- Joined
- Dec 31, 2019
Should we have freedom of speech or censorship on certain topics - With Norbert the tiger as a cohost
- Thread starter Justa Grata Honoria
- Start date
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
No one is forcing me to say nigger, I just choose not to most of the time because it sounds retarded in my accent. That's the biggest form of censorship in the world- internalized ableism.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2024
Absoulute freedom of speech will probably never be achieved.
In real world, I tend to be a civillized person who uses mostly inoffensive words (except gypsy, I also refuse catering to trannies in 3rd person. I tend to say "This person" instead of pronouns).
But on internet, I spew my frustration that I cannot express in words.
But despite that, it should never be censored stuff that I noticed it is prosecuted in the West, especially in a smaller group or online:
One example being a minister/CEO and calling your opponents bitches.
In real world, I tend to be a civillized person who uses mostly inoffensive words (except gypsy, I also refuse catering to trannies in 3rd person. I tend to say "This person" instead of pronouns).
But on internet, I spew my frustration that I cannot express in words.
But despite that, it should never be censored stuff that I noticed it is prosecuted in the West, especially in a smaller group or online:
- People getting arrested for jokingly making Hitler Salute
- Censoring Swastikas in Games/FIlms (Neither Hammer and Sickle should be censored in an imaginary scenario.)
- Censoring jokes, even dark with anti-minority undertones in games/movies (or at least be equal in your standard of censorship and don't favour a race/country/ideology)
- Being unable to call them by sex. This tranny bullshit wasn't a thing before Tumblr
- Censoring tranny jokes.
- Being prosecuted for hate speech for disagreeing with Tranny ideology/Immigration.
- Being prosecuted for disliking a certain group of people. This applies for both left / right, white/black etc. politics
One example being a minister/CEO and calling your opponents bitches.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2023
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2023
No, people are full of inconsistencies. Life, however, is terrifyingly consistent.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
There are a total of ZERO practicing Christians here, I regret to inform you.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2023
Censorship is anti-vitalist and gae longhouse faggotry.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2023
Yeah, you're right. Even people who think themselves Christian know, deep down, they don't practice as they ought.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
If you think your enemies are out in the open, then you aren't paying attention.
How many wealthy Epstein-style oligarchs can you name? Do you really think he was the only pedo intelligence blackmail ring in operation? How many more Epsteins are hidden from view?
His houses were all wired for video surveillance. Why do you think that was?
The incredibly powerful modern technologies of surveillance and control cannot be 'uninvented'.
What is the solution?
Shall we follow in the footsteps of the Luddites and burn the instruments of control?
Because inevitably someone will accumulate wealth and use these breakthrough sciences to once again influence and control the masses.
The idea that the historical outcome will be the most optimal one just because of 'free speech' is ridiculous and nonsensical.
We don't actually have free speech right now. ( It's not free speech if people are afraid of becoming destitute for their opinion. )
But we do have steadily growing tyranny.
What is the solution?
Shall we screen for pedos and sociopaths with fMRI and ban them from public life?
Because it sure sounds like everyone's teleology ends in 'hope for the best' & 'good always wins'.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2023
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Really now? One day it's sunny. Next day the ground has split open and your house is gone. Life is inconsistent and always moving.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
I love freedom of expression because Norbert being a retarded blowhard in his own words makes my point far far better than me trying to explain why he’s a retarded blowhard ever could.
Idk why Justa thinks I am against freedom of speech, I’ll guess it’s the 2016 New York Magazine article and my conclusion that Kiwi Farms encourages stalking and harassment of their lolcows. I still think this is true, and that there’s a kind of implausible deniability at play when the Farms hosts a cow’s direct dox and makes a case for why they’re terrible, horrible, no-good people who are bad for X,Y,Z reasons. That’s on a continuum: it’s one thing to go into a Chantal thread and Alog about her being fat and opportunistic, it’s another to fedpost that you’re going to throw a Molotov cocktail through Isabel Janke’s bedroom window in Minecraft.
IMO a line is crossed when free speech on the Internet gossip and lolcow site turns into IRL stalking and harassment. Your right to freedom of speech isn’t a right to call Chris Chan at all hours of the night to scream “JULAY!” down the line, or to send me anonymous emails through lolcow.email threatening to stab me in a park, just like it doesn’t give you the right to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater. And I do think the Farms facilitates that kind of weenery, and it has always struck me as implausible that a community that gleefully publishes people’s personal details and a cause for action (ie means and opportunity to stalk) can be totally innocent when some third party takes it too far. Like… what did you think would happen?
Fortunately there’s a legal definition of stalking and of harassment, and by the law those things aren’t acts of speech. If you think they should be, that’s your opinion, but it’s wrong. Your right to say what you want to whom you want however you want to doesn’t imply a right to a platform, a right to compel service providers like banks and PayPal to work with you, or a right to never face legal consequences when your speech crosses the line into action (eg stalking, vandalism of property, harassment, defamation.)
