Go to page:

Fuck Facebook with a leftist strap-on

Ahavati
Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States
75awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 3718

JohnnyBlaze said:

Would you stop derailing the thread with these things called "facts"?!


Hey! If I'm going to be labeled a bad girl I'm going to play the part!

JohnnyBlaze
JohnnyBlaze
Dangerous Mind
United States
14awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 20th Mar 2015
Forum Posts: 1498

Ahavati said:

Hey! If I'm going to be labeled a bad girl I'm going to play the part!


Put on a power point presentation and I'll be ( silly ) putty in your hands.

Ahavati
Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States
75awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 3718

JohnnyBlaze said:

Put on a power point presentation and I'll be ( silly ) putty in your hands.


Throw in a nutter-butter and I'll consider it!

butters
butters
Fire of Insight
United Kingdom
1awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 17th Sep 2019
Forum Posts: 693

Ahavati said:

Throw in a nutter-butter and I'll consider it!
i'm more of a butter-fingers kinda girl

JohnnyBlaze
JohnnyBlaze
Dangerous Mind
United States
14awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 20th Mar 2015
Forum Posts: 1498

Ahavati said:

Throw in a nutter-butter and I'll consider it!


I would be thrilled to be your Nutty Buddy!

JohnnyBlaze
JohnnyBlaze
Dangerous Mind
United States
14awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 20th Mar 2015
Forum Posts: 1498

butters said:i'm more of a butter-fingers kinda girl

I heard Harry was the one with the butter fingers!

butters
butters
Fire of Insight
United Kingdom
1awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 17th Sep 2019
Forum Posts: 693

JohnnyBlaze said:

I heard Harry was the one with the butter fingers!
dayumm, you just made me choke on a mouthful of pumpkin (with walnut and dark choc chips) bread!

butters
butters
Fire of Insight
United Kingdom
1awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 17th Sep 2019
Forum Posts: 693

Sky_dancer said:

That's called a confession. Free speech means none of these idiots with idiotic ideas of extremisms go unheard or unseen. People call people out on their shit, nazis views are laughed and mocked as we did when far right wankers tried to walk in Liverpool. When we advocate for free speech it's for the same root reasons others want some form of restricted speech.

And what words are restricted? Who says who can say what and when? What happens when governments start imposing enforced speech, compelled speech? Because, historically, that's exactly what happens just before your government start locking you up for saying unsactioned words.

First they come for your words, and if you want your words to be censored then do it to others, but I will defend anyone's right to free speech, even if it's absolutely out of my range of experience or moral boundaries.

The nutters who have spouted hate speech publicly are dealt with swiftly, usually publicly too. People with vile minds who keep their venomous ideas in small, secret groups are exactly what happens when people's speech is controlled. Socially or otherwise.

if only that were true; instead, as a newcomer to america, i'm seeing it dealt out daily from the highest platform in the land and retweeted/reiterated time and time again with no visible consequences - yet

Brando
Brando
Brandon Hursell
Thought Provoker
United States
1awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 25th Nov 2018
Forum Posts: 257

Someone gives you a calfskin wallet for your birthday. How do you react?

Your little boy shows you his butterfly collection, plus the killing jar. What do you say?

You're reading a magazine. You come across a full-page nude photo of a girl or guy. You show it to your husband/wife, who likes it so much, he/she hangs it on your bedroom wall. The girl/guy is lying on a bearskin rug.

Describe in single words only the good things that come to mind about your mother.





Brando
Brando
Brandon Hursell
Thought Provoker
United States
1awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 25th Nov 2018
Forum Posts: 257

The above is Phillip K. Dick.
Just checking for replicants.
Carry on.

Sky_dancer
Sky_dancer
The Cosmic Dragon
Dangerous Mind
United Kingdom
15awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 10th Dec 2018
Forum Posts: 813

butters said:
if only that were true; instead, as a newcomer to america, i'm seeing it dealt out daily from the highest platform in the land and retweeted/reiterated time and time again with no visible consequences - yet


Yet. But look at what is coming about because of that nutter and our nutter. People are beginning to speak up. We cannot silence people. Listen, refute, participate or don't but let's not silence people, or force words into people's mouths.

hemihead
hemihead
hemi
Dangerous Mind
New Zealand
12awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 1st Nov 2010
Forum Posts: 1350

Sky_dancer said:

Yet. But look at what is coming about because of that nutter and our nutter. People are beginning to speak up. We cannot silence people. Listen, refute, participate or don't but let's not silence people, or force words into people's mouths.


Ok....no silencing people. Would you have it then that we undo the myriad controls to free speech that are already in law (controls on libel, hate speech, incite to overthrow the government, commercial secrets....the list is extensive). I would argue that stopping people hiding behind free speech to propagate hate has allowed the minority voices to come forward. True ‘free speech’, without some ability to moderate it, actually just belongs to the strongest (you may seek examples for this in Nazi Germany, where mob opinion removed the ability for reason to speak).

Further, a previous commenter noted something to the effect that letting people speak freely stops monsters hiding, so that we may address them (then hints at swift retribution). This is not free speech. Free speech as stated in the US constitutional amendment allows that person to advocate for any manner of hate or cruelty and that no harm may come to them for it. A person trying to act upon them for disagreeing with their opinion that, for example, infantile rape should be mandatory, is in fact the person committing the crime here.

