JULAY
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
It's essential to allow fringe and extreme views in the marketplace of ideas, because if you don't, you'll just cause people who hold those views to segregate themselves in echo chambers where nobody is going to challenge their beliefs because everyone already thinks the same thing.
Take Holocaust denial for example. Anyone who thinks that the Holocaust didn't happen is a retard, full stop. I've been to Auschwitz, I've seen testimony by both the victims and some of the perpetrators, and there is an ample amount of physical evidence that the Holocaust did in fact happen in largely the way that it is described by historians today. So why allow discussion of Holocaust denial here, or in any other space? Because people need to be able to see for themselves that those who deny the reality of the Holocaust have nothing to back up their arguments. Prohibiting open and free discussion of the Holocaust, or any other topic only lends undeserved credence to the idea that maybe the fringe view has some merit, otherwise why wouldn't debate be allowed?
The same goes for flat Earthers, 9/11 truthers, or any other "conspiracy theory". Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Twenty years ago, before corporate consolidation destroyed the internet, there were plenty of communities one could find where you could discuss anything you wanted, and if people thought your ideas were retarded, you would get ridiculed. Sound familiar?
Moreover, I actually do believe passionately in free speech. In the US, there have been common sense prohibitions on speech for decades, such as on violent threats, falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, defamation, etc. Those restrictions are all sensible, and I support them without reservation. But the new standard that the Big Tech Mullahs seek to enforce is a ban on any speech that is considered "offensive". That I absolutely do not support, because protecting offensive speech is the most important thing if you want to have a free democracy.
And let's not forget about the thorny issue of who gets to decide what is considered "offensive"... As it stands, the arbiters of what is offensive are unelected corporate officers and board members whose priority is not ensuring a healthy democracy but rather ensuring that they will be able to continue to enrich themselves by not offending their real customers, the advertisers. The fact that nearly all of these people are of a particular political persuasion isn't immaterial either. They are seeking to enforce the supremacy of their views by prohibiting discussion of any ideas that violate their political orthodoxy.
Let's think about the trans issue... Until Elon Musk bought Twitter, one would have been forgiven for thinking that there was a broad social consensus around transing kids, letting males destroy female sports, putting males into women's prisons, and all of the other utter nonsense that the trans cult has tried to force on society over the last five or so years. The fact is that if you try to point out the obvious ridiculousness and genuine harm of these policies on any platform other than Twitter, you will be censored, and as I said previously, subjected to a torrent of abuse that violates both the letter and the spirit of those platforms content moderation policies.
The fact is that vast majorities in both the US, the UK, and most of the other Western world do not think that any of those things should be happening. Public opinion surveys have shown as much. And what's really insidious is that because of the forced teaming of LGB with the TQ+ crowd, people are beginning to have much more negative attitudes toward gay people, most of whom did absolutely nothing to encourage this bullshit. Two decades of increasingly positive attitudes toward homosexuals have been erased because a bunch of TRA tech bros have decided that their view is the only acceptable view, and they will censor anyone who dares posit an opinion to the contrary.
They have been very effective in creating an illusion of consensus, but as I've alluded to, their tactics don't eliminate opposing ideas, they just drive them to spaces where people can say what they think, that indeed, is what the majority thinks, without fear of being cancelled. This is why Kiwi Farms exists, quite simply, on "mainstream" platforms, you are severely curtailed in what you are allowed to express without fearing for your livelihood or reputation. If part of the bargain is allowing retards who think the Earth is flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen to express their ideas, it's a small price to pay.
TL;DR - Censorship is almost always a bad thing. Kiwi Farms is just about the last place that doesn't engage in it.
