AmberlynIsRight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
my post wasn't approved
Steven Joel Akins / Penelope "Penny" Verity Oaken / u/Bardfinn / Penny Witchette / Finning Widget / MutabileSemper - "Incest is not unethical" - Troon Reddit powermod who orchestrates the posting of CP to subs they hate, pathological liar with a massive ego, domestic abuser and multiple felon
- Thread starter Candlelight Desolation
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
Tbh this is the least interesting and pertinent detail out of the entire story.
AmberlynIsRight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
Anyway, Trans women are men and Trans men are women, and your misgendering will stop
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
I think you may have accidentally gotten your statement right.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
Was sargoy right all along? Is it just white niggers all the way down? Have we taken the Applebees pill?
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
He beat his wife and kid
I'm new to the thread and I already want this dipshit in jail
AmberlynIsRight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
She beat her wife and kid.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
Probably unlawful due to previous convictions, not sure about TX laws but Ag. Assault w/ Deadly Weapon is a felony in most states, which means he's not legally allowed to possess a firearm or even vote.
Not Really Here
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Even misdemeanor domestic violence disqualifies a person Federally from firearms ownership.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
They'll just claim it's unethical to have travelled to get this information and be done with it. They don't care what their heroes do as long as they do it in the name of Social Justice. Cancelling typically happens when someone loses their value and has no uses remaining, or never had a use for them to begin with. This thing still has that power, so they'll gloss over it and move on, because he's now a beautiful woman that has left that world behind.
ScatmansWorld
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2019
I know I keep fellating Aaron Swartz's dick on this site but god damnit the wrong person died that day.
Free Speech: Because We Can
In the field of Constitutional Law, there are many pages spent trying to come up with a reason for free speech. It’s about the “marketplace of ideas” some say: by putting all claims and points of view out in the open, the public can sort through and figure out the truth, leaving the untruths to fall by the wayside. Others argue that free speech is necessary for democracy, since voters must hear different opinions to decide how to use their votes, and that since even non-political speech can change people’s views, all speech must then be protected.
There are many more justifications like this — a limit on government abuse, a policy to promote a more tolerant citizenship, etc. — but, like most justifications, they all say we should permit free speech because it allows us to do something else. And the frustrating thing about that is that it suggests that free speech should not be permitted when it doesn’t achieve those goals.
Theorists of free speech are, in general, fans of the idea (or at least their market consists of fans) so they try to dance around this. “Oh no,” the marketplace-of-ideas partisans say, “we weren’t suggesting that obviously false statements could be prohibited because, after all, you really never know when false statements could turn out to be true!”
But, as something of a free speech absolutist, it troubles me that such a thing is even theoretically possible. And I worry that if others adopt this theory, they may not be so stringent about the practical requirements. The temptation to clamp down on free speech is always strong; it’s probably not a sound idea to build the principle on such a shaky foundation.
So I have my own justification for freedom of speech: because we can. Human freedom is important, so we should try to protect it from encroachment wherever possible. With most freedoms — freedom of motion, freedom of exchange, freedom of action — permitting them in full would cause some problems. People shouldn’t be free to walk into other people’s bedrooms, take all their stuff, and then punch the poor victims in the face. But hurling a bunch of epithets at the guy really isn’t so bad.
Freedom of speech is one place where we can draw the line and say: all of this is acceptable. There’s no further logic to it than that; freedom of speech is not an instrumental value. Like all freedom, it’s fundamental, and the only reason we happen to single it out is because it’s more reasonable than all of the others.
Close readers will note that this theory doesn’t quite live up to my own goals. By laying freedom of speech’s provision on top of our reasonable ability to do so, I suggest that freedom of speech could be taken away if providing it became unreasonable. But I think this is the right choice: if people really, seriously started getting hurt because of freedom of speech, it seems right for people to take the privilege away. But, to be honest, I can’t even imagine how that might be possible. Words just don’t genuinely wound, they’re always mediated by our listening.
I do worry that people might try to stretch this justification — say that continued free speech might destroy the war effort, or the government, or civil society. But I have no problem destroying all of those. It’s only the destruction of actual people that I worry about.
So here’s to free speech: because we can.
In the field of Constitutional Law, there are many pages spent trying to come up with a reason for free speech. It’s about the “marketplace of ideas” some say: by putting all claims and points of view out in the open, the public can sort through and figure out the truth, leaving the untruths to fall by the wayside. Others argue that free speech is necessary for democracy, since voters must hear different opinions to decide how to use their votes, and that since even non-political speech can change people’s views, all speech must then be protected.
