I really like and respect Carmack but Sam is completely correct here and Carmack has been insulated from the real world now likely about as long as I've been alive.
Free speech was never meant to cover lies. The founding fathers believed strongly in libel and slander laws (which were seen as more civilized to public dueling, the previous way you punished someone for lying about you.) Since libel and slander have become effectively legal, cancel culture is the only thing left.
If we restore free speech to the pre-Sullivan standard, where truth is always a defense and lies are illegal, I'm fine with Carmack's view.
That would be the Christian approach, even though plenty of people here (including Christians) will likely disagree. Civilization has done better the more we structured laws around the 10 commandments. We can't make simple lying illegal, because the government shouldn't have the power to ban any speech before it occurs, but deceit that causes harm is something long thought of as illegal in western tradition, and those kind of laws should be strengthened. Civil law at the very least. Just like no fault divorce and removal of laws against adultery, making it easy to lie has led to moral decay.
Removing the nonsensical "actual malice" standard would go a long way. The current SCOTUS has indicated it is interested in overturning this, but not on behalf of thought criminals like Jared Taylor or Peter Brimlow.
Like the most I'd do if I went full dictator mode to snuff out resistance is take their kids and care/indoctrinate them into becoming my loyal retainers (so essentially the education system minus the degenerate fags), they just went straight to child sexual abuse!
When they preach on how they want to tourture and abuse those you love infront of you because they are 'righteous' they deserve no quarter for they will give you no quarter. The fact that all we are doing is just highlighting that enough for consequences to happen shows how outside of society they truly are when they can't be sheltered.
This isn’t uncommon, the left essentially has two core groups left, the mentally broken (by the left) and the people who still believe legacy media is real. The former are the rabid animals that would laugh if your children were raped, while the latter refuses to believe such people exist, and if they did exist, they would be maga supporters.
And I think the Trump assassination attempt woke up A LOT of that latter group. The mainstream media really hurt themselves too with early reporting it as a 'fall' or 'startled by loud noise' when it was literally livestreamed plus the one time I can say thank god for Elon and X.
This is true for the small subset of retards who post on twitter.
The other 95% are pretty reasonable and if you take them away from the source of influence for.. like.. literally 1 day.. they become instantly reasonable.
It's not that the media has a particular zeal for lying to you.. it's that it has to to capture this group..
On the upside.. it costs them Trillions every year.. it's not sustainable.
It's a hard core of violent radicals who think white people should go extinct and men can get pregnant surrounded by ordinary people who vote Democrat because they vote Democrat and low IQ urban dwellers who have their ballots filled out by community organizers and social workers.
Was that Weimar Germany or current Germany as despite the death camps, human experimentation, using child soldiers near the end of the war and even having some soldiers on meth, I can't remember the Nazis doing that which is strange given how much all their crimes are discussed.
X needs to add functionality on seeing who likes tweets. I know it's too late, but I would want to know the names of the 1186 people who endorsed that horse shit.
I'd simply send them all to the same place the Passenger Pigeon and the Great Auk got sent to.
So that there'd be no risk of someone telling them about what happened to their REAL people down the line. Fuck risking a bunch of Inigo Montoyas 20 years down the line. That's disrespecting YOUR OWN kids.
And human enemies deserve it a lot more than the pigeons and auks did.
Writing this first part solely regarding what Carmack said and before I read what Hyde has written: It's all good claiming to be a "hard core free speech advocate", but as is clear with the example that Grummz pointed out regarding Palmer Lucky being fired, it rings hollow whenever these claims about being a "hard core free speech advocate" is thrown around only when it's regarding the extreme free speech of one side and not the other.
Selective application of such a principle is ultimately a betrayal of that principle. Sure, you didn't actively go against it, but you didn't stand by it either when it should have been stood by. It betrays where a person can ultimately stand on the matter.
And now reading what Sam has said, I don't disagree, and despite that, I still think it's at least important to try and maintain some principles while ending the endless benefit of "the doubt" that these people have been given time and time and time again. The Benefit of The Doubt is to be given on matters of doubt, not where a pattern of behaviour has been shown time and again. I agree with Carmack that these people should ultimately have free speech and not be punished for it, but that doesn't mean their words shouldn't be taken very, very seriously in telling you exactly the kind of people they are and informing you of just what their actions mean. Not punishing a person for their speech and totally disregarding what they say are two different things.
Also, while cancel culture is not exactly nice, it isn't necessarily an instance of censorship either. Freedom of association is also a human right, and nobody is entitled to a job, nor is there any definition where employment is a human right.
