What do you mean "clearly... using his speech to start violence"? The only people starting violence are the people starting violence. There's no restriction on free speech for hurt feelings. If we only allowed people to practise free speech when it could never offend anyone else, we'd all be silent all the time. The entire premise of the concept is that we can express ourselves when it offends others. That's the whole point. Free speech arose as a central pillar of reason, science, and democracy during the Enlightenment when the Church would hang people for claiming the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. Can you see why it's important that we allow people to dissent, disagree, and even antagonise one another?
A cute sentiment but not one based in reality.
I'm not allowed to visit Auschwitz dressed in Nazi uniform. I will have violence used against me.
I can't slowly drive around a small town in 'Bama with a gay pride flag and a I VOTED FOR HILARY bumper sticker. I will have violence used against me.
I can't enjoy a Cider at the Cider House wearing my Make America Great Again hat. I will have violence used against me.
In each instance I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just making those around me uncomfortable and anxious with my (to them) questionable views. Yet everyone can clearly see I'm looking for trouble, that the 'speech' has the unsaid addition of 'I want to hurt you when I'm powerful enough'.
It's easier to police the one person doing the antagonizing than it is to police the millions of people from the demographic they're targeting, it's inevitable that a few loons will take matters into their own hands.
These are false comparisons. This is an approved demonstration against Islamic violence(and such). But I guess we all forgot about Charlie H and all the rest. The man did not walk into a mosque on a Tuesday and light a book on fire.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few goes against the principles of justice and fairness. Attributing the actions of extremists to all Muslims is like blaming all Christians for the actions of a few extremists within that group. Extremism exists in all religions and ideologies.
No, this is a systemical issue with Islamic countries
Attributing a complex issue to an entire group of countries oversimplifies the situation. Just as with any region, Muslim-majority countries are diverse, each with its unique political, cultural, and historical context.
Blaming all Muslim countries for a problem oversimplifies the factors contributing to the situation. It's important to address specific issues within individual countries rather than making blanket generalizations about an entire religion or group of nations.
No, there's a red line of true harsh oppression going on in Islamic countries in general. This is what is being protested
I understand your concern about instances of oppression in some Islamic countries. It's important to address human rights violations and support efforts to create positive change.
However, it's crucial to remember that oppression can occur in any society, regardless of religious affiliation. Rather than attributing these issues to an entire religion or region, we should focus on advocating for human rights, raising awareness, and supporting efforts that promote justice and equality for all.
Painting an entire group with a broad brush doesn't help us understand the complexities of these situations or work toward meaningful solutions.
It's not*** painting, it's being against a specific culture and pretending it doesn't exist makes it worse
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe get some sleep.
You too (edited)
Need another run at it. It looks like you're saying I'm pretending a specific culture doesn't exist.
Kind of my feelings. For the Islamic world is terribly oppressive
Yeah but if you insult the mob you can't be all surprised if they try to kill you. Free speech protects you from the government. We live in a world were everyone doesn't recognize the same rules law and order.
I look at this the same way as a white guy singing a bunch of rap songs using the n-word as emphatically as possible then posting it on youtube. Sure you have the right to say it but that's not going to stop you from getting your ass beat
Yes, I can be surprised. There's no free speech if people can't argue against regimes, wrongdoings, women being treated unequal, slavery, etc. That is the problem exactly. Also the same false comparison
So you're using examples where Free Speech has failed as an argument against Free Speech? Because you SHOULD be allowed to do the things named in your examples. That's the ideal, were not there yet but that's not a justification to stop the journey.
There you go again with weak arguments that don't compare to this.
Let's try a different track: I'm asking you to to go to all of those places and do all of those actions. It'll be more productive than either (good-faith) getting the conversation distracted responding to explain why those aren't good points or (bad-faith) derailing things just for the fun of being contrarian.
How doesn't it compare?
This is an individual who hates Muslims, doesn't want them in his country. He thinks they are dangerous, so he will prove they are dangerous by antagonizing them in the hope that a few hot heads will take the bait. Then he can say 'look see, all Muslims are violent and we must remove them from our country'.
Just like the guy in the MAGA hat can then say 'Look at how violent the Portlanders are', just like the guy with the Hilary bumper sticker car can then say 'Look at how violent these rural bumpkins are. It's active provocation, not a protest.
