this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
977 points (96.6% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
2254 readers
4 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Outlawed is wrong. Because we cannot trust those doing the outlawing and should be fucking clear. Do I even need to bring up the elephant in the room? You want to Outlaw disagreements with US foreign policy?
We hanged people at Nuremberg for incitement to genocide. Genocide is a crime with a very specific meaning. Yes, bad-faith actors can abuse a law prohibiting incitement to genocide, but the same can be done with any law.
Advocating for genocide is not free speech - it's attempted mass murder. Two people talking with each other and conspiring to kill someone else isn't protected speech - it's just conspiracy to commit murder. And if plotting to kill one person isn't protected, plotting to kill thousands or millions shouldn't be protected either. These people are plotting to commit genocide, and their intention is to use the power of the state as their murder weapon.
We need to prosecute attempted genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide as vigorously as we would any plot to kill any individual. But we have this weird blind spot where if someone plans to commit murder on a large scale using the state as the murder weapon, that somehow we don't recognize it as the same fundamental crime. Murder is murder. Killing is killing. Conspiracy to commit murder is conspiracy to commit murder. Whether the weapon is your own bare hands or the apparatus of a nation state. Advocating for genocide is nothing less than conspiracy to commit genocide.
I disagree with this take. The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren't killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions. They actually carried out a genocide, that's what they were guilty of.
I actually disagree with this relatively new movement that pushes for hate speech laws because they're something that's inherently arbitrary and subjective, and they can and will be weaponized to serve nefarious agendas. Principles like freedom of speech MUST be applied universally and fairly in order for them to mean anything. Freedom of speech exists to protect offensive, controversial, and unpopular opinions against censorship because what can be considered any of those things can change at any time.
For example, 60 years ago being racial equality was viewed as seemed very controversial and unpopular, but today? The opposite. However, in 60 years, public opinion on these views could flip again. If we pass laws that outlaw racist views as hateful, then it's very possible that these laws could be changed at any point in the future to outlaw anti-racist views as hateful. I don't want to ever live in a society where I'm being legally punished for arguing against segregation. Establishing such precedents is very dangerous and history has shown us that the consequences of these laws aren't always what they were intended.
I think the US freedom of speech laws as they are federally defined are the golden standard. They take into account all the reasonable exceptions, while maintaining a universally applied standard for everyone. If any individual turned their words into actions or clearly had the intent to take action then they'll be persecuted for their actions. That's the way it should be.
You are simply wrong in this case. We hanged Nazi propagandists, as we recognized that they were committing conspiracy to commit genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher
But these are two different things though. In this case Streicher was taking action. He was directly working for the Nazi party, and his job was to convince people that the Nazi crimes were not only okay, but they should be celebrated and expanded. His actions actively aided the genocide, he was a part of the Nazi machine. That's not a private citizen with personal opinions and beliefs.
That's very a big difference between him and some modern neo nazi who spends all day picking his nose, scratching his ass, and posting on 8chan about the world is controlled by the "joos". As long dickheads like this keep their vile views to themselves, then I don't think they should be legally persecuted simply for holding vile opinions. However, the moment their words turn into actions or the clear intention to implement neo nazi bullshit, then that's when they should get persecuted by the law.
Charlie Kirk gave material support (a significant amount, to the point where Trump himself admitted he wouldn't have won without him) to fascists. I think he himself would have balked at you suggesting that he wasn't active in getting the current regime to where it is.
There's two issues with your take here. First, I never even implied that Kirk wasn't a big Trump supporter, that was his whole shtick as a grifter. That's just obvious, and nobody is arguing otherwise. Second, is being a Trump supporter now enough grounds to justify killing people? I agree that Trump and MAGA are pretty Fascist in nature, however the fact remains that Kirk was a private citizen at the end of the day. He was not an elected official and he did not hold any public office. He was just an activist/grifter who made a career simping for Trump. Hate him all you want, I certainly did, but killing him or anybody over this sort thing is a huge red line that should never be crossed. There's a reason why societies throughout history that resorted to using violence for political discourse out of convenience rather than necessity are the ones always ended up being lead by a depraved tyrannical regime. There are many more lessons to learn from history than just acknowledging that Nazis are bad.
