[RD] What does free speech mean?

[BCheek]

Breitbart? Stormwatch?

Breitbart? Lol. Thats boomer outrage news.
Stormwatch? I don't even know what that is.

 

[Dekker]

Does someone who's actually quite liberal agree with something I said?


My first post really did get under your skin by the sounds of it. Liberals could at least try and come up with their own insults. Its not very creative.

Can't be that far off the scale when people are agreeing with me on a liberal forum.

No one who is liberal agrees with what you said. Zard is quite conservative and while I won't speak for whether he agrees with or not, I was merely pointing out that thinking that you are here to engage in civil discussion is a mistake when it's clear what your intentions are with this fake account. Too cowardly to associate it with your anonymous regular one eh.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Breitbart? Lol. Thats boomer outrage news.
Stormwatch? I don't even know what that is.

Is there a reason you didn't answer?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No one who is liberal agrees with what you said. Zard is quite conservative and while I won't speak for whether he agrees with or not, I was merely pointing out that thinking that you are here to engage in civil discussion is a mistake when it's clear what your intentions are with this fake account. Too cowardly to associate it with your anonymous regular one eh.

His "regular" one was most likely permabanned, just like this one will probably be as soon as it is identified.

 

[Dekker]

Is there a reason you didn't answer?

Clowns make jokes not conversations.

 

[BCheek]

Is there a reason you didn't answer?

Because there isn't a "real source" of conservative news. I don't follow a news source. I form my own opinions.

Most things in politics can be inferred though simple observation.

 

[BCheek]

His "regular" one was most likely permabanned, just like this one will probably be as soon as it is identified.

Oh yes, "free speech."

 

[Dekker]

Oh yes, "free speech."

I thought free speech screechers supported private entities to moderate themselves as they saw fit? And even supported censorship mechanisms so they could avoid seeing content that would hurt their feelings? Funny how it only applies one way and yet when it's speech you don't like, you cry that you're being targetted.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because there isn't a "real source" of conservative news. I don't follow a news source. I form my own opinions.

Most things in politics can be inferred though simple observation.

So do you form your opinions out of thin air, or are you claiming you spend your days in the galleries observing congress for yourself?

 

[BCheek]

I thought free speech screechers supported private entities to moderate themselves as they saw fit? And even supported censorship mechanisms so they could avoid seeing content that would hurt their feelings? Funny how it only applies one way and yet when it's speech you don't like, you cry that you're being targetted.

If your opinions aren't able to stand on their own without censorship and your unable to coherently explain it without reeee'ing your opinion is most likely a poor one.

You see most things in politics can easily be determined through simple observation.

 

[Zardnaar]

No one who is liberal agrees with what you said. Zard is quite conservative and while I won't speak for whether he agrees with or not, I was merely pointing out that thinking that you are here to engage in civil discussion is a mistake when it's clear what your intentions are with this fake account. Too cowardly to associate it with your anonymous regular one eh.

Amazing I voted for a left wing liberal party that puts the Democrats to shame.

Have you seen me say anything nice about Trump? I'm not so liberal my brains have trickled out my ears and I think a lot of what people to the further left than me get up to online is counter productive. They would rather throw insults and sulk instead of winning an election.

There's not enough people on the SJW side of things to win an election even in NZ. They make up 5-10% if the electorate. Make a lot if noise on Twitter though.

 

[Dekker]

If your opinions aren't able to stand on their own without censorship and your unable to coherently explain it without reeee'ing your opinion is most likely a poor one.

Hey we are agreed on something

 

[Dekker]

Amazing I voted for a left wing liberal party that puts the Democrats to shame.

Have you seen me say anything nice about Trump? I'm not so liberal my brains have trickled out my ears and I think a lot of what people to the further left than me get up to online is counter productive. They would rather throw insults and sulk instead of winning an election.

There's not enough people on the SJW side of things to win an election even in NZ. They make up 5-10% if the electorate. Make a lot if noise on Twitter though.

Own it dude. You ARE conservative in the opinions you put forward, thinking the gays pushed too much, only now accepting gay marriage is legal but being icked out by it personally, strongly wanting to curtail immigration as if it's the bane of all things, defending free speech for Nazis while lambasting 'SJWs', heck even using that with no irony says a lot about your worldviews. But your posts say more. I know it's weird and hard for many conservatives online to admit they are, it's like they know it's a position that is based in, embracing backwards instead of forward.

 

[Zardnaar]

Own it dude. You ARE conservative in the opinions you put forward, thinking the gays pushed too much, only now accepting gay marriage is legal but being icked out by it personally, strongly wanting to curtail immigration as if it's the bane of all things, defending free speech for Nazis while lambasting 'SJWs', heck even using that with no irony says a lot about your worldviews. But your posts say more. I know it's weird and hard for many conservatives online to admit they are, it's like they know it's a position that is based in, embracing backwards instead of forward.

