An Arguement of Free Speech

[notgivingmynametoamachine]

Here's something else I found in my archive today: gay jounralist Glenn Greenwald's Substack article from last year where he brought up #DropKiwiFarms, focussing on Ben Collin's role in writing hitpieces about KF in order to hype up a mainstream hysteria so as to instigate Cloudflare into dropping them.

I don't know who wrote this (I think this was a comment from the Kiwi post posted the link to the article)



Here is the excerpt:



Regarding this statement, "Polls leave no doubt that Democrats are vastly more supportive of internet censorship not only by large corporations but also by the stat", this is the poll he's referring to, he posted it to his Twitter account at the time:

View attachment 34646

And the elites in politics, higher edu and media are even more anti-speech. These are nearly the masses responding trends ideological masters setting a narrative.

I've trying to point this out to normal people in my life and online.. The western left, to the extent that they ever did support it, have completely reversed on free speech. They will now openly admit that they view it as dangerous. We have leftist so-called "free speech" defenders from the past (70s and 80s) who won awards for their commitment to fighting for free speech (specifically the battles to allow communists and leftist propaganda onto campuses during the cold war) now claiming that they never actually believed in free speech, only "correct" speech. (their speech) Yes, while I wouldn't trust people on the right with this issue either.. At least they still claim to believe in free speech! Normies refuse to even acknowledge the state of things. In no small part thanks to a media that is wholly now with the free speech is dangerous narrative.

This shit is almost surreal. Watching as a major party and ideological group goes openly and near completely anti-basic-freedom.

 

[SSj_Ness]

The western left, to the extent that they ever did support it, have completely reversed on free speech. They will now openly admit that they view it as dangerous.

It's one thing they're right about, the only difference is ideological, being what the right & left consider to constitute "dangerous". To them it means being able to call a man in a dress "he", and to us it means letting men in dresses read tranny propaganda to toddlers.

Free speech worked in theory at the founding of our nation, not so much today when we have virtually every institution of society pushing degeneracy and suppressing dissenting voices.

 

[Chrysler Building]

It's one thing they're right about, the only difference is ideological, being what the right & left consider to constitute "dangerous". To them it means being able to call a man in a dress "he", and to us it means letting men in dresses read tranny propaganda to toddlers.

Free speech worked in theory at the founding of our nation, not so much today when we have virtually every institution of society pushing degeneracy and suppressing dissenting voices.

Shooting and jailing people for free speech does not protect society from degeneracy. It only results in retarded dictatorships that inevitably implode. They don't have free speech as a value in the Middle East and yet Muslim nations are rampant with world record levels of bestiality & animal abuse, child rape & child sex slavery (though to be fair they try to be egalitarian in their child abuse), murder, drug addiction (poppy fields baby!), kidnapping & extortion, suicides etc. China also shoots and jails people for free speech and their society is currently collapsing because they murdered all of their female children in the 80s and 90s which means they are incapable of reproduction without kidnapping women from Korea, Japan, etc. Anyone who tried to warn them about their one child policy was jailed because, you guessed it, no free speech so they couldn't course correct while that was a viable option. China is also riven with degeneracy, lots of pedophilia and incest and porn addiction, not to mention Chinese males are too fat to pass physical tests to join the Chinese army which means they can't invade anyone for World War 3. "Based" Russia suppresses free speech to the point where Putin can assassinate journalists and murder civilians in the street and its only gotten them a dogshit economy, men dying of alcohol poisoning while in their 30s, chronic male joblessness and made them the laughing stock of the entire world because they invaded Ukraine with rotting Soviet tanks. Oh, and they're so free of degeneracy that Russia has the highest rate of abortions for whites in all of Europe if not the world.

Where exactly has suppressing free speech gotten these countries? Lmao.

First Amendment makes perfect sense if you want a successful society. Authoritarian countries where they claim they've try to solve degeneracy by suppressing free speech are total basket cases that are rampant with pedophilia, drug abuse, and other degenerate practices. The US having these problems is an example of how our society no longer values 1A and refuses to stand up for it anymore. Because lefties and righties are so desperate to "win" their retarded game that they have happily turned American society into a shitty and ineffective authoritarian state where free expression is hated and suppressed and replaced with retarded knock offs.

We need more 1A, not less.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Shooting and jailing people for free speech does not protect society from degeneracy. It only results in retarded dictatorships that inevitably implode.

