@snow I think its no different than the prejudice we see anywhere else. People see something as different and dont want something different around them. It is a lack of normalization nothing more.

@snow What do working mothers have to do with it?

@snow @freemo some of this is the dumbest shit I have ever read. you are aware that you can be a working mom and take time off to breastfeed... have you heard of maternity leave? or even just a break from working? biggest enemy working mothers? are you braindead lmfao

@Ox

I'm not sure I fully understand what Snow was trying to say. I'm still confused how it relates to the original point as well. So I didnt reply mostly because I didnt understand the argument being made.

@snow

@freemo @snow regardless of views on working moms, I fail to see how it relates. just seems like an attempt to hate on them during an irrelevant conversation

@Ox

I can see that, it does appear that way. Though english is not Snow's first language so I will be curious to hear their rebuttal...

Snow, do you feel all mothers who work are bad people for doing so or is something being lost in translation here?

@snow

@snow Ok I see the connection you were getting at. But like @Ox i disagree with you, and find the judgment of working moms a bit disgusting really.

Most working moms work out of necessity, some dont. Either way its very insensitive to attack them simply for working to feed their children.

@snow

Studies have shown that any benefit from drnking breaskmilk to the immune system is limited to the first few years of life and has no effect on the immunity in adulthood.

With that said what makes you think they cant just pump breast milk and have the stored milk for their child to drink when they are being watched by their dad?

@Ox

@freemo @snow @Ox >not breast feeding till 10

@Ox @snow @freemo Working mother intifāḍah! Inshallah we will have our women back home, pregnant, & barefoot!

@Anarkat I cant say agree with that on several points.

For one, liberals or anyone else, do not tend to side with people over the claim of "freedom of speech". I have almost never seen someone to use freedom of speech to mean "all speech is deserving of respect". In fact much the opposite, I find liberals and other groups to respond to hateful expressions of speech with negativity. Most beleive the speech should be protected by law but not respected, and there is a difference there.

As for people using freedom of speech against you, thats a weak argument to me. In a moral society a hateful expression of speech will usually cost you your reputation fairly severly. so if you find that people are benefiting from hateful expressions of speech it isnt the freedom of speech that is to blame, it is the lack of morality of those that accept the speech that is to blame.

@freemo on top of that, the idea of "freedom of speech" in the United States, is integral to the cultural identity. However, people don't understand the context for it, that it is a tool to try to achieve greater truths, or for the advancement of discourse. Freedom of speech is seem as an end unto itself, and through its position as a cornerstone of American culture, it is easy for fascists to gain sympathizers by appealing to nationalism.

"These people hate you and me, they want to destroy our way of life, they even hate freedom of speech! They would have it taken away from us!"

But this is another way to gain sympathy from less politically critical people, in appealing to nationalists identity, as well as pre-excuse their actions.

This isn't really a new idea. Germany has strong bans in place against fascistic speech for just this reason. I don't think that German discourse would be enhanced by the decriminalization of fascistic speech.

@Anarkat Well the truth is people who attack freedom of speech **are** one of the most dangerous elements of society, in fact controlling peoples speech is pretty much the definition of fascism. So by virtue of that anyone who says "they even hate freedom of speech" to demonize someone, well, they are right, presuming that is actually what is being done. If its a fascist calling out another facist for being anti-freedom of speech or just an ordinary person calling it out, the truth is there is no place for fascism and that means there is no place for anyone who is against freedom of speech.

Hate what people say, shun the for it, attack them for it, block them and ignore them. Whatever you wish and I'll support it. But if we are talking as a principle of law there is no excuse for a society without freedom of speech IMO.

@freemo See, I'm an anarchist, and advocate for community self-governance without the imposition of unjust hierarchies.

So then, under the context of a community that governs itself, what is the difference between a principle of law banning this violent speech, and the community as a whole ostracizing an individual for spreading hate?

On top of this, the only place I mentioned a state is Germany.

I didn't say anything about banning speech in law. I talked only about why I don't like "freedom of speech" as an end unto itself because of the way in which it is exercised in the United States to further the aims of fascists and nationalists.

I don't really care for the State doing the job of eradicating fascism, because the State is ultimately in league with fascists, anyway. I'd rather just punch fascists myself.

I explained my position on why "freedom of speech" should not be an aim unto itself, because separating freedom of speech from its purpose as a tool of finding truth, and associating it with a national identity and culture allows these fascists to advocate for violent acts under the guise of freedom of speech, while these violent acts themselves would necessarily bring about a restriction of freedoms in other people.

@Anarkat The difference is typically rather large.

A law would follow the following pattern: Iif certain things are said a person looses some civil rights, this usually takes the form of prison time but can also take many other forms like fines or deportation (exile) etc.

Similarly if we are talking personal reactions then it takes a very different form, namely stuff like the community not liking you, no one wanting to talk to you, a poor reputation, your sex of interest not wanting to date you, etc.

Actually you did mention states, you mentioned america multiple times. So that was the context I picked on. Freedom of speech really has no meaning of any kind outside of law anyway, freedoms deal directly with where we think laws can or can not extend to.

@freemo I referred to America in the context of a cultural identity which fascists rally behind. Fuck the state itself.

Also fuck prisons and the "Justice" system.

I guess what I'm getting at is I don't really want more laws against fascism, but I'm totally behind people locking fascists out of public spaces.

Make fascists afraid again.

@Anarkat Freedom of speech in america only exists as a cultural identity in the sense that many americans support, strongly, the law. Nothing more. No americans think or beleive they are obligated to listen to anyone or that everyone has a right to speak in a private space. So its confusing to call on american culture around freedom of speech without reference to laws.

If we are talking specifically and only culturally though what does freedom of speech even mean in that context. Outside of actual rules or law the idea has no meaning or definition.

@Anarkat Everyone wants speech to be suppressed except their own opinions. Also more and more these days people seem to think any opinion they oppose is, by virtue of that fact, worthy of censoring.

This is the worst climate possible to push for restrictions of speech.