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

[Norbert the Tiger]

This thread is not about your stupid article, Stan.

So far, these contentions of mine stand UNREFUTED.

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

- 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.

- 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 will highlight this excellent post by @trash cat, which has not received nearly the attention it deserves. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/shoul...orship-on-certain-topics.189999/post-18238845

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

- 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.

- 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.

- 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. That part addresses this part of Stan's newest outburst.

besides all of that, Norbert seems to believe that his fringe political views deserve all the rights and protections that he wants to strip from everyone else. That’s hypocritical bullshit, and I’m happy to say that on the record anywhere.

My "fringe" beliefs have been mainstream throughout almost all of human history. My sensibilities were the same ones that allowed Japan to save herself from European colonization. I don't want to strip them from everyone else, I want this dumb idea about freedom of speech and this notion of "inalienable rights" purged from the consciousness of Western man entirely. (how can rights be inalienable if they have been disregarded throughout most of human history?). Most things I have no problem people having a difference opinion or expressing them. Obscenity, subversive "ideas" that destroy values thousands of years of old or promote racial suicide, or batshit lunacy like transgenderism--no. People should not have that right, do not have that right, and when the time comes, Western man must stand up and demand that people do not have that right!

It’s also pretty indicative of the type of stupid we’re dealing with when Norbert demonstrates how happy he would be to cut off the tree branch he’s sitting on, so to speak. There are plenty of countries where the things Norbert says and does (ie collecting Nazi memorabilia, tattooing covert Nazi symbology on his body,) are criminal per se.

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. 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! The racial and civilizational suicide of Europe is not up for debate, not negotiable, and is objectively as untenable as parents spewing transgender bullshit to their kids. We may be a long way away from being able to take action, but the first step is always to understand the problem at hand, and discern the correct and proper solution. That solution IS NOT doing what we have done over the past 100 years which has brought us to this very brink.

I am against free speech because a certain blowhard uses it to tell me how much she loves eating ass.

You are being flippant but this kind of thing defines deviancy down, coarsens the discourse and normalizes this kind of thing. So yes, these disgusting outbursts by Stan and others prove my point.
One other thought:

 

[The Last Stand]

I don't want America to be like Europe where even uttering a forbidden word would lock you up. Let's not pretend that "free speech" is a cope for people to say whatever they want whenever/wherever they want.

Now, freedom of expression is where it can get dicey. Your speech is inhibiting your right to free expression in a public environment. If you dress like a bum, chances are people would perceive you as a bum.

 

[Stan]

For any Christians in the thread, remember that God himself is very much against our modern conceptions of "freedom of speech" and requires varying degrees of censorship.
Much if this is implied by all the commandments, but at least 2 of them are pretty direct:

You shall have no other gods before Me.​

You shall not make idols.​

>You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.​

Honor your father and your mother.​

You shall not murder.​

You shall not commit adultery.​

You shall not steal.​

>You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet.​

Just and FYI if you think Jesus Christ was some kind of free speech advocate. He wasn't.
#1, #2, #4, and #5 all imply compelled speech or censorship.

Aw man this is kinda too dumb to want to bother with, but: Jesus exists way way prior to anything close to a concept of freedom of expression, and ultimately you could say he was crucified for saying things that make the Pharisees super twitchy.
Also, enjoining people not to use God’s name as a curse isn’t a ban on free expression, it’s advice. There’s no earthly punishment enforced for not doing it. Telling people not to lie on the stand (false witness) isn’t a ban on free expression either, because perjury is not an act of protected speech.

This thread is not about your stupid article, Stan.

So far, these contentions of mine stand UNREFUTED.

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

- 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.

Angrily shouting that your points stand UNREFUTED in red type means nothing when you’re getting your ass kicked from all angles.

 

[The Last Stand]

My "fringe" beliefs have been mainstream throughout almost all of human history.

Like wanting to marry children around the age of 16?

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 okay unless it's MY ideas being censored! Great argument, buddy.

I don't want to strip them from everyone else, I want this dumb idea about freedom of speech and this notion of "inalienable rights" purged from the consciousness of Western man entirely.

Liar, you'd sooner have a totalitarian form of government happen overnight if it meant oppressing cultural customs that you'd despise.

- 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.

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

 

[Lokenstien]

The idea that someone uses a site that has distinctly relaxed rules about speech in order to preach the virtue of highly restricted speech is very funny. Surely censorship and purging never backfires on the proponents of such ideals.