Then you'll be able to show a comparable nation to USA that imploded. Let's see what you've got (and let's just conveniently ignore that if these SJWs were sent back in time to push their shit in the 1700's they have been killed, not just have their speech restricted, and yet, curiously, America didn't implode simply because it didn't have enough child mutilation advocates free to speak and take over our institutions).

They don't have free speech as a value in the Middle East and yet Muslim nations are rampant with world record levels of bestiality & animal abuse, child rape & child sex slavery (though to be fair they try to be egalitarian in their child abuse), murder, drug addiction (poppy fields baby!), kidnapping & extortion, suicides etc.

Care to prove a lack of free speech is why they have all of that? Not that the comparison is at all similar, it should be outright dismissed, but I'll still hear you out.

China also shoots and jails people for free speech and their society is currently collapsing because they murdered all of their female children in the 80s and 90s which means they are incapable of reproduction without kidnapping women from Korea, Japan, etc. Anyone who tried to warn them about their one child policy was jailed because, you guessed it, no free speech so they couldn't course correct while that was a viable option. China is also riven with degeneracy, lots of pedophilia and incest and porn addiction, not to mention Chinese males are too fat to pass physical tests to join the Chinese army which means they can't invade anyone for World War 3.

Abortion is bad, yes. All you're proving is killing babies and preventing life is bad. Control is good when it's in the right hands, as I said, obviously it can be used for evil and stupid reasons too in the wrong hands.

And as above, please prove their societal degeneracy is caused by a lack of free speech.

"Based" Russia suppresses free speech to the point where Putin can assassinate journalists and murder civilians in the street and its only gotten them a dogshit economy, men dying of alcohol poisoning while in their 30s, chronic male joblessness and made them the laughing stock of the entire world because they invaded Ukraine with rotting Soviet tanks. Oh, and they're so free of degeneracy that Russia has the highest rate of abortions for whites in all of Europe if not the world.

I wouldn't shed a tear if Trump crucified the entire CNN staff, so you're not really making a point I care about by saying Putin kills journalists.

I'm sure if only they had more SJWs in Russia men would stop drinking themselves into early graves and they'd steamroll Ukraine, yeah...

And again, bad things are bad, I know. Abortion should be banned, and speech promoting it punished harshly.

Where exactly has suppressing free speech gotten these countries? Lmao.

They have a lot of problems and circumstances causing and exacerbating their issues, and a lack of free speech ranks very low on any issue you cited. The only one that really sticks out was China not letting people speak out about their 1 child policy, but that's not a free speech issue, it's a case of evil being in power. I know you'll cry about evil and good being subjective but that's a pointless debate.

First Amendment makes perfect sense if you want a successful society. Authoritarian countries where they claim they've try to solve degeneracy by suppressing free speech are total basket cases that are rampant with pedophilia, drug abuse, and other degenerate practices. The US having these problems is an example of how our society no longer values 1A and refuses to stand up for it anymore. Because lefties and righties are so desperate to "win" their retarded game that they have happily turned American society into a shitty and ineffective authoritarian state where free expression is hated and suppressed and replaced with retarded knock offs.

Let's see your argument for that, I don't see how you can back such an assertion.

We need more 1A, not less.

We had less in the past and we were better off. Care to explain your reasoning as to how that would solve any issues? I do agree it would temporarily help since the right's correct and true speech is suppressed currently, but if we gain power we should return their suppression 10x.

Free speech is an idealist's value, in a vacuum it sounds good if you don't consider the consequences it has. Rather, in practice, promoting what is good and suppressing what is bad works much better for a prospering society. You don't keep weeds in your garden bud.

 

[BurnerAccount333]

Then you'll be able to show a comparable nation to USA that imploded. Let's see what you've got (and let's just conveniently ignore that if these SJWs were sent back in time to push their shit in the 1700's they have been killed, not just have their speech restricted, and yet, curiously, America didn't implode simply because it didn't have enough child mutilation advocates free to speak and take over our institutions).


Care to prove a lack of free speech is why they have all of that? Not that the comparison is at all similar, it should be outright dismissed, but I'll still hear you out.

Did you know the age of consent being raised was directly related to the second wave of feminism?
The push wasn't easy, and was controversial at the time: In fact during that period their speech was attempted to be limited and censored repeatedly. It was only increased because of their efforts and their freedom of speech, otherwise tradition would've kept it lower.
I'm going to assume you'll agree that was a good use of it.

