Should we have freedom of speech or censorship on certain topics - With Norbert the tiger as a cohost

[Spud]

thats the same logic that antifa is using just saying

If I beat my enemies they win? The side that wants to win will always beat the side that wants to be left alone, so leave me alone if you don't want to lose.

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

If I beat my enemies they win? The side that wants to win will always beat the side that wants to be left alone, so leave me alone if you don't want to lose.

Now lets not twist words. Antifa likes to terrorise people whom they deem danger to their "human rights " and freedoms or lives ...something .

 

[Spud]

Now lets not twist words. Antifa likes to terrorise people whom they deem danger to their "human rights " and freedoms or lives ...something .

Yes, I know antifa are part of the group that wants to win and I as part of the group who wants to be left alone have come to the conclusion that if I want to be left alone there has to be a reason why.

 

[Stan]

I have stated this before, so get it through your thick skull, piggy. Censorship is not wrong in the most abstract, philosophical sense. These countries are simply wrong in what they censor. You see, I am right to profess the ideas that I do.

“Censorship is great unless it happens to me and then it’s bad” very coherent and logical well done

Someone who states that Europeans should be genocided out of existence by the Great Replacement and mass migration, as you have done, Stan, or produces and disseminates vulgar rap music that extols socalled "black culture" white encouraging white girls to fuck blacks, or spouts transgender bullshit which is no less crazy then the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic should be only very briefly persuaded not to with a hand placed on the shoulder, and then if they persist....strong arm and jackboot and machine gun!

Ok but quis custodet? How is you being able to silence stuff you hate like, uh, Katy Perry, morally superior to trannies banning you from Reddit because you cruise neo-Nazi communities there?

I think you need the right to say what you want and to wear your Nazi colors on your (literal) sleeve. It’s like dangerhair, it warns people that they’re dealing with an absolute moron. How could I take that away from them?

Okay, now say that in public while wearing your Nazi garb.

It would be cooler if he keeps his shirt off, wears the Nazi armband on left side so we can see his crypto-Nazi tat on the other. (Yes, he has both an Nazi armband and a Wehrmacht/NSDAP tattoo.)

you should be able to do all of those things and more
censorship has a more important fault in that it breeds pussies
it helps the fags reproduce by preventing bold offensive thinking
it buck breaks the masses into compliance with soft tyranny

See, it’s your first amendment right that empowers you to say that. From where I’m sitting right now (boutique hotel in Chengdu), people are rotting in jail for lese-majeste, Xi banned images of Pooh Bear because he thinks it’s a joke at his expense, and you can’t trust the government to report its Beijing air pollution data accurately unless the US Consulate fact-checks them with a weather station at their embassy. Repressing freedom of speech is repressing freedom of thought. It drives extremists like Norbert underground, which I think promotes domestic terrorism. It suppresses the truth and disempowers the people. It allows one guy (Xi Jinping, but Putin does this too, and many others also) to arbitrarily ban whatever movie, book, IP, has pissed them off. It means the Internet outside China is walled off, and you need to use VPN and other things to defeat this government effort to keep you in ignorance… it’s bad for everybody.

Except I absolutely have the right to do that. Read up on current legalese and stop posting lies

Pro tip: don’t break the law unless you’re in the process of seizing power.

I believe that threatening people who want to take away my rights and agency is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

^^ see above

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

There's plenty of times censorship has succeeded at curtailing harmful content and you're forgetting all the times free speech has let people undermine and destroy nations. That's why the CIA pushed for free speech in Eastern Europe. They didn't want Eastern Europeans to actually be free, they just wanted to destroy the communist government so they could sell the pieces to multinational corporations. Just like today with how the CIA and neocons still want "free speech" in foreign countries which means free speech to teach children they are transgenders and free speech to praise globohomo.

Give me a modern example of censorship improving a country. Also using free speech as a reason CIA destroyed countries is absolutely retarded, the inflow of foreign cash and personal is more of a reason.