And if the Trump administration were exterminating people in death camps and had been convicted in international criminal court then you would have a point.
As it is the administration is obviously ignoring its own laws and being disgusting with racial profiling when deporting immigrants in the country illegally, and grabbing legal immigrants and citizens through this overzealousness and rule/law breaking.
The US is not committing a holocaust against Hispanics. It is not committing one against the LGBTQ community either. Even if you believe that the US is capable of committing one here and that it is coming, it is not happening yet and so Charlie Kirk cannot be an execution for propaganda supporting mass murder/genocide that has already taken place.
Execution for crimes that will be committed in the future is execution for thought crime or execution for free speech.
Ah OK, so we have to let them systematically murder countless people before we can do anything. Got it.
It's not like we should ever learn from history, and try to do things differently this time.
And by the way, I'm not talking about extrajudicial killing. We were talking about Nazi trials.
That is not what I am saying at all, we have many other options before getting to killing as the solution. Learning from history is the point, but you do not jump the gun on death being the penalty for things. The ammo box is the last box to be used for a reason.
If you are not talking obliquely about extrajudicial killings, why are you saying opposing it means we can do nothing until the genocide happens? You were talking about the execution of a propagandist that supported the Holocaust as a direct comparison with Kirk. This comparison can really only be used as an explanation for why it was somehow acceptable for him to be killed. The up thread was about justifying Kirk's death as a Nazi propagandist.
Kirk was directly tied into the Trump administration. He himself sent busloads of followers to help storm the capital. Kirk's jobs was to convince people that the genocidal plans of the Christian Nationalists are OK and should be celebrated and expanded. By the time you get to the level of power and influence of Kirk, you're not really a private citizen anymore. He was instrumental in getting Trump elected. Yes, he doesn't have a formal position in the government, but most of the charges against Streicher were for things that had nothing to do with the little bit of power he briefly had.
Kirk was a piece of shit, you're not going to find me defending him for what he did or stood for. My point is that the way he got killed is not acceptable. He shouldn't get honored or anything like because fuck him, but cheering the way he got killed is not okay either. He wasn't killed under the death penalty by the state, there was no due process, and there wasn't even a valid reason for his death. He was gunned down in broad daylight in the middle of a public crowd by some random guy who didn't like his political views... how is that not fucking crazy to you? Y
ou're trying very hard to justify it because you don't like him, but you don't seem to understand that this isn't about him specifically. I don't like Kirk either, but you're not going to find me trying justify this type of political violence because it sets a dangerous precedent that violence is an acceptable part of political discourse. Political violence is always a two way street. Just as you're trying to justify and cheer on this guy's death and how he was killed, you're making it more normalized and more likely that some conservative whacko isn't to shoot down some left wing figurehead, and they'll use the very same arguments and justifications that you're using now. If you can't accept someone like Hasan Piker or Nina Turner getting gunned down, then why would you cheer this on? If you condemn their deaths, but not Kirk's death or others like him, then you don't have any principles to stand on.
Sorry. Don't lecture to me about the dangers of political violence when we're talking about someone that actively championed literal genocide. In a just world he would have been tried and hanged for crimes against humanity.
Kirk already engaged in political violence. He encouraged his followers to countless acts of violence. You're just mad when people dare to fight back against their oppressors. You call it a two way street, but it was already a one-way street. Right wingers are allowed to plot literal genocide, and the rest of us are supposed to just sit back and pretend it's just fine and normal.
No, sorry. Fuck everything about that. The world is a better place with Charlie Kirk firmly in the ground. He was a mass murderer.
I already made it clear multiple time that I don't like Kirk or what he stood for, but even I, as someone who can't stand him, can clearly see that you're just making shit up as you go try to come up with anything to justify his murder. It's honestly embarrassing. It's so obvious that you lack the merits to come up with a genuine case to justify his murder because you don't have any principles to stand on whatsoever. This is evidenced by the fact that you're unable to even acknowledge any point I've made, let alone give any counter argument as to why you disagree.
