This is going to help normalize another vicious hatemongerer, all for short-term profit via ad revenue. Same as the corporate media’s unironic use of “alt- right,” and same as their breathless coverage during the election of podiums at which Trump was about to speak (to which more airtime was devoted than Sanders actually speaking).
11 Likes
Hmmm.
Fascists threaten more than just people or society, fascists threaten civilization. So when you reflexively discount violence, also be aware that fascists will use every means at their disposal to advance their agenda, including stooges and the indulgence of the naive who think that the right of free speech is an absolute which can be used to first incite racism, and then what tends to follow.
It’s valid that they should be made to feel unwelcome in public. Because they’re not welcome. They intend to use your liberalism to relieve others of their rights, and if you finally object to that, you of yours.
11 Likes
I love that I knew what it was despite the blurring.
8 Likes
The only thing that would make me feel remotely good about this shitshow would be for her to wish him a Happy Father’s Day, and ask him what he imagines it might feel like to be a father himself some day.
You don’t get to pick and choose. Free speech applies to everyone or no one. Saying “but this is different” is a slippery slope, and one that too many people are willing to go down, it seems.
I assume you’ve seen him on the BBC, with Andrew Neil?
And the even more preposterous one where he actually managed to make Piers Morgan look reasonable.
If it’s anything like that, I’m well up for it.
2 Likes
40mg Preposteron.
1 Like
Indeed. The two links I just posted are ones I like to show people who occasionally say, “well, Alex Jones does some good research” or whatever.
That’s not what the right to free speech is about, and I’m curious what your thoughts on how this does relate to freedom of expression. I mean, part of the freedom of expression is to condemn people like Spencer, even with violence, and and even bigger part of freedom of expression is to take in a variety of influences and form an opinion - while Spencer literally wants you to ignore as much as possible and stick to a select few “proper” sources of information.
So what does all this mean to you?
4 Likes
Is that a joke? So you’re saying my freedom of expression allows me to punch whomever I want to? Because freedom? That should make all kind of white supremacists and homophobes happy, I mean, they’re just expressing themselves when they abuse people for being different.
Free speech means having the freedom to say whatever the hell you want. Of course, you have no right to make people listen to you or take you seriously. And you have no right to a forum, aside from the street corner you happen to be preaching on. If you want to make an ass of yourself, you’re more than welcome to.
No.
Besides, free speech is only a guarantee that the government will not stop you, not freedom from consequences from other people.
5 Likes
And assault is already illegal, so where do you get the idea that violence is the solution?
If you threaten violence against me and I react in self defence then the courts will rule in my favour.
4 Likes
No. Only if there’s an imminent threat. Do you know how many women have been threatened with violence, only to have the police say there’s nothing they can do? But go ahead and try it, and see where you end up.
I said violence is a form of expression, not that it was appropriate - that’s hardly a controversial statement. As @anon73430903 points out, not all speech is without inciting violence or causing serious harm. That’s why I was asking you what you mean, because you are not explaining why you think everyone is free to literally say anything with no repercussions.
[quote=“g_wat, post:72, topic:102666, full:true”]
And assault is already illegal, so where do you get the idea that violence is the solution?
[/quote]Right, so what’s the problem exactly?
One man is on camera explaining the finer details of the alt-right movement and a protester punches him and disrupts the interview. The law is on the side of the man giving the interview, which is why it’s a bizarre stance to say it’s a freedom of speech issue.
That’s why I’m asking where your ethic/moral compass is on freedom of expression. You seem to want all speech to be treated the same with no repercussions, but you seem to acknowledge that some violence is worse than other violence.
4 Likes
That’s great and all, and I pretty much said the same thing in my previous post. But if you disagree that free speech applies to everyone, you are no better than the alt right echo chambers.
You don’t know my history, do you?
3 Likes
[quote=“g_wat, post:75, topic:102666, full:true”]
No. Only if there’s an imminent threat. Do you know how many women have been threatened with violence, only to have the police say there’s nothing they can do? But go ahead and try it, and see where you end up.
[/quote]Depends on the state.
[quote=“g_wat, post:77, topic:102666, full:true”]
That’s great and all, and I pretty much said the same thing in my previous post. But if you disagree that free speech applies to everyone, you are no better than the alt right echo chambers.
[/quote]No, that’s what everyone said to you but you seem to disagree with.
4 Likes
Neither know, nor care, nor see how it’s relevant.
No. This whole thing started off with Mindysan33 posting the gif of the guy getting punched, and following up by saying that this was acceptable treatment, because he’s a fascist and sometimes violence is the correct answer. I disagreed with that.