Gay marriage doesn't bother me whatsoever knock yourself out. Hell i voted for it twice. Immigration on the scale were seeing here isn't doing anyone any favors except the land investors and cheap labour for the corporate types. Doesn't hurt me as such we own our house.

Referendum on pot smoking next year.

I'm for free speech including what SJWs spout, and idiotic holocaust deniers etc. I'm opposed to all political violence regardless of who does it or why.

And everyone's entitled to due process. I'm fine with the death penalty in extreme cases ie Nuremburg trials, Saddam Hussein, some types of treason. Opposed to it in terms of say the US penal system.

I'm sick of seeing left wing parties lose because they've been hijacked by Uber liberals most people can't relate to hence why they keep losing in places like UK, Aussie, USA, Canada (Labour fluked the win here).

You have to pick your battles. Lose and the people you want to help get nothing or go backwards.

In the US for example you need to win the Senate and avoid Tea party 2.0 in 2022 and dump Trump.

Illegal immigrants don't vote. If you want to help them you have to win.

 

[Hrothbern]

Free Speech is a very modern and recent concept in history, relatively speaking. The VAST majority of history passed with this ideal being unknown and alien to ALL societies, nations, and civilizations in the world. 18th Century Enlightenment philosophers and ideologues like Robert Blackwell in Great Britain, Henry Grattan in Ireland, Montesque in France, and Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson in the United States, among several others, coined and created the concept from practically wholecloth. It's purpose in design, creation, and demand was the right of citizens to speak, or to through published word, criticize and dissent from THE GOVERNMENT, without fear of criminal prosecution, being sued seditious libel, or summarily punished on charges such as the old Star Chamber Court of England utilized. It has not been altered or amended in an official, legal, and wording sense since to be expanded beyond that level, despite the assumption of a VERY large number of people in the First World.

yes
I think you can couple the emergence of the Right on Free Speech with the emergence of the concept of a Constitution. That Constitution the defense for the citizen against abuse by the State.


That concept of constitution as defense is maturing strongly during the enlightenment indeed, but it starts already in Machiavelli's "Il Discorsi".
Not without reason that Marx was so interested in that development then.
And if you root deeper you come at Epicurus. No virtues for the elite anymore of Aristoteles, but "from out the people" thinking. Marx also rooted to Epicurus.

 

[Hygro]

Zard is quite conservative

Incredible.. maybe mildly on a few issues?

 

[Dekker]

So private entities should not be able to moderate themselves and have forum rules, censorship mechanisms, laws shouldn't protect against advocating violence, child pornography shouldn't be banned?

Way to take up this stance in the midst of a conversation about misrepresentation.

This was to you Zard for your conservative take on Free Speech. You have expressed support for some of those things before so why do you (and others) panic into fearmongering about gulags coming down on everyone when any kind of responsibility in speech is discussed?

Is Sacha Baron Cohen also calling for fascism?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th.../nov/22/sacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda

 

[Zardnaar]

This was to you Zard for your conservative take on Free Speech. You have expressed support for some of those things before so why do you (and others) panic into fearmongering about gulags coming down on everyone when any kind of responsibility in speech is discussed?

Is Sacha Baron Cohen also calling for fascism?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th.../nov/22/sacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda

I have already said I don't care what private individuals and organizations do in regards to what can be posted.

My tolerance towards Nazis goes as far as they shouldn't be arrested for expressing those views or be assaulted.

If they break other laws due process should be followed vs mob justice. That also goes both ways so a right wing mob can't lynch whoever either (black, Jews, SJWs etc).

Violence tends to escalate violence.

 

[Dekker]

I have already said I don't care what private individuals and organizations do in regards to what can be posted.

My tolerance towards Nazis goes as far as they shouldn't be arrested for expressing those views or be assaulted.

If they break other laws due process should be followed vs mob justice. That also goes both ways so a right wing mob can't lynch whoever either (black, Jews, SJWs etc).

Violence tends to escalate violence.

I have not seen anyone advocating that anyone is arrested for simply having viewpoints. Neither has any discussion around free speech been about whether Nazis should be punched or not. Conflating the two seperate discussions to enflame fears about responsible speech, platforming, and again, private organizations and universities and what they allow, and fearmongering that all such discussion and implementation of any sorts of protections will lead to some Nazi state (hilarious that the ADL is leading us there) is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What does free speech mean?

To make it as simple as I can 'I can say, write, ect anything I like as long as I am not advocating violence.'

So hypothetically you could espouse anti semetic talking points as long as you skirt around the "solution" to the "problem".