The big issue that I have is that muslims and Western leftists ALWAYS try to conflate criticism of islam with bigotry against muslims no matter how wrong that is. It doesn’t matter to them how valid, well thought, and factual criticism is, the label of bigotry is more often than not used as tool to censor criticism of islam rather than call out genuine bigotry. I already have people replying to me doing exactly this.

I also find it annoying just how far leftist in the West are willing to deepthroat the boot of islam, even it explicitly against them and everything they stand for. They can’t resist but defend it for whatever reason, and if they don’t defend it, then try to downplay it by trying to bring in other religions into the conversation. You’re not allowed to criticize islam on it own by its own merits, you will ALWAYS get people that try to whatabout with Christainity and Judaism, as if that changes anything about islam. Other religions have their shitty elements and those should be discussed under posts about them, but when we have posts about islam, we need to criticize it, by itself, for what it is.

I’m literally Arab and ex muslims, calling me a racist for criticizing islam doesn’t make me racist, it makes you a complete idiot.

I find it very frustrating how islam, and only islam, gets excused for all the shit it has. There will always be someone rushing in to defend it with type of pointless nonsense. islam is bad on its own merits, you don’t need to defend on meaningless generalizations. Just because other religions have their own shitty verses that does NOT excuse, justify, or negate what’s in islam. People can and should criticize it on its own for what it is.

As an exmuslim, I’m disappointed in this comment section.

islam is NOT your friend. Simping for it just shows that you’re either ignorant or you’re hypocrite with not prinicples. islam, as an ideology is so unbelievably vile that it’s a very strong contender for being the worst ideology in history. Pedophilia, sex slavery, rape, misogyny, wife beatings, normal slavery, genocide, terrorism, homophobia, violent colonialism, apartheid governance, censorship, intentional discrimination and hatred, and barbaric capital punishment are all explicitly allowed and encouraged in the islamic scriptures.

This is not just me making things up, I can literally show you either verses from the quran, sahih hadiths, or both explicitly allow and encourage every single one of these. I’m against bigotry and bigots, however, I am also against those who cover for them. In this case, islam is just as bigoted, if not more bigoted, than the person in the post, and the people covering for islam aren’t any better. I will always stand tall and proud on the side of people who exercise their right to free speech to criticize islam, and expose the religion for what it is, despite the dangers of doing so.

I sometimes forget just how many tyrants use this platform.

The very purpose of the fediverse is to make censorship impossible as it’s decentralized, open source, and easily accessible to all. Meaning that anyone, anywhere can utilize these tools to launch their own platform on their own terms without fear of being censored. This applies to everyone, not just some.

The very existence of this instance, which is clearly just a parody, is enough to send a good chunk of the freedom lovers here to quickly take the mask off and turn into Mao where they want to take down the instance, infiltrate it, and censor it. The fact they can’t is proof that fediverse is working as intended. I, for one, welcome people from all over to use the fediverse. Having a social media that’s controlled by the people instead of corporations is a big plus for me.

I don’t disagree with you, but I am optimistic that damage control will begin the moment MAGA is out of power. The moment the next non-MAGA government gets into power, they will immediately start reversing as many of the damaging policies as they could. Will things go back to the way they were? Probably not. Will things be fixed quickly? Definitely not. However, I do think that we will at least be put back on the right track as a country.

She won’t win. The right will never vote for her because they see her as far left, and the far left will never support her because they she’s not “pure” enough for them. The only people who will vote for her are people who lean moderately to the left which make up somewhere around 1/3 of voters.

Like with most things, there’s nuance and context is important. Consider these examples:

Example 1 - Some bigot posts on Facebook that he thinks all trans people are pedos. This is obviously hateful and offensive, but it isn’t targeting anyone specifically.

Should this be legally prosecuted? I don’t think so because this is ultimately a just a controversial opinion, and such opinions should be protected by free speech laws.

Example 2 - A homophobe posts on Reddit about how his neighbors are filthy parasites who don’t desrve to exist because they’re gay. Then they go on and explain in detail how they plan to kill them if they don’t move out soon.

Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, because this is a credible threat to safety. True threats are not protected by the 1st amendment.

Example 3 - A white supremacist starts a magazine where he publishes his racist views without targeting anyone specifically. He posts articles about things like how “whites are genetically superior to other racists” or “why segregation is a good thing”. This individual makes sure to avoid anything that could get him in legal trouble.

Should this be legally prosecuted? No, because while vile, this is still a private individual expressing his personal opinions. So similar to example 1, I think this should be protected by free speech laws because it’s just unpopular opinions.

Example 4 - A radical islamist starts an islamic news outlet where he counters the “enemies of islam” by doxxing them and calling on his viewers to take actions against the filthy nonbelievers. They provide clear instructions to their followers on how should go after islam’s critics, Jews, feminists, gays, etc irl. This includes trashing their businesses, trying to get them fired, harassing their families, writing graffiti on their houses, etc. The point is to make islam’s enemies fear islam’s power.

Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, these aren’t just opinions being expressed, this is a direct incitement to action. The intention here is to incite criminal behavior. This is true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, speech integral to criminal conduct, none of which are protected by the first amendment.

Example 5 - A congressional representative says during an interview with the press that she personally thinks that women are superior to men because men are just brainless apes with with rape tendencies.

Should this be legally prosecuted? No, while offensive and false, it is just that, an offensive opinion. There’s nobody being targeted, and she’s not calling for action. Therefore, this is an opinion that should be protected by free speech laws.

Example 6 - The White House press secretary during a routine meeting with the press gives a long speech about how the United States officially thinks that Indians are subhumans, and details how her fellow Americans can help keep their country clean by either taking out the Indians in their area themselves or by reporting to the Indian in their area to the newly established Indian cleanup agency where the government will either “take care of them”. When questioned, she said that she doesn’t personally believe that Indians are subhuman or deserve this treatment, but this was an order by the president.

Should this be legally prosecuted? Yes, she spoke on behalf of the country and acted in an official capacity. Unless she had a gun pointed at her head, she voluntarily chose to incite people to commit crimes directly. Again, incitement to imminent lawless action and speech integral to criminal conduct are not protected by the 1st amendment and rightfully so.

I know this was a lot of examples, but I wanted to showcase a bunch of different scenarios to drive home the point that this isn’t something that’s entirely black and white. As you can see, context matters quite a bit. My opinion on the matter is this, if your speech intentionally tries to incite action or is done as a part of a job as is the case in examples 2, 4, and 6, then that’s you taking action and you should be prosecuted for it. However, if your speech is offensive, controversial, and unpopular, but is otherwise harmless as is the case with examples 1, 3, and 5 then it should be protected by free speech laws because that’s the very point of these laws.

Hate speech laws are trying to outlaw speech like the ones in example 1, 3, and 5, and I’m against it. I think it creates a slippery slope towards tyranny, and we shouldn’t mess with things like this. Sure, the views being protected now may be vile, but that could always change, and if it does, we should make sure that this right is protected so we can speak our minds defend what’s right when the time comes. Keep in mind, just because I’m against the legal prosecution of hate speech, that doesn’t mean that I think hate speech should be normalized. Social consequences are still a thing, and I’m in favor of people not putting up with bigots if they choose to do so.

True, but I’m also optimistic that MAGA will collapse in on itself. History has shown that movement that lack balance, principles, internal discourse, coherency, and flexibility don’t last long. The only thing keeping MAGA together is Trump, and he has no successor. Once he dies, MAGA WILL shatter like broken glass. I see a lot of parallels between MAGA and the know nothings from the mid 1800s.

I think there’s a distinct difference between now and 2016, back then MAGA was rather diverse in its makeup. There were libertarians, fiscal conservatives, moderate Republicans, neocons, evangelists, and so on. The point is that this diversity allowed for an internal discourse to exist to keep the party somewhat balanced. This stopped being case during the pandemic, and I mark Jan 6th as the official turning point. That’s when Trump’s purges reached their peak and the only people who were left were blind loyalists, grifters, or corrupt career politicians. Now? There’s no balance anymore, it’s entirely just Trump growing ever more demented and insane, and his flock of yes men cheering on whatever he says. That’s not a sustainable movement or ideology, it will collapse in on itself sooner or later.

The opposite, I’m saying actions are what should be held accountable.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, I see this as a good sign. This right here is proof that MAGA has no future and that its days are numbered. A movement needs to be practical, flexible, coherent for it to last, and MAGA doesn’t have any of these. MAGA currently has no morals, no values, no platform, no leadership outside of Trump, nothing. Everything starts and stops with Trump. Anything he says goes no matter how contradictory, insane, or nonsensical. He has purged the GOP and his own movement of anyone and anything that is capable of independent thought. He has made sure that MAGA and the GOP are exclusively made up of of yes men, which happen to be either slimy opportunists or blind loyalists.

This means that the moment Trump dies, MAGA will die with him. Without Trump serving as the de facto prophet, the movement will immediately fracture and the different factions will start fighting each other. This will lead them to be ineffective, which in turn will make them irrelevant with time. As for the GOP, it will become a blank slate as it will stand for nothing. It that will either collapse or reform to completely change from the top down. Because of this, I don’t think MAGA is going to last long, but we just have to brace for the all the damage that they will cause in the little time they will be in power.

I mean if you’re arguing technicalities then sure, I guess. My point is that there’s a clear distinction between personal opinions of individuals and public opinions made on behalf of another entity like the government. You could argue otherwise, but I consider the latter to be an action because it’s a job that you carry out rather than an expression of personal opinions. The speech itself isn’t what makes such cases considered as actions imo, the difference is in the context of the delivery.

