>Cultures of violence should not be tolerated because they are repeatedly used to justify violence
>All speech, especially offensive speech needs to be protected
What is a succinct argument that reconciles both of these views? Specifically I'm referring to the views in context of religiously/culturally motivated terrorist attacks and SJW retaliation against contradicting views.
anyone who says the first one needs to fuck off since thats literally the logic behind "rape culture" SJW bullshit
>>55903433
>What is a succinct argument that reconciles both of these views?
That the wording "should not be tolerated" does not mean "should be censored".
You can ALLOW something without tolerating it. You can NOT TOLERATE something without censoring it.
Think about it, this is applied to almost every aspect of society already today. Hateful speech, Holocaust "denial", racism and so on, is not illegal in the United States but it's not tolerated by society. You'll be fired from your job or kicked out of university but you won't get censored or jailed (at least in the US).
In Sweden, NatSoc is not illegal and we have NatSoc orgs and demonstrations, but it's not TOLERATED by society at large. It's shunned, ostracized in the media, ridiculed, but it's legal and protected by the constitution.
This is not hard to reconcile.
>>55903433
What I mean to say is:
If someone argues the first:
>Cultures of violence should not be tolerated because they are repeatedly used to justify violence
Can't it easily be countered by someone arguing the second?
>All speech, especially offensive speech needs to be protected
How do you advocate free speech if certain speech is banned for advocating violence under a religion or culture?
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either of these, they just seem to contradict each other.
>>55903433
>islam with feminism
>your prophet had sex with a 9 year old girl and approved of making sex slaves of infidels
>>55903808
Isn't that censorship in a roundabout way? If I publish my view on a controversial topic online, or if I am overheard in a more private setting and it gets reported to my boss, and I'm fired, you can guarantee that I won't ever vocalize those views again. How is that not censorship?
>>55903433
That's the great /pol/ contradiction. It's sad because some of the views on here are at least well reasoned, but this undermines them all.
She's lucky she's ugly or she would have been raped
>>55903956
Depending on what country you're in, being overheard and then reported to your boss might not be enough to get yourself fired. He would need solid evidence to show that you said this or that.
In some countries, your employment is protected from politically motivated terminations. Only if it can be shown that your political opinions 1) affect the way you do your job in a negative way or 2) is in violation of the company's internal rules or something, you can get fired. We have unions in place to stop this kind of thing from happening.
This is when it gets tricky though. Here in Sweden, all unions are Social Democrat leftists, and as private organizations a union have the right to kick you out for any given reason, such as political incorrectness. Sweden's biggest union routinely cleanses out members who are members of or have shown sympathy for the SD party or nationalist causes - and you might stand without help or resources for lawyers if your employer fires you for political reasons.
In that sense, the system itself is corrupt and does not live up to its own ideals.
There's actually a really good term in place for this, it's called "democrature". The Wikipedia article reads:
>In a democrature, free and open elections take place, freedom of opinion is formally in place, but politics and mass media is dominated by an establishment who believes that only certain opinions should be allowed to be heard. The consequence is that the citizens live under the illusion that they are being given an objective and multi-facet view of the world [by politicians and the media]. The systematic persecution of opinion is well concealed, free debate is strangulated. Worth noting is that the majority of people living under a democrature do not themselves realize that this is the case.
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demokratur
>>55903433
Now that's a stab-able face.
>>55903433
Saying that a culture, is this case Islam, is used to justify violence =/= saying that islam should be banned.
But you already knew that, didn't you, you liberal cu ck
you can reconcile the two views by he fact it is very difficult to blame a speech act in a causal chain bringing about violence. No speech act exists which can deny the moral agency of another human being, not even in the military anymore can such a defense be used. The only situation I can think of is threat of violence or loss of life, but at least in this country that speech act is one of the very rare cases it can be prosecuted, given the threat is made with imminent lawless action.
in other words: a person can always say no unless they have a gun to their heads.
