this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
74 points (84.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48180 readers
888 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know it already is but should it be?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (6 children)

When someone would scream into your face "Animals like you should be shot!", wouldn't it hurt you?

If someone spread lies about you or your family or your business if you had one, wouldn't it do damage?

If someone spread the word that people of color or other minorities would do this or that (wasn't it "Haitians eating dogs" or something recently?) and it led to people attacking this minority, wouldn't it be dangerous?

Remember January 6th, where Trump whipped up the stupid to storm the Capitol? He did not use a cattle prod or stick, he only used words, and see what has happened.

And look closely at what the GOP is doing. They are spreading lies, and repeat them, until they fester and replace the truth in the hearts of the listeners.

And now tell me again that words can do no harm.

[–] beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago (5 children)

I mean I kind of see what you're saying but it doesn't really pass the smell test.

Yelling in someone's face is assault. Spreading harmful lies about specific individuals or businesses is lible. Speech that incites violence is not protected by the first amendment. And the rest: January 6th and the misinformation machine aren't something that can really be legislated. Lies unfortunately are protected speech unless they incite imminent violence. As much as I would like to hang the raid on the capital on Trump I watched his speech (and Bannon's) and he only ever implies violence. The crowd whipped themselves up into the violence frenzy we saw that day.

Words absolutely can cause harm in the right conditions, but the ones that do the most damage would definitely not be hate speech. Fox News ran a segment last year where one of the hosts said homeless people should be killed and within a few days there were three separate incidents where armed men walked into homeless encampments and opened fire. I think the death toll was 9 people across the three events. But fox news spreading lies about ivermectin and masking during covid killed potentially tens of thousands. In the case of the homeless what the host did was already illegal, but the lies can't be legislated.

The more I think about it the less I'm concerned about hate speech. The things that need to be illegal, inciting violence, already are, and the things that aren't are murky at best and a slippery slope at worst. Especially when you consider who would be determining what is or isn't hate speech. Right now the powers that be would label your comment as hate speech because it's critical of the gop.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (4 children)

If you think it is ok to spread hate, you'll have to live with the consequences. I don't think the world needs more hate.

And, btw, hate is what brought the GOP to power. Think about it.

[–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

​I will restate what I mentioned in a previous comment:

​Offense (or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.

​Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.

​When LGBTQ+ people fought for their rights, when Black people did the same, or when abolitionists fought against slavery, all of these individuals were viewed as "hate groups" (in the terms of their respective eras), "violent groups," or "dangerous groups" because they were challenging the status quo and the power structures that oppressed them.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I understand that you have been shaped by a violent and hateful society. You don't really seem to notice all the hate that is currently spread by your politicians and your media anymore. Yes, personal offense cannot be the line as it is arbitrary, but you've raised the bar so high in the US, it is frightening. Have you really listened to your politicians or your media talking recently?

Let's see, I'm not from the United States so I don't know their situation well (although I must say that I HATE Trump anyway), but I'm from Venezuela, which is really much, MUCH worse; Nicolás Maduro was literally a fucking dictator who killed anyone who dared to mock him (if you've never heard of Helicoide, I recommend looking it up), and now that they took Maduro they left us with Delcys Rodríguez, who is another fucking harpy. I really cannot understand how someone who has not experienced a true dictatorship and who has not faced offense and repression for ideological reasons can say so calmly that freedom of expression should be limited; What blissful ignorance of yours to live in a bubble like that, you make me sick (with every intention to offend :3). It really seems absurd to me how you think that "emotional harm" is a valid criterion or is in any way different from offense; No, they can apply in different areas, but epistemically and ontologically they are the same: pure subjective whim, and an ideology that the world revolves around you and your problems.

I'll put it to you this other way:

  1. Or only some speeches are prohibited (therefore falling into totalitarian arbitrariness).
  2. Or all speeches are prohibited (and therefore language and existence themselves are also prohibited, in a non-metaphorical, non-figurative and non-hyperbolic, but literal sense).
  3. Or no speech is prohibited, but only real and concrete actions (a defamation, a social lynching, a false denunciation, a fraud, a robbery, a coup or a murder), and, at most, imperative speeches (not a mere "hatred of X" but an explicit "X should die").

Strict logic is the only reasonable law, and your ideology falls under the above reductio ad absurdum.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)