Comment by toomuchtodo
9 years ago
> I'm sorry, is it empathy to agree with folks that
I may not be able to understand where White Supremists are coming from, but I fully appreciate their right to free speech. I also don't understand people who prioritize limiting speech, but respect their opinion. That's the empathy I refer to.
You yourself have called it a position of hatred and spontaneous and fatal violence. A spontaneous violence that is unrepentant upon it's exposure, that claims it has to kill to make it's point and that those who stand against it deserve killing.
And not even the cold, calculated murder of widespread cultural warfare which you yourself demand we awknowledged uniquely. It's the unstable and white hot murder of people so indignant at the existence of opposition that one spontaneously murdered one and injured over a dozen more as his fellows cheered him on.
This is all what you've agreed they are. And it sums up to a picture of danger. I think you understand them quite well.
Ignoring the issue about calls for violence which are not always protected, how has their right to free speech been affected? CloudFlare is not the government and the first amendment doesn't generally obligate a private company to provide service. They're still free to speak all they want, run their own servers, etc.
> I may not be able to understand where White Supremists are coming from, but I fully appreciate their right to free speech.
These two facts are connected. Another example would be not being fully sure what bleach exactly is, but being all for drinking it.
Bluntly, people have a right to hate, as long as they're not committing assault and battery.
I'll take the world where that exists before I live in a world with thought police.
If people have a right to hate, then your ethos demands private companies can mute anyone they want.
It seems difficult to have it both ways.
Edit: it seems my debate partner deleted a telling comment. Too bad.
3 replies →