We had less in the past and we were better off. Care to explain your reasoning as to how that would solve any issues? I do agree it would temporarily help since the right's correct and true speech is suppressed currently, but if we gain power we should return their suppression 10x.

We actually had more free speech back then, because it goes both ways. It only got more-restrictive as short-sighted people thought it could never be used against them.
The black partners marched with guns, using both their 2nd and 1st amendments, and what happened? We got gun-laws and restrictions to freedom of speech that are now used against the right.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Did you know the age of consent being raised was directly related to the second wave of feminism?
The push wasn't easy, and was controversial at the time: In fact during that period their speech was attempted to be limited and censored repeatedly. It was only increased because of their efforts and their freedom of speech, otherwise tradition would've kept it lower.
I'm going to assume you'll agree that was a good use of it.

A broken clock is right twice a day, won't stop me from slam dunking it into a furnace with all the spite I can muster.

We actually had more free speech back then, because it goes both ways. It only got more-restrictive as short-sighted people thought it could never be used against them.
The black partners marched with guns, using both their 2nd and 1st amendments, and what happened? We got gun-laws and restrictions to freedom of speech that are now used against the right.

Giving niggers second amendment rights turned out great huh.

 

[Chrysler Building]

Did you know the age of consent being raised was directly related to the second wave of feminism?
The push wasn't easy, and was controversial at the time: In fact during that period their speech was attempted to be limited and censored repeatedly. It was only increased because of their efforts and their freedom of speech, otherwise tradition would've kept it lower.
I'm going to assume you'll agree that was a good use of it.

It's important to keep in mind that righty and lefty are both pedo death cults. Lefty wants gay pedos and righty wants hetero pedos (see Matt Walsh and his pedo rant about how America needs to impregnate more teenage girls.) RWers online often hate feminists and feminism because feminists insisted on raising age of consent. That is the primary reason why Nick Fuentas and figures like him hate women and why incels/MGTOW communities are rife with pedophiles who want to lower age of consent to prepubescence.

As an aside, documenting the pedophilia that runs through most mens rights advocacy groups is something that Kiwifarms is very good for. Their incel and MGTOW threads are actually pretty good and don't attract the same sperging the abortion threads do.

We actually had more free speech back then, because it goes both ways. It only got more-restrictive as short-sighted people thought it could never be used against them.
The black partners marched with guns, using both their 2nd and 1st amendments, and what happened? We got gun-laws and restrictions to freedom of speech that are now used against the right.

People like SSj don't understand what "rights" are. They are natural rights bequeathed by the universe or the Creator or whatever you want to call it. The only thing the Constitution does is define them and why governments are wrong to oppress rights. Otherwise rights are universal and the definition of a totalitarian government is the oppression of rights. China is a mess right now because they murder civilians in the street for speaking out against covid lockdowns, as well as unjustly imprisoning people who have done no crime and without a fair trial (the Uighurs concentration camps.)

Of course people like SSj don't want to admit that because it completely undercuts their argument and exposes that they don't actually have a clue what "morality" is. They just want to murder and jail their opponents with impunity and anyone who disagrees is labelled "pedophile." In the Bush era, this buzzword was "unpatriotic."

Look at how SSj can't help himself, he refuses to connect the dots between China and Russia's political implosions and their authoritarian nature. He can't even admit that Russia and China are very similar to the US, not just in size but in terms of their sheer racial diversity and their martial cultures. He just kinda....collapses:

Then you'll be able to show a comparable nation to USA that imploded. Let's see what you've got (and let's just conveniently ignore that if these SJWs were sent back in time to push their shit in the 1700's they have been killed, not just have their speech restricted, and yet, curiously, America didn't implode simply because it didn't have enough child mutilation advocates free to speak and take over our institutions).


Care to prove a lack of free speech is why they have all of that? Not that the comparison is at all similar, it should be outright dismissed, but I'll still hear you out.


Abortion is bad, yes. All you're proving is killing babies and preventing life is bad. Control is good when it's in the right hands, as I said, obviously it can be used for evil and stupid reasons too in the wrong hands.

And as above, please prove their societal degeneracy is caused by a lack of free speech.


I wouldn't shed a tear if Trump crucified the entire CNN staff, so you're not really making a point I care about by saying Putin kills journalists.

