Current Events > 'I dont agree w/ what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'

(+) Yeah! (+)

How cringe is this quote on a scale of 1-10

I give it an 8
---

I reckon the statement has more weight if it comes from someone in the military.

It's not really cringe. I kind of like it honestly.


---

2/10.

A bit byperbolic, but it's a solid message.

---

Metal_Bug posted...

I reckon the statement has more weight if it comes from someone in the military.

When was the military last engaged in any operation in defense of our rights?

---

No it's definitely super cringe. Especially when talking about hate speech and misinformation
---

depends who it's coming from, but it's usually a shallow minded, short sighted virtue signal from somebody who'll eventually contradict themselves.

lip service, really.

edit: this was a saying when MLK was killed as well.
---

The first amendment is a thing. The quote is kinda cringe though, but not enough to make a big deal out of.

---

The people who say this usually cry about being "canceled" and yet bitch and moan when people say stuff they don't like and attempt to get it taken down

Its a bit melodramatic but it reflects strong protections for free speech in the United States.

One_Day_Remains posted...

No it's definitely super cringe. Especially when talking about hate speech and misinformation

you can't tell us what to think

however, even though I don't agree with you I'll defend to a suspension your right to post it

---

Works great in a movie.

---

Depends what the topic in question is

---

100% of everyone who says that quote unironically would surrender faster than the Afghans if people actually showed up at gunpoint trying to take that right away.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

100% of everyone who says that quote unironically would surrender faster than the Afghans if people actually showed up at gunpoint trying to take that right away.

Based on what?

---

The "to the death" part makes it a bit cringey considering the average person would probably not go anywhere near that far. However, the underlying sentiment is understandable, although the whole fiasco of nutjobs spreading covid misinformation have made me reconsider how strongly I agree with it...

---

tbh I have moments when I feel noble and I really would do this. On the other hand I am one of those humans who can forget my misery to the point where I can forget physical pain and my circumstances. We create this world together. Gold, land, air, buildings are significant but most of our world is the abstract stuff like language, poetry and shared perceptions.

---

Generally speaking, you should only really be 'defensive' if a certain disciplinary action leads to a slippery slope

Which deplatforming someone for hate and spreading dangerous misinformation would not do
---

Trumble posted...

The "to the death" part makes it a bit cringey considering the average person would probably not go anywhere near that far. However, the underlying sentiment is understandable, although the whole fiasco of nutjobs spreading covid misinformation have made me reconsider how strongly I agree with it...

basically.

the intellectually dishonest like playing dumb when it comes to context and false equivalent mind games.

edited.
---

I hate hearing it, because it usually comes from someone who is defending a terrible person for no reason.

Like someone will say hey you know, that Nazi shouldnt be able to give a speech on genocide at my collegethen someone will jump out with this quote saying look man I totally dont agree with him but he has his right to say it!

its likewere not talking about the US government intervening. Were taking about a Nazi giving a speech at a school.

---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

the intellectually dishonest like playing dumb when it comes to context.

Some people genuinely do feel that absolutely any idea should be able to be spoken freely, no matter how offensive or ridiculous it is (and that such ideas should be defeated through criticism, not through censorship). I myself used to think this way, though as noted, the spread of covid misinformation has me seriously rethinking that.

It's not that they're "playing dumb" about context, just that they believe that free speech is literally unconditional.

---

Nothing wrong with the sentiment.

The problem is that most of the time the people who say this shite want to hang us for not voting for trump.

---

Trumble posted...

It's not that they're "playing dumb" about context, just that they believe that free speech is literally unconditional.

Well, theyre ignorant to what free speech is and usually in these situations its explained to them, and they still argue this point. So at that point they are playing dumb.

---

"But it doesn't mean I need to respect you or roll over and let the stupid shit you say become policy"

---

I agree with you, TC. Only my point of view should be allowed, and yours should be outlawed. Easy solution.

---

I dont agree w/ what you say TC but I'll defend to the death your right to say it


---

257Loner posted...

I agree with you, TC. Only my point of view should be allowed, and yours should be outlawed. Easy solution.

I mean if that was your takeaway then I'm not sure how you managed to make it through the sign-up page
---

One_Day_Remains posted...

I mean if that was your takeaway then I'm not sure how you managed to make it through the sign-up page

Ad hominems will get you nowhere in life.

---

You posting dumb shit and showcasing your illiteracy won't get you anywhere in life either.
---

One_Day_Remains posted...

You posting dumb shit and showcasing your illiteracy won't get you anywhere in life either.

Youre not a very kind person.

---

I mean, I literally said from the jump that this was about hate speech and dangerous misinformation. Things like covid denial, hatred of people of certain races, sexual orientations, gender identities and disabilities. The idea of "defending someone's right to the death" to saying these things is astoundingly cringy.

You just interpret it as a "different point of view" which is dimwitted. There's no nuance to any of these things.
---

One_Day_Remains posted...

I mean, I literally said from the jump that this was about hate speech and dangerous misinformation. Things like covid denial, hatred of people of certain races, sexual orientations, gender identities and disabilities. The idea of "defending someone's right to the death" to saying these things is astoundingly cringy.

You just interpret it as a "different point of view" which is dimwitted. There's no nuance to any of these things.

Actually, I agree with everything you just said. I agree with you that misinformation actually is dangerous. And I agree with you that the danger of misinformation raises concerns about the scope of protected free speech.

However, I couldnt tell that that was what you meant from your opening post:
One_Day_Remains posted...

How cringe is this quote on a scale of 1-10

I give it an 8

---

Okay, fair enough.
---

Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing to have but it seems people forget that it doesnt mean freedom of consequences. Its funny when someone says some racist shit one day and the best theyre on tv in tears apologizing after they lost their job and got attack on the internet. In fact, say whatever disgusting shit you want so we know exactly the type of person you are.

---

VipaGTS posted...

Well, theyre ignorant to what free speech is and usually in these situations its explained to them, and they still argue this point. So at that point they are playing dumb.

It means something different to them, than what it means to you. "The words they're using, mean something different to me" is not really the gotcha you think it is.

---

when the context has already been framed when a term is used, it's just disruptive to twist that term in the response and give it an alternate meaning in that same discussion.

conversation is about conveying a point. when you know what point is being made and still choose to pretend to not understand, you're dismissed.

being disruptive is all somebody with nothing to offer can do, so its best for everybody else to just disregard them and continue on with the conversation.
---

Idk if that line predates Futurama, but the context of it is to speak out against unnecessary censure on the basis of non-problematic speech.

Zoidberg just ate a flag; he didnt goad people into antivaxx or spark a riot to coverup a coup attempt.

---

'MURICA

/caps

---

I probably won't die for your right to say it but I'd take a punch in the nose maybe

---

Shezarr posted...

When was the military last engaged in any operation in defense of our rights?

Soldiers dont get to choose the wars they end up in. If there was an attack on this country they are willing to defend it....

Most where probably on board with the war on terror because we got attacked. And doing nothing about it could have potentially led the way to more attacks. Cause why not if we would have just sat back and did nothing?

---