What do you mean "clearly... using his speech to start violence"? The only people starting violence are the people starting violence. There's no restriction on free speech for hurt feelings. If we only allowed people to practise free speech when it could never offend anyone else, we'd all be silent all the time. The entire premise of the concept is that we can express ourselves when it offends others. That's the whole point. Free speech arose as a central pillar of reason, science, and democracy during the Enlightenment when the Church would hang people for claiming the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. Can you see why it's important that we allow people to dissent, disagree, and even antagonise one another?
A cute sentiment but not one based in reality.
I'm not allowed to visit Auschwitz dressed in Nazi uniform. I will have violence used against me.
I can't slowly drive around a small town in 'Bama with a gay pride flag and a I VOTED FOR HILARY bumper sticker. I will have violence used against me.
I can't enjoy a Cider at the Cider House wearing my Make America Great Again hat. I will have violence used against me.
In each instance I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just making those around me uncomfortable and anxious with my (to them) questionable views. Yet everyone can clearly see I'm looking for trouble, that the 'speech' has the unsaid addition of 'I want to hurt you when I'm powerful enough'.
It's easier to police the one person doing the antagonizing than it is to police the millions of people from the demographic they're targeting, it's inevitable that a few loons will take matters into their own hands.
These are false comparisons. This is an approved demonstration against Islamic violence(and such). But I guess we all forgot about Charlie H and all the rest. The man did not walk into a mosque on a Tuesday and light a book on fire.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few goes against the principles of justice and fairness. Attributing the actions of extremists to all Muslims is like blaming all Christians for the actions of a few extremists within that group. Extremism exists in all religions and ideologies.
No, this is a systemical issue with Islamic countries
Attributing a complex issue to an entire group of countries oversimplifies the situation. Just as with any region, Muslim-majority countries are diverse, each with its unique political, cultural, and historical context.
Blaming all Muslim countries for a problem oversimplifies the factors contributing to the situation. It's important to address specific issues within individual countries rather than making blanket generalizations about an entire religion or group of nations.
No, there's a red line of true harsh oppression going on in Islamic countries in general. This is what is being protested
I understand your concern about instances of oppression in some Islamic countries. It's important to address human rights violations and support efforts to create positive change.
However, it's crucial to remember that oppression can occur in any society, regardless of religious affiliation. Rather than attributing these issues to an entire religion or region, we should focus on advocating for human rights, raising awareness, and supporting efforts that promote justice and equality for all.
Painting an entire group with a broad brush doesn't help us understand the complexities of these situations or work toward meaningful solutions.
It's not*** painting, it's being against a specific culture and pretending it doesn't exist makes it worse
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe get some sleep.
You too (edited)
Need another run at it. It looks like you're saying I'm pretending a specific culture doesn't exist.
Kind of my feelings. For the Islamic world is terribly oppressive
Yeah but if you insult the mob you can't be all surprised if they try to kill you. Free speech protects you from the government. We live in a world were everyone doesn't recognize the same rules law and order.
I look at this the same way as a white guy singing a bunch of rap songs using the n-word as emphatically as possible then posting it on youtube. Sure you have the right to say it but that's not going to stop you from getting your ass beat
Yes, I can be surprised. There's no free speech if people can't argue against regimes, wrongdoings, women being treated unequal, slavery, etc. That is the problem exactly. Also the same false comparison
So you're using examples where Free Speech has failed as an argument against Free Speech? Because you SHOULD be allowed to do the things named in your examples. That's the ideal, were not there yet but that's not a justification to stop the journey.
There you go again with weak arguments that don't compare to this.
Let's try a different track: I'm asking you to to go to all of those places and do all of those actions. It'll be more productive than either (good-faith) getting the conversation distracted responding to explain why those aren't good points or (bad-faith) derailing things just for the fun of being contrarian.
How doesn't it compare?
This is an individual who hates Muslims, doesn't want them in his country. He thinks they are dangerous, so he will prove they are dangerous by antagonizing them in the hope that a few hot heads will take the bait. Then he can say 'look see, all Muslims are violent and we must remove them from our country'.
Just like the guy in the MAGA hat can then say 'Look at how violent the Portlanders are', just like the guy with the Hilary bumper sticker car can then say 'Look at how violent these rural bumpkins are. It's active provocation, not a protest.