unlimited speech always empowers the oppressor first
hate speech translates directly to physical violence against marginalized groups
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 18:42
speech is just words
violence is violence
stop mixing them up
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 18:44
stochastic terrorism is a real and documented phenomenon
when leaders normalize rhetoric targeting minorities people actually get hurt
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 18:48
don't care about your college words
you want the government policing thoughts
that never ends well
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 18:51
the government already limits speech like perjury and corporate fraud
protecting vulnerable communities is just as vital as protecting capital
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 18:55
fraud steals money
mean words just hurt your feelings
grow a thicker skin
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 18:58
telling victims of systemic violence to grow a thick skin is peak privilege
rhetoric literally incites riots and pogroms historically
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:02
i work for a living
privilege is sitting around crying about words
nobody forces you to listen
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:05
you can't just log off when the rhetoric affects local housing and healthcare
intolerance shouldn't be tolerated if we want a safe functioning society
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:09
safe society means sterile society
who decides what is hateful
you? some politician?
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:12
we use consensus and judicial review like we do with every other legislation
acting like it is impossible to define hate speech is a deliberate cop out
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:16
consensus changes every ten years
what you say today will be illegal tomorrow
shortsighted
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:19
so we do nothing and let neo nazis organize openly in our streets
that is entirely unacceptable from a basic community organizing standpoint
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:23
let them talk so we know who the idiots are
driving them underground makes them dangerous
simple facts
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:26
deplatforming works and the independent data backs it up completely
removing their megaphones destroys their ability to recruit kids
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:30
data this data that
you just want to control what people see
authoritarian wrapped in a blanket
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:33
protecting people from coordinated mass harassment isn't authoritarian
it is a basic requirement for public safety in a digital age
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:37
community defense used to mean knowing your neighbors
not crying to tech billionaires to ban people
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:40
tech monopolies functionally curate our entire shared reality now
we have a responsibility to place democratic limits on what they amplify
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:44
trusting monopolies to be your moral compass
brilliant plan
totally won't backfire
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:47
i literally just said we need to regulate them democratically
we establish legal limits on what they can legally host
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:51
democracy voted for segregation once
majority rule for speech is just mob rule
the minority always loses
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 19:54
that is actually a very fair historical critique of majority rule
but absolute free speech still functionally silences the marginalized through intimidation
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 19:58
intimidation only works if you let it
stand your ground
giving away your right to speak doesn't make you safer
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:01
it is very easy to say stand your ground when you aren't the primary target
aggressive rhetoric has material consequences for real people
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:05
everything has consequences
living has consequences
trading freedom for safety means you lose both
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:08
we trade freedoms for safety every single day in modern society
traffic laws and health codes are restrictions that keep us alive
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:12
running a red light isn't a thought
speech is how we think out loud
you're trying to ban thought
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:15
inciting a mob to burn down a building is an action
speech can be an action and harmful actions must be regulated
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:19
the fire is the action
punish the arsonist
not the guy who said he hates the building
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:22
if he handed them the matches and told them to do it he is culpable
that is exactly how incitement works even under current legal frameworks
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:26
sure
direct incitement is already illegal everywhere
you want to ban offensive opinions not just actual crimes
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:29
i want to ban organized psychological violence that destroys communities
the current legal definition of incitement is too narrow for internet radicalization
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:33
psychological violence is a made up term
you just want to silence people you hate
just admit it
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:36
i don't hate them i want them to stop harming my community
my priority is marginalized survival not absolute philosophical purity
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:40
survival means protecting your own rights
once you give the state power to ban speech they will eventually ban yours
count on it
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:43
the state already targets our speech disproportionately
refusing to protect marginalized people just leaves the current power dynamic untouched
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:47
so you want to hand the state more power
makes zero sense
i'm done here
notyourbuddy_ - AGAINST - 20:50
no i want communities to have actual legal recourse against coordinated hate
but i suppose walking away is easier than grappling with systemic nuance
leftofcenter99 - FOR - 20:54