Fair point on the blow me comment. However, I still think responding then immediately muting is immature/cowardly. That's like yelling out of your car at a pedestrian, then speeding away.

Well, the video was in the context of the government (German gov in this case). As to your other point, I'll quote my other comment: >I'm not an absolutist, but I think we need more free speech than we have now. The nuances need to be discussed, but espousing hatred, even blind/ignorant hatred, should be protected in my opinion, provided it doesn't cross the lines of threatening violence or targeted harassment.

There's a difference between saying "We're better off with less \_\_\_ people" or "I'm going to eradicate \_\_\_ people". For a less polarizing example, replace '\_\_\_ people' with 'rapists'. The former is an opinion (in this case, a good one) and the latter is a threat (also, arguably a good one). As I said in another comment, and I quote: >I'm not an absolutist, but I think we need more free speech than we have now. The nuances need to be discussed, but espousing hatred, even blind/ignorant hatred, should be protected in my opinion, provided it doesn't cross the lines of threatening violence or targeted harassment.

Freedom of speech: The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. That's how Google defines it, referencing Oxford, and that's more or less how I understand it. Please tell me how your definition differs.

I typed a nice response, but it glitched or something. In short, I'm not an absolutist, but I think we need more free speech than we have now. The nuances need to be discussed, but espousing hatred, even blind/ignorant hatred, should be protected in my opinion, provided it doesn't cross the lines of threatening violence or targeted harassment.

I'm not an absolutist, but I think free speech is important and we need more than we have now, not less. I don't know the most efficient way to draw the line. Definitely a direct call to violence/harm is a no-no. Harassment is too ambiguous, but obviously you don't want people to be able to target/bombard individuals who are just passing by on the street. A false immediate threat like shouting 'bomb' or 'fire' should be illegal. There are a lot of nuances that need to be addressed/discussed. However, I don't think 'hate speech' should be forbidden, assuming it doesn't fall into threat/harassment.

Gotta love the "don't question the science" ideology that's infesting what should be an intellectual community.

I'm not saying I don't believe that; I do. I just meant that I said it half-heartedly at the time. The sub/video showed up on my feed while I was powerscrolling and I typed it without any real thought/intent except that it was kind of funny.

Damn straight!

>And calling anti nazi actions nazi like is just... cringey apologist/sympathizer territory. You're the same as the Mod... Supporting free speech means supporting others rights to say things, even if you don't agree with them. It's not a hard concept to grasp, even if you don't agree with it.

Context: A video from this sub, r/interestingasfuck, showed up in my feed. It was in German, so idk what he was saying, but it looked like a guy making a Nazi salute and saying something (joking or not, idk) in front of the police and then getting arrested. I said half jokingly "Idk, arresting someone for speech seems like a Nazi thing to do." I quickly got permabanned from this sub I've never interacted with before. This dude, likely the top Mod on that sub, thinks supporting someone's free speech (which yes, I'm sure is less protected in Germany but I support it anyway) means agreeing with them. They also seem to get off on 'Nazis bad'. Like, of course they are, there's nothing brave or groundbreaking about shouting that you hate Nazis. Anyway, I think the Mod is stupid, the sub is stupid, and 99% of the time reddit as a whole is stupid, all of them sharing a love of censorship.