First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Free speech, Social Media, and You
12658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/28/18 , edited 7/28/18

hazerddex wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

Free speech is under threat. I have been banned from Facebook like four times. I get banned at forums. Yes there has been occasions where it was justified, in most cases not.
We've reached a point where anything can be offensive to anyone now and free speech is often labelled as "hate speech" if someone disagrees with you.
The consequences can be ridiculously high. So yeah, keeping your mouth shut is sometimes the best choice of action.
Even though that means free speech no longer exists.

I doubt i will ever bother with twitter.


Free speech is't suppose to protect you from that. There's a little thing called the right of association which comes with freedom of speech. It lets me keep certain ideologies i don't support from shoving there butts into my house or places I OWN. Freedom of speech does not mean you have no consequences for what you say. it just means you hold all responsibility for it.

Its there to keep you from being murder over it and arrested by the government, but if a company or forum which are privately owned (like facebook.) which is owned by some one and not the government does not like what you have to say and does not support it they are fully in there right to kick you out.



I do agree that people should take responsibility for their own actions. But there is such an over use of political correctness now and what is considered free speech and hate speech is incredibly biased and very hypocritical and selective.
Many double standards and serious bully tactics being used.
I've been banned on Facebook for posting something on my own wall. And no it was not a call to arms or Nazi flag or anything even remotely offensive and hateful like that.

lol so why do leftists always show up to events where someone who is right wing wants to give a speech or if there is a rally and try to shut it down? Hypocrites much?
There are countless examples.



600 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/28/18 , edited 7/28/18

hazerddex wrote:

Coward? Everyone has things they don't talk about in public. Everyone has things they shouldn't have to put up with on places they own.. freedom of speech should have its limits. a company shouldn't be obligated to put up with you when your a asshole to your co workers.


I never said they did. In fact, if you read the OP, you'd know that I agree that companies should be able to fire anyone for any reason they want to, you aren't entitled to a job and income just for being born.



you wan't every website to be 4chan?


*want
And sure, why not. Unfiltered discussion is a wonderful thing


Also you do censor yourself. You don't say what ever is on your mind you don't spout out what ever is in your subconsciousness. Do you put your sexual fetishes on display for the public? pretty sure you don't.

Why not? People go around in these little parades sucking on sex toys and shit, why wouldn't I put my rather vanilla "fetishes" on display? I think I still have my federal booty inspector shirt around here somewhere...


Every time i hear people whine about freedom of speech when people use there freedom of speech to disagree with them it makes me roll my eyes. because all they are saying is that they are hypocritical. that people shouldn't share there rights.

Their* x2
Again, I never said people shouldn't have the right to criticize. At most I was implying that before you hit that retweet button to be a part of the mob, maybe you should gain some self awareness and realize that those same things can happen to you.



Its the classic "I only don't like it when its used against me." fallacy.

Do you not realize the hypocrisy of that?


See above. In case you didn't notice, the entire reason I made this thread was due to the firing and outing of several left wing SJW types who in the past have said exactly what you are saying about "freeze peach". Now they are completely back tracking, and are really upset they find themselves the targets of the internet mobs they once took part of. Couple cases of it here:



The worst part is that there are website and news organizations who took part in those same kinds of mob justice decrying it as well, saying things like the exposing of Gunn's tweets about raping children was done in "bad faith", which is incredibly ironic.



So are you saying you want freedom of people judging you from what you say. which is basically saying you want people stripped of there freedom to say there opinion on yours. which would be simple authoritarianism and if i might add narcissistic.

Their*
And no, I don't really give a shit about people judging me, I just wanted to have a discussion about this mob mentality and how it is unhealthy for everyone involved, even the people partaking in it.


Lynch mob? people disagreeing with your opinion does not make a lynch mob.

Lynching is a physical form of assault.

Okay? Also people disagreeing with your opinion != manufacturing outrage to get people fired and have your lynch mob issue death threats to them



Freedom of speech was never meant to be freedom from social persecution. Otherwise its not freedom of speech. You can't have freedom from social persecution. If you want to have freedom of speech. Those two things are contradictions at the conceptual level.