The truth is that we have (quite reasonable) constraints on free speech already in place, and that using the concept to defend people who are wanting to restrict the rights of others is contrary to the very concept they are using to defend it.


hemihead
hemihead
hemi
Dangerous Mind
New Zealand
12awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 1st Nov 2010
Forum Posts: 1350

A comment above mentions “that Trump was democratically elected”, and that no one may challenge his right to act because of that.

Firstly, the US is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic, and the difference is (loosely), that you vote for people whom you empower to then select a president. Why this matters is that;

- the representatives you vote for need vast sums of money to campaign. If you don’t have enough money you can not compete. This excludes the bulk of the population from acting as representatives, unless they gain the favour of wealthy people and organisations. Do you see opportunities for a problems with this?

- the representatives do not have to say where they are getting funding from, so their motivations and promises to powerful people and organisations are not knowable (there are some controls on this, but they are so loose as to be lip service only)

- the party in power can reshape the voting areas to skew the true results within it, quite legally, via gerrymandering, which is a mathematically complex way to rig results. This is a fact of the US election system, and takes money and effort to do, with the effects lasting for many election cycles

- huge tracts if the US population are excluded from voting quite deliberately by clever use of laws to exclude them as well as difficulties of access which target minorities and low income people most heavily.

- the last election was, as is now a statement of fact, impacted by a foreign government orchestrating a massive media campaign using very sophisticated social engineering algorithms

Somewhere in here, in what is only a very small list of the total number of issues that might be raised about the process, democratic process as understood by the Greeks who invented it has clearly left the room.

You may explain to me how the points above constitute democracy should you feel you are able. (Hint: the more you understand of the topic, the more you will be unable to demonstrate this)

David_Macleod
David_Macleod
David Macleod
Tyrant of Words
United Kingdom
39awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 5th Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 2254

Brando said:Someone gives you a calfskin wallet for your birthday. How do you react?

I would thank them for their birdy wish and gift

Brando said:Your little boy shows you his butterfly collection, plus the killing jar. What do you say?

I would appreciate his interest in science and nature rather than sonic the hedgehog

Brando said:You're reading a magazine. You come across a full-page nude photo of a girl or guy. You show it to your husband/wife, who likes it so much, he/she hangs it on your bedroom wall. The girl/guy is lying on a bearskin rug.

I would ask them if it was a classic piece of artwork or a classic image from a porn photographer

Brando said:Describe in single words only the good things that come to mind about your mother.

Dead, buried, forgotten (Until now)
(Now) sexual, verbal, mental, drug, abuse




David_Macleod
David_Macleod
David Macleod
Tyrant of Words
United Kingdom
39awards   profile   poems   message
Joined 5th Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 2254

hemihead said:

Ok....no silencing people. Would you have it then that we undo the myriad controls to free speech that are already in law (controls on libel, hate speech, incite to overthrow the government, commercial secrets....the list is extensive)


who defines "Libel, hate speech, inciting to overthrow the government (by my interpretation, democrats seem to be guilty of that last one listed currently)

hemihead said:I would argue that stopping people hiding behind free speech to propagate hate has allowed the minority voices to come forward.

you can't hide behind free speech when you are out in the open

hemihead said:true ‘free speech’, without some ability to moderate it, actually just belongs to the strongest (you may seek examples for this in Nazi Germany, where mob opinion removed the ability for reason to speak).

It would seem to be appropriate to change the terms here. "True Free Speech" becomes an oxymoron when the terms moderate or controls are used - maybe we should call it "Limited, Controlled Speech"

Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Castros Cuba, had no concept of free speech, controlling free speech is fascistic

hemihead said:Further, a previous commenter noted something to the effect that letting people speak freely stops monsters hiding, so that we may address them

seems reasonable

hemihead said:(then hints at swift retribution). This is not free speech.

There was no hint of retribution whatsoever. How would you treat a lunatic racist? would you take them seriously? reasonably sane people have enough intelligence to make judgements, we don't need totalitarianism or a nanny state to work things out for us.

hemihead said:Free speech as stated in the US constitutional amendment allows that person to advocate for any manner of hate or cruelty and that no harm may come to them for it. A person trying to act upon them for disagreeing with their opinion that, for example, infantile rape should be mandatory, is, in fact, the person committing the crime here.

straw argument alert - using extremes examples devalues your argument. how would any reasonable person see an advocate of a policy that infantile rape should be mandatory? Can that person easily hide while expressing that opinion.

hemihead said:The truth is that we have (quite reasonable) constraints on free speech already in place

Then it is not "Free Speech" it's "Constrained Speech"

hemihead said: and that using the concept to defend people who are wanting to restrict the rights of others is contrary to the very concept they are using to defend it.

seems like another straw man argument to me. We either have free speech or controlled speech. If free speech has restrictions then it is not FREE!

example: If I expressed an opinion on Facebook, or Twitter, or on a street corner that I thought that the Islamisation of the UK would lead to slaughter and we should fight against it, what would happen? I would be banned from facebook and twitter and I would get prosecuted and jailed for a hate crime. This is free speech?? really???


Go to page:
Go to: