How much free speech is too much free speech?

The Curmudgeon said:
You're absolutely right. Actually, it's the only truthful thing you said in that whole post.
Click to expand...
It's what the rest of my post is predicated upon; you just don't like that we can separate the wheat from the chaff.

The Curmudgeon said:
The problem is that you are not objective. You're a religious fundamentalist and a rightwing authoritarian. You're no more objective than your counterparts on the left. You ever heard that saying, "Same shit, different pile?" That's the left and right in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
Typical fence-sitting centrist nonsense, not at all compelling. Your position will be bowled over by one side or the other, there is no peaceful middleground as both sides will ceaselessly push for their values. Well, it should be that way, but only one side is currently doing the pushing.

Your position is empty, fleeting, nothing but fantasy.

The Curmudgeon said:
So please spare me your bullshit about objectivity because you're not serious. You're a delusional ideologue too.
Click to expand...
So are you, just a shallow one, a useful idiot for the left. They love weaklings like you who cry for an imaginary middle because that's one less person to oppose their demented agendas.

"bOtH sIdEs aRe BaD, gAiZ, cAnT yOu SeE??!!1!"

The Curmudgeon said:
I've seen how you drag out long, meaningless debates with other people here. Beyond this, I'm not wasting my time.
Click to expand...
I'll agree those debates are pointless, trying to rationalize your position to a leftist is like trying trying to convince a wolf to become vegan. They lust for the blood of children and for a world of sexual degeneracy, you can't debate their nature away.

You're right not to waste your time further, because I'm not going to accept your naive premise.

The Curmudgeon said:
The First Amendment is precious. Period. You can't call yourself an American or say you love freedom, then turn around wanting to destroy one of the foundations of our country. No thank you.
Click to expand...
The First Amendment isn't absolute, it already has restrictions which you conveniently ignore, limits are in place by law. That's a good thing, and increasing the restrictions and adding further legal limits would similarly be good.

I've never heard a single good argument for free speech absolutism. Similarly, I've never heard a good argument for why we can't impose more restrictions since there's already a precedent for common sense limits being set.

To be logically consistent one must either argue for absolutism or adequately explain why only the current limits are okay and never more.

It is good you preemptively announced that you've elected to not respond, because this is where you'd fumble like everyone else holding your inconsistent views.

The Curmudgeon said:
Goodbye, SSj_Ness. Maybe someday we'll hopefully have a friendly discussion together about a different topic.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty good at separating politics from people. On any other subject I'm sure we'll get along just fine, especially since you seem to mean well (road to hell and all that, though).
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Kiwi & Cow
The Curmudgeon said:
You're absolutely right. Actually, it's the only truthful thing you said in that whole post.

The problem is that you are not objective. You're a religious fundamentalist and a rightwing authoritarian. You're no more objective than your counterparts on the left. You ever heard that saying, "Same shit, different pile?" That's the left and right in a nutshell.

So please spare me your bullshit about objectivity because you're not serious. You're a delusional ideologue too.

I've seen how you drag out long, meaningless debates with other people here. Beyond this, I'm not wasting my time.

The First Amendment is precious. Period. You can't call yourself an American or say you love freedom, then turn around wanting to destroy one of the foundations of our country. No thank you.

Goodbye, SSj_Ness. Maybe someday we'll hopefully have a friendly discussion together about a different topic.
Click to expand...

You aren't objective.

The first amendment, in its current form, gives a shield for subverters to subvert. Maybe it was a good idea in the past, I can't speak to times hundreds of years before I was alive. Today, the most generous thing one could say is that it's obsolete.
 
  • Dislike
  • Informative
Reactions: Kiwi & Cow and SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
All the best literature was written with far less freedom of speech than we have now. There was hardly anything Shakespeare or Dante was allowed to write about, but they wrote their asses off.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
gang weeder said:
No, not me saying I am going to do it, retard. Not fedposting. Saying that it should happen to you. You know, like lefties do non stop, all day, every day. "X person should be banned out of existence bc muh hate speech." Is that freeze peach?



No, I just want the Overton window moved. Retards like you enable subversion with your inability to perceive anything outside of black-or-white all-or-nothing extreme absolutes of either "literally anything goes no matter what it is" or "everything is totally completely banned 1984 style."
Click to expand...
When I read a post like this, I read someone looking at the finger instead of what it's pointing at.

You've got the the right basic ideas, but you aren't applying them.

It's like trying to apply NLP methods while you explain how they're supposed to work. The explanation is more likely to make the effort contraproductive. When you explain the overton window, you are distributing resistance to it being moved.
 
Lemmingwise said:
When I read a post like this, I read someone looking at the finger instead of what it's pointing at.

You've got the the right basic ideas, but you aren't applying them.

