Rule

  • dnick@lemmy.world
    16·
    1 year ago

    This could be a great platform, but almost completely ruined by an unnecessarily pretentious font.

    • Skeezix@lemmy.world
      18·
      1 year ago

      Because for the right, it’s usually intentional, not a “mistake”. For them hurting and marginalizing certain people is the point.

      • NielsBohron@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        10·
        1 year ago

        Plus, the left is far more likely to hold people accountable and own up to mistakes. Remember Al Franken? When was the last time a politician on the right did anything other than double-down or change the subject when faced with a scandal?

    • pory@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      11 months ago

      I’d argue that fighting and punishing hate speech would be protected by Tenet II, which takes priority over “other laws”.

    • NielsBohron@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      5·
      11 months ago

      Eh, the phrasing is a bit on the libertarian side for my liking (are we still doing phrasing?), but I like the sentiment. I take the “social contact” view of the Paradox of Tolerance, so speech and rhetoric that deprives others of their rights should not be protected, IMHO.

      Plus, this is designed more as a personal code of ethics rather than system of government, so I’m not really too worried about “enforcing” any of these. And since I personally don’t see a conflict when it comes to limiting the speech of others if it is inciting violence or encouraging discrimination, I think it’s ok the way it’s written.

      But hey, to thine own stuff self be true. Write your own version if you like and share it around.