People here love to believe that Australia is now a free nation, but they forget that our roots was a prison colony and that the people running the show were jailors. And the reason this is important is because there was never a revolution. We never even tried to strip away these roots. Australia as a nation is literally built upon penal colony law.
The politicians of yesterday were jailors and the politicians of today follow in that tradition. It's why Australia is so strongly a paternalistic nanny state.
Every study I've seen has shown that pre-pubescent "trans kids" overwhelmingly grow out of it. Even the lowest rate was showing 60% were desisting after puberty, and it was an outlier. Most were high 80% to low 90%. And frankly, I'm not convinced on those that continued. I think the vast majority are just stuck in the sunk cost mentality and continuing with it rather than accept the massive mistake they've made.
And that's presuming that transgenderism isn't just a massive mental illness (it absolutely is).
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.
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?
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.
Is their freedom of speech the thing that is destroying freedom of speech, or is it their actions?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
You really are that deeply wounded by words, aren't you? You tried to put a gotcha out there and it failed miserably. Now you're grasping at more straws to try and make me out to be the immoral one.
Biden's words are the least of my concerns with regards to whether or not he should be punished. The fact you're getting hung up on his words and not his actions is pretty funny. The man is a career politician with a bunch of suspicious ties going back half a century, but the real thing that crosses your line is best interpretation a poor choice of words in retrospect and worst interpretation was coded language (and my money is closer to the latter than the former, but that becomes complicity with arranging a hit, rather than an issue of speech, not that you'd understand basic nuance like that).
Though now you'll probably try and say that conspiracy (as in the act of conspiring) is ackchewallie just free speech and that's why we need censorship (but we can't call it censorship because it's the double plus good kind of censorship).
Are you annoyed that Thomas Crooks missed?
No. But it seems like you're happy he took the shot. Who cares that an innocent man is dead when you get to have a martyr that you can use to try and bludgeon people in a pithy internet argument. That's some really, really sad shit. And you're trying to take the high-ground regarding Jones? Really?
Except in the vast majority of cases, being homeless absolutely is a result of their direct life choices. It's not a comfortable realisation, but the reality is that most people have more control over their circumstances than they want to admit. And it's so uncomfortable because it places mediocrity as your own damn fault.
It kind of is amazing how the right continually has the means to enact violence, and yet it's more often the left that engages in these kinds of antics and riots and generalised violence. And what's sad is that these freaks truly believe they're innocent and the right is guilty. It's not an act. These people are that delusional.
Yes, you're free to be an asshole. I know, it's such a shocking revelation that freedom involves the freedom to do things I personally don't like.
Just because you're a fragile little turd that wants to punish people that are mean doesn't mean others are. Some people have these things called principles that we stick by, even when it's not entirely comfortable or convenient. Must really suck being so strongly controlled by fleeting emotions.
Plenty of people saying Starship Troopers, so I'll go with a different answer: I wouldn't mind a Gateway film. I don't know if it could adequately work as a film, but I wouldn't hate it. That said, even trying to avoid modern day garbage would be difficult considering Pohl was an unashamed capitalism bashing leftist back then too. Still, I think it could be an interesting adaptation.
To be fair, I think that's due to two main factors.
The first being the type of show SG1 was: largely self-contained episodic monster-of-the-week. They need their new team member up and running as quick as possible. Remember, this was the early 2000s, TV didn't really lean into the strong ongoing story until roughly early 2010s. And yeah, there were obviously exceptions, but it was rarer for the time, especially in sci-fi.
And secondly is that we did only get him for 1 season. That leaves very little room to develop his character all that much without focusing too much on him. The only main characters that would be comparable would be Cameron and Vala, the latter of which was directly related to a core story point with regards to the Ori (and hence got more attention to flesh out her character), and the former was a bit of a Gary Stu himself, though he had that extra season (and 2 films) to help flesh him out more than Jonas ever got.
My privacy isn't censorship, you deranged fuckwit. Compelled speech, like you're trying to insist upon, is also immoral too.
Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human rights. You have done nothing to change my opinion on that. And the fact that you think privacy is the same as exerting force against another to prevent their freedom of speech is honestly concerning. And I do mean concerning as in I'm starting to believe you need legitimate help.