There definitely is an argument in favour of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". I'd still prefer to stick by my principles, but I have to admit that it's the most compelling argument out there that these people deserve to be treated how they treat others, and that's not a failing to want it to happen.
If someone hates you and wants you dead, no appeal to their humanity will ever get them to stop using an evil tactic against you. The only way to make them stop is to use it against them, good and hard, until they relent and agree to a ceasefire.
see, this is where it gets sticky. though. If you advocate for freedom of speech for those who want to destroy freedom of speech, are you effectively protecting the principle?
it's their speech advocating for depriving others of their speech specifically.
put it this way. if someone is just an asshole and gets banned, yep, absolutely, defend them. if Harold the Happy Hippy gets on and talks about the "greatness" of communal living, yada yada, sure.
but when someone goes around demanding others be silenced for words they say and then gets hoist by their own petard? sorry, I'm not gonna actively try to get them banned, but I'm not gonna waste time trying to get them unbanned, either...
it's their speech advocating for depriving others of their speech specifically.
And is that speech destroying freedom of speech, or is it their ensuing actions?
but when someone goes around demanding others be silenced for words they say and then gets hoist by their own petard? sorry, I'm not gonna actively try to get them banned, but I'm not gonna waste time trying to get them unbanned, either...
Sure, I can agree with that. I'm not going to shed a tear or waste too much energy on them. But I wouldn't cheer it on, nor advocate for such situations either. A dose of their own medicine is funny, but it's not a principle I'd uphold.
I am going to repeat what I said in a previous post.
Their particular speech is NOT constitutionally protected. The First Amendment does not cover it. Their speech is ACTUALLY illegal because it's a direct call or promotion for violence. As in - the glowies can actually come to your door and haul your ass out for saying something that promotes direct violence against a sitting political official.
The left's version of "hate speech" is Constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
However, the garbage THEY are spewing about wanting to see Trump killed is NOT. It is actually illegal speech, one of the few out there.
You can actually spin this whole thing by accusing companies of promoting laws being broken if they continue to allow their employees to say shit like this, because it is.
In other words, I have no moral qualms about taking the high road. The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced, and because incitement to violence is AGAINST THE LAW and not only that, and promoting peaceful speech is the bedrock of a civilized first nation, I have no problems seeing people lose their livelihoods for PROMOTING VIOLENT RHETORIC.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Freedom of Speech as a Human Right.
The constitution is intended to protect Human Rights, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper.
The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced
That's not a "high road". That's the status quo for most knuckle dragging dipshits. Okay, in this instance you're pro-law enforcement. What's your stance on any number of immoral laws? You pro-enforcement then? You just gonna shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, the law's the law"? The Freedom Convoy in Canada broke some laws. They're getting what's coming, right? What about J6? The response is blown out of proportion, but there were broken laws. You're pro-enforcement there too, right?
To cut to the chase, is this statism, or are you just utilising statism because it's convenient against your enemies?
That's not a principle in my opinion, it's an excuse to break principles as you see fit on a selective basis. Don't like a person? Enemy. Like a person? Friend. Friend did something I don't like? Now they're an enemy!
Part of the issue is that there's too much laxness because politics is filled with friends that don't punish each other. That's why they go after Trump like they have. He's an outsider. Pre-2015, Trump was relatively loved by Democrats. He was literally friends with the Clintons. Then he entered the political domain. And lo-and-behold, the uni-party instantly turned on him. Because he was an outsider.
Good This For Friends Bad Things For Enemies is, funnily enough, a big thing that caused all of this shit. And I don't buy the idea that more of the same will reverse course. That doesn't mean course doesn't need to be reversed, but I do believe things have to get worse to the point that people are actually willing to risk what they have rather than cling to their comforts first. I don't think anything will change until then. Midwits look at censorship and political jailings and love to make the comparisons to 1984, but the reality is far closer to Brave New World where our comforts and relative luxury keep us docile and placated. And I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give up what they have. I certainly don't want to risk my life, my family, or my loved ones either. I completely get it. But it's these ties that keep the problem advancing.
Ah yes, the good ol' conflation of Freedom of Speech with the First Amendment.
I wasn't talking about the First Amendment. I was explicitly talking about the human right to Freedom of Speech. Tell me, is there any other human right that is only considered immoral because the government engages in it? Is slavery worse if it's the government but better if it's private citizens owning or trading people? Is it less evil to be forced to house people if it's a private entity forcing you to relinquish your property?
