Lenin the God on "freedom of criticism"

[southpawstyle]

This place was never Christian.

Isn't that convenient for you.

 

[thekingsmen]

Isn't that convenient for you.

Is it? Or is it because I did the research that proves it isnt.

 

[southpawstyle]

Is it? Or is it because I did the research that proves it isnt.

You earned that hall of shame banner because you lack the capability to do real research. You and Napoleon are on he same level. Commit that

 

[thekingsmen]

You earned that hall of shame banner because you lack the capability to do real research. You and Napoleon are on he same level. Commit that

you cant debate so you name call. This is your southpaw style...

Now go along and play in the street child. Comeback when you can disprove what i said.

 

[Maschine_Man]

Your freedom to be racist should not hold back scientific evidence and the advancement of humanity.

And your posts generally read like a fence walking contrarian Jr. Paralegal

Freedom to say stupid shyt doesn't mean you are free from repercussions. Once you anti free speech dudes realize this the better everyone will be.

 

[Maschine_Man]

The concept of freedom of speech is loaded bullshyt.
It gives "equal footing" to outrageous, libelous, completely false, bigoted, and otherwise mind-numbingly claims and rational, truthful claims, under the guise that "everyone should have a voice" and that evidence can convince.
This is simply not the case, the rights of my people should not have equal footing with the claims of fascists.

Yes, everyone should be free to say whatever they want with equal footing, saying otherwise is fascist like.

Now, WHAT ppl say is different, but being able to say it is completely different. You dudes need to stop conflating those two completely separate issues.

 

[Maschine_Man]

Science has no agenda. Special interests have agendas and obfuscate science as a way to keeping outdated systems in place. It's the reason coal jobs are still taken into consideration even though the industry employs less people than Arbys. Because we give a platform to everyone with an opinion regardless of the validity.

This is the reason white nationalist Trump supporters have resorted to "free speech rallies" that are essentially racist circle jerks. It is a backlash to the (admittedly symbolic) women's and science marches that have taken place. "All Lives Matter" is an example of regressive freedom of speech that could be reasonably dealt with if the media cared about real journalism instead of click bait headlines and sensationalism.

Have you ever seen a science experiment or met a scientist? Of course science has an agenda. Every scientist has an agenda. Which is why bias is such a problem in science.

A separate point, also, is how ppl can skew scientific results in order to push agendas....again, something which happens all the time.

 

[BocaRear]

I don't support freedom of speech when it turns into inciting hatred or violence.

"Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old. The cry heard today, “Long live freedom of criticism”, is too strongly reminiscent of the fable of the empty barrel."

Lenin is right "freedom" is often used in a very subversive manner.

For instance should people be free to discriminate minorities or homosexuals if they are private business owners?

Under that same rationale, southern states should be free to continue to practice Jim Crow.

Those who argue for complete and utter freedom are ignorant.

 

[Maschine_Man]

I don't support freedom of speech when it turns into inciting hatred or violence.

"Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old. The cry heard today, “Long live freedom of criticism”, is too strongly reminiscent of the fable of the empty barrel."

Lenin is right "freedom" is often used in a very subversive manner.

For instance should people be free to discriminate minorities or homosexuals if they are private business owners?

Under that same rationale, southern states should be free to continue to practice Jim Crow.

Those who argue for complete and utter freedom are ignorant.

you can't pick and choose when you support freedom of speech. It's either you support it or you don't.

should people be free to discriminate in their own private businesses? sure, why not. Let that business suffer from being ignorant and closed minded.
this is what I don't think you people understand, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to choose, freedom to support DOES NOT mean that you are free from repercussions.

 

[BocaRear]

you can't pick and choose when you support freedom of speech. It's either you support it or you don't.

should people be free to discriminate in their own private businesses? sure, why not. Let that business suffer from being ignorant and closed minded.
this is what I don't think you people understand, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to choose, freedom to support DOES NOT mean that you are free from repercussions.

The repercussions for inciting violence/hatred and engaging in discriminatory practices should be punitive measures.

You argue that the discriminatory business will fail, however that's not always the case. That's the problem with this free market place of ideas, it assumes that the BEST ideas will always come out on top which is fundamentally untrue and naive to anybody that has studied history.

This is why I believe there should be a more authoritarian stance regarding the defence of some civil liberties.

The Weimar era in pre-nazi Germany was the most progressive and liberal society of its day. It welcomed the free market place of ideas WHOLELY and even entrenched the ideas of proportional representation to ensure that all ideologies were represented within the reichstag. You know what happened to this bastion of free speech and liberalism? Well as a result of the Great Depression people were driven to vote for the Nazis within the "free market place of ideas".

The assumption that the truth will always win in a completely open society of free speech is wrong.

 

[Maschine_Man]

The repercussions for inciting violence/hatred and engaging in discriminatory practices should be punitive measures.

but here in lies the problem...who makes those decisions? who decides whats punitive or not? We all know how shytty the legal system is now, you want to give them more powers? nah.

You argue that the discriminatory business will fail, however that's not always the case. That's the problem with this free market place of ideas, it assumes that the BEST ideas will always come out on top which is fundamentally untrue and naive to anybody that has studied history.

I didn't say anything about failing. i set let them suffer with the actions of their choices. if business decide to cut out half their clientele because they want to discriminate let them. economics shows that that opens up a market for someone else to step in and fill that void. I also don't care about subjectivity like what is "best" or not. Let the economy decide. People will support them or not, and they will either change or not. no skin off my back.

This is why I believe there should be a more authoritarian stance regarding the defence of some civil liberties.

LMAO, you think this government needs MORE power? you think we need to have more ppl flexing non objective ideas and bullshyt? you can't be serious?

The Weimar era in pre-nazi Germany was the most progressive and liberal society of its day. It welcomed the free market place of ideas WHOLELY and even entrenched the ideas of proportional representation to ensure that all ideologies were represented within the reichstag. You know what happened to this bastion of free speech and liberalism? Well as a result of the Great Depression people were driven to vote for the Nazis within the "free market place of ideas".

Yea....thats not what happened.

The assumption that the truth will always win in a completely open society of free speech is wrong.

I don't care about the truth winning. I care about free speech staying free. your problem is that you want people to play mommy and daddy. You want people to police other people and police what they say. the problem is that the moment you give that power to someone that is the moment you lose it forever.

naw bruh. Ppl should be free to say what they want. let society sort it out.

 

[southpawstyle]

I don't care about the truth winning. I care about free speech staying free. your problem is that you want people to play mommy and daddy. You want people to police other people and police what they say. the problem is that the moment you give that power to someone that is the moment you lose it forever.

naw bruh. Ppl should be free to say what they want. let society sort it out.

Would you rather have had slavery go on a little longer if a slave owner had issues he wanted to discuss first?

 

[iFightSeagullsForBread]

I was never a Free Speech absolutists myself

 

[Maschine_Man]

Would you rather have had slavery go on a little longer if a slave owner had issues he wanted to discuss first?

what?

in what world does anything you just wrote make any sense to the topic at hand?

 

[southpawstyle]

what?

in what world does anything you just wrote make any sense to the topic at hand?

You said you don't care about the truth winning. Slavery ending was the truth winning. If a slave master said they had a reasonable opinion on slavery that should be heard before it was abolished would you rather listen to that opinion or end slavery without letting him talk?