Shout them down in every space, make them embarrased to think the stupid shit they think.
If we don't embarrass and correct them now we will have to kill them later when they come for our friends and families.
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
1450 points (98.4% liked)
196
4916 readers
2612 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
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
Does that go for liberal or philosophical ideals like free speech?
I come across a bit of rhetoric identifying free speech as a right-wing authoritarian cause, arguing that they "claim, twist, poison, ruin" it, so it's fine to give it up and no longer defend it.
Those rhetoricians seem to have a skewed or ahistorical disregard for the advances in political philosophy from the enlightenment era that got society out of the dark ages, away from authoritarianism & toward political plurality & liberal democracy. Freedom of speech was a foundational development & its growth enabled the civil rights movements that followed.
Yet according to the rhetoric, it's a problem now that right-wing authoritarians claim is as part of their cause. They'll just let them claim & define it, and now that free speech is wrong (since they let right-wingers "have" it), it's okay to limit & undermine it.
One might think they're right-wing authoritarians in disguise trying to dupe everyone into threatening the foundations of liberal society. Whether or not they are, there's a good chance they'll show up here possibly in response to this comment. Is there a name for that type of rhetoric or the people who argue it?
Anyway, it all seems like capitulation to me. I think letting fascists claim such philosophical ideals is a mistake.
Free Speech is the right to have and express opinions without being repressed by the government. Yelling fire in a theatre is not an opinion any more than harassing people with racial slurs or other forms of flatulence.
Nobody is giving free speech to fascists. Ignorant assholes are misappropriating the term to justify their disgusting behaviour and they're the only one's falling for it.
The (direct) harm principle of free speech has been a standard recognized since at least J S Mill. It's reflected in legal limitations on incitement of imminent lawless action (falsely shouting fire); incitement of violence; defamation; discriminatory acts that objectively deprive peaceful access to rights, opportunities, or resources we are entitled to. It does not restrict merely offensive conduct that bothers.
Are you referring to harassment in the looser sense of merely irritating conduct or in the stricter sense of personally targeted conduct that is unwelcome & objectively harms or deprives peaceful access as mentioned before (often through persistence)? We don't have a right not to be offended.
Freedom of speech is specifically for speech we dislike including much that you listed. It's also for speech to oppose that, which could be taken much further instead of trying to compromise it.