FWIW: My 2016 article doesn’t advocate for Kiwi Farms to be shut down, for Josh to be thrown in jail, or that the site shouldn’t be allowed to exist. And that wasn’t the implied purpose of that article, either: I wrote it mostly because I noticed that one layer of KF’s effectiveness at making cows feel unsafe was how ignorant normie cops and other ordinary people were in the face of this kind of harassment. You don’t need to think Zoe Quinn is a good person to think it’s wrong for hundreds of trolls to send her credible threats of violence. One of the beauties of freedom of speech is that her right to live without fear of someone stabbing her on the sidewalk is just as important as anyone else’s right to explain why they think she’s manipulative. (But that doesn’t extend to a right to incite violence against her, to try and defame her for shit she didn’t do, or to threaten her.)
What I did say about KF is that it exists in an extremely gray area morally, that many users’ activities here are potentially illegal, and that the site has a culture of eating its own. And I still think those things are true, while also believing that Josh shouldn’t be sent to a gulag or the sites’ content from the last decade be thrown into Mount Doom because it pissed off Brianna Wu. And at the end of the day, I rely on that freedom of expression every bit as much as Josh does. He’s free to say things about his lolcows which I think are cruel, unfair, or speculative, and I have a right to say that’s what he’s up to. The solution to free speech is more speech.
What I loathe are platforms where certain speech is freer than other kinds. For example, it’s pretty well known on Reddit that being even vaguely transphobic can be grounds for a subreddit ban, but it’s a-ok to post DIY guides on bootleg hormones, coach minors into coming out as trans, and pile on commenters insufficiently supportive of troonery like a flock of seagulls descending on a plate of fries. (Subs can also ban you automatically using bots if you post in other subs that the sub moderator doesn’t like, regardless of the merits.)
That’s dangerous and pernicious because it elevates one kind of speech over another for political-cultural reasons and Condé Nast puts those decisions in the hands of unpaid moderators with obvious political agendas.
To any extent that Kiwi Farms is like that - so, to the extent that some of its user base mistakes this place as a hugbox for Nazis and thinks it’s their right to annoy and insult users of other political persuasions off the forums - Kiwi Farms isn’t living up to its own ideals. Fortunately, I see the moderation team and Josh enforce site rules fairly apolitically, and you can express political views diametrically opposed to Josh’s without fear of reprisal.
That brings me to Norbert. Besides being a self-important blowhard who wants to seem smart when he isn’t, (and has a subsequently insanely tiresome writing style go show for it), besides my personal animus at him following me around heckling me for months only to cry foul when he gets a taste of the same, his appeals to daddy Null to make the mean feminist lady stop confronting him with his own words about fucking Jewesses and his Nazi tats, and that he lies when he thinks he can just away with it, besides all of that, Norbert seems to believe that his fringe political views deserve all the rights and protections that he wants to strip from everyone else. That’s hypocritical bullshit, and I’m happy to say that on the record anywhere.
It’s also pretty indicative of the type of stupid we’re dealing with when Norbert demonstrates how happy he would be to cut off the tree branch he’s sitting on, so to speak. There are plenty of countries where the things Norbert says and does (ie collecting Nazi memorabilia, tattooing covert Nazi symbology on his body,) are criminal per se. He hates America, wants to strip freedom of speech from everyone else, and doesn’t seem to understand that it’s this same freedom he relies on.
TL;DR freedom of speech is great and Norbert is a hypocritical pussy
Idk why Justa thinks I am against freedom of speech, I’ll guess it’s the 2016 New York Magazine article and my conclusion that Kiwi Farms encourages stalking and harassment of their lolcows. I still think this is true, and that there’s a kind of implausible deniability at play when the Farms hosts a cow’s direct dox and makes a case for why they’re terrible, horrible, no-good people who are bad for X,Y,Z reasons. That’s on a continuum: it’s one thing to go into a Chantal thread and Alog about her being fat and opportunistic, it’s another to fedpost that you’re going to throw a Molotov cocktail through Isabel Janke’s bedroom window in Minecraft.
IMO a line is crossed when free speech on the Internet gossip and lolcow site turns into IRL stalking and harassment. Your right to freedom of speech isn’t a right to call Chris Chan at all hours of the night to scream “JULAY!” down the line, or to send me anonymous emails through lolcow.email threatening to stab me in a park, just like it doesn’t give you the right to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater. And I do think the Farms facilitates that kind of weenery, and it has always struck me as implausible that a community that gleefully publishes people’s personal details and a cause for action (ie means and opportunity to stalk) can be totally innocent when some third party takes it too far. Like… what did you think would happen?
Fortunately there’s a legal definition of stalking and of harassment, and by the law those things aren’t acts of speech. If you think they should be, that’s your opinion, but it’s wrong. Your right to say what you want to whom you want however you want to doesn’t imply a right to a platform, a right to compel service providers like banks and PayPal to work with you, or a right to never face legal consequences when your speech crosses the line into action (eg stalking, vandalism of property, harassment, defamation.)