Yes, everyone has the right to association, and I do hold that in higher accord than freedom of speech. HOWEVER, Freedom of Speech even on an individual level should be strived for, and so eagerly abandoning it is silly and is what has lead to websites like Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc all having direct communications to working with the state to easily and quickly get around these restrictions.
So yes, they have these freedoms. That doesn't mean it should be abused. Just like I also think that any other human right can also be abused, be it screaming in peoples faces, bearing arms against the innocent, or arbitrarily barring people from publicly-accessible private property. You have the freedom. It doesn't make it instantly right to do so.
I don't understand half of Sam's stuff (like whatever fishtank.live is supposed to be) but the guy is brilliant. Also delivered the best Ted talk in history.
As far as I can tell it's a camera that Sam decides to point at himself for a few hours while he's browsing the internet, there's a random mute zoomer sitting next to him like a gargoyle for some reason, and people are wandering in and out of the room. What exactly is going on? Are the zoomers getting paid or something?
Oh, as far as I can tell, they've had issues with this season of the show, so they have to resort to what you describe. Last season it was an actual reality show where a bunch or freaks and geeks hung out in a house and Sam would fuck with them for awhile.
Everyone is a hypocrite and people who act like free speech absolutists are some of the worst. There have to be lines of commonly accepted behavior, not just in polite society but very basic standards. Everyone has standards. If someone claims they don't want any standards enforced they are either lying to you, or the behavior they are defending (i.e. endorsing the brutal murder of a presidential candidate on live tv) isn't all that bad to them. The only question is where is that line set?
I don't even get why people are calling this "cancel culture", which was always a misnomer but that's beside the point. No I don't want normal people to lose the ability to work or have bank accounts frozen for spicy opinions and jokes expressed in their own free time. What the fuck does that have to do with this? I only want violent degenerate communists to suffer. You cannot share a society with them.
I really like and respect Carmack but Sam is completely correct here and Carmack has been insulated from the real world now likely about as long as I've been alive.
Free speech was never meant to cover lies. The founding fathers believed strongly in libel and slander laws (which were seen as more civilized to public dueling, the previous way you punished someone for lying about you.) Since libel and slander have become effectively legal, cancel culture is the only thing left.
If we restore free speech to the pre-Sullivan standard, where truth is always a defense and lies are illegal, I'm fine with Carmack's view.
That would be the Christian approach, even though plenty of people here (including Christians) will likely disagree. Civilization has done better the more we structured laws around the 10 commandments. We can't make simple lying illegal, because the government shouldn't have the power to ban any speech before it occurs, but deceit that causes harm is something long thought of as illegal in western tradition, and those kind of laws should be strengthened. Civil law at the very least. Just like no fault divorce and removal of laws against adultery, making it easy to lie has led to moral decay.
Removing the nonsensical "actual malice" standard would go a long way. The current SCOTUS has indicated it is interested in overturning this, but not on behalf of thought criminals like Jared Taylor or Peter Brimlow.
Don't forget the modern option to shop for Judges of your personal persuasion.
THE FUCK?!?!
Like the most I'd do if I went full dictator mode to snuff out resistance is take their kids and care/indoctrinate them into becoming my loyal retainers (so essentially the education system minus the degenerate fags), they just went straight to child sexual abuse!
When they preach on how they want to tourture and abuse those you love infront of you because they are 'righteous' they deserve no quarter for they will give you no quarter. The fact that all we are doing is just highlighting that enough for consequences to happen shows how outside of society they truly are when they can't be sheltered.
This isn’t uncommon, the left essentially has two core groups left, the mentally broken (by the left) and the people who still believe legacy media is real. The former are the rabid animals that would laugh if your children were raped, while the latter refuses to believe such people exist, and if they did exist, they would be maga supporters.
And I think the Trump assassination attempt woke up A LOT of that latter group. The mainstream media really hurt themselves too with early reporting it as a 'fall' or 'startled by loud noise' when it was literally livestreamed plus the one time I can say thank god for Elon and X.
This is true for the small subset of retards who post on twitter.
The other 95% are pretty reasonable and if you take them away from the source of influence for.. like.. literally 1 day.. they become instantly reasonable.
It's not that the media has a particular zeal for lying to you.. it's that it has to to capture this group..
On the upside.. it costs them Trillions every year.. it's not sustainable.
It's a hard core of violent radicals who think white people should go extinct and men can get pregnant surrounded by ordinary people who vote Democrat because they vote Democrat and low IQ urban dwellers who have their ballots filled out by community organizers and social workers.
Never forget that Germany actually DID "take their kids and molest them," by the way. Sam is right.