You're wrong. An example: You are a anti slavery activist living in the US in the 1850s, in a pro slavery state. Everyone around you disagrees with you and go out of their way to silence your speech, such as preventing access to printing presses and telegraphs, shouting you down in public spaces etc. Is that "free speech" to you? Because to me, its the opposite. And again, I'm not saying there should be some government regulation against this sort of behavior, just that maybe, just maybe... more people should be aware of the implications and precedent being set by that sort of behavior.
And because I know you are just going to say "B-but you want to take away people's right to disagree!" I'm just going to go ahead and stop you there, because I never said or implied that. Again, simply saying "I disagree and here is why" is a bit different from manufacturing internet outrage to sic a bunch of people on someone you disagree with and have them harass that person's place of employment and say things like "You should be raped and murdered" etc.

I mean, if you want to do it, fine, just don't cry when its you who are the one on the receiving end, like with Jessica Price, James Gunn and so on.



qwueri wrote:

In terms of James Gunn, the little I've heard on the subject was that he had tasteless tweets from over a decade ago dredged up, with an outrage campaign specifically ginned up to try and make the tweets Roseanne made this year. Tweets for which Gunn had already apologized for years before Disney even hired him. And from there it was supposed to have turned into a smear campaign trying to paint Gunn as a pedophile. The two are not equivalent on any level beyond the superficial observation that both were fired.

TBH at least what Roseanne said was actually funny. Joking about raping little boys is never funny, especially when you take it as far as he did, as often as he did, and work in the field he now does. Or did.
The latest one is Dan Harmon, Reddit and Memey co-creator who had a video of himself rubbing his genitals on a baby doll and another video of him making a sick joke with a video of a real toddler. I'm not sure if he's taken part in the whole internet lynch mob thing, but the people currently backing him and defending his sick jokes certainly have. He's yet to be fired or have the show canceled afaik, but he and a few others were driven off twitter for fear of their tweets being dredged up to hurt them.
runec 
40954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/28/18 , edited 7/28/18

Vieille_Garde wrote:
I don't know, I just wanted to raise the issue and discuss it. Freedom of speech also implies freedom from social persecution. If you don't believe that, you don't believe in freedom of speech. This is of course talking about free speech outside of the context of the First Amendment.


You're wandering into a little bit of a trap here. Because hate speech laws, which are often derided by some free speech advocates, are based on the idea of freedom from persecution. As for freedom from social persecution, well, no. The problem again becomes that everyone else also has free speech. Shielding someone from a social backlash is also suppressing free speech and is suppression on a much larger scale.



Vieille_Garde wrote:I don't, if you do you're a bit of a coward. What kind of friends and family do you have that they would disown you just for having an offensive opinion?


What I mean is we don't blurt out everything in our head on a daily basis so as to keep the peace and function as a society. You may think your sister is a total bitch but you don't show up at every family gathering and lead the conversation with "Hey, Sarah, you are a total bitch". You may think your boss is an asshole but you don't show up at work and go "Mornin' Asshole!" unless you want to be unemployed. We self censor all the time in the interests of maintaining civility and not bringing about negative consequences.

Even if we have the right to say all of the above things, that right doesn't shield us from the consequences nor should it.




Vieille_Garde wrote:
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that one day even members of said lynch mobs will be targets themselves eventually.


Possibly, and perhaps at that point they will reconsider the previous lynch mob the led. But there's no way to police the mob without also suppressing free speech. ( Unless another private actor, such as Facebook / Twitter, wants to step in and quell such things within it's platform ).

Now, it IS true that sometimes the mob is acting in bad faith ( see a number of examples of organized attacks on female game developers ) and in scenarios like that it behooves the company to stand behind their employee. Instead of cutting someone loose the moment there's a murmur about them online. That kind of knee jerk reaction may please the mob but ultimately hurts the company's image and the company's internal morale as the company reveals it doesn't have their back on anything.

ArenaNet for example recently got itself into some shit for knee jerk firing two employees at behest of an internet mob and now the mob is gleefully plotting who to get fired next on Reddit. While ArenaNet is getting blowback from the gaming community and undoubtedly is suffering some hits to staff morale.

But, again, though that kind of situation is detrimental we can't police it. Because every actor in the scenario has free speech. The employees, the mob, the company, the rest of the employees and the customers now giving shit to said company over a questionable decision.






33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/29/18 , edited 7/29/18

Vieille_Garde wrote:
Any thoughts?


It's risky and foolish to attach real names to social media accounts

I don't have FB under my real name

I don't own Twitter account under my real name

I don't own ANY social media account under my real name
600 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/29/18 , edited 7/29/18

runec wrote:


You're wandering into a little bit of a trap here.




Not really. Again, people seem to be implying I was advocating for government intervention and laws to protect people, when in reality I've stated multiple times, in the OP, throughout the thread etc, that I am speaking about free speech as a general concept, not law. Its up to individuals not to be a part of the mob and do things like call in threats to that person's workplace in an attempt to get them fired.



