{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by LiamCDM:
8/21/2017 3:56:45 PM
2
This is an example of something we can agree on. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've lost some friends for rejecting the notion that the far-right is less deserving of the right to free speech because their views are controversial and bigoted. Freedom of speech doesn't exist if it doesn't protect those of whom we fundamentally disagree.
English
-
Something bothers me about this still. No matter how many white supremacists there are - even if they were in the majority- we wouldn't allow them to do the things they want. Is that fair to say? Then what bothers me is that we're arguing that we should protect their right to say it, but not to actually do it, even if they had the votes and support they needed to change the laws. If the answer is a categorical "no" to the things they want, aren't we really just pretending that their views deserve a platform? I'm not doing a great job of expressing my thoughts here, I know that. But I'm just trying to work out exactly what's bothering me here so sorry if I'm not being very concise.
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 8/23/2017 7:06:26 PMYou're fine. The thing is, there is virtually no chance National Socislism will ever gain popularity again; especially in the US. The existence of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights makes it virtuslly impossible to pass a "New Enabling Act" of sorts, which was the legislation passed to outlaw opposition politics in Germany in the early 1930s.