It's like trying to apply NLP methods while you explain how they're supposed to work. The explanation is more likely to make the effort contraproductive. When you explain the overton window, you are distributing resistance to it being moved.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I don't sit around trying to explain this shit to normies. I do that here on the anonymous autism thunderdome.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Kiwi & Cow
The only limit I could think of is defamation aka deliberate lie to damage one's reputation / business. In that case anyone living in a non-shithole country can go to court and get sweet money. Anything esle is free speech, I can call you a nigger and you cab call me a nigger, no damage done.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Narutard and Kiwi & Cow
YourFriendlyLurker said:
The only limit I could think of is defamation aka deliberate lie to damage one's reputation / business. In that case anyone living in a non-shithole country can go to court and get sweet money. Anything esle is free speech, I can call you a nigger and you cab call me a nigger, no damage done.
Click to expand...
What if you convince niggers they're victims and Whites they're oppressors from kindergarten onward, not just through school but media and legislation to reinforce those lies?

I don't think brainwashing and rigging society to operate the way you want is what the First Amendment was designed to protect.
 
Last edited:
What if you convince niggers they're victims and Whites they're oppressors from kindergarten onward, not just through school but media and legislation to reinforce those lies?
Click to expand...
I don't get that "reinforce" thing. If you are living in a relatively decent country (aka the modern west), your kids go to school and as a parent you are not ok with the things they cater to your kids. Your actions? Probably get other parents and question the school? Make this shit as loud as possible or maybe even go the court? I mean if you are not gonna fight for your kids no one will.
brainwashing and rigging
Click to expand...
I'm not a law professor, but I don't think there are such terms in the legal documents. What you personally consider "brainwashing" someone else could consider "the ultimate truth". The only viable option is to keep all opinions including the most retarded ones on the table.
 
SSj_Ness said:
What if you convince niggers they're victims and Whites they're oppressors from kindergarten onward, not just through school but media and legislation to reinforce those lies?
Click to expand...
That implies that whites are inherently better than blacks. Pretty based, don’t you think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osmosis Jones
YourFriendlyLurker said:
I'm not a law professor, but I don't think there are such terms in the legal documents. What you personally consider "brainwashing" someone else could consider "the ultimate truth".
Click to expand...
Systematic brainwashing efforts on the scale we're seeing were inconceivable, naturally there's no legal documents covering the subject.

YourFriendlyLurker said:
The only viable option is to keep all opinions including the most retarded ones on the table.
Click to expand...
Does that sound good to you? Say it outloud a few times. Really, vocalize that slowly and truly ponder the meaning and truth of what you're saying.

Narutard said:
I care.:feels:
Click to expand...
About which part, their shitty intentions? Me too.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Narutard
Speech isn't free in my office, I usually charge around 80USD/hr for speech. Why would I give it away for free?
 
Absolute free speech, even yelling fire in a movie theater or direct threats and "promoting terrorism". All or nothing, once you justify for one aspect of a thing to be curtailed others of it will follow in the perpetual demand of "security", the slippery slope is real. The moment you remove free speech is the moment you remove diplomacy as a solution and legitimize violence as the only solution.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Osmosis Jones and wearenotyourkind
SSj_Ness said:
What if you convince niggers they're victims and Whites they're oppressors from kindergarten onward, not just through school but media and legislation to reinforce those lies?

I don't think brainwashing and rigging society to operate the way you want is what the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Click to expand...

These aren't really First Amendment issues, and it's important to clarify since your average room temperature IQ such as @Kiwi & Cow will read your post and instantly start posting pictures of Hitler, with no ability to distinguish between the public square and the classroom. The First Amendment protects your right to go on the street corner and shout NIGGER if you want. A classroom or other government-sponsored institution cannot have "free speech" because it must have a curriculum and that curriculum must fit within certain time constraints (such as the time constraints of a semester or school year), meaning that only a certain number of viewpoints can be "taught" and someone is going to have to decide what those should be.

It should be self-evident that race communism is not a viewpoint that should be taught in state-sponsored schools, but if you make that claim, people will conclude that you are therefore a Not See who wants to overthrow the First Amendment somehow. The post I'm going to quote right below this is a perfect example of failure to understand this distinction.

YourFriendlyLurker said:
I'm not a law professor, but I don't think there are such terms in the legal documents. What you personally consider "brainwashing" someone else could consider "the ultimate truth". The only viable option is to keep all opinions including the most retarded ones on the table.
Click to expand...

It is not physically possible to teach "all opinions including the most retarded ones" in a class that only lasts for a specified length of time. Thus, the opinions chosen by the state to be propagated using those limited resources represent the state's de facto "official" narrative and propaganda.
 
  • Informative
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed), Aero the Alcoholic Bat and Kiwi & Cow
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back