If your understanding of free speech hasn’t evolved since the advent of the internet then you are way behind the curve. If you’re applying concepts like “collision with error” to things like white supremacy, you’re probably whiter than an albino clone of Benedict Cumberbatch freezing to death in a snowstorm.
If you think the validity of Mill’s words is negated somehow by the medium of communication of ideas in the 21st century, you need to demonstrate why.
This is a lie. To take just one example, you have proposed “thought experiments” about geographically segregating all Muslims in countries where some unspecified proportion of Muslims are radical-Islamist extremists committing terror attacks:
If you would seriously consider kicking two-thirds of a particular religious minority out of a country, even though they’re “totally good eggs”, just because of the actions of their co-religionists, then you definitely have a “problem” with “welcoming” them.
Mom, the mayo’s gone moldy!
So you can’t defend your attack on free speech without being racist.
Says it all, really.
You want a nuanced take from me on free speech?
Step 1: Don’t have it in a pit thread about a mass shooting brought on by white supremacist bullshit.
Step 2: Don’t have it involve one of the board’s loudest anti-muslim bigots.
Hell, look straight up. I did, in fact, offer a nuanced take to Novelty Bobble. Because I don’t recall him being an islamophobic shitbag.
All the world’s most popular religious texts contain enormous amounts of hate speech. This hate speech has been proven to cause countless acts of violence over thousands of years, and continues today.
Should they be banned? If not, why not.
Given that Holodomor Denial and Armenian Genocide Denial aren’t banned, these attacks on free speech aren’t aimed at reducing hatred, but are instead simple political game-playing.
The fact you, a racist, and MrDibble, a misogynist, both support those bans supports that conclusion and says a lot about what kind of person is in favor of banning denialism.
Because ideologies combined with funny hats or robes and mystical beliefs are a “protected class.”
As it turns out, I’m not a racist nor a misogynist and you are talking shit. when the context is about European laws.
I would even doubt your items against those posters as I have not seen a preponderance or recent examples of what you are talking about.
If I understand you correctly, you’re of the opinion that we must allow free speech because regulating any kind of speech in any way is inherently bad, tantamount to criminalizing thoughts and ideas. Why, then, do you support barring conservative Muslims?
On what grounds do you support laws that bar them?
Is it because you are inherently predisposed to prohibiting people based on their cultural background or religious practices without knowing anything about them?
Or is it because you don’t like what they’ve said they believed, or what you think they’ve said they believe?
Isn’t using the law to sanction thoughts and ideas wrong?
Oh, *this *should be good… I’m a what, now?
[Moderating]
Inserting editorial comments, like “blah blah blah,” into a quote box when quoting another poster is a violation of the board rules. Please avoid doing this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Additional FYI, New Zealand (unanimously) repealed it’s blasphemy law two weeks ago. There had been a single (unsuccessful) attempt made at prosecution under it 97 years ago.
Uhhh…it seems like you didn’t really understand the post of mine that you quoted right above these words? Maybe try going back and rereading it.
You have actually reinforced my point. If I thought all Muslims were bad, how could you quote me as saying the majority of them might well be “totally good eggs”? :dubious:
The only point you have succeeded in scoring here is that I should have added the caveat “assuming we could tell who is who”. Okay, fine. Mea culpa.
Indeed. And I’d include among that violence some of the atrocities carried out by Israel against Palestinians. The Likud coalition includes some ultra-Orthodox parties who you just know have to take Bible verses like these (in Deut. 20) pretty seriously. Keep in mind that “Canaanites” are generally understood to be the same thing as Palestinian Arabs:
Bingo. And it’s really frustrating.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
You think your post makes sense with what you quoted?
ETA: You understand what “opposition to both bans” means? If so, why did you ask me why I support one of the bans?
There isn’t a specific law regarding genocide denial but it can be prosecuted against under several other existing laws. Depending on the specific situation and IANAL, that would mainly be laws against “inciting violence” (public speech) or worker-protection laws (hostile situation at work). It tends to be other murders that get denied, though, since we do have our own history of violence and don’t need to borrow the neighbors’ (people murdered by ETA? Nah, they just had an accident with a 9mm parabellum bullet… amazing how those things do tend to spontaneously fly around…).
While there aren’t many Jews in Spain, there happens to be people who came in during WWII as refugees, some of which were Jews; one of my college teachers was one such refugee. Denying the Holocaust is tantamount to saying they, or their parents who shipped them to an unknown land that wasn’t recovered from its recent civil war, were “just imagining things”. No, they weren’t…
I’m not sure how to parse this. Maybe wanna rephrase this one? Because the way you phrased it is not a good look.
Here’s an excellent allegory for every post SlackerInc has made in this thread.