It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Darvond: I didn't cry when Antonin Scalia died, I won't cry when Trump dies, I won't cry when Rush Limbaugh dies. They first need to earn the basic respect of showing human decency.
Actually, not mocking people and not rejoicing over someone's death by inciting others to publicly humiliate their memory - all of that would be part of the "basic respect of showing human decency."

You don't respect the humanity of person by waiting for them to earn it. You respect their humanity because they are human.
avatar
misteryo: You don't respect the humanity of person by waiting for them to earn it. You respect their humanity because they are human.
That respect can be, individually, deservedly lost.
avatar
king_mosiah: This was an just an old man who made comic strips, not someone with authority, using their position to oppress and censor the population in order to hold power. And it almost sounds like you have an issue with the very idea of being allowed to say offensive things...
avatar
jamyskis: Well, here I made more or less exactly the same point, and I also listed examples of people who were much more deserving of such hatred.

I was actually tempted to agree with you that this was just a harmless old man really, until, when looking for comic strips to prove that he was, I found a number of other strips which were blatantly defamatory in nature.

Whether I have an issue with the very idea of being allowed to say offensive things? No, not inherently. The boundary that the far right in particular likes to deliberately blur in order to silence criticism of their views is the boundary between offensive statements and defamation, and that's a common problem with far-right extremism and right-wing libertarianism (and no, I'm not saying that these two are the same, hence why I list them separately). I have absolutely no problem with the right of people to say something offensive. Heck, I'm even known myself to tell, repeat and find funny sexist, racist, and otherwise fairly un-PC jokes.

Un-PC jokes and constructive criticism are fair game. Insults, too, to a reasonable extent. But defamation - untrue or distorted public statements made for the purpose of deliberately harming the reputation of or inciting hatred or violence against a person or group of people - is not fair game, and I'm up for punishing it to whatever extent possible. The notoriously lop-sided nature of US society is largely attributable to the ability of the political, oligarchical and religious extremes to defame to their heart's content and mislabel it as "freedom of speech".

Just to be clear: legally and ethically, freedom of speech is a freedom from prior restraint. You cannot be punished for the sole fact of having said or written something in particular. You can, however, be punished for the effects of those statements, intended or otherwise - that's why perjury, libel, slander and fraud are all crimes and fully compatible with the First Amendment.

But well done for arguing with me when I actually initially agreed with you on Chick's supposed "harmlessness", and in doing so actually encouraging me to find the proof that I was wrong to agree with you.
Could you give some examples of him doing any of these things? Also, If I said that I didn't like group B or made some anti group B propaganda, and some nut attacks an person or persons in group B, am I to blame? What if what I said was a joke or satire?
avatar
Hunter65536: And Hitler had political power which was also part of his point about the witch.
avatar
Telika: Political power is acquired and sustained by a critical mass of popular support, endorsement, legitimation. Hitler wasn't the nazi machine. Ideology was. Propaganda was. Racialist, antisemitic common sense was. And those are established, strenghtened, maintained, by discourses. By words and images.

By a flood of "just my opinion, mate".

Okay, I see a lot of people don't give a shit, because giving a shit would make them uncomfortable towards discourses a bit too close to home. But oh joy oh bliss oh so much luck, we are nowadays blessed by the same phenomenon in a more comfortably ideologically remote context :

The ISIS propaganda, on facebook or dedicated sites, in a few extremist mosquees, in prisons, in some neighbourhooids, is also "just words", "just opinions", about the moral state of society, about God, about the blasphemy of homosexuality, promiscuity, music, etc. About the injustices of colonial history. They are all "just my opinion, mate". "Not my fault if the logical implication of these opinions is that the western world is satanic trash". "Not my fault if some people decide to do something against it".

Yet I don't see many conservatives panicking at every criticism (or action) against islamist propaganda.
Political power needn't be the result of popular support. I doubt Stalin had popular support, or Mao or Kim Jong Il. It can stem from the concentration of excessive power in few hands or even one hand. The regulation of expression for the prevention of spreading of propaganda is a weak solution to that. Ultimately, thoughts cannot be regulated. Take your own example. Despite many measures including the banning of propaganda accounts, people aren't just getting up and realizing all the BS they believed in was false.

The idea cannot be destroyed through censorship, and its propagation can still happen through un-regulatable means, like person to person communication or someone thinking it up themselves. The solution in my opinion (hehe) is to have ideas challenged and see whether they stand up to criticism.

But I understand what you are saying. Many humans still lack any semblance of critical thought and will believe what they are told very easily. A question arises here whether such person is the average person or whether most voter-age people are like that. If yes, then many types of censorship may work in the short term, as it may keep the idea from the fickle populace. But the consequence is that the freedom to express that and legally similar opinions are lost. On the other hand, if most people are not sheep and have critical thinking, then it will do little but hinder the natural course of the free market of ideas.