Do you agreee with this quote?

[llorando]

"The way to defeat speech we don’t like or disagree with is through more speech and superior arguments".

Yes

No

[Rosexøxø]

I mean some actions will do.

Some people are all talk. Can’t measure a man or woman only by his or her words. Some actions will do. If the actions are right, and match up with the words, then you can listen.

If everyone is just talking and nothing gets done- it’s the equivalent of bums on the street or kids on a curb. Talk talk talk and nothing to show for.

If you don’t like a certain speech, have actions that condemn the words or confront the words. Whether it be rumors or false promises. Claims of how the world is and etc.

Actions can show the world is different, actions can show that you don’t just need false promises but you can dish some out as well. Actions show the truth and dismantle the rumors.

Some say the pen is mightier than the sword, but I know of a few times the sword won a few battles for itself too. In cases where the sword is cleaned of the bloodshed, not in cases where the sword is used in a frenzy and letting blood dried on it as some type of medal. It’s not for show, it’s not for selfish motives. It was for fighting the wrongs in some cases the only way it could be right. Unfortunately.

Nonetheless, some actions will do. I don’t promote violence, I simply promote action. Action that builds, cultivates, mends, resolves, and progresses forth.

[Rosexøxø]

Cleansed*

[CrazyGirl2]

There are many times when actions speak louder than words. However, when it comes to speech about ideas, or political speech, the only action, other than more speech, to oppose those ideas is violence! Speech, no matter how abhorrent, is just that, speech! By debating those ideas you may be able to not only show the person the error in their thinking, but you will avoid violence! Things like “punch a NAZI” may sound good, and even just in theory, but when everyone who disagrees with you is a “NAZI”, then you leave nothing on the table, BUT violence! We need to go back to the kindergarten era of the “sticks and stones may break my bones” doctrine on political discourse.

Laura 🤗 🥰

[llorando]

Luckily I haven't been called a NAZI, at least not yet. Totally agree with people shouldn't be calling everyone they disagree a NAZI, I know what it's like to be called offensive names for people simply disagree with you. This toxicity is why I left the Democratic party to become Independent.

[CrazyGirl2]

Yeah, my parents both left the Democrat party due to the absolute toxicity on the left, as well as their embrace of the far leftist radicals. All while accusing the right of doing what THEY were doing. So when I turned 18, I just registered as an independent. The only parties I wanna be part of are frat parties (well, before I was engaged, anyway!) I hate politics!

[llorando]

I still haven't re-registered as independent yet, planned to last year, then Kennedy entered the race and I decided to hold off till after the election. I don't hate politics itself, just hate how toxic it has become, and it's really refreshing encountering a fellow liberal who's still same.

[CrazyGirl2]

Yeah even before all the Trump stuff, I hated politics, especially national politics! The mayor of your city has 10x more power over your daily life than the POTUS, as does the school board! Yet all people care about is “what’s the president up to?”. I’d rather answer a “why do all women…” question on GAG than a political one. Hell I’d rather get a paper cut on my vulva and then sit in lemon juice than discuss politics, especially on-line.

[llorando]

Completely understandable not liking to talk about politics, have a some family members that are the same. I'll try harder not to invite to political questions.

[CrazyGirl2]

Thanks hun 😘

[normalice]

Sort of. There has to be a standard of logic, though, or bad faith people will simply debate what counts as logic or try to diminish the perceived weight sound logic should have on an argument, since they know it is not on their side (that is, after all, essentially what bad faith means). Then it would just come down to who has the most money to advertise what they want others to believe instead of who is logically consistent with reality - which of course is the situation we are currently in pretty much worldwide.

[Syntosi]

No. Reason and arguments has no effect on people not receptive to them. For those people the ability to speak freely is an opening to poison discourse and cultures. Speech is powerful, including as a weapon and must be respected as such. Believing that it is beneficial and that unlimited speech is unlimited good or freedom is being incredibly naive.

[Alli112]

I guess? I think it kind of depends on the context. I also have a problem with the idea that "disliking/disagreeing" what another person says or the way they say it is automatic grounds for it being needed to be "defeated". It's a very combative mindset that I don't think is as productive as it sounds. If I disagree with someone, I'm not looking to "defeat" them, I'm probably looking for common ground, or to simply avoid them unless they're explicitly harming someone.

[RebelinSteel]

It’s often far easier to just ignore it. If you have someone spouting something you don’t agree with, then everyone ignores it, they just become one of many voices that are ignored by soceity.

[NathanDavis]

or... you can just keep walking

[Account]

I disagree, but I won't elaborate.