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

It would be cooler if he keeps his shirt off, wears the Nazi armband on left side so we can see his crypto-Nazi tat on the other. (Yes, he has both an Nazi armband and a Wehrmacht/NSDAP tattoo.)

I think you need the right to say what you want and to wear your Nazi colors on your (literal) sleeve. It’s like dangerhair, it warns people that they’re dealing with an absolute moron. How could I take that away from them?

can you stop ragging him on his nazi wrongthink, rag him on his arguments .
seriosly though he is my favorite boy , he is the rarest of them all a purebread nazi in whitecollar job and no trashy visible tatoos i wanna keep on observing him in his natural habitats i.e this forum

 

[Stan]

can you stop ragging him on his nazi wrongthink, rag him on his arguments .
seriosly though he is my favorite boy , he is the rarest of them all a purebread nazi in whitecollar job and no trashy visible tatoos i wanna keep on observing him in his natural habitats i.e this forum

Well there’s some remarks to suggest he got downsized so may not be white collar any more. But we can stop nitpicking. The real problem here isn’t Norbert’s odious views - like I said before, the solution to free speech is more speech, and a compulsion to silence your ideological opponents instead of engage them and entertain their dumb ideas would suggest a degree of fear and insecurity in one’s own beliefs. I loathe troon censorship because they know their argument that they are imaginary and honorary women is very weak, so rather than try to actually defend it, they put their efforts into making sure nobody who disagrees can express themselves.

So When Norbert says that censorship is required for the good of society, he’s suggesting a few rather horrifying ideas:
1. That people aren’t smart enough to know good ideas from bad ones and need the government to stop them from self-determination (ie controlling access to information, North Korea style)
2. That his own political philosophy is too weak to succeed in a fair debate and needs a handicap to succeed
3. That he’s too intellectually lazy to engage with challenging ideas and wants the whole world padded for his comfort.

He can believe in any or all of these, from either side of the aisle and for any reason, and he would still conclude that he wants a paternalistic, fascist style of government to restrict people’s access to free speech, free press, and free religion (all of these are very enmeshed with one another, so that if you were to remove one the others would also fall.) Norbert could be an inveterate troon arguing that those dang dirty transphobes must be prevented from posting actual GRS result photos and he would still want the same thing for the same intellectually bankrupt reasons.

 

[Teghern]

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'.

Way to miss my point conspiratard.
If you want to defeat evil you must confront it and if some faggot from the human decency department has pre-emptively prevented me from knowing about the existence of such faggotry I am therefore left unimmunized against it's dangers, because bad ideas are memetic hazards that by being exposed to you develop responses against.
This logic is why dumb commies are usually young and/or sheltered and usually grow out of it as their intellectual immune system adapts to the mind plague when shown in contrast to the alternatives, not everyone has the IQ for this of course. Closing off access to bad opinions and shit takes is the zero-covid forever masker approach to ideological discourse and places the people subjected to it at an immediate disadvantage.
You cannot condition yourself to mental danger if censors guard you from the wrongthink, whatever it may be, we don't have "free speech" now but it would be nice if we did and the fools chomping the bluepill of thinking they forever know best don't see the bullet they're pointing at their own toes.

 

[AgendaPoster]

So When Norbert says that censorship is required for the good of society, he’s suggesting a few rather horrifying ideas:
1. That people aren’t smart enough to know good ideas from bad ones and need the government to stop them from self-determination (ie controlling access to information, North Korea style)
2. That his own political philosophy is too weak to succeed in a fair debate and needs a handicap to succeed
3. That he’s too intellectually lazy to engage with challenging ideas and wants the whole world padded for his comfort.