What I mean is we don't blurt out everything in our head on a daily basis so as to keep the peace and function as a society. You may think your sister is a total bitch but you don't show up at every family gathering and lead the conversation with "Hey, Sarah, you are a total bitch". You may think your boss is an asshole but you don't show up at work and go "Mornin' Asshole!" unless you want to be unemployed. We self censor all the time in the interests of maintaining civility and not bringing about negative consequences.

Even if we have the right to say all of the above things, that right doesn't shield us from the consequences nor should it.


Yeah not having Tourettes and refusing to censor your opinions on things like politics and social issues in public are a bit different beasts.



Possibly, and perhaps at that point they will reconsider the previous lynch mob the led. But there's no way to police the mob without also suppressing free speech. ( Unless another private actor, such as Facebook / Twitter, wants to step in and quell such things within it's platform ).

Right, I never suggested they should be "policed". Read above.


Now, it IS true that sometimes the mob is acting in bad faith ( see a number of examples of organized attacks on female game developers ) and in scenarios like that it behooves the company to stand behind their employee. Instead of cutting someone loose the moment there's a murmur about them online. That kind of knee jerk reaction may please the mob but ultimately hurts the company's image and the company's internal morale as the company reveals it doesn't have their back on anything.

There's that term again. "Bad faith". Price getting shat on for being a shitheel on the internet was in no more bad faith than reaction to Barr's comments.


ArenaNet for example recently got itself into some shit for knee jerk firing two employees at behest of an internet mob and now the mob is gleefully plotting who to get fired next on Reddit. While ArenaNet is getting blowback from the gaming community and undoubtedly is suffering some hits to staff morale.

I was following that from the day it happened, it didn't take the mob to get her fired, she already was the moment her tweets made it back to her boss, and she was likely treading on thin ice after publicly gloating about Total Biscuit's death on twitter with her company's name right there next to it endorsing her words.
There was no one "gleefully plotting who to fire next", there was literally one comment saying that, and they were downvoted into oblivion and its pretty obvious it was from one of Price's supporters from their comment history.
And idk if you saw it but I found her old post incredibly ironic



Seems like you think its okay to mob when its people with whom you disagree, but if others do it they're acting in "bad faith". That's just the sort of hypocrisy I'm talking about.


But, again, though that kind of situation is detrimental we can't police it. Because every actor in the scenario has free speech. The employees, the mob, the company, the rest of the employees and the customers now giving shit to said company over a questionable decision.

There is no policing it and I never suggested there should be, but we can talk about it and point out that it goes both ways. One moment you're sitting high and mighty on your ivory tower of social justice, the next you are fired and find yourself and your family receiving harassing phone calls and emails just like the ones you wished on others.
runec 
40954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/29/18 , edited 7/29/18

Vieille_Garde wrote:
Not really. Again, people seem to be implying I was advocating for government intervention and laws to protect people, when in reality I've stated multiple times, in the OP, throughout the thread etc, that I am speaking about free speech as a general concept, not law. Its up to individuals not to be a part of the mob and do things like call in threats to that person's workplace in an attempt to get them fired.


I'm not implying you're advocating for government intervention, I'm essentially saying "what can we even do about it?" because the situation by it's nature involves free speech on all sides. It's a consequence of the very right we hold up and one that's essentially impossible to mitigate short of, you know, not screaming your opinions to the entire world on a public platform.




Vieille_Garde wrote:
Yeah not having Tourettes and refusing to censor your opinions on things like politics and social issues in public are a bit different beasts.


I was laying out easy examples. Obviously the same can go for contentious political and social issues. There's a time and place for them and we "self censor" the where and the how we state them.





Vieille_Garde wrote:
I was following that from the day it happened, it didn't take the mob to get her fired, she already was the moment her tweets made it back to her boss, and she was likely treading on thin ice after publicly gloating about Total Biscuit's death on twitter with her company's name right there next to it endorsing her words.


Ah, so you support the mob when you agree with it?

Also that was not gloating but I think we did that thread to death already so whatever.



Vieille_Garde wrote:
There was no one "gleefully plotting who to fire next", there was literally one comment saying that, and they were downvoted into oblivion and its pretty obvious it was from one of Price's supporters from their comment history.
And idk if you saw it but I found her old post incredibly ironic


There most certainly was and is. An uptick in harassment of female devs followed trying similar tactics to get other's fired with some even citing Price. That's acting in bad faith. If you're targeting individuals trying to spark a mob solely because you want them to be fired and harassed, then yes, you are acting in bad faith.




