After a certain point, it's no longer "defending free speech", it's "defending primarily Nazis."
-
-
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
As much as I hate to say it, it's free speech either way. Only when violence is involved does it become hate speech.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @JacobRAdkins
Incorrect. If the basic premise of your argument is that a group of people should be genocided, your argument has no merit.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 6 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @JacobRAdkins
If there's no merit to it then there's no reason to suppress it. Arguing to limit free speech is asinine, and shooting yourself in the foot.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ATorL
Just because an argument doesn't have merit doesn't mean it also doesn't have consequences. Allowing Nazi speech leads to more
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @ATorL
hate crimes and violence against minorities. We've seen that with Trump's election.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @ATorL
There's a difference between free speech and trolling, which is what this is. Genocide is bad obviously, but most Trumpeters are trolls.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
All they want is a reaction; nothing more. When we give it to them, they become emboldened and keep pressing the issue further.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
Yes, free speech does not come without consequence, but unless the person is physically harming someone else they should be left alone.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
Yeah, I'm done with white men saying "it's just trolling."
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.