Asklemmy

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Where does stochastic terrorism and incitement of violence sit with you? How about the Nazi dipshits loudly expressing their "thought" while armed and standing in front of an event at a library? Jan 6 propagandists whipping the morons into an insurrectionist frenzy?

Expression of thought in the kinds of ways in talking about have very tangible consequences.

I think x group are subhuman trash that deserve to be exterminated - they've stolen everything from us, and need to pay for that. They'll be raping children at this event - it's our patriotic duty to stop them!

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Flumsy@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between "should be allowed" and "should be cencored". It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.

Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven't bitten that bullet.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

It's not a strawman - it's a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don't belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don't understand, and putting forward arguments you don't believe.

If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you've stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?

parent

[–] Flumsy@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago*

You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it

Ummm... my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything... I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)