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

    Your definitions of unacceptable speech & legitimate threat are unclear, and people nowadays make claims loosely. If it means demonstrable harm, then they’re fine & I apologize for the excessive caution.

    From context

    Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties

    and key words

    only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe

    and my direct statement

    speaking one’s mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty

    I’m stating reasons of demonstrable harm are largely absent in speech. Speaking one’s mind doesn’t cause harm. Harm requires an act.

    Tolerance is the allowance of objectionable (expression of) ideas & acts. That objectionable acts directly & demonstrably harm/threaten security or liberty is an easier claim that fits Rawl’s conclusion consistently. That speech alone can do so is a more difficult claim: maybe only false warnings or malicious instructions that lead to injuries or loss of rights, coercive threats, or defamation.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Ah, arguing semantics. Way to waste time.

      By your argument people beed to be killed before you lift a finger. Yes? It’s not too late until it’s too late?

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 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
          8 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.