←back to thread

2525 points hownottowrite | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bayesian_horse ◴[] No.21191285[source]
It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not.

No easy answers. In this case, maybe there is a relatively simple rule: Supporting democracy must not in itself be regarded as offensive...

replies(8): >>21191379 #>>21191486 #>>21191575 #>>21191815 #>>21191939 #>>21192121 #>>21193685 #>>21194741 #
trentnix ◴[] No.21191379[source]
It is hard to tell, that is true. And that reality is exploited to silence opposition and control others.

That’s why language policing, hate speech laws, Twitter mobs, and bully-the-bully efforts are abominations. So really, the answer is easy: everyone has the right to offend, and has no right not to be offended. Your simple rule doesn’t go far enough.

replies(2): >>21191553 #>>21192443 #
streb-lo ◴[] No.21192443[source]
Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable.

Try and tell me your opinions are your own and the books and media you consume do not own some portion of them.

Hate-speech laws exist to prevent the programming of people to systematically hate and exterminate other people, a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.

replies(4): >>21192714 #>>21193795 #>>21194227 #>>21197548 #
1. josteink ◴[] No.21193795{3}[source]
> Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable.

And some people would like to have us programmed with their opinion unchallenged, rather than have their view face opposing arguments in a fair and open debate.

Once you compromise on free speech for some views, it’s all a slippery down-hill slope from there.

replies(2): >>21194081 #>>21197642 #
2. streb-lo ◴[] No.21194081[source]
Once you allow someone to advertise murder as a solution to a problem it's all down-hill from there.
replies(1): >>21197614 #
3. 1000units ◴[] No.21197614[source]
And yet you personally contribute funds to your nation's military, I presume.
replies(1): >>21197719 #
4. 1000units ◴[] No.21197642[source]
This is entirely correct. As rhetorical advice, I recommend against calling things a "slippery slope". This causes alarm bells to ring in a pedant's mind, and they frantically search Wikipedia's catalog of Fallacious Reasoning for an appropriate article to copy-paste or internally justify downvoting you instead of authentically engaging with the argument.
5. 1000units ◴[] No.21197719{3}[source]
Who do we kill with that? Just who you say is okay? And we can't talk about it? Hmm, you know. I don't think I like this arrangement. It already seems like you don't like me.