"free speech" only applies when the sane majority wants to limit the subversive reach of marxism/faggotry
"free speech" never applies when the marxist/faggot controlled institutions want to limit the reach of any idea that challenges them - then its "hateful", "dangerous", "inciting violence", "terrorism", "misinformation", "personal attacks", "slurs", "threatening"
This is why I don't believe in free speech. It isn't sustainable, especially not with the technology we have now. It gives too much power, and protection, to people with objectively bad ideas that not only do not benefit society, but actively undermines it. What we're seeing now is the direct result of the wrong people being allowed to speak for far too long. The only problem is that strictly regulating a pattern of speech and expression that doesn't undermine a nation could not be sustained over a long period of time. I don't know of anyone who could be trusted with that authority.
An extensive social charter that outlines the kind of people who are allowed to weigh in on sociopolitical issues, particularly people who are employed in sectors not including entertainment, and prohibits certain ideals from being expressed, such as the chemical mutilation of children and making minorities the majority presence in the entertainment industry.
That would be much worse but thanks for answering.
Even if you started out with a ban list that we found reasonable, it's only a matter of time until they expand the prohibition list. It's ripe for abuse. Someone who hates you could just claim that you said something illegal. Then what?
That's why I said it isn't sustainable. You may have an ideal arbitrator for a time, but either the power will corrupt them, or their successor will abuse that power.
I loved how Pierre Poilievre's Twitter was individually thanking people supporting his leadership campaign in real time as Ottawa goons were trampling Mohawk elders, tear gassing unsympathetic reporters and kneeing truckers on the ground until they pissed blood in front of Parliament.
The fact that PP and Candice Bergen immediately started bleating about Ukraine and demanding Russian censorship the minute that Trudeau dropped the Emergencies Act was very telling.
What was the point of ousting Erin O'Toole if you immediately fall back into Liberals Lite?
I like how norms of free speech and free media simply disappeared without debate or notice.
astronaut - gun - astronaut: always has been
"free speech" only applies when the sane majority wants to limit the subversive reach of marxism/faggotry
"free speech" never applies when the marxist/faggot controlled institutions want to limit the reach of any idea that challenges them - then its "hateful", "dangerous", "inciting violence", "terrorism", "misinformation", "personal attacks", "slurs", "threatening"
This is why I don't believe in free speech. It isn't sustainable, especially not with the technology we have now. It gives too much power, and protection, to people with objectively bad ideas that not only do not benefit society, but actively undermines it. What we're seeing now is the direct result of the wrong people being allowed to speak for far too long. The only problem is that strictly regulating a pattern of speech and expression that doesn't undermine a nation could not be sustained over a long period of time. I don't know of anyone who could be trusted with that authority.
What is your proposed alternative?
An extensive social charter that outlines the kind of people who are allowed to weigh in on sociopolitical issues, particularly people who are employed in sectors not including entertainment, and prohibits certain ideals from being expressed, such as the chemical mutilation of children and making minorities the majority presence in the entertainment industry.
That would be much worse but thanks for answering.
Even if you started out with a ban list that we found reasonable, it's only a matter of time until they expand the prohibition list. It's ripe for abuse. Someone who hates you could just claim that you said something illegal. Then what?
That's why I said it isn't sustainable. You may have an ideal arbitrator for a time, but either the power will corrupt them, or their successor will abuse that power.
"We're only getting rid of the evil people like Alex Jones!"
Literally having garbage takes to own the libs.
Surely if I vooote harder the uniparty will go away!
I loved how Pierre Poilievre's Twitter was individually thanking people supporting his leadership campaign in real time as Ottawa goons were trampling Mohawk elders, tear gassing unsympathetic reporters and kneeing truckers on the ground until they pissed blood in front of Parliament.
There was lots of talk, but in the end, none of our politicians had the guts or will to stand alongside Canadians in the street.
The fact that PP and Candice Bergen immediately started bleating about Ukraine and demanding Russian censorship the minute that Trudeau dropped the Emergencies Act was very telling.
What was the point of ousting Erin O'Toole if you immediately fall back into Liberals Lite?
That's what Conservatism is.
Liberals destroy the country, and the Conservatives conserve the Liberals.
Yeah, they were relevant for about 5 minutes.
I should go buy some vodka just to piss someone off
I've got a stockpile. Makes me feel like the times when rich moguls would be like "these are Cuban cigars, actually from Cuba."
Legit Russian Vodka. Can't get it anymore, finest money can't buy.