I hate how the word "disagree" is used to strip all nuance out of political conversation.
If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement." Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you?
There's a line somewhere around political opinions that involve using the state to inflict violence on another that I believe should be inexpressible in public, and I think it's fine for non-state actors to ensure that's the case.
> If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement."
Yes we do, we disagree on that statement.
> Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you?
Yes of course, why wouldnt I? Trying to understand that opinion and maybe bring us closer to agreeing on the underlying issues would be my first aim, not just to cry foul on free speech and expect them to be locked up just for saying something I dont like. That is barbaric.
You can say anything you want, acting on it is what turns that into illegal activity.
Yep it totally is and you are fine to say that about me or anyone else.
If someone takes you up on that offer and you pay them, that crosses from free speech into illegal activity and you will be put in jail. But you are totally fine to talk about if you want.
So do you feel that people who disagree with what you think is right should be silenced and not allowed to express themselves?
I hate how the word "disagree" is used to strip all nuance out of political conversation.
If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement." Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you?
There's a line somewhere around political opinions that involve using the state to inflict violence on another that I believe should be inexpressible in public, and I think it's fine for non-state actors to ensure that's the case.
> If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement."
Yes we do, we disagree on that statement.
> Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you?
Yes of course, why wouldnt I? Trying to understand that opinion and maybe bring us closer to agreeing on the underlying issues would be my first aim, not just to cry foul on free speech and expect them to be locked up just for saying something I dont like. That is barbaric.
You can say anything you want, acting on it is what turns that into illegal activity.
1 reply →
"I am ready to pay 1000000 USD to anyone who tortures and/or kills you or anyone in your family in the most gruesome way."
Isn't that free speech?
Yep it totally is and you are fine to say that about me or anyone else.
If someone takes you up on that offer and you pay them, that crosses from free speech into illegal activity and you will be put in jail. But you are totally fine to talk about if you want.
2 replies →