This is scary
Posts
Total:
25
People really shouldnt have free speech. If it was up to me, people would need to ask permission before speaking, kinda like in school just applied to society as a whole all the time.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You mean this collective freak out by the political right about free speech being under attack is not genuine? Shocking.
-->
@Double_R
You mean this collective freak out by the political right about free speech being under attack is not genuine? Shocking.
Anyone who thinks that he has freedom of speech is either retarded or insane.
-->
@TheUnderdog
A disturbing precedent for the 5th Circuit to set, yes, but there is some comfort to be had on this issue. Here is SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor’s statement on the Court’s decision not to hear this case:
And here’s a good article which explains why hope is not lost:
You might notice from these that the recent Counterman v. Colorado ruling changes things.
-->
@Double_R
It's a grift.
-->
@Best.Korea
People really shouldnt have free speech. If it was up to me, people would need to ask permission before speaking, kinda like in school just applied to society as a whole all the time.
If you want to live by these rules, then I will aim to (at least for a while) ignore all of your responses unless you ask for permission to speak.
But I don't want to live by these rules because I believe in free speech absolutism.
-->
@TheUnderdog
But I don't want to live by these rules because I believe in free speech absolutism.
Sadly, free speech doesnt exist anywhere.
If you want to live by these rules, then I will aim to (at least for a while) ignore all of your responses unless you ask for permission to speak.
The rule doesnt apply to me, sorry.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I believe in free speech absolutism.
Do you believe it should be legal to tell bomb on a plane?
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe it should be legal to tell bomb on a plane?
No because that is not political speech. But all political speech should be legal to say.
All conservative speech can be argued to be hate speech. Should it be banned? No.
-->
@TheUnderdog
And who determines whether speech is political?
-->
@Double_R
Opinionated speech is political by definition. Yelling, "Fire" on a plane is not opinionated speech.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you really think every example is clear cut? And do you really think it matters if it were? Trump goes out there everyday saying that Biden is prosecuting him in NY even though the president has nothing to do with state prosecutions, and he is still claiming that democrats support the execution of babies after birth which is cartoonishly stupid. Reality is only as clear and decisive as people are willing to allow it to be.
-->
@Double_R
If you believe Trump is saying false things, then debunk those false things.
You don't think a zygote is a human being; I do. Only one of us is right; censoring us because the government thinks we are incorrect is censorship.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you believe Trump is saying false things, then debunk those false things.
If you're dumb enough to think democrats are ok with executing babies after birth, there is no debunking it. Like I said, people will believe whatever they want to believe.
Here's a really good video on this kind of nonsense.
You don't think a zygote is a human being; I do. Only one of us is right; censoring us because the government thinks we are incorrect is censorship.
What on earth are you talking about? Who's censoring you?
-->
@Double_R
If you're dumb enough to think democrats are ok with executing babies after birth, there is no debunking it.
If the left doesn't de bunk it, then they will believe it and your abortion position will get straw manned.
You got to fight against the right wing matrix. Maybe ask them, "What is a republican?" I got numerous people to basically denounce conservatism after they realized they couldn't answer that question consistently.
What on earth are you talking about? Who's censoring you?
I'm not saying someone is; but this was a point about how you can't censor speech just because you believe it's incorrect.
Lets say someone said something everyone for the most part believes is false (2+2=5). Let them say 2+2=5, but then have a fact check article stating that 2+2=4.
If someone says, "The COVID vaccines cause 2 million deaths.", then let them have free speech, and also have the fact checkers post a link that says how useful COVID vaccienes are.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the left doesn't de bunk it, then they will believe it and your abortion position will get straw manned.
You missed the point entirely. Watch the video, it's a great lesson on propaganda.
Lets say someone said something everyone for the most part believes is false (2+2=5). Let them say 2+2=5, but then have a fact check article stating that 2+2=4.If someone says, "The COVID vaccines cause 2 million deaths.", then let them have free speech, and also have the fact checkers post a link that says how useful COVID vaccienes are.
Free speech means the government cannot stop you from speaking your mind. It does not protect you against criticism from the rest of society, if it did that would be the opposite of free speech because you would thn be taking away the right of others to speak their minds in opposition.
