But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I am saying if there is a law establishing legal consequences for speech then you do not have absolute freedom of speech.

If you have legal consequences for speech, you don’t have free speech

Sometimes

Doesn’t vindicate cruelty towards him

As others have pointed out the stroke could definitely impair his ability to understand its impact on his mental state.

But also yea no, someone can be very wrong and you can think and state that without being needlessly cruel to them.

What did he do that makes you think he’s in bed with Trump?

xd

yeah, why dont we all have more tolerance for people doing active harm?

Yes. Tolerating someone’s existence and humanity doesn’t mean you have to enable them to do things you disagree with.

While we are on the topic, Who speaks for the CEOs here? They are human right? And has anyone asked the zionists about their feelings? their pains and fears?

Yes. Someone who genuinely believes they are acting morally, even if they do something evil, are not themselves evil. They are misguided. You shouldn’t enable them, but you also shouldn’t be needlessly cruel to them.

But also, Fetterman is responsible for his actions and his actions suck.

Yes, but context matters. People’s motives matter when you judge them. People’s circumstances matter.

Thats how responsibility works, and leadership comes with a lot of responsibility.

Nitpick not about you, but just how people talk about congress in general: let’s just be honest, most of them are not leaders. Or at least not leading anything beyond their team of staffers. And they were not intended to be leaders, they represent their constituents, serving them not leading them.

You perform or you get what Fettermans getting.

What? Ridiculed and mocked by people on the internet who’s primary hobbies are thinking of creative insults and coping? I’m not being facetious, I’m asking what just saying cruel things on Lemmy does thats productive.

Once he gets the eff out, he wont hold that responsibility and can be treated as just another human with human problems again.

Why can’t he be treated as a human now? Just a human who at least you believe is wrong on serious issues, and therefore causing harm based on misconceptions.

This is a reasonable position. I just don’t think saying calous and cruel things then justifying it by saying “it’s online” is a good excuse. You can think someone is wrong and causing severe harm without also hating them, vilifying them, etc. Some people are cruel so it’s fair to be cruel back to them, but I don’t think anyone can fairly look at Fetterman and think he actually intends to hurt people.

Literally like edgy 4channers

Why though?

BTW, I’m glad to hear you recovered! Stay healthy :)

Crappy take, friend. And the “so much for tolerance” is such a loaded phrase, you almost sound insincere, to boot. We don’t owe these politicians a fuckin thing, CERTAINLY not some prioritized level of compassion.

I think people should be compassionate to literally every other person.

Why do people need to be kind and sensitive toward someone’s recovery while that person insists on keeping a position of extreme responsibility, and constantly fucks it up, while “recovering”?

Probably because he feels passionate about his beliefs and feels its important that he fights for them.

So much for tolerance… in anonymous online forums?

I mean yea, I think people should be nice on the internet too

Would you feel the same way if his stroke destroyed his ability to drive a car but he insisted on continuing to do so anyway and kept putting lives at risk?

Being in political office isn’t driving a car. But regardless, even assuming the analogy were correct, yes I would say you should still be compassionate about it.

A vast majority on lemmy should learn this aswell.

The vindictiveness and hate for anyone who slightly disagrees by some on here is only matched by Reddit users. It makes sense I guess

You’re the only commenter on this post who mentioned his stroke in the context of hoping for his recovery- rather than using it to mock him. So much for tolerance

I interpreted as referring to treatment of prisoners of war.

I also didn’t interpret it as him saying they were know for their generosity- just that people in general anywhere tend to have some amount of empathy.

Espouse national socialism