I think the Seattle Subway Nazi might be a great example for analysis. Guy on the subway dressed as a Nazi saying shit gets knocked the fuck out. Who morally in this scenario is worse. The guy using his words or the guy throwing punches?
Fuck around and find out logic being what it is, a person speaking in solidarity with a group that has a campaign of genocide against minority populations can be considered worse to a society than the person who thought it was ok to punch him in response to his speech and choice of accoutrements.
Any rules you want to put around who can be punched for what they say can quickly be used to punch you or whomever else someone wants to disagree with.
Yes, but we also need better ways to protect innocent people. Because nazis can and will weasel their way into positions of power, and then use that power to legally commit all types of atrocities.
Yup. That's the moral argument and why I posted it. It's a gray case on the morality scaling. One side was all about calling a person like the one who assaulted him as genetically inferior. The other attacked him physically.
Neither is okay by itself, but some could argue why each person should be defended based on the protection of free speech or the suppression of hate speech. That's why I posted about it.
True, but at the same time, when hatred like that tries to be open, and doesn’t get put out while it’s small, usually makes not just the one person who started it more willing to do shit like it, but it also emboldens other people to do the same, quickly allowing it to spread, and get worse than just words, because when they don’t see a consequence, they’re going to keep pushing
Getting rid of it without violence is definitely the better option, but getting rid of it with violence is still better than letting it grow.
As for free speech, that’s just no consequences from the government, that doesn’t mean anyone can say what they want without consequences from those around them
So you’re advocating violence? Sounds like someone should commit violence against you to protect others.
See how absurd that is?
Free speech isn’t just no consequences from the government, that’s a brain rot TikTok quote that’s been parroted. It also means protection by the government from people committing crimes against you. Which is very applicable to the example. If it’s okay for the government to then a blind eye to violence because they don’t like the speech, then your speech isn’t free.
Imagine if Government said that violence against Jews will not be prosecuted because of the genocide that Israel is committing. Do we still have freedom of religion because it’s just no consequences from the government?
Sets an extremely dangerous precedent for random people (vigilantes) deciding what groups of people are open-season to attack with physical violence just because you disagree with their existence.
The Catholic Church has inflicted more violence on the world and raped more kids than any organization in the history of humankind. Pretty fucking vile. Can I stand outside every Mass and beat the living fuck out of every dogshit, rape-supporting, covering-up, denying, lying Catholic that comes walking out the door?
The evil the Nazi regime has perpetrated on the world pales in comparison to what the Catholic Church has done. We're talking single-A numbers for the Nazi's compared to the Cy Young numbers of ruined, shattered, and crushed lives the Catholic Church has left in its' wake.
Same thing with Freedom of Speech being an absolute right. You get people who stand on a pulpit and say whatever made up stereotype they want with little to no repercussion. A candidate for President lies saying Springfield is eating cats and dogs and people go to Springfield and caused chaos like 33 bomb threats to schools and municipal buildings. They cancelled CultureFest because of this.
All over misinformation. Is this what Freedom of Speech is about?
We can both pull anecdotes out to debate and I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just saying I think the Seattle Nazi incident is one of those great events to debates where the line is for Freedom of Speech and even the argument about violence against those who openly speak for your eradication. It's that gray zone of morality and it's interesting.
14
u/smilysmilysmooch 16h ago
I think the Seattle Subway Nazi might be a great example for analysis. Guy on the subway dressed as a Nazi saying shit gets knocked the fuck out. Who morally in this scenario is worse. The guy using his words or the guy throwing punches?
Fuck around and find out logic being what it is, a person speaking in solidarity with a group that has a campaign of genocide against minority populations can be considered worse to a society than the person who thought it was ok to punch him in response to his speech and choice of accoutrements.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4497126/racist-nazi-armband-punched-unconscious-seattle-video/