I'm sure if only they had more SJWs in Russia men would stop drinking themselves into early graves and they'd steamroll Ukraine, yeah...

And again, bad things are bad, I know. Abortion should be banned, and speech promoting it punished harshly.


They have a lot of problems and circumstances causing and exacerbating their issues, and a lack of free speech ranks very low on any issue you cited. The only one that really sticks out was China not letting people speak out about their 1 child policy, but that's not a free speech issue, it's a case of evil being in power. I know you'll cry about evil and good being subjective but that's a pointless debate.


Let's see your argument for that, I don't see how you can back such an assertion.


We had less in the past and we were better off. Care to explain your reasoning as to how that would solve any issues? I do agree it would temporarily help since the right's correct and true speech is suppressed currently, but if we gain power we should return their suppression 10x.

Free speech is an idealist's value, in a vacuum it sounds good if you don't consider the consequences it has. Rather, in practice, promoting what is good and suppressing what is bad works much better for a prospering society. You don't keep weeds in your garden bud.

Honestly tho this is the smoking gun. Like many terminally online politispergs this dude thinks that "civil rights" are handed out from a Pez dispenser. The actual fact is that the founding documents of the US define rights as universal to all human beings (and in terms of race, Thomas Jefferson himself stated in his letters that slavery would become an issue that would haunt the US and that denying black slaves their natural rights could eventually lead to the crack up of the United States.)

Seriously, look at this. Acting like 2A is something you buy from a store. It reminds me of how trannies think you can buy "womanhood" at a plastic surgeon's office as they chop their cocks off and shove dildos into their stink ditches:

A broken clock is right twice a day, won't stop me from slam dunking it into a furnace with all the spite I can muster.


Giving niggers second amendment rights turned out great huh.

Black people in America have always had 2A but the truth is its a universal right and authoritarianism oppresses this. Imagine how different Italy or Germany or even China or North Korea would be if the the citizens there realized that they had always had the natural right to bear arms and defend themselves against anyone who seeks to do them harm.

Anyway that's enough politisperging from me today, I just think its interesting to see the RWer in action. This is why 1A is important, it exposes the fundamental iniquities in other people that we should all be aware of.

 

[Nektar Geist]

They are natural rights bequeathed by the universe or the Creator or whatever you want to call it

Rights are the privileges bestowed upon the weak by the strong.

 

[Chrysler Building]

Rights are the privileges bestowed upon the weak by the strong.

Is that why civilizations eventually go gay? The chad homos impose their values on the virgin heteros?

 

[Ashley'sDemonCunt]

Is that why civilizations eventually go gay? The chad homos impose their values on the virgin heteros?

Those heteros aren't going to be virgins for long.

 

[Nektar Geist]

Is that why civilizations eventually go gay? The chad homos impose their values on the virgin heteros?

No. I'm glad I could have been of help.

 

[Ashley'sDemonCunt]

No. I'm glad I could have been of help.

On the hetero or the gay side?

 

[Nektar Geist]

On the hetero or the gay side?

Super Straight Soldier. I have nothing personal against the homosexualists, but they should remember that they aren't cool anymore. Not since the 70s. And that J Edgar was one of them. Consider that...

 

[Chrysler Building]

Super Straight Soldier. I have nothing personal against the homosexualists, but they should remember that they aren't cool anymore. Not since the 70s. And that J Edgar was one of them. Consider that...

No!!!!! not my Edgar!!!!!!

Those heteros aren't going to be virgins for long.

Gay Nazi catboys everywhere rejoice!

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

Okay, I didn't want to get involved with other people's autistic slap fights but....

The only one that really sticks out was China not letting people speak out about their 1 child policy, but that's not a free speech issue

.... This line was so stupid I had to exercise my own free speech.

Seriously dude, "an issue where people were banned from speaking, is not a free speech issue" is the kind of mental gymnastics I would expect from a PhilosophyTube video.

 

[SSj_Ness]

It's important to keep in mind that righty and lefty are both pedo death cults.

see Matt Walsh and his pedo rant about how America needs to impregnate more teenage girls.

Quote his exact words, in context.

People like SSj don't understand what "rights" are. They are natural rights bequeathed by the universe or the Creator or whatever you want to call it.