Vieille_Garde wrote:
There is no policing it and I never suggested there should be, but we can talk about it and point out that it goes both ways. One moment you're sitting high and mighty on your ivory tower of social justice, the next you are fired and find yourself and your family receiving harassing phone calls and emails just like the ones you wished on others.


It does go both ways. It goes all ways. But there isn't much we can do about it aside from having the platforms themselves try and mitigate amplification while companies ensure they don't knee jerk react to every murmur on the internet.



mxdan 
12219 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 7/29/18 , edited 7/29/18
Don't have a twitter account I use, don't have a facebook account I use, but I sometimes post instagram stuff and that's it.

I know enough about biology and physiological circumstance to understand how easy it is to fall victim to the very thing they are trying to make you fall victim to. I also understand that the world seems to be growing tired of the detriment it seems to have on everyone's lives.

Never has there been a generation so desperate for affirmation.
499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / behind you
Offline
Posted 7/29/18 , edited 7/29/18

Vieille_Garde wrote:


hazerddex wrote:

Coward? Everyone has things they don't talk about in public. Everyone has things they shouldn't have to put up with on places they own.. freedom of speech should have its limits. a company shouldn't be obligated to put up with you when your a asshole to your co workers.


I never said they did. In fact, if you read the OP, you'd know that I agree that companies should be able to fire anyone for any reason they want to, you aren't entitled to a job and income just for being born.



you wan't every website to be 4chan?


*want
And sure, why not. Unfiltered discussion is a wonderful thing


Also you do censor yourself. You don't say what ever is on your mind you don't spout out what ever is in your subconsciousness. Do you put your sexual fetishes on display for the public? pretty sure you don't.

Why not? People go around in these little parades sucking on sex toys and shit, why wouldn't I put my rather vanilla "fetishes" on display? I think I still have my federal booty inspector shirt around here somewhere...


Every time i hear people whine about freedom of speech when people use there freedom of speech to disagree with them it makes me roll my eyes. because all they are saying is that they are hypocritical. that people shouldn't share there rights.

Their* x2
Again, I never said people shouldn't have the right to criticize. At most I was implying that before you hit that retweet button to be a part of the mob, maybe you should gain some self awareness and realize that those same things can happen to you.



Its the classic "I only don't like it when its used against me." fallacy.

Do you not realize the hypocrisy of that?


See above. In case you didn't notice, the entire reason I made this thread was due to the firing and outing of several left wing SJW types who in the past have said exactly what you are saying about "freeze peach". Now they are completely back tracking, and are really upset they find themselves the targets of the internet mobs they once took part of. Couple cases of it here:



The worst part is that there are website and news organizations who took part in those same kinds of mob justice decrying it as well, saying things like the exposing of Gunn's tweets about raping children was done in "bad faith", which is incredibly ironic.



So are you saying you want freedom of people judging you from what you say. which is basically saying you want people stripped of there freedom to say there opinion on yours. which would be simple authoritarianism and if i might add narcissistic.

Their*
And no, I don't really give a shit about people judging me, I just wanted to have a discussion about this mob mentality and how it is unhealthy for everyone involved, even the people partaking in it.



Lynch mob? people disagreeing with your opinion does not make a lynch mob.

Lynching is a physical form of assault.

Okay? Also people disagreeing with your opinion != manufacturing outrage to get people fired and have your lynch mob issue death threats to them



Freedom of speech was never meant to be freedom from social persecution. Otherwise its not freedom of speech. You can't have freedom from social persecution. If you want to have freedom of speech. Those two things are contradictions at the conceptual level.

You're wrong. An example: You are a anti slavery activist living in the US in the 1850s, in a pro slavery state. Everyone around you disagrees with you and go out of their way to silence your speech, such as preventing access to printing presses and telegraphs, shouting you down in public spaces etc. Is that "free speech" to you? Because to me, its the opposite. And again, I'm not saying there should be some government regulation against this sort of behavior, just that maybe, just maybe... more people should be aware of the implications and precedent being set by that sort of behavior.
And because I know you are just going to say "B-but you want to take away people's right to disagree!" I'm just going to go ahead and stop you there, because I never said or implied that. Again, simply saying "I disagree and here is why" is a bit different from manufacturing internet outrage to sic a bunch of people on someone you disagree with and have them harass that person's place of employment and say things like "You should be raped and murdered" etc.