I don’t think you understand the distinction. Free speech, as a principle, exists to protect and allow all people to privately hold and voice any opinion without persecution from the government. This principle doesn’t extend to people who are making speech on behalf of the state. That’s not their personal opinions, that’s the narratives the government wants to release to the public. It is their job to release this propaganda, and that’s an action to fulfill the obligations of the work they’ve been tasked with. Keep in mind, public officials still obviously have freedom of speech as they’re still people, however, this protection doesn’t extend to what they do within the capacity of their offices. That’s the big difference between someone like Kirk and someone like Streicher.

Also just to be clear, I’m not one of those free speech “absolutists”, I specifically said that I think the exceptions that are currently defined federally for the 1st amendment are the golden standard. Btw these exceptions are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, fighting words, and speech integral to illegal conduct. These pretty much cover everything that needs to be an exception. They’re clear enough to set objective standards, but also have some ambiguity to allow for nuance. I don’t think hate speech covers anything that’s not already covered, I also think that hate speech as a concept is inherently more subjective, arbitrary, and therefore more volatile than the already existing exceptions.

I already made it clear multiple time that I don’t like Kirk or what he stood for, but even I, as someone who can’t stand him, can clearly see that you’re just making shit up as you go try to come up with anything to justify his murder. It’s honestly embarrassing. It’s so obvious that you lack the merits to come up with a genuine case to justify his murder because you don’t have any principles to stand on whatsoever. This is evidenced by the fact that you’re unable to even acknowledge any point I’ve made, let alone give any counter argument as to why you disagree.

Face it, given your melt down here, it’s crystal clear that you’re aware that your stance is simply indefensible because you’re only possible positions is to be a hypocrite, a tyrant, or both. Nobody with any reasonable set of morals, basic understanding of history, or just logically thinking through the consequences can come up with a rational defense for something so unbelievably backwards and dangerous as trying to cheer on political violence. It’s an inherently absurd stance.

It’s a good read, but it’s not relevant to what I’m talking about

Kirk was a piece of shit, you’re not going to find me defending him for what he did or stood for. My point is that the way he got killed is not acceptable. He shouldn’t get honored or anything like because fuck him, but cheering the way he got killed is not okay either. He wasn’t killed under the death penalty by the state, there was no due process, and there wasn’t even a valid reason for his death. He was gunned down in broad daylight in the middle of a public crowd by some random guy who didn’t like his political views… how is that not fucking crazy to you? Y

ou’re trying very hard to justify it because you don’t like him, but you don’t seem to understand that this isn’t about him specifically. I don’t like Kirk either, but you’re not going to find me trying justify this type of political violence because it sets a dangerous precedent that violence is an acceptable part of political discourse. Political violence is always a two way street. Just as you’re trying to justify and cheer on this guy’s death and how he was killed, you’re making it more normalized and more likely that some conservative whacko isn’t to shoot down some left wing figurehead, and they’ll use the very same arguments and justifications that you’re using now. If you can’t accept someone like Hasan Piker or Nina Turner getting gunned down, then why would you cheer this on? If you condemn their deaths, but not Kirk’s death or others like him, then you don’t have any principles to stand on.

There’s two issues with your take here. First, I never even implied that Kirk wasn’t a big Trump supporter, that was his whole shtick as a grifter. That’s just obvious, and nobody is arguing otherwise. Second, is being a Trump supporter now enough grounds to justify killing people? I agree that Trump and MAGA are pretty Fascist in nature, however the fact remains that Kirk was a private citizen at the end of the day. He was not an elected official and he did not hold any public office. He was just an activist/grifter who made a career simping for Trump. Hate him all you want, I certainly did, but killing him or anybody over this sort thing is a huge red line that should never be crossed. There’s a reason why societies throughout history that resorted to using violence for political discourse out of convenience rather than necessity are the ones always ended up being lead by a depraved tyrannical regime. There are many more lessons to learn from history than just acknowledging that Nazis are bad.

How so? I think there’s a very clear distinction between the example he gave and what I was talking about. Streicher was a full blown Nazi party member and he held public office under their rule. His position in government is to actively enable a genocide through propaganda. That’s not a private citizens with vile opinions, that’s a public official acting on his beliefs directly. If Streicher was a private individual who held Nazi beliefs, he would have not been hanged for them because those are just his opinions, as vile as they may be.

But these are two different things though. In this case Streicher was taking action. He was directly working for the Nazi party, and his job was to convince people that the Nazi crimes were not only okay, but they should be celebrated and expanded. His actions actively aided the genocide, he was a part of the Nazi machine. That’s not a private citizen with personal opinions and beliefs.

That’s very a big difference between him and some modern neo nazi who spends all day picking his nose, scratching his ass, and posting on 8chan about the world is controlled by the “joos”. As long dickheads like this keep their vile views to themselves, then I don’t think they should be legally persecuted simply for holding vile opinions. However, the moment their words turn into actions or the clear intention to implement neo nazi bullshit, then that’s when they should get persecuted by the law.