Was that Weimar Germany or current Germany as despite the death camps, human experimentation, using child soldiers near the end of the war and even having some soldiers on meth, I can't remember the Nazis doing that which is strange given how much all their crimes are discussed.
1970s Germany.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/germany-s-secret-paedophilia-experiment-1.2897942
All I will say about the rest of your post is that Germany under communist occupation will offer lots of insight into that particular time period.
um...
...it wasn't just the soldiers... pretty much the whole country was high as a kite on meth...
It's been mostly wiped from the 'net last I checked, but it's very real.
https://archive.is/Sokts
X needs to add functionality on seeing who likes tweets. I know it's too late, but I would want to know the names of the 1186 people who endorsed that horse shit.
I'd simply send them all to the same place the Passenger Pigeon and the Great Auk got sent to.
So that there'd be no risk of someone telling them about what happened to their REAL people down the line. Fuck risking a bunch of Inigo Montoyas 20 years down the line. That's disrespecting YOUR OWN kids.
And human enemies deserve it a lot more than the pigeons and auks did.
we are in camps.. but at least we took the high road!..its almost as retarded as i got raped, but at least im anti-racist.
its self-destructive.
Writing this first part solely regarding what Carmack said and before I read what Hyde has written: It's all good claiming to be a "hard core free speech advocate", but as is clear with the example that Grummz pointed out regarding Palmer Lucky being fired, it rings hollow whenever these claims about being a "hard core free speech advocate" is thrown around only when it's regarding the extreme free speech of one side and not the other.
Selective application of such a principle is ultimately a betrayal of that principle. Sure, you didn't actively go against it, but you didn't stand by it either when it should have been stood by. It betrays where a person can ultimately stand on the matter.
And now reading what Sam has said, I don't disagree, and despite that, I still think it's at least important to try and maintain some principles while ending the endless benefit of "the doubt" that these people have been given time and time and time again. The Benefit of The Doubt is to be given on matters of doubt, not where a pattern of behaviour has been shown time and again. I agree with Carmack that these people should ultimately have free speech and not be punished for it, but that doesn't mean their words shouldn't be taken very, very seriously in telling you exactly the kind of people they are and informing you of just what their actions mean. Not punishing a person for their speech and totally disregarding what they say are two different things.
Also, while cancel culture is not exactly nice, it isn't necessarily an instance of censorship either. Freedom of association is also a human right, and nobody is entitled to a job, nor is there any definition where employment is a human right.
I think I agree with tim pool on this one; these people don't want freedom of speech, whiy should we force it on them?
There definitely is an argument in favour of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". I'd still prefer to stick by my principles, but I have to admit that it's the most compelling argument out there that these people deserve to be treated how they treat others, and that's not a failing to want it to happen.
If someone hates you and wants you dead, no appeal to their humanity will ever get them to stop using an evil tactic against you. The only way to make them stop is to use it against them, good and hard, until they relent and agree to a ceasefire.
see, this is where it gets sticky. though. If you advocate for freedom of speech for those who want to destroy freedom of speech, are you effectively protecting the principle?
Is their freedom of speech the thing that is destroying freedom of speech, or is it their actions?
it's their speech advocating for depriving others of their speech specifically.
put it this way. if someone is just an asshole and gets banned, yep, absolutely, defend them. if Harold the Happy Hippy gets on and talks about the "greatness" of communal living, yada yada, sure.
but when someone goes around demanding others be silenced for words they say and then gets hoist by their own petard? sorry, I'm not gonna actively try to get them banned, but I'm not gonna waste time trying to get them unbanned, either...
And is that speech destroying freedom of speech, or is it their ensuing actions?
Sure, I can agree with that. I'm not going to shed a tear or waste too much energy on them. But I wouldn't cheer it on, nor advocate for such situations either. A dose of their own medicine is funny, but it's not a principle I'd uphold.
I am going to repeat what I said in a previous post.
Their particular speech is NOT constitutionally protected. The First Amendment does not cover it. Their speech is ACTUALLY illegal because it's a direct call or promotion for violence. As in - the glowies can actually come to your door and haul your ass out for saying something that promotes direct violence against a sitting political official.
The left's version of "hate speech" is Constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
However, the garbage THEY are spewing about wanting to see Trump killed is NOT. It is actually illegal speech, one of the few out there.
You can actually spin this whole thing by accusing companies of promoting laws being broken if they continue to allow their employees to say shit like this, because it is.
