Comment on Too soon?

• Lumisal@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Perhaps not American law (well, that’s debatable too), but he certainly would have been hanged to death at the Nuremberg trials, since he has done the same propaganda that other Nazis in Hitler’s government did. That is, if we simply ignore your “appeal to law” fallacy.

  That he faced no consequences for stochastic terrorism among other things is only an indication of both your justice system and your country’s morality. Violence like this, against people like him, only happens when there is a lack of justice.

  As for how absolute free speech (not to be confused with regulated speech or absolute censorship) can be the seeds of authoritarianism, I suggest you read Popper’s “paradox of tolerance” as a starting source. Speech without consequences begets falsehoods that are ripe for any right wing government to co-opt. Which is exactly what has been happening in the USA for quite some time.

  source

  • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Nuremberg was after the holocaust. You can’t just skip over the fact that Charlie Kirk has not instigated a holocaust, nor can you assume that he would have. That’s not even a logical fallacy, it’s simply not even true. Accusing me of a logical fallacy is rich in irony. Seriously, it’s so dumb I don’t even know what to say.

    source

    • Lumisal@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Stating not breaking laws is equivalent to doing no harm / doing nothing wrong is the logical fallacy, specifically “appeal to law”.

      Saying a genocide has to happen in order for someone’s evil to be justified however, is insane. By your logic, attempted murder shouldn’t be a crime either, because no one got liked.

      source

      • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

        I can’t believe I’m discussing whether or not it is wrong to kill someone for the crimes they may or may not ever commit…

        source

        • -> View More Comments