6 ms·

"friends on the left opposed to free speech" is your willful misunderstanding of the issue

• lom888 6y ago
  These friends overtly say that free speech should be limited, in those exact terms. Not some speech, "free speech". Please let me know how you perceive me to be misunderstanding them willfully.
  • pstuart 6y ago
    So free speech should include incitement of violence? Slander and libel?
  • pii 6y ago
    I think you might want to listen to them more closely, I can't answer on their behalf. If, by chance, they're anything like me, then I agree that there's giant categories of prohibited speech that should remain so. Lying about medicine, slander, libel, incitement to violence to name a few.
    • lom888 6y ago
      They want the first amendment repealed as they say it protects racists, homophobes and transphobes. They say that liberal free speech laws led to Trump and free speech should be curtailed for that reason. They openly say that they are opposed to free speech. I am trying to present their views as neutrally as I can, but this is what they say and support.
      • mint2 6y ago
        Maybe it’s a bit “one true Scotsmanny” but there are many who identify left or right who fall in the bottom 10% of well thought out perspectives. Being on the left does not make your friends immune and they may fall into that tier if their argument is portrayed accurately. They get the general gist of things right, I.e. neonazi propaganda is harmful, but go about things in a hamfisted manner.
      • pii 6y ago
        Yeah I can't say I agree with your friends if that's indeed what they meant. The first amendment is incredibly important. So is the jurisprudence around what it means. I have a suspicion that there might be a communication barrier somewhere between you and your friends. I'm a bit out on a limb here, so forgive my presumptions if they're off base. I mean no offense. It's possible that your friends have learned that, when talking to you, 'free speech' is only worth defending when it's offensive, neo-nazi style speech. Then, without making explicit the change in vocabulary usage, they run with it -- ending up in a bad spot where they're saying get rid of 1st Amendment. There's no winners in this story, just unfortunate misunderstandings. Again, disregard if this is nonsense. I've been witness to similar disagreements in the past, so I'm offering my 2c since I think you're making the good faith effort to represent, even while exasperated, the views of your friends.
• sgtnoodle 6y ago
  It seems like there's plenty of "willful misunderstanding" from folk on both sides of the political spectrum. It seems like two sides of the same coin to me, and it doesn't really matter too much because ultimately the carnival game is rigged to eat the coin regardless. Whether you're a neo-nazi or a marxist-commie, we're all slightly awkward but reasonable nerds here right? I think most sane people can agree that data breaches are bad, and that black hat hackers are bad guys and white hat hackers are good guys? Speaking of finding common ground, I thought the recent GME schenanigans were notable in that folk on both extremes of the political spectrum seemed to agree that it was fun "sticking it to the man". Was anyone here not cheering the "irrational" retail traders on?
  • pii 6y ago
    Genuinely, I want to find common ground with people who don't say anyone who isn't a neo-nazi is ALL THE WAY LEFT AND A DANGEROUS PERSON
    • AuryGlenz 6y ago
      Maybe you could start by realizing the vast majority of people on the right aren’t neo-nazis.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • vecter 6y ago
        Not all people on the far right are Neo-Nazis, but all Neo-Nazis are on the far right.
        • spacemanmatt 6y ago
          Not sure why so many fail to understand that fascism is a an exclusively right-wing phenomenon.
      • pii 6y ago