You seem to be arguing that because I disagree with Nazism then when I claim that someone should be fired for being a Nazi then I am claiming that someone should be fired because I disagree with them. — Michael

And isn't that exactly what's happening? You disagree with someone's views and therefore seek to get them fired?

Seems like a perfectly sound depiction of what you told me.

I don't understand this. Gender identity is an identity, and so the reality of their gender is their identity. — Michael

I am not looking to get into a discussion about transgenderism.

My point is that expressing a view about the nature of reality is not an insult, even if someone is insulted by it. You have views on a subject, and someone else may have a different view. If the discussion alone is reason to take offense then one is perhaps too fragile and should think twice before partaking in public discourse.

And this is where we disagree. I don't think liberalism requires that morally reprehensible speech be tolerated. As I alluded to before, one can be a liberal in one area but not another. I'm a liberal with respect to marriage if I support interracial and same-sex marriage. I'm a liberal with respect to drugs if I support drug legalisation. I'm a liberal with respect to the market economy if I oppose regulations. I don't see a problem with someone referring to themselves as a liberal if they are a liberal in many areas, even if they're not a liberal in one or two others. — Michael

Freedom of speech is a liberal pillar, and a fundamental human right as enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

A liberal that's against freedom of speech is basically missing the entire point. We could have a page-long discussion about why freedom of speech is fundamental - the whole idea that free exchange of ideas counteracts extremism, etc. but I don't think more discussion would get us much further.

I thank you for the discussion as it was heated but fair. :pray:

I'll read your response if you choose to reply.

Probably not. I'm not sure what it would mean to be a Nazi baby though.

Are Libertarian Republicans liberal or conservative? — Michael

The tend to be in cahoots with anti-regulation conservatives.

Probably not. I'm not sure what it would mean to be a Nazi baby though. — Streetlight

Good, I am glad you struggle with the concept. It will help you understand that many good German people died in WW2 as well. All those killed by the actions of the allies were not guilty nazis. I hope for all our sakes that most were but perhaps you will see why your comment about bombing Germany was a bad one.

Good, I am glad you struggle with the concept. — universeness

I don't struggle with the concept. The concept is nonsensical and therefore there is nothing to struggle with. And last I checked I said I was pro bombing Nazis.

Was there a tech during WW2 I never knew about.
The bomb that only kills nazis?

I like when we murder Nazis. I don't like when we murder non-Nazis. I really thought I was quite unambigious about this.

Understandable. But someone who cares about free speech might forgo the authorities and take a different approach, for instance reasoning with the speaker.

If I did not find your original comment bad then I would not have posted my opinion against it, so obviously I considered it ambiguous at least if I already labelled it bad. My opinion has not changed and I think your attempts to explain have been poor and leave me with the opinion that you can be a mere ‘shit stirrer,’ at times just because being like that is a ‘buzz,’ for your, at times, skewed character.

Your streetlight can flicker at times. Flaw in your machine?

I like when we murder Nazis — Streetlight

It’s interesting to me that you chose to use the term ‘murder’ nazis as opposed to kill or even ‘justly execute.’
We’re those who killed nazis, murderers?

It's true that I do not take arguing with bigots seriously. That of course, is the point. Them and their discourse ought to be mired in muck, bogged down by irrelevancies, wrecked with nonsense. They exist to laugh at, put down, and sideline - not to argue with. Public space is not, and should not be, a safe space for them. They should feel threatened, minoritized, and dismissed. They are not equals.

It depends how good you are at using ridicule.
If you use it like an uncontrolled sledgehammer instead of a precisely controlled scalpel then most people with categorise you as being part of the same problem as those you target.

Then those people are part of the problem.

Then those people are part of the problem. — Streetlight

Always ‘those people’? Never you?

No. I make no apologies for taking joy in dead Nazis and don't need to tip toe around the point.

Not very politically correct I know, but the trick to not being politically correct - which I'm all for - is that you aim it at assholes and not the vulnerable.

No. I make no apologies for taking joy in dead Nazis and don't need to tip toe around the point. — Streetlight

So you obfuscate rather than answer my questions directly. I did not ask you to repeat your opinion of dead nazis.
If you are just a ‘sledgehammer,’ then you are of limited use to those who are trying to make real change for the better of all, to happen asap.
I am sure you will be useful, anytime a blunt tool is required. I have found some of your posts insightful and accurate but you can employ very skewed logic as well.
I am sure your opinion of my posts are not exactly revelational either. It takes all kinds to make a world.
Very large variety in a vast number of combinations, makes anomalies common.

It takes all kinds to make a world. Very large variety in a vast number of combinations, makes anomalies common. — universeness

Consider me a varietal.

Ok!

I'm not sure if this is relevant but do modern penitentiaries have ethics programs for prisoners? They should, riiiiiiggghhht?