Does the right really support free speech?

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

I can assure you people were not happy under a system that legislated morality based on a highly austere religion where the mere feelings of pleasure or joy are considered sinful and "degenerate".

They had kids because they needed free labor in a time before industrial machinery since the bulk of the population supported themselves via subsistence agriculture.

People were every bit as miserable under traditionalist morality as they are today, if not moreso.

You're dreaming of an idealized and ahistorical version of the past that only existed in Norman Rockwell paintings, Chick Tracts, and chivalric romances.

I implore you to read about life in the medieval age. People worked 4 months out of the year and they had a day off every Sunday. This should be easier in the modern age but somehow that's not the case. The characteristics of someone who's miserable is unproductivity, lethargy and, if things got really bad, revolutionary sentiment. But that's not what you see with medieval peasants. Those peasants had hobbies, they often traveled to distant lands to visit holy sites, they didn't consume much alcohol (drug consumption is a sign of miserable societal decline isolation), and they loved their family.

Why would humans be evolved to be happy in an environment which doesn't exist? Our environment today is very unnatural (obviously), so the idea that we would be happier here than in our natural position as farmers is ridiculous. The reason people wanted prohibition of alcohol is because men were miserable working shitty jobs in factories so they consumed ridiculous amounts of alcohol to cope with it, wasting their salaries and beating their wives in the process. This is the same thing that happened in the USSR, there was saying that went something along the lines of this: the son: "daddy, Khruschev raised the price of alcohol, how are you gonna pay for it?" the dad: "I'm not gonna have less alcohol, you're gonna have less food."

In western countries everybody drinks, does drugs, buries themselves in false reality netflix shows, and is socially isolated. What do you think would happen if those coping mechanisms were taken away? people would riot, they would start a revolution tomorrow because their lives are miserable, more miserable than a medieval pastoralist. I would describe the average person today as unproductive, lethargic and having revolutionary sentiment.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I implore you to read about life in the medieval age. People worked 4 months out of the year and they had a day off every Sunday. This should be easier in the modern age but somehow that's not the case. The characteristics of someone who's miserable is unproductivity, lethargy and, if things got really bad, revolutionary sentiment. But that's not what you see with medieval peasants. Those peasants had hobbies, they often traveled to distant lands to visit holy sites, they didn't consume much alcohol (drug consumption is a sign of miserable societal decline isolation), and they loved their family.

Why would humans be evolved to be happy in an environment which doesn't exist? Our environment today is very unnatural (obviously), so the idea that we would be happier here than in our natural position as farmers is ridiculous. The reason people wanted prohibition of alcohol is because men were miserable working shitty jobs in factories so they consumed ridiculous amounts of alcohol to cope with it, wasting their salaries and beating their wives in the process. This is the same thing that happened in the USSR, there was saying that went something along the lines of this: the son: "daddy, Khruschev raised the price of alcohol, how are you gonna pay for it?" the dad: "I'm not gonna have less alcohol, you're gonna have less food."

In western countries everybody drinks, does drugs, buries themselves in false reality netflix shows, and is socially isolated. What do you think would happen if those coping mechanisms were taken away? people would riot, they would start a revolution tomorrow because their lives are miserable, more miserable than a medieval pastoralist. I would describe the average person today as unproductive, lethargic and having revolutionary sentiment.

Humans evolved to be happy in an environment that predated Abrahamic monotheism by several millennia at the very least. If any specific religions are truly natural, it'd be pagan polytheism, shamanism, or the modern Hindu and Shinto traditions (which are pretty much just polytheism and animism that survived into the modern era) and not Abrahamic monotheism, witchcraft, Marxism, or atheism.

People were miserable in the medieval times unless they were merchants, clergymen, or nobles and the misery was even more intense and widespread in the Protestant domains after the Reformation.

People didn't follow "traditionalist" morality because it genuinely made them happier, they followed it because they didn't want Yahweh to sentence them to eternal damnation and torment in the fires of Hell.

