Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, speech can't cause a reasonable person to have a reasonable fear of harm. Like, calling in a bomb scare. I don't know the exact parameters, but it's established that there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
Right. So there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
The argument then isn't "I don't agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I'm against all forms of speech restrictions". The argument is really "I don't agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I don't see calls for genocide as something that should be banned." The latter argument is difficult to justify though, which is why the former argument is used by a lot "free speech absolutionists".