Face it, given your melt down here, it's crystal clear that you're aware that your stance is simply indefensible because you're only possible positions is to be a hypocrite, a tyrant, or both. Nobody with any reasonable set of morals, basic understanding of history, or just logically thinking through the consequences can come up with a rational defense for something so unbelievably backwards and dangerous as trying to cheer on political violence. It's an inherently absurd stance.
And the Trump administration has not yet committed any Holocausts or genocide yet. At this point in time it is still "future crime". The Trump admin hasn't been convicted in the Hague of genocide.
Once Trump opens death camps and starts exterminating LGBTQ people, only then does Kirk rises to the level of Streicher. Until that point, it is execution for political disagreement and free speech. You don't have to like the guy in any way for that to be wrong.
We don't want to set a precedent that the best way to change someone's political ideology is to kill them to eliminate that ideology.
I feel like you're reading to me a yugioh trap card that only activates when our opponent summons a big monster. God, the waiting must be agony.
I think death just makes you feel icky. Like, in general.
I don't care that Kirk died. I'm not saying it's a good omen for things to come, exactly, but I can't even pretend to give a shit. The world does not need him.
I really don't know how I should reply to this. Like yes, murder in general is something I am not fond of, and I am pretty sure that is a normal response?
Politically motivated murder is also something I find a specific version of repugnant, no matter the politics of the victims. I think the same about the Minnesota legislators. I feel the same way about the attack on Paul Pelosi, and I think Nancy should be a criminal. Neither deserve to be killed. Killing political opponents is the ultimate breakdown of society.
I am not squeamish about death in general however, be it war or accidents or suicide. Death happens, it's part of life. I can look as Russian soldiers dieing in Ukraine as both a senseless waste of life and totally necessary and warranted at the same time as they are an invading army. I may even experience some schadenfreude, but know intellectually that it's not something that should be celebrated.
If someone does something stupid like try to pet the Bison in Yellowstone, I think it's tragic for their family while being the obvious outcome of their jack of judgement. Before you make the comparison, one side of that obvious outcome of stupidity is a literal wild animal without the ability to reason.
It's the murder part that makes me "feel icky", not the death part.
Why are you describing this to me like you're getting a secret snack from the kitchen.
It is, but it's strongest among people who were taught that wishing ill on the ones cracking their whip is impolite.
Kirk's final words on this great green earth were "tranny tranny tranny, black gang violence, 13:50." Is this really worth ruining your mood over? Like, it's Sunday, you should take your son to the park or something.
It's strongest among those that were taught that everyone is human.
Charlie Kirk's death may or may not be worth ruining anyone's mood over, but sectarian violence that threatens to snowball is. Even if the shooter turns out to be an even further right white Christian nationalist doing this to cause a further erosion of the divide, it works if people on the left are celebrating.
Oh well, you know what they say, and eye for an eye will blind my enemies more and then everything will be just fine.
No, it doesn't. You are castrating yourself before the enemy.
What public mandate allows conservatives the crackdown on liberal cities if nobody cares about the excuse they give?
What you're saying here directly contradicts your previous comment.
How so? I think there's a very clear distinction between the example he gave and what I was talking about. Streicher was a full blown Nazi party member and he held public office under their rule. His position in government is to actively enable a genocide through propaganda. That's not a private citizens with vile opinions, that's a public official acting on his beliefs directly. If Streicher was a private individual who held Nazi beliefs, he would have not been hanged for them because those are just his opinions, as vile as they may be.
In your original comment, the distinction you made was between speech and action, nothing to do with whether they were a private citizen or member of the government. Now in this comment you are claiming that speech ("propaganda", from your perspective) constitutes action. Are you trying to claim that hate speech & propaganda are "actions" if they come from an individual working for the state, but not from a private individual. As I said, your comments contradict each other in that sense.