It's the same reason why the proles in the Soviet Union and Maoist China constantly repeated the party lines and communist propaganda slogans. They weren't happy but they didn't want Lenin, Stalin, or Mao to send them to the gulags either.

Peasants worked four months of the year and had Sundays off, and they were still bleak and miserable living lives of horrid poverty and strict moral conformity and austerity. They worked four months of the year, huddled and drank during the winter months, and lived in constant fear of dying and being sent to Hell by a deity who hates them because of their own human nature.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Humans evolved to be happy in an environment that predated Abrahamic monotheism by several millennia at the very least. If any religion would be truly natural, it'd be pagan polytheism or shamanism and not Abrahamic monotheism, witchcraft, Marxism, or atheism.

Evolution happens much faster than you think. If you killed everybody below 6 feet the next generation is gonna have a lot less people over 6 feet. It's the same thing with agriculture. People who farmed quite literally went around genociding all hunter-gatherer societies because they had a superior population and technology. If you kill everyone who doesn't like farming and only the farmers survived you're gonna have a society and a people which really likes to farm.

People were miserable in the medieval times unless they were merchants, clergymen, or nobles and the misery was even more intense and widespread in the Protestant domains after the Reformation.

People didn't follow "traditionalist" morality because it genuinely made them happier, they followed it because they didn't want Yahweh to sentence them to eternal damnation and torment in the fires of Hell.

It's the same reason why the proles in the Soviet Union and Maoist China constantly repeated the party lines and communist propaganda slogans. They weren't happy but they didn't want the Party to send them to the gulags either.

They followed "traditionalist" morality because that's what conquered everything else. Societies which were deeply religious and had a strict moral code dominated societies that didn't. And once again, it would make no sense for people to evolve to be unhappy in these societies because unhappy societies don't win. Being unhappy correlates with so many bad characteristics that unhappy groups were just killed off immediately.

Unironically, unhappiness killed the USSR not economics (but economics made people unhappy )

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

Humans evolved to be happy in an environment that predated Abrahamic monotheism by several millennia at the very least. If any specific religions are truly natural, it'd be pagan polytheism, shamanism, or the modern Hindu and Shinto traditions (which are pretty much just polytheism and animism that survived into the modern era) and not Abrahamic monotheism, witchcraft, Marxism, or atheism.

This attempt at evolutionary psychology is so confused it's not worth bothering with.

 

[Lemmingwise]

an environment which doesn't exist? Our environment today is very unnatural (obviously), so the idea that we would be happier here than in our natural position as farmers is ridiculous

Evolution happens much faster than you think. If you killed everybody below 6 feet the next generation is gonna have a lot less people over 6 feet. It's the same thing with agriculture.

I know we're straying pretty far from the topic, but by what measure is our natural existance as farmers? If you take a long term evolutionary perspective we're hunter gatherers.

Yes, you say, but the farmers kept killing them. Then is the farmers getting killed by city/industrial folk not the same? Aren't we now selecting for those that thrive in city conditions?

On the one hand, not really. City people don't procreate. On the other hand, they do convert children of more farm oriented families. So it's a complicated relationship.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Yes, you say, but the farmers kept killing them. Then is the farmers getting killed by city/industrial folk not the same? Aren't we now selecting for those that thrive in city conditions?

On the one hand, not really. City people don't procreate. On the other hand, they do convert children of more farm oriented families. So it's a complicated relationship.

Hypothetically if we gave a couple generations for all depressed "natural" pastoralists who are living in cities to kill themselves because they're depressed then everyone living in cities would be happy with their situation. I guess you're right, but I wouldn't want to live in megacity doom and gloom dystopia where humans need to retrofit their lungs because the air outside is poisonous to breathe. I know it's gonna take a long time to get there, probably not in my life time or the next, but the thought of that future makes me sad

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

I know were straying pretty far from the topic, but by what measure is our natural existance as farmers? If you take a long term evolutionary perspective we're hunter gatherers.

Yes, you say, but the farmers kept killing them. Then is the farmers getting killed by city/industrial folk not the same? Aren't we now selecting for those that thrive in city conditions?

