this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025

779 points (96.3% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

2227 readers

572 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

❻ Don't be a dick.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

DougHolland@lemmy.world

779

Might as well say it out loud. (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by DougHolland@lemmy.world to c/aiop@lemmy.world

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] odelik@lemmy.today 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

To quote something I said to a transphobe asking about where they can safely question "transgenderism"

And before you go off with, "So much for being tolerant of my beliefs!".

Tolerance is about preventing harm being committed onto others. Tolerance can not condone intolerance being committed against others. Intolerance always leads to harm being committed against others. Tolerance, by definition, cannot be tolerant of intolerance without becoming intolerant itself.

For example:

Me allowing you to openly critize my friends in the trans community without stepping in and telling you, "You're a bigot and your behavior is not welcome here." will lead to your behavior harming them by implicit acceptance of your behavior.

So, with kindest regards.

#You're a bigot and your behavior is not welcome here.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 7 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Outlawed is wrong. Because we cannot trust those doing the outlawing and should be fucking clear. Do I even need to bring up the elephant in the room? You want to Outlaw disagreements with US foreign policy?

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

We hanged people at Nuremberg for incitement to genocide. Genocide is a crime with a very specific meaning. Yes, bad-faith actors can abuse a law prohibiting incitement to genocide, but the same can be done with any law.

Advocating for genocide is not free speech - it's attempted mass murder. Two people talking with each other and conspiring to kill someone else isn't protected speech - it's just conspiracy to commit murder. And if plotting to kill one person isn't protected, plotting to kill thousands or millions shouldn't be protected either. These people are plotting to commit genocide, and their intention is to use the power of the state as their murder weapon.

We need to prosecute attempted genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide as vigorously as we would any plot to kill any individual. But we have this weird blind spot where if someone plans to commit murder on a large scale using the state as the murder weapon, that somehow we don't recognize it as the same fundamental crime. Murder is murder. Killing is killing. Conspiracy to commit murder is conspiracy to commit murder. Whether the weapon is your own bare hands or the apparatus of a nation state. Advocating for genocide is nothing less than conspiracy to commit genocide.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

You say that as our politicians at this you say that as our politicians at this very moment are claiming that those opposing genocide are advocating for genocide.

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree with this take. The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren't killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions. They actually carried out a genocide, that's what they were guilty of.

I actually disagree with this relatively new movement that pushes for hate speech laws because they're something that's inherently arbitrary and subjective, and they can and will be weaponized to serve nefarious agendas. Principles like freedom of speech MUST be applied universally and fairly in order for them to mean anything. Freedom of speech exists to protect offensive, controversial, and unpopular opinions against censorship because what can be considered any of those things can change at any time.

For example, 60 years ago being racial equality was viewed as seemed very controversial and unpopular, but today? The opposite. However, in 60 years, public opinion on these views could flip again. If we pass laws that outlaw racist views as hateful, then it's very possible that these laws could be changed at any point in the future to outlaw anti-racist views as hateful. I don't want to ever live in a society where I'm being legally punished for arguing against segregation. Establishing such precedents is very dangerous and history has shown us that the consequences of these laws aren't always what they were intended.

I think the US freedom of speech laws as they are federally defined are the golden standard. They take into account all the reasonable exceptions, while maintaining a universally applied standard for everyone. If any individual turned their words into actions or clearly had the intent to take action then they'll be persecuted for their actions. That's the way it should be.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren’t killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions.

You are simply wrong in this case. We hanged Nazi propagandists, as we recognized that they were committing conspiracy to commit genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

Most of the evidence against Streicher came from his numerous speeches and articles over the years.[72] In essence, prosecutors contended that Streicher's articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews. They further argued that he kept up his antisemitic propaganda even after he was aware that Jews were being slaughtered.[73]

Streicher was acquitted of crimes against peace, but found guilty of crimes against humanity, and sentenced to death on 1 October 1946.

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Kirk was directly tied into the Trump administration. He himself sent busloads of followers to help storm the capital. Kirk's jobs was to convince people that the genocidal plans of the Christian Nationalists are OK and should be celebrated and expanded. By the time you get to the level of power and influence of Kirk, you're not really a private citizen anymore. He was instrumental in getting Trump elected. Yes, he doesn't have a formal position in the government, but most of the charges against Streicher were for things that had nothing to do with the little bit of power he briefly had.

[–] ronl2k@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Outlawed is wrong. Because we cannot trust those doing the outlawing

People who hold that view are NEVER the target of extremist hate groups. Hate groups are always merely a talking point to them.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 9 hours ago

The government is not to be trusyed with outlawing opinion.

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

In this day and age, someone will lose their job over posting this on their Facebook while the nazis get to roam free

[–] hector@lemmy.today 4 points 10 hours ago

Which is why we should not support outlawing views as in the post. Everything else yes, illegalizing no, even in good times we should think that we can't trust those doing the outawing.

[–] Cocopanda@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

If anyone would like. I have 4K video footage from inside the Nazi’s at this protest. When the car crash attack happened. I was able to provide the FBI and DoJ with material video evidence of the terrorist dude talking shit before he got in his car. I’ve had it for a long while. But I’m sure some people would appreciate the content it provides. Plenty of them were talking about attacking the counter protestors.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Why go from one extreme to the other? Everyone deserves human rights. Even the intolerant.

That doesn’t mean we have to tolerate their intolerance.

I don’t let toddlers hit me, but I also don’t punt them into the wall when they try to.

[–] Corn@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago

When Charlie Kirk's throat was disabled, it was uttering weasel words implying trans and black people were responsible for murdering children; justifying both random and political violence against them. Its a shame he couldn't have been stopped peacefully.

[–] Ileftreddit@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It’s basically one side believes humans have the right to live, the other side literally doesn’t. Like right wingers fundamentally don’t believe in human rights because they only understand might makes right. And if you’re not “strong enough” to “take” your rights, you don’t deserve them. And they don’t pause to consider that they couldn’t run 100 yards, much less fight.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 10 hours ago

That they are disposable tools of the Rich and Powerful that will discard them and deny their rights as well if they achieve their goal. Which by all indications they are.

[–] FriendlyFern8768@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (5 children)

https://surahquran.com/tafsir-english-aya-34-sora-41.html

41:34 And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend. Surah Fussilat in Arabic

https://quran.com/ash-shuraa/40

The reward of an evil deed is its equivalent. But whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, then their reward is with Allah. He certainly does not like the wrongdoers.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I heard kirk converted to islam on his deathbed.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

New shit post angle acquired.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago

Or shot...

load more comments