"How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "God Hates Fags" is protected but "harassment" (a category of speech you fail to define) is not? Does holding an event in my town to protest my existence not constitute harassment? Why wouldn't it?"
Harassment links to Wikipedia for an overview. Holding a march or protest is not harassment, which I would say generally has speech targetting an individual or group (a protest or march is generally directed to everyone), is repetitive over time and continues despite attempts to stop it, either requests to be left alone or blocking a user and such.
"How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "antifa violence" is prohibited because of a chilling effect on free speech, but nationalists showing up armed to events, saying "when we are empowered we will enact a genocide and eradicate you" is not? Are weapons only considered to have this effect when held by individuals you specifically detest?"
When did I say that was okay? I have expressed concern at people taking weapons to protest because it seems a bit strange to arm yourself for a peaceful protest. See here: https://www.sofurry.com/view/1226219
"First, you do not take a threat to a group very seriously, as you believe the more general threat is obviously unreasonable, a joke or an exaggeration. "Nobody REALLY hates all gays the way someone could hate Kyle." or "Hatred for gays shouldn't be taken personally, as if someone said they hated you specifically. You, the target of harassment and violence, must endure it.""
I never said that. I merely contrasted it with imminent danger.
"Second, you do not take the members of the aggrieved group seriously, as you believe they are playing the victim for the special right to censure their ideological opponents. You're equating this to people who favor ranch dressing making it a legal offense to say "ranch dressing is not the best," rather than a demand for treating open and blatant threats and harassment as such."
Again, I did not say I did not take any group seriously. My point was that in an ideological conflict, both sides see themself as the victim and without an objective standard we cannot favour any particular speech.
"You could consider why you so readily turn, by sleight-of-hand, the direct threat of bodily harm and suspension of personal rights into an "ideological" opposition or matter of opinion only when it concerns groups you specifically lack sympathy for. I believe, upon the slightest reflection, you would find your devoutly-held free-speech absolutism is a masturbatory exercise in performative pragmatism, and that in truth you simply wish opponents you have found personally annoying would be silenced and accept that silence graciously, while enveloping in sacred legal protection all of the causes you'd like to defend out of your misguided intellectual onanism... or perhaps out of your sympathy for the positions themselves."
It must be really incredible sleight of hand since most of this defends the rights of groups that I am not sympathetic to at all. Also, my whole point was not silencing groups because the majority disagreed with them. None of this was aimed to protect any specific group or view but to create a framework which applies equally to everyone.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
"How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "God Hates Fags" is protected but "harassment" (a category of speech you fail to define) is not? Does holding an event in my town to protest my existence not constitute harassment? Why wouldn't it?"
Harassment links to Wikipedia for an overview. Holding a march or protest is not harassment, which I would say generally has speech targetting an individual or group (a protest or march is generally directed to everyone), is repetitive over time and continues despite attempts to stop it, either requests to be left alone or blocking a user and such.
"How is it, when you make exceptions to freedom of speech, that "antifa violence" is prohibited because of a chilling effect on free speech, but nationalists showing up armed to events, saying "when we are empowered we will enact a genocide and eradicate you" is not? Are weapons only considered to have this effect when held by individuals you specifically detest?"
When did I say that was okay? I have expressed concern at people taking weapons to protest because it seems a bit strange to arm yourself for a peaceful protest. See here: https://www.sofurry.com/view/1226219
"First, you do not take a threat to a group very seriously, as you believe the more general threat is obviously unreasonable, a joke or an exaggeration. "Nobody REALLY hates all gays the way someone could hate Kyle." or "Hatred for gays shouldn't be taken personally, as if someone said they hated you specifically. You, the target of harassment and violence, must endure it.""
I never said that. I merely contrasted it with imminent danger.
"Second, you do not take the members of the aggrieved group seriously, as you believe they are playing the victim for the special right to censure their ideological opponents. You're equating this to people who favor ranch dressing making it a legal offense to say "ranch dressing is not the best," rather than a demand for treating open and blatant threats and harassment as such."
Again, I did not say I did not take any group seriously. My point was that in an ideological conflict, both sides see themself as the victim and without an objective standard we cannot favour any particular speech.
"You could consider why you so readily turn, by sleight-of-hand, the direct threat of bodily harm and suspension of personal rights into an "ideological" opposition or matter of opinion only when it concerns groups you specifically lack sympathy for. I believe, upon the slightest reflection, you would find your devoutly-held free-speech absolutism is a masturbatory exercise in performative pragmatism, and that in truth you simply wish opponents you have found personally annoying would be silenced and accept that silence graciously, while enveloping in sacred legal protection all of the causes you'd like to defend out of your misguided intellectual onanism... or perhaps out of your sympathy for the positions themselves."
It must be really incredible sleight of hand since most of this defends the rights of groups that I am not sympathetic to at all. Also, my whole point was not silencing groups because the majority disagreed with them. None of this was aimed to protect any specific group or view but to create a framework which applies equally to everyone.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~