Consequences

LargeChoonger

LargeChoonger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
I see this constantly. Specifically the phrase "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". Usually it's a phrase used to justify someone getting assaulted for saying nigger or whatever, bur I find the more insidious use to be by LFJ-tier intellectuals who believe harassing, threatening, or otherwise being an uninvited nuisance to the families, friends, and employers of people they don't like is a legitimate and legal way to make someone shut up. The cognitive dissonance they display when they describe textbook harassment and extortion while claiming they're doing nothing wrong makes my head hurt. It's the adult version of "I'm not touching you", where they seem to sincerely believe anything goes because it's not a government force arresting dissenters. Where did this train of thought come from?
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: HorridHenry, SuperShibuyaFighter, Toyota Camry and 2 others
The Bovinian Derivative said:
It's two-faced assholes trying to justify escalating shitty behavior while grandstanding, they will look for any excuse to hit back harder.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that's another thing; they can't fathom their consequences being turned back on them and would in a heartbeat cry to the authorities if a really pissed off father of three they just got axed showed up to their homes in return. This is an emergent frontier and I hope to God we get laws specifically aimed at protecting people from deplatforming attempts in the near future, because it really is just censorship
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capper Mizellus
Yeah and then they're not free from the consequences of physically assaulting people, of ruining every public forum and resource, of cutting their dicks off.

Say the magic word, whiteys, we can enslave them again one black eye at a time.
 
Consequences have actions, pimp.

LargeChoonger said:
I see this constantly. Specifically the phrase "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". Usually it's a phrase used to justify someone getting assaulted for saying nigger or whatever, bur I find the more insidious use to be by LFJ-tier intellectuals who believe harassing, threatening, or otherwise being an uninvited nuisance to the families, friends, and employers of people they don't like is a legitimate and legal way to make someone shut up. The cognitive dissonance they display when they describe textbook harassment and extortion while claiming they're doing nothing wrong makes my head hurt. It's the adult version of "I'm not touching you", where they seem to sincerely believe anything goes because it's not a government force arresting dissenters. Where did this train of thought come from?
Click to expand...

It does have a large grain of truth to it in the sense that if something offends you, you should be free to disassociate from it. So for instance if someone goes around talking about how much they love loli hentai non stop, and they end up with no friends because of it, it would be retarded for them to complain that people are unfairly punishing them for exercising their heckin' freedom of speech.

You correctly identified the line where it goes from simply disassociating to aggressively punishing. I think what kind of response is warranted will differ on a case to case basis, although some things are basically always wrong (harassing family members who have nothing to do with it for instance). The other big issue is simply which speech deserves to be punished or not. Most leftists should face negative consequences for their speech in my opinion. They probably don't need to be put in jail but in a well ordered society nearly all leftist viewpoints would be socially shamed.
 
This mentality about consequences is nothing other than soft tyranny that will graduate to a hard one as soon as the left consolidates power to a sufficient extent that would allow them to do so. People who do this sort of thing--like Savannah Malm aka rx0rcist (who has a thread here) and That DInesh Guy and some of the others luxuriate in the Schadenfreude they cause others they disagree with.

Some of the more unsavory lunatics, like Bardfinn (who also has a thread here) are open and explicit as to what they would do if and when they consolidate power. Bardfinn has stated anyone who has registered in public should be arrested, ie put in a gulag.

If cuckservative types not so delusional those opposed to the left would have understood the necessity in seeing their soft tyranny and raise them a hard one, but now it is probably too late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuperShibuyaFighter
Honestly, with how two faced people like Liz Fong Jones are with pretty speech, it's made me wonder how much its even worth to begin with, keeping in mind, these people got their foothold with free speech and now they're happily censoring whoever they like.

For those who support free speech, ask yourself this, should the advocacy for every ideology be allowed? Is every ideologies advocacy worth protecting?
 
Didn't Jesse's father fucking tell you clowns, THE CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE GODDAMN SAME
 
I did some research and the concept I've had rolling around in my head is already legally defined. It's called a tort. A tort is basically maliciously taking actions that, while not outright illegal themselves, set out to degrade someone's quality of life. i.e spreading a harmful rumor for the purpose of causing stress or trying to get someone fired for having a view you don't like. Good to know this shitty "loophole" doesn't exist and I was right all along
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back