In other words, I have no moral qualms about taking the high road. The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced, and because incitement to violence is AGAINST THE LAW and not only that, and promoting peaceful speech is the bedrock of a civilized first nation, I have no problems seeing people lose their livelihoods for PROMOTING VIOLENT RHETORIC.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Freedom of Speech as a Human Right.
The constitution is intended to protect Human Rights, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper.
That's not a "high road". That's the status quo for most knuckle dragging dipshits. Okay, in this instance you're pro-law enforcement. What's your stance on any number of immoral laws? You pro-enforcement then? You just gonna shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, the law's the law"? The Freedom Convoy in Canada broke some laws. They're getting what's coming, right? What about J6? The response is blown out of proportion, but there were broken laws. You're pro-enforcement there too, right?
To cut to the chase, is this statism, or are you just utilising statism because it's convenient against your enemies?
The most vital principle of all is "good things for friends, bad things for enemies" and a very close second is "my values aren't a suicide note".
That's not a principle in my opinion, it's an excuse to break principles as you see fit on a selective basis. Don't like a person? Enemy. Like a person? Friend. Friend did something I don't like? Now they're an enemy!
Part of the issue is that there's too much laxness because politics is filled with friends that don't punish each other. That's why they go after Trump like they have. He's an outsider. Pre-2015, Trump was relatively loved by Democrats. He was literally friends with the Clintons. Then he entered the political domain. And lo-and-behold, the uni-party instantly turned on him. Because he was an outsider.
Good This For Friends Bad Things For Enemies is, funnily enough, a big thing that caused all of this shit. And I don't buy the idea that more of the same will reverse course. That doesn't mean course doesn't need to be reversed, but I do believe things have to get worse to the point that people are actually willing to risk what they have rather than cling to their comforts first. I don't think anything will change until then. Midwits look at censorship and political jailings and love to make the comparisons to 1984, but the reality is far closer to Brave New World where our comforts and relative luxury keep us docile and placated. And I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give up what they have. I certainly don't want to risk my life, my family, or my loved ones either. I completely get it. But it's these ties that keep the problem advancing.
Didn't read past the first sentence, keep the retard babble to yourself next time.
Ah yes, the good ol' conflation of Freedom of Speech with the First Amendment.
I wasn't talking about the First Amendment. I was explicitly talking about the human right to Freedom of Speech. Tell me, is there any other human right that is only considered immoral because the government engages in it? Is slavery worse if it's the government but better if it's private citizens owning or trading people? Is it less evil to be forced to house people if it's a private entity forcing you to relinquish your property?
Yes, everyone has the right to association, and I do hold that in higher accord than freedom of speech. HOWEVER, Freedom of Speech even on an individual level should be strived for, and so eagerly abandoning it is silly and is what has lead to websites like Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc all having direct communications to working with the state to easily and quickly get around these restrictions.
So yes, they have these freedoms. That doesn't mean it should be abused. Just like I also think that any other human right can also be abused, be it screaming in peoples faces, bearing arms against the innocent, or arbitrarily barring people from publicly-accessible private property. You have the freedom. It doesn't make it instantly right to do so.
I don't understand half of Sam's stuff (like whatever fishtank.live is supposed to be) but the guy is brilliant. Also delivered the best Ted talk in history.
What's not to get with fishtank? It's just an excuse to gawk at weirdos
As far as I can tell it's a camera that Sam decides to point at himself for a few hours while he's browsing the internet, there's a random mute zoomer sitting next to him like a gargoyle for some reason, and people are wandering in and out of the room. What exactly is going on? Are the zoomers getting paid or something?
Oh, as far as I can tell, they've had issues with this season of the show, so they have to resort to what you describe. Last season it was an actual reality show where a bunch or freaks and geeks hung out in a house and Sam would fuck with them for awhile.
Oh okay, that makes more sense.
But have you considered voting a little bit harder?
Everyone is a hypocrite and people who act like free speech absolutists are some of the worst. There have to be lines of commonly accepted behavior, not just in polite society but very basic standards. Everyone has standards. If someone claims they don't want any standards enforced they are either lying to you, or the behavior they are defending (i.e. endorsing the brutal murder of a presidential candidate on live tv) isn't all that bad to them. The only question is where is that line set?
I don't even get why people are calling this "cancel culture", which was always a misnomer but that's beside the point. No I don't want normal people to lose the ability to work or have bank accounts frozen for spicy opinions and jokes expressed in their own free time. What the fuck does that have to do with this? I only want violent degenerate communists to suffer. You cannot share a society with them.
Had no idea Cormack leaned right. Of course, he's a Cuckservative. He wants to keep the establishment as is as he has benefited from it.