There are many more justifications like this — a limit on government abuse, a policy to promote a more tolerant citizenship, etc. — but, like most justifications, they all say we should permit free speech because it allows us to do something else. And the frustrating thing about that is that it suggests that free speech should not be permitted when it doesn’t achieve those goals.
Theorists of free speech are, in general, fans of the idea (or at least their market consists of fans) so they try to dance around this. “Oh no,” the marketplace-of-ideas partisans say, “we weren’t suggesting that obviously false statements could be prohibited because, after all, you really never know when false statements could turn out to be true!”
But, as something of a free speech absolutist, it troubles me that such a thing is even theoretically possible. And I worry that if others adopt this theory, they may not be so stringent about the practical requirements. The temptation to clamp down on free speech is always strong; it’s probably not a sound idea to build the principle on such a shaky foundation.
So I have my own justification for freedom of speech: because we can. Human freedom is important, so we should try to protect it from encroachment wherever possible. With most freedoms — freedom of motion, freedom of exchange, freedom of action — permitting them in full would cause some problems. People shouldn’t be free to walk into other people’s bedrooms, take all their stuff, and then punch the poor victims in the face. But hurling a bunch of epithets at the guy really isn’t so bad.
Freedom of speech is one place where we can draw the line and say: all of this is acceptable. There’s no further logic to it than that; freedom of speech is not an instrumental value. Like all freedom, it’s fundamental, and the only reason we happen to single it out is because it’s more reasonable than all of the others.
Close readers will note that this theory doesn’t quite live up to my own goals. By laying freedom of speech’s provision on top of our reasonable ability to do so, I suggest that freedom of speech could be taken away if providing it became unreasonable. But I think this is the right choice: if people really, seriously started getting hurt because of freedom of speech, it seems right for people to take the privilege away. But, to be honest, I can’t even imagine how that might be possible. Words just don’t genuinely wound, they’re always mediated by our listening.
I do worry that people might try to stretch this justification — say that continued free speech might destroy the war effort, or the government, or civil society. But I have no problem destroying all of those. It’s only the destruction of actual people that I worry about.
So here’s to free speech: because we can.
Last edited:
AmberlynIsRight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
It beat its wife and kid.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2021
I predict that yesterday marked the moment that Bardfinn will stop talking about how Kiwifarms doxxed him.> Just waiting for our lolcow to make a plebbit post complaining about having his failures exposed to the world (accurately too)
Before now, he could mostly complain that it was just doxxing his appearance as a pasty goth chick. Or his sanctimony or verbosity... or his tendency to try to get people and subs banned from reddit...
But now the doxx is real. We have the truth of Steven.. Steven just tried to shoot at too many kings and queens and if you try to shoot at the kings or queens, you better not miss.
Because... one shot misses, and some queen is gonna shoot back.
yanderekko
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
Yep. Transitioning is the woke equivalent of baptism. Your prior sins are not only forgotten, but it's hateful to even bring them up.
There's no way Bardfinn falls over this. Reddit is so tightly-controlled that anyone posting about Bardfinn's past would be banned, and it's not going to meet the critical threshold of public outrage that the Challenor story did where the admins realize that suppressing it will just fuel additional backlash that spills outside of the site. However, it becomes another story about the corrupt powermod cabal that may attract MSM attention someday. At which point Bardfinn may get tossed as unwelcome baggage like some of Challenor's closest allies did.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2021
Shhh... we're trying not to ribbit in.
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
I knew the degeneracy ran deep in the cesspools of Reddit, but I didn't think it was child/spouse abusing felonious druggie troon bad.
Interested to see if the guy is stupid enough to cry about Kiwi Farms again and shine a light on the new information, or if he might use his last functioning brain cell to realize he should go silent.
Interested to see if the guy is stupid enough to cry about Kiwi Farms again and shine a light on the new information, or if he might use his last functioning brain cell to realize he should go silent.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2019
Yes it is, family violence is probably the most common and low-tier felony that exists, after drug possession.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
What makes it such an issue is the tacit acceptance of the userbase, because it's not like a good portion of people don't know how bad it really is, yet disassociate enough to believe they're on the bastion of free speech, saving the world from all its ills. This kind of news comes out so often in these circles, and it always disappears quickly, but people remember a republican politician trying to fuck gay dudes from decades ago and STILL make jokes about it to this day.
It happens so often in these circles that it becomes old news in two or three days when it happens again, yet next to nothing ever comes of it, and everything stays the same.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2021
Last edited by a moderator: