Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I wonder if there could be some kind of way to allow violence-inciting speech on the condition that the speaker waives their own legal right to protection from violence
I mean realistically it probably wouldn't work but it sure would be nice to be able to legally curb stomp fascists
the biggest problem with banning an ideology is that its followers can use suppression as a way to appeal to the disillusioned with the argument, "our ideology is so powerful that 'they' use bans and censorship to hide it from you!"
so this hypothetical tit-for-twat model defangs that argument. "sure, go ahead, try being a nazi. see how far you get before you find out."
Hm then how would we ensure people are verifying the person they're curb stomping is a qualifying member of an unprotected group? Maybe some sort of database system where they have to legally affirm they're a piece of shit who is waiving their right to not get the snot kicked outta them?
lol idk. try not to take any of this too seriously, I'm just doing a hamfisted attempt at participating in philosophy