You also miss the point about fact checking. You seem to think you can show someone that their facts are wrong and they'll just change their minds. That's not how people work. A lie repeated often enough will be believed regardless of it's merit, it is not a solution to allow people to spew bullshit and then come from behind them to try and clean it up.
The video explained all of this. I highly recommend watching it.
-->
@Double_R
Free speech means the government cannot stop you from speaking your mind. It does not protect you against criticism from the rest of society, if it did that would be the opposite of free speech because you would thn be taking away the right of others to speak their minds in opposition.
Yes; and the fact checkers can have their free speech when they post a fact check article saying 2+2=4 instead of 5.
A lie repeated often enough will be believed regardless of it's merit, it is not a solution to allow people to spew bullshit and then come from behind them to try and clean it up.
But then how do you figure out what is objectively a lie?
I would support outlawing any politician that lies about their policy positions from public office. All facts they claim are true should be backed up with a source (even if biased) and that publisher should cite their source and so on until you get to the initial primary source.
Don't say abortion should be banned if you believe it should be legal (or vice versa). If you change your mind, then fine; but then you should be upfront and say that you changed your mind and justify why you changed your mind if you did. Apply this to any issue.
-->
@TheUnderdog
that would be the opposite of free speech because you would thn be taking away the right of others to speak their minds in opposition.Yes; and the fact checkers can have their free speech when they post a fact check article saying 2+2=4 instead of 5.
Right, so what is your issue?
But then how do you figure out what is objectively a lie?
With logic and reason. But that's the problem, we live in a society inundated with people who do not accept being rational as a priority.
I would support outlawing any politician that lies about their policy positions from public office.
That would never work in a democracy. The only solution is for people to wake up and realize they're being manipulated. Until that happens, we get the government we deserve.
-->
@Double_R
Right, so what is your issue?
A lot of people want to ban saying 2+2=5 (by randos that think it's correct) when in reality, they should point out 2+2=4. If a POTUS says 2+2=5 and they know they are lying, then they should be banned from public office (but if they actually believe 2+2=5, then they should merely get fact checked).
we live in a society inundated with people who do not accept being rational as a priority.
This is a problem, but how do you change this?
The only solution is for people to wake up and realize they're being manipulated.
How do you support accomplishing this? And how do you know you aren't the one that is manipulated? I'm not saying you are; but how do you know you are right and MAGA is wrong and not the other way around? Personal bias is mutual.
-->
@TheUnderdog
A lot of people want to ban saying 2+2=5 (by randos that think it's correct) when in reality, they should point out 2+2=4.
No one is trying to ban people from being able to say 2+2=5. What people are doing is refusing to give a platform to those spreading such lies. That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. You are entitled to say whatever you want, you are not entitled to have others provide you with a platform to say it. And again, any attempt to change that is the opposite of free speech because people have a right to use their free speech to say "you're not spreading this garbage on my platform".
If a POTUS says 2+2=5 and they know they are lying, then they should be banned from public office (but if they actually believe 2+2=5, then they should merely get fact checked).
The only acceptable ban would come in the form of being voted out. No one else (other than the legal system for a legitimate legal reason) gets to decide whether someone can run for office.
we live in a society inundated with people who do not accept being rational as a priority.This is a problem, but how do you change this?
If there was a good answer to that question half the country wouldn't believe the election was stolen.
And how do you know you aren't the one that is manipulated?
I don't, but I take every precaution I can to ensure that is not the case. I spend many hours on this site because I'm genuinely interested in hearing what those who disagree with me have to say, and I want to know if there is any information I am not aware of so there should be no one better to provide it. I also watch Fox news on occasion just to get that other side. If you are truly open to hearing every perspective and every angle, and you verse yourself in understanding logical fallacies and other manipulation tactics, you make yourself as difficult to be manipulated as one can be.
how do you know you are right and MAGA is wrong and not the other way around?
Again, I don't, but for me the tell is when the other side cannot coherently defend their viewpoint and has to resort to denying basic facts about reality which they would not do in any other situation.
A few weeks ago I went back and forth with a member for weeks about whether Trump incited the J6 riots. The disagreement came down to how English works and specifically the role that context plays in understanding someone's words. He essentially had to argue that Trump's words can only be taken in isolation and had to be taken literally. I found that not only absurd because it defies everything we know about how communication works, but it also flagrantly conflicts with everything we know about how Trump in particular communicates.