I don't think you understand the distinction. Free speech, as a principle, exists to protect and allow all people to privately hold and voice any opinion without persecution from the government. This principle doesn't extend to people who are making speech on behalf of the state. That's not their personal opinions, that's the narratives the government wants to release to the public. It is their job to release this propaganda, and that's an action to fulfill the obligations of the work they've been tasked with. Keep in mind, public officials still obviously have freedom of speech as they're still people, however, this protection doesn't extend to what they do within the capacity of their offices. That's the big difference between someone like Kirk and someone like Streicher.
Also just to be clear, I'm not one of those free speech "absolutists", I specifically said that I think the exceptions that are currently defined federally for the 1st amendment are the golden standard. Btw these exceptions are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, fighting words, and speech integral to illegal conduct. These pretty much cover everything that needs to be an exception. They're clear enough to set objective standards, but also have some ambiguity to allow for nuance. I don't think hate speech covers anything that's not already covered, I also think that hate speech as a concept is inherently more subjective, arbitrary, and therefore more volatile than the already existing exceptions.
Your point about freedom of speech is well and fine, however that's unrelated to the contradiction I am pointing out. Speech does not become action solely by virtue of the speech being made on behalf of a state.
I mean if you're arguing technicalities then sure, I guess. My point is that there's a clear distinction between personal opinions of individuals and public opinions made on behalf of another entity like the government. You could argue otherwise, but I consider the latter to be an action because it's a job that you carry out rather than an expression of personal opinions. The speech itself isn't what makes such cases considered as actions imo, the difference is in the context of the delivery.
So basically your point is that "I was following orders" is a valid moral defense? Cool, I'm not interested in that line of argument.
The opposite, I'm saying actions are what should be held accountable.
Gotcha, that makes more sense. In any event, I don't find your theory of distinction between speech and action very convincing. From a moral perspective, public and private speech can be viewed equivalently by those who believe in virtue ethics, by consequentialists, and by deontologists. I am struggling to see the argument for why state-associated speech is less excusable, when the impact it has on society is clearly detrimental, and when people acting on their own behalf have even more responsibility to bear than those "just taking orders" on behalf of the state or other organization.
Like with most things, there's nuance and context is important. Consider these examples:
Example 1 - Some bigot posts on Facebook that he thinks all trans people are pedos. This is obviously hateful and offensive, but it isn't targeting anyone specifically.
Should this be legally prosecuted? I don't think so because this is ultimately a just a controversial opinion, and such opinions should be protected by free speech laws.
Example 2 - A homophobe posts on Reddit about how his neighbors are filthy parasites who don't desrve to exist because they're gay. Then they go on and explain in detail how they plan to kill them if they don't move out soon.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, because this is a credible threat to safety. True threats are not protected by the 1st amendment.
Example 3 - A white supremacist starts a magazine where he publishes his racist views without targeting anyone specifically. He posts articles about things like how "whites are genetically superior to other racists" or "why segregation is a good thing". This individual makes sure to avoid anything that could get him in legal trouble.
Should this be legally prosecuted? No, because while vile, this is still a private individual expressing his personal opinions. So similar to example 1, I think this should be protected by free speech laws because it's just unpopular opinions.
Example 4 - A radical islamist starts an islamic news outlet where he counters the "enemies of islam" by doxxing them and calling on his viewers to take actions against the filthy nonbelievers. They provide clear instructions to their followers on how should go after islam's critics, Jews, feminists, gays, etc irl. This includes trashing their businesses, trying to get them fired, harassing their families, writing graffiti on their houses, etc. The point is to make islam's enemies fear islam's power.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, these aren't just opinions being expressed, this is a direct incitement to action. The intention here is to incite criminal behavior. This is true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, speech integral to criminal conduct, none of which are protected by the first amendment.
Example 5 - A congressional representative says during an interview with the press that she personally thinks that women are superior to men because men are just brainless apes with with rape tendencies.
