Virtue-signalling Into Tyranny

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: melatonin

Well manslaughter is the crime of killing someone. No one has ever been killed by a text. So it is no strange wonder that someone such as yourself would torture the English language in order to justify denying someone justice.

The cost and consequence of speech is the displacement of air around the mouth and the movement of sound waves throughout the environment. Societies are often superstitious.

Words have consequences. Verbal harassment is harassment. Verbal coercion is coercion. Verbal threats are threats.

As I pointed out in that thread, domestic abuse can often merely be verbal coercion, abuse, and threat - but it is often even more psychological distressing than physical abuse.

If my support of convicting such vile coercive abusers for these crimes means I limit 'free speech' and support 'tyranny' - then I couldn't care less (:

Your innocent little counterprotesters, all of them misinformed by the media, beat and spat upon innocent people trying to have a free speech rally, while they menacingly awaited for them to be done. They were evacuated under armed guard for their own protection. Sorry but denying others their rights is not free speech.

Not the general perspective of the police in attendance.

www.washingtonpost.com... de

Largely peaceful. 30,000-40,000 counterprotesters. 33 arrested. No-one was run over by a murderous neo-nazi!

Yes, restricting hate speech is to convict someone of a thought and speech crime.

Just like the guy who swatted a random family leading to the death of an innocent dude is now under arrest and is likely facing a custodial sentence for a mere 'thought and speech crime'.

Your position is absurd.

No I said denying people their rights for social gain is tyranny. Were the 50 rally goers doing anything like that? No? Then tough luck.

No rights were denied. The protest went ahead. It was just a failure.

Again, abolitionists, socialists, civil rights activists, and yes racists, advocate for free speech when their free speech is threatened. I don't see anything particularly enlightening about that study.

Not really what it suggests - it shows that people high in prejudice to an outgroup will allow expression of hate speech under the guise of free speech towards the outgroup but tend to not be supportive of comparable speech to an ingroup and authority figures.

Much like you denigrate the counterprotesters for their freedom of expression, but give a free pass to the hate speech and toxic attitudes of neo-nazis, white supremacists, coercive psychopaths, swatters etc under the guise of free speech.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: melatonin

Yes, governments impose tyrrany. No doubt.

They can.

They can also ensure freedoms.

I am an anarchist, BFT - just the european kind (assuming you're the most common american type) D:

a reply to: melatonin

Im a social anarchist. I recognize what government can do to organize effort, and prefer a fiscally conservative government.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: melatonin

Im a social anarchist. I recognize what government can do to organize effort, and prefer a fiscally conservative government.

Hey D:

We likely differ on the economic side, though, lol.