Quote (Surfpunk @ May 21 2019 05:27pm)

Quote (cambovenzi @ May 22 2019 04:37pm)

I agree.



No one is defending hiring a hitman or calls to violence as free speech.
Yes people should be liable for hiring a hitman.



There is a categorical difference between hiring a hitman and speech that might be correlated or coincide with increased violence.
No, banning speech would not be morally justified. There likely is a correlation between violence and insults, negative characterizations and numerous other forms of speech.
Banning these forms of speech would be totalitarian and would require actual violence to enforce.

An antifa loser might get triggered and engage in violence if someone advocates free speech or capitalism or any other number of topics.
The government cracking down on the speaker would be insanely immoral.

Quote (Neptunus @ 22 May 2019 14:16)

Most lefists aren't antifa, nor are most Muslims hostile in practice (we can debate about the general attitudes of Muslims, though). They are a small minority just like the far right degenerates.

I can see the issue with court issues over jokes. I still believe that spoken words can surpass the threshold of becoming deeds when words are used to facilitate or outright commit crimes. If i tell someone to beat up someone else, is it a crime? If one hires a hitman, should he be sued for murder or just the hitman? After all, he just gave someone money and said a few words. These words made the difference.

If someone shows using carefully constructed studies, that a certain type of speech is statistically associated with increased violent crimes and uprisings and is able to prove a causal relationship, would you not hold the speech as a cause for the violence? I'm not advocating anything here really, just trying to point out dilemmas. Would restricting such speech be morally justified on the grounds of reducing overall violence?

Quote (TransTankie @ May 23 2019 08:58am)

ALL leftists are antifascist. It's fucking definitional. You just have a twisted view of what it means to be antifascist because the media is shitty toward us.

Quote (Gimhae @ 22 May 2019 03:10)

the left has it out for him and NON OF THE ABOVE ARETRUE ALL MADE UP CLAMES AND FALSE

Quote (Neptunus @ May 23 2019 05:32am)

I'm under the impression that Antifa is a label reserved for a specific subgroup of leftists. The ones who rally on the streets and overlap with anarchists and political activists and whose members occasionally cross the line between the legal and the illegal. I went on and checked Antifa in wiki and the definition there was convergent with mine. Vandalism, violence and harassment is degenerate and not really a part of what most leftists subscribe to.

Obviously leftists are anti-fascist, i'm left-leaning and would most probably fit into both the group of leftists and the anti-fascists. Your problem is imho semantic. It would be like saying that "Nazism isn't degenerate, it's actually 'National socialism' and socialism is good!" That doesn't work and you know it.

Quote (GodSmiter @ May 23 2019 01:42pm)

AFAIK the antifa movement is a reaction to rising fascism and is by definition a left wing stance. Just because a group of them will vandalize, harass or commit violence (which also imo needs proper context) does not change what the movement is supposed to be about. Left wing is against fascism in all forms. The people who aren't acting in that way and just using the platform or movement as a way to hurt people are not the ones who define it and that's what anyone who is against left wing would want to frame it in such a way

Quote (Goomshill @ May 24 2019 06:17am)

Or to be more laconic- its fascism for dumb people.

At least right wing authoritarians hqd a coherent worldview and though suppressing dissent would lead to an ordered world. Left wing authoritarians have some jumbled and self-contradictory idiocy where they want to use violent suppression of democracy to liberate the world from tyrants.