The law protects free speech, which is the cornerstone of democracy. Answering free speech with violence is the opposite of democracy. Any society based on our allowing murdering people that you disagree with is doomed to fail.
Accountability is also a cornerstone of Democracy, moreso than absolute free speech. Yet there’s been a lack of that too.
If anything, unrestricted speech is the seed of authoritarianism, because it allows the segregation of people in society. Hence the paradox of tolerance.
Also, when the laws only enforce one way, the people will ensure justice comes a different way.
Accountability? You mean murdering people you disagree with? Explain again to me how free speech is the seed of… authoritarianism? That’s some crazy mental gymnastics. And what laws did Charlie Kirk break?
Perhaps not American law (well, that’s debatable too), but he certainly would have been hanged to death at the Nuremberg trials, since he has done the same propaganda that other Nazis in Hitler’s government did. That is, if we simply ignore your “appeal to law” fallacy.
That he faced no consequences for stochastic terrorism among other things is only an indication of the failings of both your justice system and your country’s morality. Violence like this, against people like him, only happens when there is a lack of justice.
As for how absolute free speech (not to be confused with regulated speech or absolute censorship) can be the seeds of authoritarianism, I suggest you read Popper’s “paradox of tolerance” as a starting source. Speech without consequences begets falsehoods that are ripe for any right wing government to co-opt. Which is exactly what has been happening in the USA for quite some time.
Nuremberg was after the holocaust. You can’t just skip over the fact that Charlie Kirk has not instigated a holocaust, nor can you assume that he would have. That’s not even a logical fallacy, it’s simply not even true. Accusing me of a logical fallacy is rich in irony. Seriously, it’s so dumb I don’t even know what to say.
If you want to talk about democracy surviving, step one is removal of anyone trying to dismantle democracy.
That removal does not need to be by death, of course. A court system can imprison or deport such a person… if they’re fair.
The law protects free speech, which is the cornerstone of democracy. Answering free speech with violence is the opposite of democracy. Any society based on our allowing murdering people that you disagree with is doomed to fail.
Accountability is also a cornerstone of Democracy, moreso than absolute free speech. Yet there’s been a lack of that too.
If anything, unrestricted speech is the seed of authoritarianism, because it allows the segregation of people in society. Hence the paradox of tolerance.
Also, when the laws only enforce one way, the people will ensure justice comes a different way.
Accountability? You mean murdering people you disagree with? Explain again to me how free speech is the seed of… authoritarianism? That’s some crazy mental gymnastics. And what laws did Charlie Kirk break?
Perhaps not American law (well, that’s debatable too), but he certainly would have been hanged to death at the Nuremberg trials, since he has done the same propaganda that other Nazis in Hitler’s government did. That is, if we simply ignore your “appeal to law” fallacy.
That he faced no consequences for stochastic terrorism among other things is only an indication of the failings of both your justice system and your country’s morality. Violence like this, against people like him, only happens when there is a lack of justice.
As for how absolute free speech (not to be confused with regulated speech or absolute censorship) can be the seeds of authoritarianism, I suggest you read Popper’s “paradox of tolerance” as a starting source. Speech without consequences begets falsehoods that are ripe for any right wing government to co-opt. Which is exactly what has been happening in the USA for quite some time.
Nuremberg was after the holocaust. You can’t just skip over the fact that Charlie Kirk has not instigated a holocaust, nor can you assume that he would have. That’s not even a logical fallacy, it’s simply not even true. Accusing me of a logical fallacy is rich in irony. Seriously, it’s so dumb I don’t even know what to say.
You’re aware that the overwhelming majority of murderers are right-wingers, right?
Since you brought it up, do you have any numbers to support that?
Are we playing questions?
“Counting or not counting gang violence?”
Oof. I’d say it’s too soon, but that’s clearly not the case on lemmy… But also yes that’s a fair question.