Fuck Facebook with a leftist strap-on
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
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.
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.
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)
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)
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
I would thank them for their birdy wish and gift
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
I would appreciate his interest in science and nature rather than sonic the hedgehog
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
I would ask them if it was a classic piece of artwork or a classic image from a porn photographer
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
Dead, buried, forgotten (Until now)
(Now) sexual, verbal, mental, drug, abuse
I would thank them for their birdy wish and gift
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
I would appreciate his interest in science and nature rather than sonic the hedgehog
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
I would ask them if it was a classic piece of artwork or a classic image from a porn photographer
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
Dead, buried, forgotten (Until now)
(Now) sexual, verbal, mental, drug, abuse
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???
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???
