[–] ExterminateAllKikes 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
As long as we do the final solution. Yeah, then we can have free speech.
[–] TeranNotTerran 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Goy, we need more diversity in speech. Let the dark skinned man talk, please.
I actually like this. Very clever.
[–] Sockhereye [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
We will use "speaker diversity isn't speech diversity" as our own "hate speech isn't free speech."
[–] Vampyregod ago
Why not just call it speech. Why an extra label? We are not labelists
[–] Sockhereye [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
We are not labelists
Who said? Labels are powerful. That's like saying "we're not gunnists" in a war.
[–] Blacksdonttip ago
"Diversity of thought/ideas" is already a pretty common phrase. I invoke it often when discussing the matter, but as expected it's met with manufactured outrage and vague claims of harassment/ risk to safety. There's no reasoning with those that act and think based entirely on emotion.
[–] Sockhereye [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
There's no reasoning with those that act and think based entirely on emotion.
True, but revealing the fact that they are hyperemotional lunatics is a good thing. And getting rid of the "of" implies that speech diversity (or idea diversity, thought diversity, however you want to say it) implies that the concept is more integral and implicit to diversity as a whole and drives them wild.
[–] thatcoolmartian ago
Didn't we already kind of try that with 'diversity of thought'. The left won't care, they have to standard's, they know full well that diversity is blacks only. Call them on it all you want they have no standards.
[–] Sockhereye [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Getting rid of the "of" implies that speech diversity (or idea diversity, thought diversity, however you want to say it) implies that the concept is more integral and implicit to diversity as a whole and drives them wild.
Which is why we should reveal this as much as possible.