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.

I kind of feel sorry for him, though maybe I'm being naive and believing that at one point he might have been genuine on some level and it was the later flipping and flopping and constant chasing after attention that led to stupider and stupider stunts. Like at one point he was genuine and that managed to lead to some legitimate positive attention, but as that started to wane he wasn't happy with a smaller but loyal following and did stupid shit to try and continue having a larger audience. And each time it backfired and each time it effected him more and more until he just became this sad, pathetic, mentally ill dumbass, so much so that he would fake cancer.

Though maybe I'm grasping at straws and hoping because the alternative of him always being like this but with a disguise is just depressing and sad.

As is his right

If you believe a person should be punished, you do not believe it to be their right. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights.

See you at the next Westboro Baptist meetup at that dead solder's funeral.

You're the one holding the "God hates fags" sign, right?

Can't attack the points, so you'll make up actual strawmen to try and attack a character you think I embody. But it's funny that you bring up, out of literally nowhere, actual unironic grifters that rely on overly emotional dipshits to attack them so they can get a payday.

Damn right I stand by there being a punitive measure for his actions. Words through a bullhorn in the town of a massacre saying it's fake within a week of the deaths of those children is more than words. It's action and if we let everyone get away with this stuff then we'd let the streets be aflame because of a perceived injustice towards a man who died while being arrested because of some phone footage.

Can you actually define what that "action" is? It's not even incitement, one of the few legs that pro-censorship types love to trot out to try and defend their calls for unapologetic censorship. Or is it just Different™?

Tell me, what's your stance on Snowden and Assange? Surely they're far more evil than Jones. After all, your concern is about supposedly causing harm, and maintaining a comfortable lie is far less dangerous than exposing harmful truths, right? Or again, is it Different™? And if it is Different™, is it purely based in emotional calls? So long as enough people have an emotional reaction, we can censor with glee? I mean, truth has played zero basis in your rationale.

What's next, you gonna say "It's just a prank brah!"?

Whew lad, you got any more of them opinions someone else fed to you? Any more slogans to churn out?

Again, it's funny how you have to try and attack character traits that YOU assert I have. Meanwhile, all I have to do is point out your ardent support of censorship because of hurt feelings and that's it.

So fuck it. You're not going to budge, I'm not going to budge. In the end, it simply comes down to you supporting a comfortable censorship rather than having to ignore a dipshit.

I also have the right to say he's been far too over-punished for his words

Do I have a typing stutter or something?

Your original and followup comment said nothing of the sort. In fact, it was entirely justifications the fines he faced, only stating that Boeing should face worse, not that Jones faced an injustice.

And what's more is that you're not trying to defend calling Jones a scumbag. Nobody cares if you call him a lying, retarded, cock-gobbler with a penchant for crossdressing amputee midgets. Nobody gives two shits about that, and you know it. You were defending the fines he faced. That he deserved punishment for spoken word and unpopular opinions. Unkind opinions, sure. But that's all they were. Opinions. By all metrics, it's censorship. Censorship that you support.

There was no stutter. You made yourself clear: You don't like him, and don't care if he faces punishments regardless of whether he actually deserves it on a principled matter. You're just not liking that it's not getting the traction you thought it would.

Always will be too. States seek self preservation over principles stances. And any state that manages to be created with the principles first (Like the USA) will inevitably come to a point when the state will have to face those principles or abandon those principles to preserve itself at the cost of the people.

Ouch. That's such a massive cope. The minute you have to bring up "Well I'm soooooo successful", you just know that they feel a lack of fulfilment in their work.

Also Mikhaila, does that change the validity about what's being said? Is it any less right or wrong? You'd think someone that posits they're extremely successful would be intelligent enough to know to let it go. Also also, I've only seen Mikhaila's side to this. I couldn't give two shits about "Muh Joos", yet her behaviour has painted a very clear picture of who she ultimately is.

Maybe Alex Jones should have pointed his ire at Boeing instead of grieving parents through a bullhorn in the town were their little ones were gunned down.

Interesting. Any other cases where people must conform to the approved message? And who exactly sets what is and isn't the approved message? Do you also support the prosecution of people who were at the capitol on Jan 6? How about the Canadian Freedom Convoy? Or is that Different™? Hell, let's move away from the politics, what about shit like OJ Simpson. Do you think he did it? Careful, the state decided he was innocent, and speaking out against that might hurt some feelings.

Jones is a bit of a nut, but remember, you're justifying and defending a $2.7 TRILLION fine for hurting some feelings. Dick move? Sure, regardless of where you stand on it. Deserving of a completely insane fine to try and make an example out of him for his anti-state views? Is that really the hill you want to perch your flag on? The one that's pro-state approved messages?

Okay, and that pertains to this in what way? You don't like her, so censorship over migrants raping women is fine? Or is it just that you dislike her so much that that takes greater importance than migrant rapists? What are you trying to convey here?

Won't happen. Laws are for plebs, not for those that assist the state.

the customer is always right.

I heard you, you were just being yet another retard quoting half a quote to try and throw their weight around.

The full quote is "the customer is always right in matters of taste". In other words the customer knows what they want, but they rarely have the knowledge or expertise to achieve it, hence why they go and purchase it.

Besides, even the incomplete quote isn't about some fool being able to walk in and spout off whatever crap they want, it's about the invisible hand of the market, in that the customer knows what they want and if you were to try to sell something the customer doesn't want, it won't sell. The reality is that the vast, vast majority aren't just okay with but actively enjoy crowd cam moments. It's interactivity during down-time. Not everyone is an anti-social introvert, and clearly the market has long since embraced the crowd cam.