On the one hand, not really. City people don't procreate. On the other hand, they do convert children of more farm oriented families. So it's a complicated relationship.

Define "natural".

 

[soon]

What do you think would happen

DEEP OPULATION

 

[Syaoran Li]

This attempt at evolutionary psychology is so confused it's not worth bothering with.

Sorry for insulting (((Yahweh))), I know (((you))) belong to his (((Chosen Race)))

Thanks for the Edict of Milan and forcing the Whites of Europe to bow before a Jewish deity via the threat of military force and political machinations.

By your own logic, the Church Fathers were merely the Frankfurt School of the Classical World,

 

[Lemmingwise]

Define "natural".

I was taking issue with how it was used; it's one of those words that everyone uses yet few define exactly the same. I wasn't forcing one particular usage, rather pointing out it's shortcoming.

Typically natural and unnatural are used to differentiate between states of being that are artificial and unhealthy compared to organic and healthy.

The problem is that many technologies are considered unnatural for being artificial. Is using chemical sprays to keep crops clean of insects and diseases natural? I think most would say no, but already there is some wiggle room. That wiggle room grows when asking if crop selection is natural. Or using machines to harvest. I took it to the logical conclusion to ask if farming itself natural.

I'm in the Netherlands, the #2 agricultural exporter in the world. Half the farmland was created by humans. Is that natural?

Sorry for insulting (((Yahweh))), I know (((you))) belong to his (((Chosen Race)))

Thanks for the Edict of Milan and forcing the Whites of Europe to bow before a Jewish deity via the threat of military force and political machinations.

By your own logic, the Church Fathers were merely the Frankfurt School of the Classical World,

For someone complaining about strawmanning you sure do a lot of it.

 

[Jones McCann]

The right doesn't like free speech more, they're just censored more at the moment so they complain about it. Of course the people who only say whats socially acceptable hate free speech because it challenges their retarded opinions. The truth is we don't really have freedom of speech, we have freedom from the government fucking you in the ass for what you say. In reality our "freedom of speech" is getting less and less every year, with social media and payment processing blacklisting you for what you say or for even allowing certain types of speech. How can speech be free when you're banned from social media, fired from your job, blacklisted from recieving funds and harrassed on the street for speech. That's why Kiwi Farms and other websites that allow such speech are important, simply because we can say Nigger with impunity.

 

[Syaoran Li]

For someone complaining about strawmanning you sure do a lot of it.

I'll admit, you have a really good point there.

But with @Gigantic Faggot I will freely admit to intentionally shitposting and using strawman and ad hominem tactics in my responses to him and triggering his autistic fixations.

Unlike him, you're actually a lot more respectable despite our disagreements and differences of opinions at times and you actually know what you're talking about. Meanwhile @Gigantic Faggot is just an autistic schizo

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

I'll admit, you have a really good point there.

But with @Gigantic Faggot I will freely admit to intentionally shitposting and using strawman and ad hominem tactics in my responses to him and triggering his autistic fixations.

Unlike him, you're actually a lot more respectable despite our disagreements and differences of opinions at times and you actually know what you're talking about. Meanwhile @Gigantic Faggot is just an autistic schizo

Your obsession with me is just boring. Nobody is interested in reading this childish irrelevant bullshit.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Your obsession with me is just boring. Nobody is interested in reading this childish irrelevant bullshit.

You're the one showing up in every thread I post in because you're convinced I'm some JIDF super soldier or some other retarded bullshit

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

You're the one showing up in every thread I post in because you're convinced I'm some JIDF super soldier or some other retarded bullshit

Pot, meet kettle.

More lies and hypocrisy.

 

[Syaoran Li]

More lies and hypocrisy.

