You have to appreciate the globalist fucks idea of democracy and human rights.
1 Like
In the 1980s everybody wanted to criticize the communists for not allowing free-speech, what do they all do after the fall of the Soviet Union? The same exact thing and without any remorse or shame for their own hypocrisy.
As a modern day Marxist and communist reformer I side with free speech everywhere uncensored. There should be no thought crime legislation.
1 Like
Personally, I think that âfreedom of speechâ on internet has gone too far and is often used as an excuse to abuse people. There are people that donât do anything else but troll and insult and bully people online.
Too much of anything is not good, the Queen had a song âToo much love will kill youâ. You canât give absolute freedom in anything as you need to direct people too watch or read quality content and to eat some good stuff etc⌠We have a load of people who are obese, donât have a clue about anything but they think they know it all- now letâs spread anger⌠I doesnât sound as a good idea. Very few individuals and corporations control internet space- and they benefit from outrage as it sells well and money is good- and they are pushing narratives about how âfree speechâ is in danger, while it is their profit that is in danger.
1 Like
Youâre kidding, right?
Itâs now a handful of individuals and private companies that own a majority of the internet anymore.
Do you know how rare it is to even have uncensored open conversations like this are anywhere else on the internet beyond our forum here? You have to go to the very outer rims and edges of cyber space anymore to have unfiltered or uncensored conversations with other people in communication.
You want to start going around censoring people? What gives you or others the right to do so?
What gives the censorers any right to police what other people think, write, or say?
If your beliefs, convictions, or mental fortitude are strong mental abuse and insults by others bounce right off like rain hitting a sheet metal roof during a storm. We donât need censorship because of hurt feelings, people need to grow a spine instead of being coddled everywhere. Free speech comes with being challenged, the competition and free mutual exchange of ideas, opinions, or mental perspectives.
If someone is dogmatic- yes for them everything bounces off as they are usually a one track minds, but there are some people that want to have a civilised conversation but canât do so because a handful of people that are willing to say anything to get a âwinâ. At the end of the day it comes to who is the loudest voice in the room and that is not leading to fruitful conversations.
As Karl Popper said:
âUnlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance⌠We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.â
1 Like
Why is one form of intolerance better than others? Intolerant of intolerance.
âMy intolerance is better than your intolerance!â
Why is your intolerance better than other peopleâs intolerances?
Civilized society has to be constantly fought for to be maintained. Idle pacifism or being meek maintains nothing at all.
If you cannot fight for or be vigilant in safe guarding civilized society you donât deserve it. Nothing in this world is for free or simply just guaranteed. Civilized society requires a philosophical battleground in order to not decay, rot, or collapse from within.
First: that is part of free speech. Or are you suggesting there should be repercussions for someone calling you a prick eye to eye?
Second: You are hard falling for the bait. People insulting eachother would not be criminalized. Your right to speak up against the government would be.
Do you have any idea about the state of free speech in the west?
You are lagging 5-10 years behind the actual state of things in the west.
The least of your problems should be some random corporations not wanting to thought control and censor (which is a funny little idea in and of itself). You will be literally persecuted on the basis of as little as opinion, if that opinion is about the wrong political party.
Its really high time to wake the fck up people cause this kind of attitude aint it.
Will it be better when instead of the people who want to get a âwinâ you will have the police knocking on your door to âcheck your thoughtsâ for a ânon criminal incidentâ like in britain?
I get what you are saying, but this is really not it my brother.
You are comparing inconveniences to prison time for opinions. This is not a serious position to hold.
1 Like
Thereâs nothing limiting forums from moderating speech. So, there are places to go for people who want to not experience certain kinds of bluntness, etc. Like of the philosophy forums, The Philosophy Forum, is fairly strictly moderated.
But once the internet itself is censored, then there are less options.
