• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Article says

    Clearly, you need to have conservative writers. But what kind?

    Counterargument: No you don’t. Conservative ideas are bankrupt, cruel, and/or foolish. We do not need to give them a platform.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Conservatives used to be halfway reasonable, or at least their talking points were. Now too many have gone unapologetically extreme.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Counterargument: No they weren’t. Many people were just more successful at ignoring it. Because it didn’t really impact them personally.

        It wasn’t unapologetically extreme when they got caught planning a fascist coup to overthrow and kill FDR? It wasn’t unapologetically extreme when they persecuted People for the last 70 years, ending careers and lives over people being socialist. (Insert black, non hero normative, or any other observed type of minority population)

    • sepi@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Conservative eyes are too close together like MTG, too stupid like Comer or too far apart like Candace. Do they got somebody with normal eyes who isn’t a sex trafficker like Matt Gaetz?

    • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      7 months ago

      Bill of Rights says otherwise. We could just do what PLENTY of other democratic societies do and ban hate speech but then you get those slippery slope arguments. Somehow we can make inciting a riot or inducing panic illegal but not the Great Replacement Theory.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Bill of Rights says otherwise

        Nope. The right to free speech doesn’t include the right to a platform to spew disinformation on.

        ban hate speech but then you get those slippery slope arguments

        Which are invalid, hence the Slippery slope fallacy . Hate speech is easy to identify and legislate against without banning legitimate speech. The people claiming otherwise tend to be people who routinely engage in hate speech and overly cautious neoliberals afraid of ever doing anything that could possibly be argued against in bad faith.

        • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Nope. The right to free speech doesn’t include the right to a platform to spew disinformation on

          The government can’t remove you from a platform unless you’ve broken a law. That’s what I meant. Private companies on the other hand, that’s different.

          As for everything else I completely agree

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The government can’t remove you from a platform unless you’ve broken a law

            True, but nobody was suggesting that.

            Now that you mention it, though, repeatedly breaking laws against inciting violence DOES make that a legitimate course of action. As would banning hate speech and rigorously enforcing that ban.

          • root_beer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Exactly, so they aren’t entitled by the Bill of Rights to a platform at all.