 

[The Last Stand]

My "fringe" beliefs have been mainstream throughout almost all of human history.

You remind me of Tony the Tiger if he started overdosing on redpills and 4chan all day. You need to leave those children alone.

 

[Phoneposter]

Your right to freedom of speech isn’t a right to call Chris Chan at all hours of the night to scream “JULAY!” down the line, or to send me anonymous emails through lolcow.email threatening to stab me in a park, just like it doesn’t give you the right to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

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

if i can not call for immediate violent action against anything at all at any point anywhere i am already cucked to the gills
the slow steady march of reasonable censorship means i will no longer be able to call for a vicious violent assault on random people i do not like
not even here on the bergie web where no one really cares anyway you can not really be anything but a sarcastic whiner
unless it is against some sanctioned target like arbitrary nazis or fascists or the people who torture baby monkeys

but the criminals still do it anyway and are absolved because they are the government
so only soyniggers can plot and scheme to destroy their enemies
and then you have this soy oppression of the highest caliber

The idea that someone uses a site that has distinctly relaxed rules about speech in order to preach the virtue of highly restricted speech is very funny. Surely censorship and purging never backfires on the proponents of such ideals.

it is only relaxed if you compare it to facebook or something
the internet needs a reactionary heh pilling
absolute speech anarchy

a cleansing fire
a great reset

 

[The Last Stand]

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

And this is why the whole "freedom of speech" debate falls flat on its face. None of y'all can understand the difference between expressing a thought and threatening people.

 

[Phoneposter]

And this is why the whole "freedom of speech" debate falls flat on its face. None of y'all can understand the difference between expressing a thought and threatening people.

the original free speechers threatened people all the time and got into brawls
but now we gotta do it all by the book but who writes this book for us to follow
honor and virtue is trampled by this limp wristed reasonable garbage

if only the soy reddit slurpists can speak violence then we are cucked and fucked up the ass
we are then in netorare hell and nothing is waiting but humiliation until oblivion

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

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.

Arguably, "free speech" was obsolete the minute mass communications emerged and engaging with the world wasn't just something you did when you looked at a newspaper. When Edward Bernays was out discovering new ways to introduce propaganda and promote everything from women smoking cigarettes to water fluoridation to foreign dictators, the average person owned a radio and could get propaganda in their ears hours and hours a day and they could even go to a movie theater and see the propaganda too. Television and 24/7 broadcasting (radios and TVs used to turn off at night) made it even worse, and nowadays we have 24-hour news, the internet, and social media beaming propaganda into our heads 24/7.

This makes the propagandist stronger than ever and free speech even more illusory. We are offered a choice between totalitarianisms nowadays which are required to perpetuate themselves, so it's really a choice between whether we want to copy the soft-totalitarianism of the West or the hard-totalitarianism of China or something in between like Russia or maybe restore an old totalitarianism like the Nazis. The alternative is anprim land and billions of dead, or maybe transhuman land where we can all be brainwashed slaves of some AI god (although with transhumanism, more likely brainwashed slaves of the WEF sickos funding transhumanism). Key point--when the propagandists can get in your head every minute of the day, you can't have anything but a totalitarian society.

Although even before then, you didn't have free speech. In 1860, if you advocated slavery in Massachusetts or abolitionism in Alabama, you were getting your printing press smashed and you would be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. If you whined to the cops, they'd laugh their ass off. If you tried suing, you'd be laughed out of court. This is despite the First Amendment and pretty much every state constitution ensuring the right to free speech. Today of course, the modern equivalent is Antifa terrorists, although arguably it's even more anarcho-tyrannical these days since any right-wing equivalent trying to shut down "free speech" events like gay pride parades is automatically thrown in prison.

Free speech has always served the powerful, because certain people will always be able to use their speech rights more and use it to crowd others out of the marketplace of ideas. That's where you get transgenderism, a concept derived from mental illness and perversion that was crystallized into its current form by people like degenerate billionaire "Martine" Rothblatt and millions and millions of dollars in funding from major corporations and lobbyists. If you believe free speech is good and a marketplace of ideas, then clearly transgenderism must be good. But in reality, it's a clear sign that too much free speech is bad and that limiting free speech can be a good thing.

So yes, in theory an ideal government would not have freedom of speech, or at the very least make it like the US in the 1950s where communism, obscenity, and other concepts were banned or defacto banned.

What's the point of being pro censorship when you are the minority? The only thing you are achieving is justifying why censorship should be used against you.