I mean, if you want to do it, fine, just don't cry when its you who are the one on the receiving end, like with Jessica Price, James Gunn and so on.



qwueri wrote:

In terms of James Gunn, the little I've heard on the subject was that he had tasteless tweets from over a decade ago dredged up, with an outrage campaign specifically ginned up to try and make the tweets Roseanne made this year. Tweets for which Gunn had already apologized for years before Disney even hired him. And from there it was supposed to have turned into a smear campaign trying to paint Gunn as a pedophile. The two are not equivalent on any level beyond the superficial observation that both were fired.

TBH at least what Roseanne said was actually funny. Joking about raping little boys is never funny, especially when you take it as far as he did, as often as he did, and work in the field he now does. Or did.
The latest one is Dan Harmon, Reddit and Memey co-creator who had a video of himself rubbing his genitals on a baby doll and another video of him making a sick joke with a video of a real toddler. I'm not sure if he's taken part in the whole internet lynch mob thing, but the people currently backing him and defending his sick jokes certainly have. He's yet to be fired or have the show canceled afaik, but he and a few others were driven off twitter for fear of their tweets being dredged up to hurt them.


So with your response to the 4chan question your basically saying/ It should be legal for me to come into your house and plaster my shit all over your walls. In case you don't understand the equivalency forums are Privately owned they are the admins property not a city street.. Admins can ban you for whatever reason its there right. Again don't join the club if you don't plan on following the rules. Which is why no not every site should be like 4chan.

And who are you to tell people what they can and can't use there freedom of speech for? a god? if they want to join in a bash fest that their choice you don't have the right nor should you to strip that away from them.

Sure you can post your sexual fetish, but people should be forced to remain silent and not verbally roast you for having a Guro fetish.

So a few SJW who are always anti free speech got roasted. see this . worlds smallest record playing my heart bleeds for them.

Internet death threats =/= lynch mobs.

I get them about 50 times a day from online gaming alone anyone who takes them seriously is kidding themselves. Shesh can't believe people get hyper sensitive over those these days. The likeliness of any of those "brave" keyboard warriors of actually acting on there threat is 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1%. if you spend your life worrying about keyboard warrior threats. You should be more worried about things like gamma ray burst that could hit this planet any second at any time and end all life. in other words its really not worth wasting time worrying about internet death threats.

Yes that still qualifies as free speech. No one wants to publish your work? Do it yourself get into self publishing. If a person literally follow you around you can legally have them arrested/restraining order for stalking so that is a non issue. (idk why you even brought it up when the answer to that is so obvious.) You don't want random people harassing you on your personal social media acc? set it to private and friends only. common sense.

So you keep saying your for freedom of speech, but everything else you have said is blatantly anti freedom of speech. so no your not for freedom of speech. since you clearly and blatantly ignore the hypocrisy in wanting to silence large groups because they have a opinion you don't like.or are acting in a way YOU thing they shouldn't because everyone should obey YOUR standards right


600 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/30/18 , edited 7/30/18

runec wrote:

Ah, so you support the mob when you agree with it?



No, I support a private company making decisions to defend their own image though. I do find it more difficult to sympathize with the targeted individual, but I still do for the sake of free speech.


Also that was not gloating but I think we did that thread to death already so whatever.


She said she was glad he died, the literal definition of of gloating. And I'm almost positive her employers were already aware of that little tweet well before she overreacted to a polite comment and then doubled down with insults and false accusations on a person partnered with her employers and got fired. It was fairly ironic that she was trying to sic her followers on him and it ended up coming back to bite her almost immediately.


There most certainly was and is. An uptick in harassment of female devs followed trying similar tactics to get other's fired with some even citing Price. That's acting in bad faith. If you're targeting individuals trying to spark a mob solely because you want them to be fired and harassed, then yes, you are acting in bad faith.

I'm sure that happened.
Its in no more "bad faith" than any other internet lynch mob.


It does go both ways. It goes all ways. But there isn't much we can do about it aside from having the platforms themselves try and mitigate amplification while companies ensure they don't knee jerk react to every murmur on the internet.

