ChudTheBuilder defends himself against feral pavement ape
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (144)
sorted by:
It’s not really censoring though. That would imply that I would be saying it otherwise, and I don’t really think I would.
Yeah that guy who tried to take your wallet started shit, and he got shit. Same idea.
Just like Chud started shit, and he subsequently got shit.
How do you know? You grew up in an environment in which saying nigger was worse than blasphemy. Nevermind the societal problems caused by making a false idol of a lesser race, but you literally don't know what would be different if you hadn't grown up in a politically concocted climate of fear.
I did not grow up in that environment actually. I also went to school in the south where I would hear it semi-regularly.
The line for what is acceptable can shift. You're on the safe side by default for now. Once they decide to move it you may not be and allowing constitutional freedoms to be eroded is an easy way to become a slave.
Move it to what, for example?
There really is no limit to how restrictive things could get once the framework is available. Should blasphemy laws be a thing? Does it end at restriction? How about compelled speech? You seem to be saying that you don't mind certain speech being an acceptable point for violence to be done against the sayer. So why not legislate to outlaw some speech, for the common good and peace?
Not what I would say no. But I do know that some speech is meant to be instigating. If a guy comes in insulting people, he's potentially gonna catch some guy in the wrong mood. Is it acceptable? I wouldn't necessarily say so, but like I said earlier: don't start shit, won't be shit.
I'm still curious as to an example of somewhere the line might be moved to and I wouldn't be allowed constitutional freedoms. You think blasphemy laws might be on the table?