• pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no idea what you are talking about, to be honest. Never heard of those.

    But Blasphemy is extremely different from Hate. Canada, for example, goes into explicit legal detail on what counts as Hate and constitutes a Hate Crime.

    And Blasphemy has nothing to do with that discussion, nor have I ever heard of this concept, so either you are talking about something else entirely, or perhaps you have to link to what you are talking about?

    When I look the term “Blasphemy Laws” up, it brings up something that has nothing to do with Hate Crimes. Did you perhaps use the wrong term?

    • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Throwaway’s thing seems to be making shallow bad rightwing takes and backing them up with nothing of substance. I don’t think they are engaging genuinely.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We need to pressure mods to start banning them then.

        It literally doesn’t even matter what they’re arguing about. The fact they’re speaking in bad faith is what makes them problematic and the only ones who do that are those who have bad intentions.

        Governments pay people to do that deliberately to forum slide, and there is a lot of revolutionary talk on Lemmy. A good way to stop anyone from doing something is to argue doing that action will violate a value they treasure – like freedom of speech – putting them in a hole where they try to convince the troll, and by proxy themselves, they’re not being hypocrites. Which never happens because an honest debate where the acknowledgement the victim seeks was always impossible to get, and therefore the dissonance never resolvable. It’s called cognitive dissonance, it’s a trick abusers use, look it up.

        Plus we’re dealing with fascists, who take over governments from the inside, so it’s reasonable to assume it’s them doing it, too.

        So speaking in bad faith needs to be policed and banned. Mods who refuse to do it should be replaced with those who will. If the mods are determined by everyone else to be ruling in bad faith, they need to be removed for that as well.

        Human consensus based decision making is not perfect, but it’s all we have and we have to make the most of it.

      • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes I know what that Blasphemy Law is.

        But the thing is the person I responded to seemed to be talking about some other one, because we are talking about Anti-Hate speech laws, which is definitely not what you just linked to lol

    • Throwaway@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Boiled down, theyre laws against arbritary speech. Sure they might define it, but those definitions always leave enough wiggle room to abuse.

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        by that logic, all laws should be abolished because all laws can be used for abuse.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you know drug laws are easily and constantly abused in America? so you would rather we have dealers selling cocaine to gradeschoolers.

            seems legit.

            there is nothing like a law that can’t be abused, but you huffed too much libertarian glue in the US.

      • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No… one is a law against speech against a large entity of power that holds control of the nation.

        The other is a law against speech against fellow specific individuals.

        If you are seriously trying to equate “I don’t like (religion)” with “I think (group of people) deserve to die”, then you are on the wrong side of history mate.

        That would be a very bad take and I hope to hell and back again you are smart enough to see the difference between those two.