I would say speaking out against and pointing out the bad precedent it sets is something at least.



hazerddex wrote:

So with your response to the 4chan question your basically saying/ It should be legal for me to come into your house



That's hilariously wrong and silly, I'm not going to even bother reading the rest.
49 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Ireland
Offline
Posted 7/30/18 , edited 7/30/18
Being offended is an individual weakness. One should be free to say whatever they please, words can be ignored by someone with a mature disposition. Even slurs regarded today as the worst and most heinous should be legal to be uttered anywhere, to anyone, with impunity. If the promotion of an ideal scares someone (e.g ethno nationalism) it is up to them to either refute it, or ignore it and let it take it's course. Lashing out with either censorship or violence betrays intellectual inferiority, and again, weakness of character.
499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / behind you
Offline
Posted 7/30/18 , edited 7/30/18

Vieille_Garde wrote:


runec wrote:

Ah, so you support the mob when you agree with it?



No, I support a private company making decisions to defend their own image though. I do find it more difficult to sympathize with the targeted individual, but I still do for the sake of free speech.


Also that was not gloating but I think we did that thread to death already so whatever.


She said she was glad he died, the literal definition of of gloating. And I'm almost positive her employers were already aware of that little tweet well before she overreacted to a polite comment and then doubled down with insults and false accusations on a person partnered with her employers and got fired. It was fairly ironic that she was trying to sic her followers on him and it ended up coming back to bite her almost immediately.


There most certainly was and is. An uptick in harassment of female devs followed trying similar tactics to get other's fired with some even citing Price. That's acting in bad faith. If you're targeting individuals trying to spark a mob solely because you want them to be fired and harassed, then yes, you are acting in bad faith.

I'm sure that happened.
Its in no more "bad faith" than any other internet lynch mob.


It does go both ways. It goes all ways. But there isn't much we can do about it aside from having the platforms themselves try and mitigate amplification while companies ensure they don't knee jerk react to every murmur on the internet.

I would say speaking out against and pointing out the bad precedent it sets is something at least.



hazerddex wrote:

So with your response to the 4chan question your basically saying/ It should be legal for me to come into your house



That's hilariously wrong and silly, I'm not going to even bother reading the rest.


Ok ill take that as your admission of defeat then


BalorsCurse wrote:

Being offended is an individual weakness. One should be free to say whatever they please, words can be ignored by someone with a mature disposition. Even slurs regarded today as the worst and most heinous should be legal to be uttered anywhere, to anyone, with impunity. If the promotion of an ideal scares someone (e.g ethno nationalism) it is up to them to either refute it, or ignore it and let it take it's course. Lashing out with either censorship or violence betrays intellectual inferiority, and again, weakness of character.


I can also say right now that the concept of Ethno states is unrealistic(due to how biologicaly and geographically spread out human populations are today.)
31751 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 7/30/18 , edited 7/30/18
wait people want unfiltered cesspools like 4chan to be the norm? yuck
499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / behind you
Offline
Posted 7/30/18 , edited 7/30/18

Ryulightorb wrote:

wait people want unfiltered cesspools like 4chan to be the norm? yuck


yep according to the OP he thinks website owners should not have the right to regulate there own property.
22720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/30/18 , edited 7/30/18

BalorsCurse wrote:

Being offended is an individual weakness. One should be free to say whatever they please, words can be ignored by someone with a mature disposition. Even slurs regarded today as the worst and most heinous should be legal to be uttered anywhere, to anyone, with impunity. If the promotion of an ideal scares someone (e.g ethno nationalism) it is up to them to either refute it, or ignore it and let it take it's course. Lashing out with either censorship or violence betrays intellectual inferiority, and again, weakness of character.


^ This
49 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Ireland
Offline
Posted 7/30/18 , edited 7/30/18

BalorsCurse wrote:
Being offended is an individual weakness. One should be free to say whatever they please, words can be ignored by someone with a mature disposition. Even slurs regarded today as the worst and most heinous should be legal to be uttered anywhere, to anyone, with impunity. If the promotion of an ideal scares someone (e.g ethno nationalism) it is up to them to either refute it, or ignore it and let it take it's course. Lashing out with either censorship or violence betrays intellectual inferiority, and again, weakness of character.



hazerddex wrote:
I can also say right now that the concept of Ethno states is unrealistic(due to how biologicaly and geographically spread out human populations are today.)


I wouldn't go so far as to say it is unrealistic, but it would certainly take a very large change in western thought, a complete U-turn. Since the emergence of Christianity in Europe, the West has been driving towards equality, in other words, perpetuating mediocrity. Socialism is simply Christianity (as Jesus originally taught it) without the god. As I see it, it could go either way, continuing to stew in a mire of degeneracy and poor spirit, or a rebellion that will eclipse any that came before it, a very bloody affair. I'd rather it be in my lifetime if it happens, better me than my sons, or their sons.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.