• lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Alt text there:

      I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.

      I totally agree, it’s like calling your opponent bot, voids a lot of what you have to say

      • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        it’s like calling your opponent bot, voids a lot of what you have to say

        That’s not quite the same. When calling someone a bot, or nazi, or any other group, you are more explicitly saying " I see zero value in arguing with you and expect that you will only be arguing in bad faith, so I am not going to humor you", and also serves as an at least attempted black mark.

        It’s overall just a tactic to end an argument sucinctly, by trying to say “this argument has run its course, I am cutting it off here”

        Every group does it. communists call up people libs or nazis, leftists call people tankies or nazis or zionists, liberals call people hippies, nazis, commies, anarchists, etc… and conservatives call people by every word in the book.

    • Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Exactly. I’ve often said you’re free to speak, but you’re also free to suffer the consequences of doing so. We don’t have to silently suffer the bullshit coming from everyone else’s mouths.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        And you’re not necessarily free to speak, depending on what you’re saying and where you’re saying it. As the comic says “free speech” refers to consequences from the government, not anyone else.