This is the problem with statists. You simply don't understand the basic concept of freedom. A right is not something a person needs to exert at all times. That's why it's a freedom. It comes with the choice to exert that right if they so choose, and not from the choices of others like yourself. And statists love to use these weird threats (even in a hypothetical) to justify why their other immoral injustices are actually good. It's the grand old "comply so I don't have to hit you" tactic. I feel sorry for you, and I hope you get better.
inb4 "you didn't give your deets, therefore you know you're wrong", even though I addressed the point you poorly tried to make.
What's that about a strawman argument being used again?
What's the strawman here? That I think you're retarded and should be dismissed, or that you're trolling and should be dismissed? That's not a strawman. It's an ad hominem if anything. Except it wasn't in lieu of an argument, making it merely an insult, rather than a logical fallacy.
Alec done goofed. He said something that would rightfully get him a smack in the mouth by a law abiding citizen (As has been allowed on many occasions by the law).
Interesting. So you're operating off the Fighting Words Doctrine, is that it? That's very funny. Also, I don't care if it was enshrined in law since the founding of England, let alone America. Law is not morality, and only a moronic statist would make such an inference.
the social contract
Talking of moronic statists......
The Social Contract is a retarded term used by retards to justify their use of force against elements they personally dislike. It's almost exclusively used for an "ends justify the means" argument.
Jones was being a dick and punishing him stops others from doing so
Yes, that is how censorship works. Tell me, why is it that you see government as a paternal figure intended to shape and mould people? That force is merely a tool to be exerted upon people should they engage in freedom in a way you disapprove?
You're putting in a LOT of effort here to justify censorship, but nothing to disprove your support of censorship. See how that would lead to people believe you're a censorious cunt?
He was certainly over-punished to the degree of farcical
And this is the problem. You have zero issue with censorship. Your only complaint is that the sentence was too harsh, not that there shouldn't have been a sentence in the first place. You're fine with censorship, you just don't like the totalitarian imagery that comes along with it.
Boeing did actually knowingly murder people and deserve an actual punishment instead of their farcical slap on the wrists which will be absorbed into their profit margins.
Don't care. We agree Boeing has gotten a slap on the wrist for their criminal negligence. It's irrelevant to the point that this has move into, which is your ardent and unwavering support of censorship.
All I see here is commies winning (Hiding behind capitalism).
You're unironically supporting censorship. You have no room to talk about "commies winning" with a statist belief like that.
Let people defend themselves. Stop protecting criminals. It will do a fuckton to help the overcrowding.
You know, this sentiment might hold a little bit of value as a roundabout way of wanting to avoid outright conflict. And I can somewhat get behind that, or at the very least understand the desire for such a stance.
But it rings hollow when you look at and assess the mountains and mountains and mountains of violence that has occurred and has increased over the past decade or so, with the VAST majority of it coming from the left. What does JP think all the fucking riots have been if not violence? What does he believe compelled speech is if not a threat of violence?
It's an uncomfortable truth that people don't want to accept but if it's just to resist unjust laws, then all laws are ultimately a threat of violence, even minor fines.
Most people are fine with violence. They hate resistance.
instead of using scepticism to question your own positions on the matter (As is your right).
Either you're a moron, or you've switched to trolling rather than actually engaging in the point because you have no ground to stand on as a pro-censorship turd.
But I must admit, I sometimes can't help myself with bait: try avoiding your pretentious vernacular and affinity for verbosity, and explain yourself. And if it wasn't clear, explain yourself clearly in normal english instead of vague allusions to evolution and predetermined conversational manipulations. Walk me through it like I were a toddler, because clearly there's a disconnect between a person having the right, the unlimited freedom, of speech, and then having to face repercussions for exerting such a right. It flies in the very face of what a right is, and shifts into a privilege, one that is granted at that.
A want is not a right. You would not be denying me anything.
This is just further cementing the idea that you fundamentally do not understand what a right is.
No they wouldn't. Australia is already incredibly docile compared to other nations. And when Americans did nothing after an assassination attempt on a former president, can you really believe that there's any number of people who will suddenly "rise up"?
People as a whole really, REALLY need to learn one thing: For people to "rise up", things have to get much, MUCH worse. I don't support Accelerationism, but there is one undeniable truth there that people will do nothing until it gets worse. People need to get to a stage where life is so shit that risking what they have got is worth it. Because currently, we don't have it so bad that we're willing to risk our homes, our loved ones, our lives. Shit's bad, but it's peanuts in comparison to the risk of what we could lose.
You want to know why people don't burn it down? Because we're complacent with what we currently have, and don't know how bad it can get. And until it gets that bad, people won't stand up to prevent it.