this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
164 points (93.2% liked)

World News

39019 readers
3735 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (59 children)

Good. There's no good reason to burn books. Free speech doesn't require absolutism, it requires that we are capable of expressing our ideas. Yelling the N word doesn't express an idea, it's just offense. Ditto book burning. People who are absolutists are pretty much always being assholes.

[–] Silejonu@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (13 children)

Blasphemy and racism are two very different things.

Blasphemy is a human right.

Besides, there are already laws against hate speech.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (12 children)

Different issue. I'm not debating categories of speech. I'm saying that speech that expresses no ideas but that is significantly hateful to a group of people shouldn't be protected. There are trade offs here: offensive speech that expresses political ideas (beyond "we hate you") is worthwhile and should be balanced against offense it may cause. I know this isn't a nice simple black and white answer but I think the real world isn't nice a simple. There are shades of grey. Other countries might weigh the tradeoffs differently and that's fine. Doesn't make this decision wrong, just that the tradeoffs are weighed differently to your intuitions

[–] Silejonu@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a nice word salad to say you support blasphemy laws.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What rules does your skydaddy support?

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I'm an atheist and you appear incapable of listening.

[–] Silejonu@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So you unambiguously said you support a blasphemy law, but somehow you don't support blasphemy laws? Wake up.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Wtf are you talking about? Show me where I "unambiguously said [I] support a blasphemy law"

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (55 replies)