this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
52 points (93.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

30144 readers
1563 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So, in other words: which of your core beliefs do you think has the highest likelihood of being wrong? And by wrong, I don’t necessarily mean the exact opposite - just that the truth is significantly different from what you currently believe it to be.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Well, I don't believe you.

Would you defend the right of someone to stand across the street from an elementary school with a megaphone, every day (for years) while the kids get on and off the bus, yelling in great detail how much he enjoys watching them and how he dreams about them every night? Not quite crossing the line into vulgarity that would get him arrested, but definitely causing stress and great anxiety to everyone around him, and harming the mental health of small children at the least?

If you don't defend that speech, then you do have a line. You just draw it in a different place than I do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

If you don't defend that speech

Just because something is spoken does not make it speech. The spoken word can, indeed, be "violence".

You've described "disturbing the peace" ("megaphone", "yelling"). You've described "harassment" (Every day for years while the kids get on and off the bus). You've described "assault". (causing stress and great anxiety; harming).

The actual "speech" you've described, you have explicitly defined as insufficient to get him arrested, so I would have to defend his right to say it.

But in the context you've provided for him, the totality of his actions rise to the level of "violence", and nothing I've said demands tolerance for that.

In a public forum that he hosts for himself? The "disturbing the peace" charge falls away. Non-vulgar comments about what he finds enjoyable and the content of his dreams, that don't rise to the level of harassment? The stress, anxiety, and harm you described didn't come from his speech, but from his harassment while disturbing the peace: Since his statements are no longer harassment or disturbing the peace, the "assault" goes away as well.

Now, he's speaking. And now that this is speech, I would invite you to join me in speaking back to him, even as I caution you not to censor him.

We certainly do draw lines in different places. You are calling for the violent eradication of certain people. We agree those people are despicable. We can even agree the world would be a better place without them. But, I'm going to stand between you and them, and tell you not to become them.

When they cross the line from speech to violence and actually try to "silence" others, we will, of course, defend those others. We don't need the paradox to do that; we don't need to become fascists ourselves to identify and defend the victims.

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce 3 points 15 hours ago

You are calling for the violent eradication of certain people.

No, I am calling for the eradication of a hateful belief system. Whether it becomes violent is up to them. (It will)

When they cross the line from speech to violence and actually try to “silence” others, we will, of course, defend those others.

I suppose you haven't been reading the news lately. We are past that point. They are literally arresting people that speak up for the rights of others, under false pretexts.