Should this be legally prosecuted? No, while offensive and false, it is just that, an offensive opinion. There's nobody being targeted, and she's not calling for action. Therefore, this is an opinion that should be protected by free speech laws.
Example 6 - The White House press secretary during a routine meeting with the press gives a long speech about how the United States officially thinks that Indians are subhumans, and details how her fellow Americans can help keep their country clean by either taking out the Indians in their area themselves or by reporting to the Indian in their area to the newly established Indian cleanup agency where the government will either "take care of them". When questioned, she said that she doesn't personally believe that Indians are subhuman or deserve this treatment, but this was an order by the president.
Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, she spoke on behalf of the country and acted in an official capacity. Unless she had a gun pointed at her head, she voluntarily chose to incite people to commit crimes directly. Again, incitement to imminent lawless action and speech integral to criminal conduct are not protected by the 1st amendment and rightfully so.
I know this was a lot of examples, but I wanted to showcase a bunch of different scenarios to drive home the point that this isn't something that's entirely black and white. As you can see, context matters quite a bit. My opinion on the matter is this, if your speech intentionally tries to incite action or is done as a part of a job as is the case in examples 2, 4, and 6, then that's you taking action and you should be prosecuted for it. However, if your speech is offensive, controversial, and unpopular, but is otherwise harmless as is the case with examples 1, 3, and 5 then it should be protected by free speech laws because that's the very point of these laws.
Hate speech laws are trying to outlaw speech like the ones in example 1, 3, and 5, and I'm against it. I think it creates a slippery slope towards tyranny, and we shouldn't mess with things like this. Sure, the views being protected now may be vile, but that could always change, and if it does, we should make sure that this right is protected so we can speak our minds defend what's right when the time comes. Keep in mind, just because I'm against the legal prosecution of hate speech, that doesn't mean that I think hate speech should be normalized. Social consequences are still a thing, and I'm in favor of people not putting up with bigots if they choose to do so.
You should look into The Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem)
It's a good read, but it's not relevant to what I'm talking about
When I went to public school, we were taught this shit and it was drilled into us that it's very important to never forget any of it.
It's insane to see just how far our education system has fallen. American kids know nothing about any of this.
Ah fuck, this makes sense. I was against the "outlaw" bit but (as a US citizen) I think I'm seeing things a little skewed. I cede its an important step to preventing this kind of thing (a little late lmao) :(
You say that as our politicians at this you say that as our politicians at this very moment are claiming that those opposing genocide are advocating for genocide.
A call to outlaw the far right is not a call to outlaw the left as well. You don't have to pretend that it is.
How do you not know it is not that way it is the other way. The right will get a pass unless they're in opposition to the ruling party, the left would be surppressed.
It is already like that, giving the administration the power to illegalize speech is beyond recklessly ignorant of the situation even before this shit show we have seen in the modern era from the end of Obama until now. Or we could say even from bush until now.
Why would we give trump that power?
I mean, we could give him the power to illegalize nazi speech specifically. That would be fine. I bet he wouldn't use it.
I don't think you're thinking about this strategically. If you were playing magic the gathering, does hurting your opponent's life points mean they get to hurt yours now? Do you have to lower all your defenses so they can get a turn? No. We don't have to illegalize leftist speech either.
If they ever try to, be very angry.
The administration already accuses non-fascists of being fascist, bad faith anti-Semitism allegations to a much higher degree than everyone else, and Biden was pretty bad himself. The man endorsed near blood libel against Hamas claiming he saw the evidence of 40 beheaded babies, that was not true and disprovable in real time, and he never corrected himself.
I do not play Magic the gathering, but I do follow current events enough to know that our politicians would accuse non Nazis of being Nazis while they are nazis or refuse to oppose nazis.
Yeah, and they were wrong. So, oppose Biden's, propose the other.
What you're describing is a logistics problem.
I'm a tad uncomfy with it myself, and eager to hear a better idea, but outlawing fascism is preferable to fascism.
People who hold that view are NEVER the target of extremist hate groups. Hate groups are always merely a talking point to them.
The government is not to be trusyed with outlawing opinion.