People aren't smart enough, that's correct, sadly governments are made of people too, which are also retards.
Individual self-determination as the pinnacle good, i.e. what the trannies do, is idiotic. Any sane society will compromise and reduce your self-determination desires to maintain cohesion and stability.
You cannot "debate" national socialism and similar ideas, cause people are retarded and get triggered. The same way you cannot debate communism. @Save the Loli had a thread about it, and it was just endless sperging and personal attacks.
See first sentence. People are too emotional and stupid to remain calm while discussing controversial ideologies.
Due to the stigma attached to being a Nazi or commie, these debates cannot occur here. It would take a well moderated venue, and these views should obviously not be criminalized in order to discuss them honestly.
It's easy to cry about debate when your views are 110% undiluted kosher shitlibbery and promoted by every evil megacorporation and criminal government on the planet.

I as part of the group who wants to be left alone

This is why you will end up losing, cause that shit ain't gonna happen. This is Planet Earth, not lolbert paradise.

 

[Gog & Magog]

I believe those who advocate for the desolution of free speech should be the first ones to lose their rights.

 

[Teghern]

Nigger

the remarkable efficacy of censorship both in terms of curtailing availability of harmful content and placing stigma on such content, UNREFUTED.

SAMIZDAT motherfucker, or did 70 years of totalitarian commie attempts to shittalk capitalism fall flat on it's face?

The dubious legacy ofMill and other thought leaders, especially regarding the "Marketplace of Ideas" and the pollyannish notion that the best idea always win out, when they clearly do not, UNREFUTED.

Memes like genes function not on survival of the best but by the best reproducing, the fact that it's a nice idea and is still around being parroted today whilst ye olde black chambers of letter intercepting are largely long gone or at least politely ignored says all that needs to be said about "best" winning.

distinction between individual liberty among persons and the absurd notion that Disney and Blackrock are to be extended same liberties under the pernicious and preposterous legal fiction that a corporate entity is a person, UNREFUTED

I mean US law is inherent BS so you can have the W for this one, Magna Carta repeal when?

that pornography should not be protected and that no one would have ever suggested as much before about 1960, UNREFUTED.

Bro this one is just objectively incorrect I'm sure you've heard of a place called Weimar Germany and it's notorious social standards, pretty sure that shit rolled along before the summer of love.
If you wanna go waaay back I'd classify temple prostitutes as pornographic too so that takes us to 1200 BC at least according to the good book.

that Japan saved herself after the San Felipe incident by trampling on suppoedly "inalienable rights" by banning Christianity, demonstrating that sometimes a heavy hand is necessary, UNREFUTED.

Japan was never under any threat of invasion, again watching too much Shogun.
It wasn't a prospect because it wasn't an unstable "empire" like Mexico or unga bunga land like Mozambique but an actual nation that would unite against external threats (case in point; attempted Mongol invasion), wherever the western explorers came across advanced societies the intent was to rip them off economically by which way Christianisation was a tool for.
It wasn't even truly necessary because by the time Christianity was actually suppressed the Edo period was already well under way, the banning was a post-facto punishment rather than a hard and necessary decision so your conclusion here is moot.

that ideas about free speech and blah blah blah were used by the Cultural Marxists to gain dominance and, now that they have achieved such dominance, are now pulling it out from under us, UNREFUTED.

Yes and that is a bad thing, have to give the W again here.

the last contention though is probably the most important, and that is for example not tolerating people spouting transgender ideology, whether to kids as parents or anything. What it comes down to is a MORAL CONVICTION, the ability to see and discern that something is wrong, evil, and the willingness to ACT on that.

Indeed but how can we know of such things if the metaphorical books on them are burned in advance? By denying people the chance to do battle with such things you would leave them defenceless against them.

 

[Spud]

cause that shit ain't gonna happen.

Why do you think I added the last part?

have come to the conclusion that if I want to be left alone there has to be a reason why.

I will cook and eat you if you don't leave me alone. It's your own fault if you don't.

 

[The Ugly One]

Give me a modern example of censorship improving a country. Also using free speech as a reason CIA destroyed countries is absolutely retarded, the inflow of foreign cash and personal is more of a reason.

Censorship prevented right-wing extremists from gaining a foothold in the UK's government, ensuring that the enriching power of diversity didn't get stopped. There are amazing halal food carts all over London now!