In general being pro censorship is just retarded, you argue for a tool that will be freely be used against you. The only valid exception is censorship of content that harms individuals.

Exactly. You have to be like the left. When they were weak like in the 1960s, it was all about "free speech" like Berkeley's Free Speech Movement. Now that they are strong, THEN they brought out the censorship.

 

[Atlas Sneezed]

just like it doesn’t give you the right to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater

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

 

[cr0ssedia]

And this is why the whole "freedom of speech" debate falls flat on its face. None of y'all can understand the difference between expressing a thought and threatening people.

agreed wholeheartedly. sometimes i dont think people have the social literacy to understand the difference.

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

So far, these contentions of mine stand UNREFUTED.

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

- 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.

- 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 will highlight this excellent post by @trash cat, which has not received nearly the attention it deserves. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/shoul...orship-on-certain-topics.189999/post-18238845

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

- 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.

- 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.

- 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. That part addresses this part of Stan's newest outburst.

Okay then.
- the remarkable efficacy of censorship both in terms of curtailing availability of harmful content and placing stigma on such content, .
- Censorship has lead to massive losses both economic and in human lives. It is not used to 'curtail harmful content' but to spread it. Rather Censorship is the coerced injection of harmful content into your daily life. REFUTED

- 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,
For several decades now some of the worst ideas imaginable have succeeded because of censorship. REFUTED.

- 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,
Freedom of speech is important because it allows individual citizens to assert their own perspective in society. Allowing corporations to abuse their power under the guise of freedom of speech is merely a loophole within the US by which freedom of speech can be crippled. REFUTED.

- that pornography should not be protected and that no one would have ever suggested as much before about 1960,
The purpose of freedom of speech is so citizens can to assert their own perspective. Whether porn is banned or not only matters towards the use of freedom of speech insofar as it stops this process from happening. REFUTED.

- 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,
Japan being a repressed, censorious society utterly stagnated it. When it was forcible opened up it became so taken with the technologically superior west it adopted some of its worst practices. And then later it was nuked. REFUTED.

- 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,
The reason why progressivism is dominant in the US is because it props up the authority of the state. Freedom of Speech formed the main challenge to that authority in 2015 and 2016, at which point the US government spent vast amounts of political capital into crippling it even further. It did not succeed because of 'freedom of speech' it succeeded because of censorship. REFUTED.

- 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. That part addresses this part of Stan's newest outburst.

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.

 

[Stan]

Because kiwifarms is the ultimate freedom of speech platform and you are against it well it tries to be the ultimate.

I have criticism of the Farms, and the content of that criticism has changed over the last 8 years as the character of the community changed. When your community is mostly about mocking and being nasty to individuals, it’s harder to sell that as a free speech issue compared to broader discussions about social issues and concerns that are being silenced by an increasingly censorious left and right wing. I’m more convinced now that KiwiFarms provides a valuable platform for minority views now; whereas back then those discussions were more of a side attraction to cow mockery, which I find far less sympathetic.

.Where does it say fuck with the cow? There is endless pastes of not touch**g the po*p slapped front and center as a warning on every subforum. Documenting especially known zoofiles and pedos, and making sure the public has record of their crimes or thoughts on poor children and animals is very important. Excuse me for wanting to hold them accountable on what bs they wrote . Not to mention some of these people were harassing people who dared to call their shit out . Many of these people also can just log off and stop posting bs for everyone to see .

Josh has those announcements up because people do touch the exhibits. They have many times, and despite those warnings they probably will do it again. Because KF is a public forum that anyone can view, we also have no way of knowing if those people are of the Kiwi Farms community or outside actors. Regardless. Kiwi Farms can act as an accelerant and facilitator to cowtippers. It’s implausible to me that you can offer people a means, motive, and opportunity to engage in illegal harassment and then just put anonymous users on an honor system that they won’t do it. It’s a bit reckless, at best, negligent at worst. (This is why I have had a lot of negative things to say about Lolcow email, for example - I can’t think of a use for it that isn’t along the lines of harassment, threats, or impersonation. Anybody who wants private anonymous email has about a dozen better options.)

And while it’s commendable when the Kiwis bend their talents towards getting pedos and zoophiles in jail, the credibility of the Farms is about the same as the credibility of a supermarket tabloid, which is to say not very credible at all. When you blend the serious, credible accusations with wild speculation and defamatory statements, most people are not going to take what the Farms has to say all that seriously. And fwiw not being taken seriously is one of the defenses to the legality of the farms - that it’s harmless gossip. So which is it? If the Farms is a batcave for Internet vigilantes, then you need to take the harassing and violent speech here seriously. If it’s a gossip and entertainment forum, then the would be Chris Hansens aren’t going to be effective.

