• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Complaining about semantics isn’t the argument you think it is. Meanings & distinctions matter.

    The distinction between definite, demonstrable harm and lack thereof is crucial to justice. If you’re willing to undermine rights for expressions that won’t actually harm/threaten, then I don’t care for your idea of justice & neither should anyone.

    By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes?

    No & already answered.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I disagree with everything you said on the premise that I have already allowed for speech we dislike to be protected, but for some reason you insist that all should should be protected, hypocritically except for the speech that we shouldn’t, which isn’t even a point I defined. You also leave too much room in your “demonstrable” argument failing to define “demonstrable” hence my hyperbolic quip that arguably you’ll wait until people die, which even if hyperbolic is close to the mark: you’ll wait until it’s too late. I’m done here while you argue definitions and we get more trumps and nazis in government. Make sure you lock the door in your ivory tower behind you.