So it’s about how a law is applied. And you still don’t see the potential danger of a law regulating speech? Guess we won’t agree on this one.
I don’t really see a benefit in people being forced to phrase their hateful opinions in a way to circumvent laws. In the end, Rowling won’t stop spreading her bigoted hateful bullshit - in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.
And I’m arguing that it’s a bad idea. Germany is a good example, banning holocaust denial did not stop AFD from raising and getting political power. We were not even able to forbid the damn NDP.
What could ever go wrong? Germany, there was something…
That’s cryptic.
I’m from Germany, the only way insulting someone is going to be a criminal case is if you insult police. Otherwise it gets almost always dropped.
So you want the government to decide which ideas are ok and which should be banned? How could this ever go wrong.
But they also offered a really good product, especially when it came to spam filter compared with other email services at that time.
Some are and some aren’t. Like a lot of folks on here are here because reddit went to shit.
Her opinion on trans folks is shit, but people should not go to jail for shit opinions. Broken clock and stuff.
Sure, but there are some important nuances.
That’s pretty funny considering I’m a Nordic socialist.
Funny indeed, but can happen to the best of us.
May well be but it’s not the case where I live. We have multiple literal neo-Nazis in parliament, courtesy of – drumroll please – a fucking conservative party
So in your opinion conservatism is not a valid political ideology? Or what is your conclusion. Since conservatives are part of our society and always will be and in a democracy we have to work with them.
You have a very US-American centrist view. European conservatives will sometimes be to the left of US-Democrats. Conservatism is relative to the society, it wants to generally preserve things how they are (again, very basic human experience if you ask me) - just happens that in the USA things rather suck for quite a lot of people.
Correlating political ideologies with psychological traits, especially with negative psychological traits. Progressives have been quite often on the other side of that argumentation (stereotyped as lazy hippies or naive tree hugers ). Stereotyping your opponent does not really help anyone since in a democracy we rely on compromise or conses.
I would be very cautious to use this argumentation line against your political opponents. To want things to stay the same, seems at least to me to be part of human experience and core of conservative ideology. While to condemn you political opponent through bio-determinism has not played out well in the past.
How inhumane should the system be? US-American conservatives - yes!
It’s where all the cool Greek philosophers are? Also since it’s roman - I assume some kind of orgies are involved.
Nah we would go to hades, much cooler place.
Sins is not a universal concept, it’s a christian thing to make people feel bad about themselfs. Often just basic human experiences like lust are somehow defined as bad and than moral apostles like you claim everyone is a sinner.
What “conditions” concern you?
Something is not free if you tie it in with conditions, I know you struggle with meanings of words an logic - but try to keep up.
I did not commit any crimes and don’t have any sins, so there is nothing to forgive - and if so only people I wronged can forgive me. Also it’s not free since it’s coupled on a ton of conditions.
It’s not free and not a gift.
Dude, I’m not siding with her on any issue besides freedom of speech - which just happen to be my opinion.