 

[Gremperor]

I love freedom of expression

No you don't

If this is how they use the Kiwi Farms I can’t really make an argument for why it should stay up. I can’t even work up the stomach defend your right to free speech if that just means acting like middle schoolers with conduct disorder.

With legitimate users like these, who needs glowies or hyperbole?

Frankly, KF would have a lot easier of a time continuing to stay up if it censored these users, but it's Josh's site and he makes the rules.

I didn’t answer your question about which users need to be censored because 1) you’re on ignore so your messages may not get read, 2) I don’t have to answer, and 3) it’s a leading question with no upside for me to answer.

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

Censorship prevented right-wing extremists from gaining a foothold in the UK's government, ensuring that the enriching power of diversity didn't get stopped. There are amazing halal food carts all over London now!

it also worked as magic for preventing brexit vote or muslims ragging on the kuffar, it works until it doesnt. Currently ask germoney how it feels about adf whom they desperatly try to send every single party leader to the klanker or at least banned from running for saying shit like "everything for germany"

 

[Curzon Dax-sama]

it also worked as magic for preventing brexit vote or muslims ragging on the kuffar, it works until it doesnt. Currently ask germoney how it feels about adf whom they desperatly try to send every single party leader to the klanker or at least banned from running for saying shit like "everything for germany"

It's still working; the average German is too complacent, fat and lazy to care. Soft tyranny continues to work until the economic and social background starts falling apart.

 

[Gog & Magog]

People who realize they have the power to speak freely without consequence will try to build a world where everyone else no longer has that freedom.

And that's why we need Freedom of Speech.

This is clear proof that free speech is for those with power.

This is real Marxist-tier bullshit.

No you don't

The middle quote is true enough. Josh would have an easier time. But for Josh, it's not about doing what's easy, it's about doing what's hard.

 

[WelperHelper99]

And that's why we need Freedom of Speech.

I love his contradiction. Freedom of speech MIGHT be misused, so we MUST ban it. Literally the anti gun cope.

 

[Queen Aleena]

Ultimately no, freedom of speech isn't really achievable. The "marketplace of ideas" is idealistic nonsense and will always end the same way as the actual free market--it gets taken over by people who are best at it who then build institutions to make their ideas win. That's how we go from liberalism being a fringe idea 300 years ago to liberalism as the new absolutism, complete with using police force and government authority and entire armies to self-perpetuate and crush any dissents from it.

Freedom of speech was derived from theories of liberalism, and liberalism as a theory was derived from this idea that the Greek forums allowed educated people to share whatever ideas they could conjure with the plebeians, i.e. you. In theory, the smartest ideas backed by the most rational arguments would catch on while the less appealing theories did not. This marketplace of ideas was believed to be a (but probably not "the") cornerstone of the Roman Empire's success and the Founding Fathers had some desire to emulate that phenomenon.

Freedom of speech was never freedom from consequences, however. The fate of Socrates wasn't some obscure or rare event for philosophers. The state (or anyone with enough wealth and power) will always resent things that threaten to shake up wherever they've set up shop, which is what freedom of speech will inevitably do. Freedom of speech relies on this notion that the greatest idea-havers will eventually come to conclusions so amazing that they invite trouble, and the person who had those amazing ideas is willing to die for that truth, becoming a martyr and benefiting everyone still alive to think about it. The presence of overbearing authority does not reliably thwart free speech and never has.

This idea that "freedom of speech isn't achievable" doesn't make sense because human beings are rational, will think about things, will reach conclusions and, by merit of being inherently social creatures, will likely share them. Some of the human beings who do this will be incredibly intelligent and reach amazing conclusions. Freedom of speech is as inevitable as established powers trying to lessen the impact of free speech. They're both intertwined in human nature and cannot be fully dispelled one way or another.