FWIW: My 2016 article doesn’t advocate for Kiwi Farms to be shut down, for Josh to be thrown in jail, or that the site shouldn’t be allowed to exist. And that wasn’t the implied purpose of that article, either: I wrote it mostly because I noticed that one layer of KF’s effectiveness at making cows feel unsafe was how ignorant normie cops and other ordinary people were in the face of this kind of harassment. You don’t need to think Zoe Quinn is a good person to think it’s wrong for hundreds of trolls to send her credible threats of violence. One of the beauties of freedom of speech is that her right to live without fear of someone stabbing her on the sidewalk is just as important as anyone else’s right to explain why they think she’s manipulative. (But that doesn’t extend to a right to incite violence against her, to try and defame her for shit she didn’t do, or to threaten her.)
What I did say about KF is that it exists in an extremely gray area morally, that many users’ activities here are potentially illegal, and that the site has a culture of eating its own. And I still think those things are true, while also believing that Josh shouldn’t be sent to a gulag or the sites’ content from the last decade be thrown into Mount Doom because it pissed off Brianna Wu. And at the end of the day, I rely on that freedom of expression every bit as much as Josh does. He’s free to say things about his lolcows which I think are cruel, unfair, or speculative, and I have a right to say that’s what he’s up to. The solution to free speech is more speech.
What I loathe are platforms where certain speech is freer than other kinds. For example, it’s pretty well known on Reddit that being even vaguely transphobic can be grounds for a subreddit ban, but it’s a-ok to post DIY guides on bootleg hormones, coach minors into coming out as trans, and pile on commenters insufficiently supportive of troonery like a flock of seagulls descending on a plate of fries. (Subs can also ban you automatically using bots if you post in other subs that the sub moderator doesn’t like, regardless of the merits.)
That’s dangerous and pernicious because it elevates one kind of speech over another for political-cultural reasons and Condé Nast puts those decisions in the hands of unpaid moderators with obvious political agendas.
To any extent that Kiwi Farms is like that - so, to the extent that some of its user base mistakes this place as a hugbox for Nazis and thinks it’s their right to annoy and insult users of other political persuasions off the forums - Kiwi Farms isn’t living up to its own ideals. Fortunately, I see the moderation team and Josh enforce site rules fairly apolitically, and you can express political views diametrically opposed to Josh’s without fear of reprisal.
That brings me to Norbert. Besides being a self-important blowhard who wants to seem smart when he isn’t, (and has a subsequently insanely tiresome writing style go show for it), besides my personal animus at him following me around heckling me for months only to cry foul when he gets a taste of the same, his appeals to daddy Null to make the mean feminist lady stop confronting him with his own words about fucking Jewesses and his Nazi tats, and that he lies when he thinks he can just away with it, besides all of that, Norbert seems to believe that his fringe political views deserve all the rights and protections that he wants to strip from everyone else. That’s hypocritical bullshit, and I’m happy to say that on the record anywhere.
It’s also pretty indicative of the type of stupid we’re dealing with when Norbert demonstrates how happy he would be to cut off the tree branch he’s sitting on, so to speak. There are plenty of countries where the things Norbert says and does (ie collecting Nazi memorabilia, tattooing covert Nazi symbology on his body,) are criminal per se. He hates America, wants to strip freedom of speech from everyone else, and doesn’t seem to understand that it’s this same freedom he relies on.
TL;DR freedom of speech is great and Norbert is a hypocritical pussy
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
Are the European laws against anti-Semitism good or bad?
Would you dismantle them if you were a leader here, leaving the Jews open to clear and obvious anti-Semitic rhetoric?
Are you against the ban of fascist and Nazi symbols and slogans in countries like mine and Germany?
Are you against the prosecution of AfD politician Björn Höcke?
Are you against the forbidding of Russian websites like RT and Sputnik inside Europe?
Do you support anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian protests?
You never ONCE had free speech opinions until some chud made you MATI. Curious case.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
I am against free speech because a certain blowhard uses it to tell me how much she loves eating ass.
Jewish ass, no less.
Jewish ass, no less.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Because kiwifarms is the ultimate freedom of speech platform and you are against it well it tries to be the ultimate.
Where does it say fuck with the cow? There is endless pastes of not touch**g the po*p slapped front and center as a warning on every subforum. Documenting especially known zoofiles and pedos, and making sure the public has record of their crimes or thoughts on poor children and animals is very important. Excuse me for wanting to hold them accountable on what bs they wrote . Not to mention some of these people were harassing people who dared to call their shit out . Many of these people also can just log off and stop posting bs for everyone to see .
These two examples are called criminal harassment you should go to the local police and report now its not kiwifarms fault that tards break the law or that the law enforcement refuses to do jack and shit about harrasment done by people over the internet.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2023
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2019
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
I find the argument of "free speech" in the modern world quite pointless. The premise of "free speech" is that your written and verbal expression of ideas or opinions cannot be prosecuted by the government. In practice, the argument is used to have free reign to say "nigger" on the Internet. "Free speech" does not protect against unlawful actions; I hope that goes without saying.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2022
free speech is one of those things that can only fully exist if everyone gets on the same page unfortunately there will always be at least one retard that ruins everything. so i think the best thing we can do is just learn to accept that everyone has their own opinions and ideas and they have every right to express those things rather we agree with them or not. but at the same time just because they have that right does not mean we need to respect them or give them any form of special treatment. that is the type of behavior that brings in the issues.