Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@oliphant @seb321 I didn't compare the homeless to Nazis. I just used them as an example of people ignoring people they find distasteful. I.e. if they can ignore the homeless, they can certainly ignore the Nazis.

I agree with your second point. Refusing to host them is an exercise of free speech/association. But the example being discussed was a public street, owned collectively by the people via the government. In that forum, no person or idea can, or should, be silenced

@seb321 @oliphant @AnarchoNinaWrites Nothing about free speech means that anyone must be "granted air time". In fact, denying someone air time is itself an exercise of free speech.
The principles of free speech state only that you cannot force someone into silence, not that they deserve a platform.

Describing free speech as being for the privileged is backwards. It's a tool used by the oppressed to bring light to their suffering. Without it, the content of our speech is subject to the whims of whomever currently has power.

@oliphant @AnarchoNinaWrites The refutation isn't for them. It's for everyone else on the street watching.

And if you think telling people to "fuck off" actually causes them to fuck off, then I have a bridge to sell you.

@CarlataOld @jilleduffy There are lots of reasons. Cars open more of the world to us. The internet allows us to communicate with billions of people that we otherwise couldn't.
But probably the biggest reason is that back in the day, an entire family could be supported on one 40-hour salary. Now both parents have to work, sometimes multiple jobs, just to make ends meet. And schools are more demanding of time (especially when you factor in sports). I could probably list a dozen more reasons.

@seb321 @oliphant @AnarchoNinaWrites Ignoring them is certainly an option. Millions of people are already used to doing that to the homeless.
But refuting them or shouting over them is also an option since free speech applies to everyone equally. Another option is filming them for public shaming (aka "cancel culture").

Tell me, would you be in favor of government being able to shut down someone shouting in the street about ending racial prejudice in policing? Because it's the very same freedom protecting both parties.

@AnarchoNinaWrites @oliphant Private blocks are an exercise of free speech, not an exception. Feel free to do so.

@oliphant @AnarchoNinaWrites Strongly disagree. They are free to spread their hate amongst themselves just as we are free to mock and ignore and challenge their hateful views. Attempting to stifle that freedom just drives them underground, making them harder to track and refute, and opens the door to them taking power and using those same restrictions against pro-freedom speech, deepening the spiral into fascism.

Free speech protects us from the Nazis far more than it enables them.

@PensiveTM @barney @PythonLinks No, I have better things to do than watch videos of self-avowed extremist actors, thanks.

@PensiveTM @barney @PythonLinks A duopoly isn't false just because you don't like it. Our electoral system reinforces the two-party paradigm, and until that changes, third party votes for president are no better than not voting at all. Support third party candidates at the local level (where it might actually matter) if you want, but at the national level, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

@Smokinjoe @arstechnica The part under the subtitle "A federal right to repair law"