• Yggstyle@lemmy.world
    11·
    2 days ago

    Alright so expand on this:

    nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.

    We’re half way there. Why couldn’t they do what they were doing before?

    Edit: If you’re going to drop an ambiguous nuh uh, because “reasons” …and then be unable to expand on that after 5/6 hours - perhaps be clearer in your argument. At present it looks a lot like you’re attempting to muddy a discussion with unverifiable nonsense.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      11·
      2 hours ago

      Why couldn’t they do what they were doing before?

      Because they werent allowed to be in the open as if what they do is considered normal and acceptable. They were rightfully considered a threat and treated like so. Its nothing complicated.

      • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
        1·
        59 minutes ago

        So lets boil this down -

        nah, they were not empowered to put their hate in practice so much not so long ago, precisely because they couldnt be out in the fucking open without major backlash.

        Because they werent allowed to be in the open as if what they do is considered normal and acceptable.

        With you so far - clearly. I think my comment was: Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be… [continued]

        They were rightfully considered a threat and treated like so.

        … which is exactly what free speech enables. People say shit - other people respond. Freedom of speech/expression does not mean everything said is ‘okay’ or ‘legal’ - it means you are protected in your right to say it. It doesn’t protect you dealing with the backlash of saying something stupid or hateful. How people choose to respond to it is also a freedom: and most people do not care for nor tolerate hate groups. It works itself out… and from the statement you made: I think you get that.

        People frequently will say freedom of speech allows for hate speech - and reality is simply that you cannot stop hate speech from happening no more than you can stop any other crime. You can punish it though - after the fact. We cannot prevent things that haven’t happened yet. This isn’t minority report - we don’t have espers or precrime.

        …Which is the point I was making. So to be clear - you disagreed with my statements because…?