• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    See? You just totally abdicated any responsibility to allow others to speak. Why would you be so concerned with making sure it’s only government which has that responsibility, if you didn’t hate free speech?

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      responsibility to allow others to speak

      Yeah not gonna gaslight me, buddy. It’s not my obligation to give anyone a platform for anything. Try again.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Responsibility can only be taken, not given. So yeah, if you say that’s not your responsibility, then it’s not your responsibility. But choosing not to adopt that responsibility does indeed make you a hater of free speech.

    • kiranraine@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t hate free speech. There’s just nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation. Especially all the hate and misinformation that’s put me in danger for years because of me being queer or neurodivergent.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s nothing saying I HAVE to listen to someone spewing hate and misinformation

        Except for the concept of being open minded. The ethical imperative to face new information that’s not easy to process, so that you can respond to it instead of being blindsided by it.

        Free speech is a responsibility held by all members of society, to maintain those channels of communication.

        Just like a good general has a responsibility to hear emissaries of his enemy, no matter how bitterly hated that enemy is. There’s nothing that says he HAS to listen to that emissary … other than his responsibility to his troops.

        • kiranraine@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except when that is hate towards me for being queer or neurodivergent. I can and will block out hate speech towards me or other minorities that’s not based in reality. There’s a point where I will listen except when vitriol is spewed towards me for no reason. You’re attaching a tolerance to intolerance as if we have to listen to n@!is, racists or bigots just attacking everyone else for no good reason other than fox or Trump telling them so that these minorities are some threat that they’re not.

    • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Responsibility to allow”…?

      Take a step back and consider how stupid that sounds. The onus isn’t on others while you say stupid shit.

      I mean consider even now… I’m not infringing on your free speech by telling you what you just said was misguided at best and as stupid as it sounds at worst.

      You still got to say what you want. You can say it again too. Still sounds stupid the second time.

      The reality is this isn’t about a person’s ability to say something so much as their bullshit argument.

      When someone says “but I have the right!” what they’re really saying is they aren’t intelligent enough to have a good reason or justification. They’re instead screaming “well just cause I can!” It’s a privileged, ill reasoned, temper tantrum of an argument that amounts to “just cause I can.”

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, it is. It is natural to want to try and shut people up. Resisting the urge to manipulate and control others is work. We all have a responsibility toward a healthy society.

        That’s why it’s prosocial when someone steps in for a person who’s being shouted down and puts his own skin on the line to say “let him talk”.

        The fact you choose not to carry that burden doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

        • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s weird to have someone argue that when the context of all this is support of antisemitism.

          Of course it’s a positive to help support the voice of someone who might have theirs oppressed. But why go to such extremes to support the oppressor?

          Why do you argue that we must advocate for the oppressor? Are we not allowed the freedom to speak up against those that oppress others? Is that speech not allowed?

          You see how it’s a stupid circle of inductive reasoning that does nothing to help anyone? Bottom line is a rigid absolute, a utopia is a more destructive and stupid approach than the free speech for which you claim to advocate. Freedom isn’t possible is you tolerate intolerance.