Edit: If you're going to drop an ambiguous nuh uh, because "reasons" ...and then be unable to expand on that after 5/6 hours - perhaps be clearer in your argument. At present it looks a lot like you're attempting to muddy a discussion with unverifiable nonsense.
Because they werent allowed to be in the open as if what they do is considered normal and acceptable. They were rightfully considered a threat and treated like so. Its nothing complicated.
So lets boil this down -
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]
... 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...?
you are overthinking this way too much.
why is "nazis should not be allowed to be nazis in peace" so bad to you?
You keep saying this and not providing any credible points as to why two unrelated things are, indeed, the exact same thing.
This is, in essence, the jump you are making. If not - detail for us - how you prevent hate speech. No generalizing.
Aaaand go: โฑ๏ธ
why do i need a "credible source" to say nazis are bad and enabling them is bad?
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 โฑ๏ธ
no dude. i did not say that, read it again. the fix is shutting them up.
why the fuck are you so intent in protecting nazis?
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?
youve been arguing in favor of allowing them (you?) to be out in the open.
im not sure if your tangential gotcha questions are relevant for anything other than steering this conversation away from this and into some pointless debate about the abstract idea of freedom.
there is no practical reason to let nazis be nazis.
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. โฑ๏ธ
nothing ambiguous about straight up saying i dont think nazis deserve speech, and they should not be in the open.
the misintepretation comes from your part
And yet you are unable to produce a single method to stop them from speaking.
... and despite your utter inadequacy - are absolutely certain that not only does free speech somehow enable them to exist... but that supporting free speech makes you one. Thank you for playing this out.
I'll still accept a response to the question, but we both know you neither have an answer nor the ability to provide one.
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, @[email protected] , stop Nazis from nazi-ing. Specifically.
I have no issue posing the question again regardless of the topic change. So let's hear it. โฑ๏ธ
k
In the end every troll fails the same way: they can't back up the bullshit they spew. Thank you for playing. You were a fine demonstration of exactly what I support.
You posted garbage, I engaged you and shut you down. Publicly. You couldn't back up what you said: so you turned to insults and accusations in an attempt to redirect the conversation... and when put to task on backing up your stance you folded like a house of cards.
Textbook. Get some better material that hasn't been around for 20 years.