Return Entire thread Last 50 posts
Pages: 1-100 101-

Why as a people are we so polarized?

95 Name: [email protected] 2019-01-05 19:31
If you're talking about Germany, you could use one of the actual anti-nazi speech laws on the books there, because that IS a an actual infringement on free speech rights, and left-libertarians tend to oppose that sort of thing (look up what Chomsky has to say about censoring far-right groups, for example).

It is, again, still different from people responding to the things you have said. You are implying that you should be shielded from the actions of other people as a response to your speech, which is a fair position to take, but left-libertarian groups would say you SHOULDN'T be afforded that protection if your are exercising your speech in an anti-productive manner.

The first part isn't even an "argument for curtailing free speech", it's a simple summation of what left-libertarian groups actually oppose when they engage in things like deplatforming.

As for the second, identity politics stance, your response is basically a tautology. Those are "invalid arguments" because they simply aren't. The proof? The idea that it's suppressing opposing political opinions. Well no shit, sherlock? The entire point is that certain "political opinions" are actively harmful, and the mere act of holding them is damaging towards other people.

There's a qualitative difference between opposing someone for being a Nazi and opposing someone for being black. No KKK riot ever burned crosses on a black person's front yard for voicing certain opinions - they burned those crosses as an attack on their very BEING.
The only way to stop radical lefties from suppressing your speech is to stop using that speech to spread reactionary propaganda. The only way to stop far-rightist from suppressing your speech is to stop existing altogether. There's a real difference between the two.

Return Entire thread Last 50 posts 1-100
Leave this field blank: