If you protect Nazi's right to speak, they will gain power, they will use power, and people die. We are watching it in real time.
-
-
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
I'm really sorry we disagree. I understand what you're saying. i know my position has risks in it. But so does yours.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
an extremely easy line to spot someone crossing.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Maybe. Language is slippery. What if I say, "I'm not advocating genocide, but we have to get these Jews/other out of here."?
3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
However, if your plan for "getting them out of here" doesn't involve a way they can survive, yes, you are advocating genocide.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
But if you leave "no way out" unspoken, then should your speech be censored for advocating genocide? Not so clear, I think.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
Again, you're also now arguing a hypothetical where a virulently anti-immigrant stance might be confused with Nazism.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
I'm a lawyer and a civil libertarian. Part of my job is arguing hypotheticals, but I like to think I base them in data.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @AlanNeff
Right. Arguing hypotheticals is necessary (and generally fun). I'm saying that my point isn't a hypothetical.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Neither is mine. The Holocaust didn't start with murder or threats to murder Jews. It started with taking away other rights.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
Right, but that was active, not reactive. Taking away someone's rights for wanting to take away someone else's rights will never
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.