this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
829 points (96.9% liked)

Comics

5878 readers
75 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine πŸ‡΅πŸ‡Έ . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My point is that it's a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of "hate". Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)

For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.

Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

They aren't censored for believing those things are sinful. They're being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren't them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don't, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?

[–] ZarkleFarkle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Not if he's just arguing with you in a way that outwardly appears calm, even if a little shocked or disgusted.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As long as I get to tell him just as calmly to fuck off and leave me alone, and he does, we're good.

[–] ZarkleFarkle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I believe in trying to enact compassion and peace. Most people are actually very similar and don't want to be bothered by angry people.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I beg to differ. Some people want to be trans. Some people think being trans is unnatural and should therefore be illegal. There can be no halfway compromise on these issues. There can be no reminding people "hey, we're all human, why can't we just get along" when one group wants another to stop existing.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for "no reason" then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.

Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.

What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it

If that's how you want to define the opinion that people shouldn't be thrown in jail for providing abortions or gender affirming care, or that Tucker Carlson shouldn't be allowed to go on TV and tell his followers that all drag queens are pedophiles, then so be it.

Sin is whatever. You can believe that all gays are going to go to turbo-hell, you can tell all your facebook friends, you can say you feel pity for us, I don't care. As long as I'm allowed to live my life however I want, and you don't come into my face and tell me not to, we're good. But your right to swing your arms stops at my face. As soon as you start codifying your opinions into law, or advocating for violence against people who ~~hold different beliefs than you~~ live their lives in a way contrary to your religion (which strangely only seems to come from people who self-identify as being on the right), we're gonna have a problem.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is (mostly) a different point and I'm not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn't a slippery slope it's the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I agree that censorship is evil. I disagree that people being banned from internet forums because of opinions they hold is censorship.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're just redefining terms. It's the same thing. If Twitter or Lemmy wants to block those things that's fine. I would agree that social networks should try to maintain some sense of decency on their platforms. The government shouldn't be involved though.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago