So my free speech is some really, really sad shit. Would you go so far as to call it inappropriate? Punishable?
No. It's pathetic how you truly think that I want you punished. It's even worse that you seem to think me seeing you as pathetic could even be comparable to wanting you punished. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you so broken that you want people you disagree with to be punished?
Those who use inflamed rhetoric for personal gain aren't trying to be understood by the intelligent aspects of society and push base emotions to cause trouble.
You're unironically up your own ass so far you don't even realise how fucking stupid you sound. You really do believe yourself to be some big brained dipshit, don't you? An unironic midwit. Just pure mediocrity. Unironically shilling for the status quo.
>blatantly makes up bullshit about hating Trump and worshipping Boeing.
Pretty sad that you're trying to get increasingly outlandish in your claims to try and bait out a reaction that could even loosely be interpreted as me wanting you censored.
Your freedom to say stupid things out loudly is exactly what the freedom of speech is all about. Just don't be surprised when nobody wants to know what it is.
Except you're explicitly not supporting freedom of speech and in no way are you pulling the "nobody has to pay attention to you" card, because you're unironically supporting the use of force to silence people. And yes, fines are a threat of force since you either pay or you face the "or else".
You're trying so hard to make me out to be some villain, and you're just not getting the reaction you're after. And all you have to go on is the fact that I'm not virtue signalling support for Trump. That's it. That's all you have. In no way have I shown any support for Biden, or any politician for that matter. But because I'm not engaging in idolatry, clearly it must be a dichotomy because reasons. What reasons? Eh, who knows.
So between the psuedo-intellectualism, the statist idolatry, grasping for labels to use as strawmans and ad hominems, what points do you even have? Your entire point is that you support censorship all so you can bludgeon your political enemies. It's literally "ends justify the means" crap. You're not even pretending you hold any moral ground, it's entirely and totally partisan bullshit, all to the extent that you're tilting at windmills attacking people here because they don't share your totalitarian proclivities.
There's a reason for the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Regardless of your tendencies, I don't think you're evil. I think you're misguided. But you've already made up your mind about me all because I didn't jump through a hoop to engage in idolatry. And it says a lot about you that you're so ready to find enemies that you'll eagerly make them too, even if they're not your enemy.
I just don't support mocking dead children at their graveside
Yes, I get it. That's your emotional appeal of a motte in the typical motte and bailey "argument". You know you have no leg to stand on by calling it censorship, so you go for an emotional plea instead.
I also don't support a massive industry like Boeing getting off with a paltry fine.
Nobody has ever contested you on this. Continuing to bring it up makes it seem like you're virtue signalling at this stage. Though I guess that's just par for the course for you.
This was my original stance and it still is.
That was your original statement, and still is. Your stance on the matter is that censorship is fine when you get to apply it to topics you find objectionable.
If you feel that compelled speech, self-censorship and outlandish claims without evidence are somehow better or worse than the innocent murder of people in a plane rather than by a gun that's up to you.
What in the fuck are you even talking about? Do you seriously believe that I think Boeing shouldn't be fucking punished for their actions all because I believe Jones shouldn't have been punished for his speech? Are you that fucking delusional, or are you just that entrenched in a spat that you refuse to even try to understand another person?
Nobody was advocating for compelled speech. Nobody was advocating for self-censorship. And I'm still unsure how outlandish claims matter, unless you're referring to Jones and then I have to question how you think this will be enforced through anything less than some kind of Fact Checker™ that deems what is and isn't acceptable to discuss. Is that what you want? You want a Ministry of Truth? Because it seems like you want a Ministry of Truth. And you can call it any other name you want, but it will still be the same thing in function.
I just get to be consistent with my stance despite the going-ons over last weekend whereas you have to consider what free speech leads to in certain individuals and the responsibility which goes with the associated freedoms therein.
I have been consistent, and I haven't had to reconsider anything. You're being awfully presumptuous to assume I'm not steadfast in my beliefs. It's funny though, because you can't even admit that you're in support of censorship. You're so proud of your supposed consistency, but you refuse the label. Maybe it's because like all snakes, you hate it when people identify you for what you are.
EDIT
lol, he blocked me because he got called on his pro censorship stance.
No. It's pathetic how you truly think that I want you punished. It's even worse that you seem to think me seeing you as pathetic could even be comparable to wanting you punished. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you so broken that you want people you disagree with to be punished?
You're unironically up your own ass so far you don't even realise how fucking stupid you sound. You really do believe yourself to be some big brained dipshit, don't you? An unironic midwit. Just pure mediocrity. Unironically shilling for the status quo.
>accuses others of strawman
>blatantly makes up bullshit about hating Trump and worshipping Boeing.
Pretty sad that you're trying to get increasingly outlandish in your claims to try and bait out a reaction that could even loosely be interpreted as me wanting you censored.
Except you're explicitly not supporting freedom of speech and in no way are you pulling the "nobody has to pay attention to you" card, because you're unironically supporting the use of force to silence people. And yes, fines are a threat of force since you either pay or you face the "or else".
You're trying so hard to make me out to be some villain, and you're just not getting the reaction you're after. And all you have to go on is the fact that I'm not virtue signalling support for Trump. That's it. That's all you have. In no way have I shown any support for Biden, or any politician for that matter. But because I'm not engaging in idolatry, clearly it must be a dichotomy because reasons. What reasons? Eh, who knows.
So between the psuedo-intellectualism, the statist idolatry, grasping for labels to use as strawmans and ad hominems, what points do you even have? Your entire point is that you support censorship all so you can bludgeon your political enemies. It's literally "ends justify the means" crap. You're not even pretending you hold any moral ground, it's entirely and totally partisan bullshit, all to the extent that you're tilting at windmills attacking people here because they don't share your totalitarian proclivities.
There's a reason for the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Regardless of your tendencies, I don't think you're evil. I think you're misguided. But you've already made up your mind about me all because I didn't jump through a hoop to engage in idolatry. And it says a lot about you that you're so ready to find enemies that you'll eagerly make them too, even if they're not your enemy.
Yes, I get it. That's your emotional appeal of a motte in the typical motte and bailey "argument". You know you have no leg to stand on by calling it censorship, so you go for an emotional plea instead.
Nobody has ever contested you on this. Continuing to bring it up makes it seem like you're virtue signalling at this stage. Though I guess that's just par for the course for you.
That was your original statement, and still is. Your stance on the matter is that censorship is fine when you get to apply it to topics you find objectionable.
What in the fuck are you even talking about? Do you seriously believe that I think Boeing shouldn't be fucking punished for their actions all because I believe Jones shouldn't have been punished for his speech? Are you that fucking delusional, or are you just that entrenched in a spat that you refuse to even try to understand another person?
Nobody was advocating for compelled speech. Nobody was advocating for self-censorship. And I'm still unsure how outlandish claims matter, unless you're referring to Jones and then I have to question how you think this will be enforced through anything less than some kind of Fact Checker™ that deems what is and isn't acceptable to discuss. Is that what you want? You want a Ministry of Truth? Because it seems like you want a Ministry of Truth. And you can call it any other name you want, but it will still be the same thing in function.
I have been consistent, and I haven't had to reconsider anything. You're being awfully presumptuous to assume I'm not steadfast in my beliefs. It's funny though, because you can't even admit that you're in support of censorship. You're so proud of your supposed consistency, but you refuse the label. Maybe it's because like all snakes, you hate it when people identify you for what you are.
EDIT
lol, he blocked me because he got called on his pro censorship stance.