1 Like
Exactly- there must be some limit, and for some things people have to be held accountable. Adam Smith in his book in chapter 1 talks about division of labour- but in chapter 5 he talks about how that division of labour and mundane work will basically downgrade humans and that for that reason the forms of education should be organised- so he realised what I would put simply as: âMonkey does what monkey seesâ. So called Weimar Republic (Germany) had a quite a lot of liberties and that was a fertile ground in which Nazis could spred, then they got control of media (which is always main question)- and only later there was no free speech at all, same in post-Soviet Russia- first you had a real democracy and then dee people learned hiw to use media to their advantage then it became a tool in hand of even fewer people and that is the issue- Who controls the speech?
There was never free speech or free market, therr are always some limits- and the problem is always when things go to extreme.
Even the forum- if you stricktly moderate it will not work well if you give too much freedom you will get only noise. And few loudest and most persistent people will be main people in the room.
Interesting part is that usually systems donât fall because people fight against it- systems fall when no one believes in it anymore (or very few).
In a age of algorithms- you can say whatever you like but if algorithms (and person who controls it)- donât like it- it will not matter at all.
1 Like
There have always been limits to free speech like the banning of slander, THUS its perfectly okay for people being locked up for silent prayer and calling the prime minister pinocchio.
Congratulations. Is this the
you spoke of?
Cause it sure as shit starts to sound like âi wanna gun down those who disagree with meâ.
1 Like
I am not sure exactly what we are talking about here, so I would not comment on this.
But, the point is- all this speech and debate about âfree speechâ in media is a nonsense and a part of the wider problem- which to be honest I donât fully understand, and I am not sure if anyone does, but the point I am making it was never about free speech and free speech never existed, it is all about systems and how they profile people- we as humans donât know what the truth is and all the ethics and morality and laws and rules are constructed and itâs point is to create âbetterâ system- (whatever it means) and in generally the people are mostly products of their genetic and family, environment and system they lived in and now it is interesting times as we see people from one country or continent complaining about another country and systems from another continent- and thatâs a nonsense and it only proves that all people are indoctrinated.
So, the real question is: Which systems gives better outcomes? Which systems indoctrinates people for a better functioning system? Propaganda works only so much- as we can see in a failure of SSSR, and many others.
1 Like
This: Germany goes mask off (again) - #7 by Nausamedu
And that was the question. Even if i grant you that absolute free speech never existed, how tf does that mean (because thats the argument you are making here) that eroding it further and replacing it with complete authoritarian censorship, is somehow okay and acceptable?
You really are arguing for shooting people who disagree with you, arent you?
On the off chance that it gives a âbetter outcomeâ.
1 Like
Yeah. âWe protect democracy by erasing it, freeing you from the burden of voting, thought, speechâ
Orwell would be laughing his ass off, seeing 2026
1 Like
Well, youâre in a forum that has almost no moderation. Where people do insult, etc. Iâm not sure why youâre in this one. Your âexactlyâ above is misleading. I donât think we should have generalized censorship and forums are available for people who want more controlled environments.
Anyway:
Smith wasnât talking about freedom of speech or censorship. I donât think that relates to my post or censorship at least.
The Nazis were not the result of excess liberty. The Weimar Republic had more censorship and more control of media that Britain and France in that period. There were a lot of reasons why the Nazis came to power, but too much freedom of speech was not one of them. The Great Depression, hyperinflation, political street violence, the punishments dealt out on Germany after WW1, deep seated society-wide anti-semitism, loopholes in the administrative running of the country that the Nazis exploited and deep-seated anti-democratic revanchism among German elites.
Similarly Russiaâs slide into authoritarianism was not excess free speech but Putin destroying independent media and, yes, censoring. You brought up two examples of the problems of not allowing free speech, not the opposite.
And thereâs a difference between censorship on giant social media sites and what happens in small forums. The former causes all sorts of problems because something like facebook is parallel to a utility, like the electric company or MA Bell when she was the only game in town. Thereâs also the difference between the censorship of positions on issues and the censorship on rudeness. Thereâs a lot of variation on the internet around the latter. Anyone who wants to express themselves and not get smacked with insults can find places.
2 Likes
2nd that e(motion)
Yes, but it hasnât.
This man is a former BlackRock lobbyist, and I am convinced that he is still on the take.
1 Like