The total weakness of this argument, and the weakness of every MAGA argument when pushed to its logical ends continues to confirm for me that they are every bit as wrong as they appear on their face.
-->
@Double_R
What people are doing is refusing to give a platform to those spreading such lies.
I think it would be better to just not promote it and promote people saying 2+2=4 way more. Let them say it; just don't promote it nearly as much with algorithms. It should be in the hard to find places on the internet. Like I can look up the KKK website if I want too; that doesn't mean I can expect to randomly find KKK stuff in my feed. Nazi talking points should be allowed to be said on the internet, but don't promote it; and promote other stuff.
Lets take an issue other than, "Is Hitler based?" where virtually everyone disagrees. Instead, lets take the issue, "Should abortion be legal for consensual sex?" 60% say yes; 40% say no. Promote all of the yes answers collectively 60% of the time when you promote abortion opinions and promote all of the no answers 40% of the time when you promote abortion opinions.
If there are 3 pro choice creators and 2 pro life creators who each make the same number of videos, then they all get equal promotion. That I think would be a better system.
And again, any attempt to change that is the opposite of free speech because people have a right to use their free speech to say "you're not spreading this garbage on my platform".
Publisher vs Platform. A publisher can censor speech because they are liable for the stuff they say. This is why the Daily Wire isn't forced to host Gloria de la Riva (socialist). A platform would have to have Gloria de La Riva on. In that respect, it's better to be a publisher.
But a platform isn't liable for the stuff they say; a publisher is. If you read something false on Instagram, you can't sue Instagram. If you read something false on Fox News, you can sue Fox News. Tucker Carlson got sued for grifting about the 2020 election. Here, it's better to be a platform.
Instagram wants the best of both worlds and that's what I object too. These companies should pick if they want to be a publisher or platform.
If there was a good answer to that question half the country wouldn't believe the election was stolen.
It's 25%; but this is the too far gone people. This group will vote Trump no matter what. But if Biden wins the 2024 election 75 to 25, that would be a major victory for democrats; I think they would win every electoral vote for the most part.
If you are truly open to hearing every perspective and every angle, and you verse yourself in understanding logical fallacies and other manipulation tactics, you make yourself as difficult to be manipulated as one can be.
Yeah; I do that. I used to watch exclusively right wing news, but I watch both and now I think better; about half my opinions are on the left; about half are on the right. I think Biden won the election, but I also don't want to fire tens of millions of Americans for refusing to get the COVID shot (but I would prefer it if they did; although less so now because COVID is killing less people than it was 2.5 years ago).
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think it would be better to just not promote it and promote people saying 2+2=4 way more. Let them say it; just don't promote it nearly as much with algorithms.
We're talking about free speech, so in that context your opinion is irrelevant. People have a right to do with their platforms what they will. You are free to disagree with them, but you don't get to infringe on their free speech by telling them what they must allow on their own platforms.
Nazi talking points should be allowed to be said on the internet, but don't promote it; and promote other stuff.
That's exactly how it works now, so what's your issue?
Instagram wants the best of both worlds and that's what I object too. These companies should pick if they want to be a publisher or platform.
There are definitely some complicated questions about where the line is drawn, but every platform gets to establish basic rules (terms of service) and as long as they are acting within that they are generally fine. The nuances behind what counts as enforcement vs what makes one a publisher is different conversation.
-->
@Double_R
People have a right to do with their platforms what they will. You are free to disagree with them, but you don't get to infringe on their free speech by telling them what they must allow on their own platforms.
Good point, but then if DART decided they aren't going to allow left wingers on their page, then you would have to respect their rules and abandon your account.
That's exactly how it works now, so what's your issue?
The Nazi stuff gets promoted too much as few people believe in it.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good point, but then if DART decided they aren't going to allow left wingers on their page, then you would have to respect their rules and abandon your account.
Yes, and I absolutely would. Not because I respect Darts decision but because if that’s how they want to treat me because of my political leanings I have no place here. A debate site without oppositional voices would crash instantly, if ownership of the site wants to put a torch to it that’s their right.