Of course there are real racists and real misogynists out there, but that doesn't make it alright for people to use those words as bludgeons with which to silence people who are making them uncomfortable (by making sense and pointing out things they don't want to accept).
I haven't claimed that "everyone who points out racism" is wrong, and I don't think that way (because there are legitimate cases and I'm not an idiot).
What would you change the downvote button to? Is there a symbol for "I think you're wrong"? :P Because that's how most people use it.
But did you notice how you used the word "hateful" as if it was a common thing for a comment to be so "hateful" that it needs to be downvoted? Think about what it means to be "hateful"? There is no clear definition. Anyone can deem anything hateful in their opinion.
Do you hate something? -Will your comment on it be hateful and therefore objectively worthy of disdain? Or do you just hate something because there's a legitimate reason for hating it? What if you just hate something for no particular reason, kind of like having a favourite colour? Are you hateful then, and what does it mean with regard to the world around you?
What is "hateful" besides a hand-wavy, negative characterization that's used for shaming people into shutting up?
seeing as Snapzu never did claim to be a champion of free speech
The thing is, it's not alright to silence people who are objectively telling people things they need to hear. It doesn't matter whether a site has declared itself a champion of free speech - they're either detrimental to humanity's future/development, or they're not.
The reason it is more important to enforce free speech in a country
Freedom of speech is only ever violated by rulers and their thugs. It's only meaningful in that context, but it's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't matter to the rulers who would violate it, and it certainly doesn't prevent anything.
Considering freedom of speech only applies as long as no one intervenes in speech, the only way you could enforce it would be to somehow magically prevent the government from intervening.
Fundamentally, it's just an idea that's meant to make us more comfortable with being enslaved. In other words, it's a propaganda tool.
Of course there are real racists and real misogynists out there, but that doesn't make it alright for people to use those words as bludgeons with which to silence people who are making them uncomfortable (by making sense and pointing out things they don't want to accept).
I haven't claimed that "everyone who points out racism" is wrong, and I don't think that way (because there are legitimate cases and I'm not an idiot).
What would you change the downvote button to? Is there a symbol for "I think you're wrong"? :P Because that's how most people use it.
But did you notice how you used the word "hateful" as if it was a common thing for a comment to be so "hateful" that it needs to be downvoted? Think about what it means to be "hateful"? There is no clear definition. Anyone can deem anything hateful in their opinion.
Do you hate something? -Will your comment on it be hateful and therefore objectively worthy of disdain? Or do you just hate something because there's a legitimate reason for hating it? What if you just hate something for no particular reason, kind of like having a favourite colour? Are you hateful then, and what does it mean with regard to the world around you?
What is "hateful" besides a hand-wavy, negative characterization that's used for shaming people into shutting up?
The thing is, it's not alright to silence people who are objectively telling people things they need to hear. It doesn't matter whether a site has declared itself a champion of free speech - they're either detrimental to humanity's future/development, or they're not.
Freedom of speech is only ever violated by rulers and their thugs. It's only meaningful in that context, but it's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't matter to the rulers who would violate it, and it certainly doesn't prevent anything.
Considering freedom of speech only applies as long as no one intervenes in speech, the only way you could enforce it would be to somehow magically prevent the government from intervening.
Fundamentally, it's just an idea that's meant to make us more comfortable with being enslaved. In other words, it's a propaganda tool.