Like many terminally online politispergs this dude thinks that "civil rights" are handed out from a Pez dispenser. The actual fact is that the founding documents of the US define rights as universal to all human beings

>bequeathed by creator
>US defines rights
pick one

Fact is the government decides what rights you do and do not have. The fact is that currently the corrupt liberal government says drag queens have the right to twerk half-naked in front of kids, that doctors have the right to mutilate children, and that propagandizing transgenderism to them are sacred civil rights. We need a decent government which restricts all of that, speech included.

Acting like 2A is something you buy from a store.

It's certainly not, I agree...because under many circumstances you can't buy guns from a store. Even when you can, you have restrictions on what kind, how you use them, etc.

This is why 1A is important, it exposes the fundamental iniquities in other people that we should all be aware of.

Free speech absolutism is retarded and doesn't exist anywhere, and never has, nor will it ever; neither can you make a good argument for it. Bad speech must be restricted, it just depends on how a society and therefore its government defines good and bad. We see how liberals define these terms, they're inverted.

Spew your childish lolbertarianism some more, it's hilariously cringe.

Okay, I didn't want to get involved with other people's autistic slap fights but....

.... This line was so stupid I had to exercise my own free speech.

Seriously dude, "an issue where people were banned from speaking, is not a free speech issue" is the kind of mental gymnastics I would expect from a PhilosophyTube video.

Stupid indeed, you had to inaccurately paraphrase what I said to erect your strawman. A bad government doing stupid things is not a free speech issue--it's a bad government doing stupid things issue, stupid.

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

Stupid indeed, you had to inaccurately paraphrase what I said to erect your strawman.

I wanna point out that this was your response to Chrysler's very first paragraph:

View attachment 37045

Getting onto me for cutting a quote slightly short and thus "Strawmanning" in the same post where you ignore an entire paragraph of explanation and then complain that he didn't provide "any further opinion or explanation."

All I cut was five words that don't fundamentally alter anything, and even adding those five words back in does not negate the part I found dumb (denying that its a free speech issue when it clearly is).

A bad government doing stupid things is not a free speech issue--it's a bad government doing stupid things issue, stupid.

You do realize it can still be a free speech issue while also being a bad government issue, right? Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

But then, I'm trying to reason with a guy who came here, saw someone calling out his mental gymnastics, and proceeded to go through my posting history just so he could neg-rate everything I've said so far.... because one response offended him. Isn't that what you kiwis call "seething" and "butthurt?" And something you usually make fun of other people for doing?

 

[SSj_Ness]

Getting onto me for cutting a quote slightly short

Nah, what you did was change the entire thing under the pretense of paraphrasing. Fact is I wasn't saying "an issue where people were banned from speaking, is not a free speech issue", I was saying government malfeasance is not a free speech issue.

You do realize it can still be a free speech issue while also being a bad government issue, right? Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

No. China doing something wrong and stupid has literally nothing to do with free speech in the context of this discussion. Should the chinks have been able to protest the governmental wrongdoing? Of course, as I've maintained, good speech should be allowed.

It's disingenuous as fuck to try to argue for free speech absolutism by pointing at extreme government evils and how protesting that is a good thing, and so therefore all speech is good and should be allowed.

"See?! If LGBT activists can't make porn readily available to kids then that's the same as China committing genuine human rights violations!!1!11! We need absolute free speech!"

neg-rate everything I've said so far....

Cry about stickers more, I'm sure you'll seem less retarded.

 

[Chrysler Building]

Nah, what you did was change the entire thing under the pretense of paraphrasing. Fact is I wasn't saying "an issue where people were banned from speaking, is not a free speech issue", I was saying government malfeasance is not a free speech issue.


No. China doing something wrong and stupid has literally nothing to do with free speech in the context of this discussion. Should the chinks have been able to protest the governmental wrongdoing? Of course, as I've maintained, good speech should be allowed.

It's disingenuous as fuck to try to argue for free speech absolutism by pointing at extreme government evils and how protesting that is a good thing, and so therefore all speech is good and should be allowed.

"See?! If LGBT activists can't make porn readily available to kids then that's the same as China committing genuine human rights violations!!1!11! We need absolute free speech!"


Cry about stickers more, I'm sure you'll seem less retarded.

holy shit lmao what a meltdown

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

Cry about stickers more, I'm sure you'll seem less retarded.

> Has repeatedly whined about his "meaning" being changed by the removal of a few words.
> Gets shown a demonstration of how far he'll go out of butt-hurt but tries to turn that around and call it "Crying about stickers."

Go fuck yourself faggot.