That’s what the OP is saying, basically
We would all love to silence those we disagree with.
1 Like
To a certain extent, yes especially if we think we are justified.
But that is why we have a democracy, right? Not an authoritarian system.
We will not come into agreement on everything, and I do have my double standards.
Freedom of speech for those who excersise peace and try to.
Not to those who wish to take freedom of speech and use it for war and chaos. The abrahamic religions have historically and today only use their existence for hating humanity and hoping for the end of existence.
Their narcissism is so good, most people fell into their trap. But not me.
But I am an extreme minority in the world. The majority will get its way.
That’s the world.
If you take all the believers and followers of Abrahamic religions from the USA, how many people are left?
Only about 1/4.
So, without these people, there are no USA.
And that’s why I always called US a de facto Christian nation.
I prefer free open debate and dialogue so I can very publicly show others the errors of their ways. The best way to defeat others is through logic, reason, and argument.
1 Like
That’s exactly why limits are needed.
Imagine if everyone who thinks another group of people should be excluded had the power to do so. The world would be depopulated by now.
You would be a favorite target of many. And as you’ve grown used to homophobia, you think it’s just fair that you retribute the hatred with “Abrahamophobia”.
Hate speech law is necessary exactly to make sure such gratuitous hate remains only in the kingdom of ideas. Anyone who reads your anti-Abrahamism comments here would deduce you’re not against violence against Christians, Jews and Muslims. That you would rejoice in such violence. That you would find it necessary.
The problem is, the simple existence of unbridled freedom of speech allows anyone to instigate hatred against their real or imaginary enemies. And that is what explains why there are so many mass shootings in the USA everyday. If your country supported freedom of speech AND gun control at the same time, it’d be comprehensible. But the two things combined- power to say whatever one wants, and guns to perpetrate violence, that’s what explains tragedies such as the murder of Charlie Kirk, which will happen again, sooner or later.
1 Like
Ok, but I’m still waiting for good examples of anti-white violence.
2 Likes
They do so anyway, regardless of what the law says.
You’re too bound up in legal rote.
Even instigating laws have a limit.
And guess what? It is mostly the Christians who defend guns and aggressive stuff like that. I have first hand experience with that one.
For me expressions of dislike, disgust, or even hatred should not be outlawed and censored.
So long as those expressions do not become violent or go out of their way to physically harm others they should be allowed.
Disgust and hatred are natural raw human emotions, you liberals constantly make the mistake of trying to make human emotions illegal into thought crimes. This only backfires horribly onto political liberalism and it is intriguing how a majority of liberals refuse to even see that.
It happens all the time laws don’t stop those things. People do what they want to do. I’m in TEXAS, okay?
TEXAS. Does it look like the people care about that? No.
And Texas is mostly Christian. As most of the US but Texas is even more Christian.
And how do we avoid that? If the law will only act after the violence is done, after the bloodshed?
1 Like
I agree with this, but only on a personal level. PERSONAL death threats. Countries go to war, and sometimes it is necessary.
I’m not a pacifist.
Sometimes, yes I believe it is needed to kill a group of people - but only those that don’t want peace and they do nothing to try to instigate peace. So, Who does this? Can you think of a group of people who don’t want peace? Because I can.
Look it may initially look bad but if you think about it, it’s just a reflection of the world. Everyone should just be a pacifist? Not realistic.
Natural consequences of having a free neutral society, you either have one or you don’t.
Existence is messy, conflicting, and chaotic, again, natural consequences of having a free society.
Your thought control liberal nanny state perception of society won’t work for very long.
Suppression of thoughts, ideas, opinions, attitudes, and such don’t work in the long term.
1 Like
Hate speech laws are not against thought crimes. They intend to avoid crime. It’s not that people cannot think what they want- they can. They can’t instigate hatred towards others that might culminate in acts of violence.
Again, I already pointed out the difference here:
a) I hate Jews
b) Kill all Jews
The first one is extreme, but is not incitement to crime. The second one is.
1 Like
Says the communist.
Russia, China, Cuba and NK, literally all communist countries did not have unbridled freedom of speech.
1 Like
Yes, if somebody advocates killing entire groups of people or specific individuals that is a cause of alarm where I wouldn’t mind the law intervening at that point.
But if an individual says they hate an entire group of people where they find them revolting or disgusting, should they be arrested for that? No.
But saying Kill all Jews is not illegal in the US.
Do you know why?
Because it is not a direct threat, like I said - indirect statements like that are legal.
It is DIRECT DEATH THREATS like e-mailing a Jewish politician saying one is going to kill him, or telling a Jew that you are going to shoot him with a gun.
That’s illegal, not saying kill all Jews. Unless one is shouting that at an angry mob outside in public.
They said stuff like that all the time on Gab, even Quora - a man was saying we need to gass all the African Americans, for example.
I won’t deny it, yes, many communist nations act in that way.
I have my own perceptions of communism where I would do things differently from already established communist nations.