These two examples are called criminal harassment you should go to the local police and report now its not kiwifarms fault that tards break the law or that the law enforcement refuses to do jack and shit about harrasment done by people over the internet.

I did report those incidents to police, and the FBI field office, and I’ve always encouraged other people to do the same. But I have every right to file stories about what happened, and go hold Null responsible for facilitating those threats by maintaining the email service used to transmit them to me. In fact, if you’re a staunch believer in free speech, I have every right and potentially an obligation to do that (freedom of the press.)

 

[Spud]

expressing a thought and threatening people.

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

 

[Lowlife Adventures]

True freedom of speech may never exist but I'd rather live with a degenerated form of it than with none at all.

The best case scenario under censorship of bad ideas might be better than that under freedom of speech, but it seems like censorship would only work in your favor under very specific circumstances. On the other hand, it's harder to fuck things up with freedom of speech.

 

[Cheeseknife]

One day it's sunny. Next day the ground has split open and your house is gone.

And that is a regular day for someone living in Japan or California or anyone living on a fault line.
Life is always consistent. There is nothing new to be found under the sun.
The only inconsistencies are the ones we add to it.

So yes, these disgusting outbursts by Stan and others prove my point.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how philosophical people like to get because they're still going to act as slaves to their systems of belief. Their speech will be tailored accordingly. If words don't mean anything anymore, then what does it matter whether or not you're speaking freely?

People will employ censorship as liberally as they please. I don't fool around with this anymore. Speech is not free and you will be made to pay for it. Any time. All the time. Even if your country tells you it won't be infringed. We have never and will never live in a world where someone isn't trying to find a way to shut you up simply because you say and believe things they don't.

And anyone who actually the power to speak freely without consequence will try to build a world where everyone else no longer has that freedom.

 

[Otterly]

What's the point of being pro censorship when you are the minority?

What about if you’re a minority with power over what’s printed, and allowed to be discussed, and allowed to be labelled as a ‘ism or a ‘phobia? A minority with the censors stamp firmly in hand? Like troons for example, or gays, or even (whisper it) the ADL? I think there’s more point in being pro censorship if you’re a minority

Free speech is an ideal. Yes we should have free speech. I should be allowed to say what I want.
Back to the real world. Malign forces use our ideals against us. I can think free speech is an ideal I truly want and believe in, and I can also use any censorship I want against mine enemies. I also believe killing is wrong, but if someone comes at me with a knife I’m going to kill them first.
We live in a world where saying humans can’t change sex can get you fired from your job. I believe I should be able to say the FACT that humans can’t change sex. I am also aware that sufficient people and institutions have been captured to not allow me to say that. So I want free speech, and I’ll use every dirty trick in the book to destroy those I believe are literal demons trying to prevent it.
Hypocrisy? Indeed, but if survival is at stake you brawl dirty.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

- Censorship has lead to massive losses both economic and in human lives. It is not used to 'curtail harmful content' but to spread it. Rather Censorship is the coerced injection of harmful content into your daily life. REFUTED

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.

For several decades now some of the worst ideas imaginable have succeeded because of censorship

So if censorship can let bad ideas "succeed", why not use it to let good ideas succeed?

Freedom of speech is important because it allows individual citizens to assert their own perspective in society. Allowing corporations to abuse their power under the guise of freedom of speech is merely a loophole within the US by which freedom of speech can be crippled

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.

The reason why progressivism is dominant in the US is because it props up the authority of the state. Freedom of Speech formed the main challenge to that authority in 2015 and 2016, at which point the US government spent vast amounts of political capital into crippling it even further. It did not succeed because of 'freedom of speech' it succeeded because of censorship

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

Japan being a repressed, censorious society utterly stagnated it. When it was forcible opened up it became so taken with the technologically superior west it adopted some of its worst practices. And then later it was nuked. REFUTED.

Japan 1600 - 1850s was a prosperous, peaceful and thriving society that was one of the most developed and advanced non-Western countries. Sounds like a success to me.

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.

Goes both ways. Before recently, transgenderists had to tolerate sane people telling them they weren't women because otherwise they would get censored. This is clear proof that free speech is for those with power.

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

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

thats the same logic that antifa is using just saying