If you don't believe anything I just said then go browse the Chinese internet and realize how popular anonymous criticism of the state, etc. is, even in spite of draconian methods to crush it. Chasing all of those ghosts becomes tiring even when you're a well-funded totalitarian regime. The mass technology you mention benefits both halves of this yin-yang theory I've just explained, too.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

I see I am throwing pearls before swine, at least to a large degree. A few points of correction.

The reason you have to tolerate transgender ideology is because if you don't you get banned - censored. The only way you can understand what is wrong and evil is because information about it is able to spread.

This is one of the most imbecilic comments I have ever read. I do not need to listen to the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic to understand why his insistence that those hunting him could literally leap through a computer screen and nab him a la The Ring. Transgenderism is no less insane, there is no benefit in countenancing it one bit.

Except you, an individual citizen, cannot assert your own perspective because you're being manipulated 24/7 by the mass media and internet and the people in charge have the power to BTFO you whenever they feel like.

Freedom of speech is why progressive ideas were allowed to spread to begin with.

@Save the Loli gets it

“Censorship is great unless it happens to me and then it’s bad” very coherent and logical

I reject moral relativsm that you and those of your ilk give lip service, but that you do not believe either. My views reflect bedrock principles of human nature and civilization, that have been tested through the centuries and millennia. If there is one inalienable "human right," it is to enjoy a society based on common blood, common language, common history and language. Very often drastic measures must be resorted to protect that highest "inalienable right" of all.

has both an Nazi armband

YOU have no idea, because the comment in question could be interpreted both literally and figuratively. Better to have a cool historical artifact then the many things you have been rightly ridiculed for.

China

Give me a modern example of censorship improving a country. Also using free speech as a reason CIA destroyed countries is absolutely retarded, the inflow of foreign cash and personal is more of a reason.

Stan goes on about how terrible China is, but China is one of few civilizations in imperial ascension. Europe and the West are in fast decline. Russia and Hungary have implemented censorship policies banning LGBTQ, and are right to do so. Censorship in Nazi Germany worked beautifully. People will respond that regime ended tragically, true, because Hitler involved himself with three peer power simultaneously, which had nothing to do with correct and sensible policies to deal with Weimar degeneracy. The soft censorship by the democrats of the Hunter Biden laptop were one of the things that helped them win. They are absolutely in the wrong, but it comes to show that it works. And as I already stated, censorship laws in Europe are proving effective. The migrant crisis in 2015 would not have come to fruition but for these polices, as hard-line right-wing populism would have been much stronger politically but for these policies and the public education and propaganda campaigns teaching the youth and citizenry the talking points of Allied and American propaganda.
In any case, it is interesting that the example of how Japan avoided colonization by trampling on supposed religious freedoms and liberties gets detractors to move the goalposts to a "modern example."

fair debate a

There is no fair debate here, no with mass media conglomerates being wielded by powerful, pernicious interests. The concept of "manufacturing consent" gets to the heart of it.

Japan was never under any threat of invasion

You can have your own opinions, I suppose, but you cannot have your own facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Felipe_incident_(1596)

It drives extremists like Norbert underground, which I think promotes domestic terrorism.

You have no basis to make that assertion. In any case, revolutionaries are always regarded as traitors and terrorists. As I stated before, what it actually does is curtail the availability of content and ideas and convinces the populace by exercising political violence to carry out a moral conviction. If Biden wins and SCOTUS flips, socalled hate speech will lose protection, and the masses will flip very quickly, just as they did with Board v Brown of Education, Roe, Obergefell and others, all of which were very unpopular and then were quickly accepted by the masses.

That people aren’t smart enough to know good ideas from bad ones

The briefest survey of American "culture" and discourse is an irrefutable indictment against the socalled marketplace of ideas. Shit music, shit that I would not even call literature, shit ideas.

That his own political philosophy is too weak to succeed in a fair debate and needs a handicap to succeed

No fair debate as I stated. No one has addressed @trash cat 's knockout blow about concentration of mass media conglomerates.
Point three is even further beneath discussion.