Yes, you really are a liar and a hypocrite. Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[Frostnipped Todger]

As a crusty old bastard who remembers the 80's... Whichever "side" has cultural control is against free speech, and their opposition is pro free speech.
In the 80s and 90s (and up until Gulf War II) the right had a lot of power, and subsequently it was the left wing who valued and defended free speech. I remember attempts to ban hip hop, video games and books, and was actually in the cinema when police burst in to shut down a screening of Salo (this was in Queensland, where social trends were at least 10 years behind).
Nowadays, it's the left who wants to shut down anything that they don't like, and always with the same excuse "it's dangerous!! Think of the children!!".
IMHO, both sides are stupid faggots who don't seem to realise that you can just not pay attention to things that you don't like.
I'm fairly sure that 2 Live Crew and Ibram X Kendi are both not my cup of tea, but I'm quite comfortable with just ignoring them.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

As a crusty old bastard who remembers the 80's... Whichever "side" has cultural control is against free speech, and their opposition is pro free speech.
In the 80s and 90s (and up until Gulf War II) the right had a lot of power, and subsequently it was the left wing who valued and defended free speech. I remember attempts to ban hip hop, video games and books, and was actually in the cinema when police burst in to shut down a screening of Salo (this was in Queensland, where social trends were at least 10 years behind).
Nowadays, it's the left who wants to shut down anything that they don't like, and always with the same excuse "it's dangerous!! Think of the children!!".
IMHO, both sides are stupid faggots who don't seem to realise that you can just not pay attention to things that you don't like.
I'm fairly sure that 2 Live Crew and Ibram X Kendi are both not my cup of tea, but I'm quite comfortable with just ignoring them.

Here's the deal, rightwing censorship was good for society. Socrates acknowledged in his famous book The Republic that some music is good for you and some music is bad for you. Don't you think there's a problem with the type of shit gays consume? If gays never had the option consume such degenerate porn maybe they wouldn't be gay. hip-hop, rap, hollywood, and the devil incarnate are infesting the minds of children from birth to death. You are living, breathing, worldwide mad deadly Jew propaganda. It's no surprised that YOU, brainwashed from birth, are defending your brainwashing.

edit: you know I'm right. All these fucking faggots wanna take the nuanced position of "I will never censor anybody because I may not like what they have to say but I will defend their right to say it." As if that's going to save you. If you never censor your opponent and they always censor you guess what's gonna happen, you will lose. This is not like a cordial game of football, if the left wins it's over. You will be put in gulags and your precious free speech is gone forever

 

[It's HK-47]

Here's the deal, rightwing censorship was good for society. Socrates acknowledged in his famous book The Republic that some music is good for you and some music is bad for you. Don't you think there's a problem with the type of shit gays consume? If gays never had the option consume such degenerate porn maybe they wouldn't be gay. hip-hop, rap, hollywood, and the devil incarnate are infesting the minds of children from birth to death. You are living, breathing, worldwide mad deadly Jew propaganda. It's no surprised that YOU, brainwashed from birth, are defending your brainwashing.

>Hates the gays
>References Socrates to admonish the gays
>References anything Greek to begin with because Greece was the gayest country in the history of gayness.
>Socrates was so close to Alcibiades that Plato frequently described the both of them as lovers

Yeah, of all the literature in the world to spin into an anti-gay sentiment I'm not sure that flaming, Grecian philosophers are the best example.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Here's the deal, rightwing censorship was good for society. Socrates acknowledged in his famous book The Republic that some music is good for you and some music is bad for you. Don't you think there's a problem with the type of shit gays consume? If gays never had the option consume such degenerate porn maybe they wouldn't be gay. hip-hop, rap, hollywood, and the devil incarnate are infesting the minds of children from birth to death. You are living, breathing, worldwide mad deadly Jew propaganda. It's no surprised that YOU, brainwashed from birth, are defending your brainwashing.

edit: you know I'm right. All these fucking faggots wanna take the nuanced position of "I will never censor anybody because I may not like what they have to say but I will defend their right to say it." As if that's going to save you. If you never censor your opponent and they always censor you guess what's gonna happen, you will lose. This is not like a cordial game of football, if the left wins it's over. You will be put in gulags and your precious free speech is gone forever

OK (((Traditionalist)))

The very morals you preach and concepts of "degeneracy" that you condemn are all directly derived from one of the earliest works of Jewish propaganda in history.