Have to disagree here. Got into law because I admired ACLU defending right of repellent Nazis to march in Skokie in 60s.
-
-
En réponse à @AlanNeff
And where has that led us? Not being snarky, empirically speaking, what has defending Nazis gotten us?
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
I know you're not being snarky. But see Niemoller: when you take away one group ('s rights), you open the door.
4 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
-
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
2/2 My point is stand up to them, debate them, ridicule them constantly. But don't deny right to speak. It martyrs/empowers.
3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
This isn't a theoretical argument. The same thing is happening now that happened back then, almost step for step.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @AlanNeff
And I think "if you advocate genocide you lose your right to speak" is a very bright line that's obvious when crossed.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
We'll have to agree to disagree. Advocating genocide - odious, repellent, you choose adjective - is not committing genocide.
3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
-
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Sure, they advocate it because they want genocide to happen. But, to gain followers, they WANT to be censored/underdogs.
3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
No, actually, they don't. They want to be in the White House and in the media.
-
-
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Well, that, too, as a path to committing genocide. Of course.
0 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aimeMerci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.