At the moment, lemmy is not great with comment integrity. If somebody deletes a comment (mod or the user themselves), the entire chain basically gets nuked.

So it looks like a conservative got embarrassed that they were supporting a white supremacist killer, and deleted their comments. Or maybe they got banned.

Oh, definitely make sure to leave and make it even more of an echo chamber then.

You’re really helping.

And then we would deny them their WIC, SNAP, and end the child tax credit to ensure they stay in poverty, and systematically defund public education.

And then when the poverty rate mysteriously jumps, which mysteriously causes crime rates to jump, we can just blame democrats.

I don’t listen to, and have never listened to Limbaugh, so yes it was a coincidence.

This may surprise you, but there is an effectively limited number of choices in the creation of a sentence to coherently convey an idea. The word suggestions above your keyboard on mobile work on that exact principle.

It’s not a hard phrase to come up with. It’s only 8 words.

I didn’t steal or change shit. I don’t listen to Limbaugh.

Bravo. What wit.

You’re a lost cause if you don’t think a self described nazi is a problem.

Conservatism can’t exist in the face of criticism, it requires an echo chamber.

You labeled them nazis to justify mistreating them.

You could at least read the article:

Brad Lewis, who has described himself as “an actual literal Nazi”

If calling yourself a Nazi isn’t enough then what is?

The people you want oppress are not nazis and were not part of a genocide in the 40’s.

You’re being ignorant if you think that’s the definition being used here. Nobody is saying these people literally were there in the 40s. You’re being deliberately obtuse.

The paradox of tolerance has to do with being tolerant of abhorrent ideas.

The original concept never limited it to just ideas:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them

This concept is still relevant to people themselves, which is why I brought it up.

It has nothing to do with mistreating people that think different than you.

Nazis do a bit more than just think differently. They kill people.

But regardless, what do you think the “even by force” part means?

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument

How is that not a form of “mistreating people”?

Kicking nazis out of your store is not fascism.

Related:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I though you guys didn’t want buisness to discriminate against people…

… on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc.

Nazis can fuck right off.

He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Only an idiot would think that’s a felon.

He was in federal prison.

Freedom is speech is between you and the government. It’s not about people defaming you.

You can’t have free speech without protections from slapp suits.

It’s not that cut and dry.

The court determined that journalists were confused about the meaning of the term “felon,” which by definition refers to someone convicted of a felony. Although Blankenship was not a “felon,” he was sentenced to serve a one-year sentence in federal prison — a rarity for a misdemeanor offense.

“Blankenship’s prison sentence placed him as close to felony status as possible,” Gregory said, adding that for “non-lawyers” describing Blankenship as a felon was not “inherently improbable,” and there were not “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity” of such a statement.

“Some of the statements may have been the product of carelessness and substandard journalistic methods,” the chief judge wrote. “But at the end of the day, the record does not contain evidence that the commentators and journalists responsible for the statements were anything more than confused about how to describe a person who served a year in prison for a federal offense.”

https://apnews.com/article/crime-west-virginia-don-blankenship-prisons-99091dd8c1fdb56458393eff9a7b4360

The active malice rule is put in place to prevent public figures from sueing anybody who even slightly criticizes them. Without the rule, it would dissuade people’s free speech to report and comment on these things.

They can read, it’s just that many conservatives have a knee jerk reaction of defending white supremacists and nazis.

Actual Malice” is a standard whereby press outlets are protected from printing things that are untrue that cause damages, under certain circumstances.

Thats not really what it is.

• Right now, the “actual malice” standard — that public officials and powerful individuals cannot win libel cases without proving that a statement was made with knowing or reckless disregard of its falsity

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-actual-malice-standard-explained/

we’re talking about only things that are actually false statements of fact

Not necessarily. Anybody can sue anybody over anything. How far that lawsuit goes is another story, and there should be protections from bullshit lawsuits from going anywhere. Because without such protections, debate and free speech can get shut down over fear of being sued for being critical of people.

Finally, “Actual malice” means that you can be proven to have had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement, as opposed to just a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement of fact.

That’s not what it means. It means that in an actual malice case, additional requirements are needed. The statement in question has to either be knowingly false OR reckless disregard.

As long as they can maintain a certain level of plausible deniability they can lie with impunity. “I didn’t know for sure it wasn’t true”

That counts as libel in any case, as is under current law.

“I didn’t know for sure” is reckless disregard for the truth, which counts as libel even under the actual malice rule.

Getting rid of the requirement doesn’t make things any better on this point.

Do you think Fox News should have the “freedom of press” to say things that are false statements of fact about you that damage you because you ended up in a matter of public conern?

They already don’t.

it isn’t an outrageous standpoint.

It’s an erosion of protections for the press by a corrupt judge. Even if the standpoint itself isn’t a big deal (it is, anything changing how 1st amendemnt is implemented is a big deal), the context of Clarence’s corruption makes it a big deal.

Outrageous isn’t the word to use here. Instead the word is corrupt.

Brad Lewis, who has described himself as “an actual literal Nazi”

Half the article is about Clarence’s corruption.

Why the hell are we letting a corrupt judge decide anything at all related to free speech?

So would you abolish the senate as well, with its 2 seats per state to ensure that each state is represented equally?

I wouldn’t abolish it, I think the number of senators per state should reflect the population of a given state.

If you’re going to have a few regions basically having total dominion over who controls the country, why would the other state want to remain in such a union?

Why would big states want to remain in a union in which smaller states hold more power than they otherwise would in a system that holds all votes equal?

The system we have already incentivizes the dissolution of the union.

And the big states would not have total domination, because states don’t (or at least shouldn’t) vote, people do. You do realize that a significant number of people in these big states vote red, right? So there would be no domination.

That might work for a bit, but you could very well see it eventually causes a revolt and the end of the union since there’s no point being involved with a thing like that.

Our current system has historically been terrible for avoiding revolt.

The President is not the representative of the 10 largest cities in America,

And the president still wouldn’t be under a system that holds all votes equal. Because cities are not the only thing that exist.

Your whole argument is basically “We can’t have tyranny of the majority, we must maintain our current system of tyranny of the minority!” all while ignoring that all votes being equal is in fact not a form of tyranny by the majority.

With the current system, a presidential candidate needs to convince people from all around the country that they’re the person to be president

No they don’t. They just need to convince the swing states. And that’s all they do, spend time in swing states campaigning. They might go to stronghold states on occasion for funding, but other than that 90% of the time they’re in swing states.

presidential candidates would never spend any time at all in most states, and wouldn’t have anything in their campaign to help most states.

I live in a swing state. EVERY election, both candidates visit my city. Do you know what they don’t do? They don’t ever visit the surrounding states. They don’t ever stop by the smaller towns in my state. It’s only ever my city and 1-2 others for the entire state, then they skip off on a jet to the next swing state, flying over other states in the process.

The current system has all of the problems you are concerned about an equal vote system having.

If two or three states end up picking the president, you’re going to have a problem where some geographical regions have disproportionate choice over who runs the country.

Moving away from the electoral college to something like STAR/approval voting would move us away from geographically weighted votes, which means that no such thing would happen. All voters would have equal representation.

Instead we currently have a system where a disproportionate amount of power is given to a select few states with fewer people. Tyranny of the minority is not acceptable. All votes should be equal.