Please elaborate.
Edit : o7 for your answers comrades!
lmao "free speech" in liberal society has always applied to the right and not the left. Why would I waste my breath defending a right that is only extended by liberals to fascists?
Hello again, Mr. :fedposting: . Please tell Langley they need to train you better.
Instant reply, somebody doesn’t have a job.
We can't all get work at the alphabet agencies. :shrug-outta-hecks:
How big is the can? Can you post one next to your hog for scale?
You know what, just for you, here's a picture of me stacking cans.
There's no cleverness implied you're just a confused lib, lib.
This guy's incompetence is hilarious.
Give up dude. If you were smart enough to pull off what you're trying to pull off, you'd be posting here for real.
Stfu u dumb nazi bitch we all know u want to fuck Hitler
You're right about the two being alike, though, so points for the lib
I hope you snap out of this soon. It'll be hard, and you'll probably still always look back at how you used to think and cringe, but the life on the other side is still worth living.
Look on the bright-side. You're aces at being an asshole. Like really top notch talent
Keep externalizing. Keep those knee jerk clapbacks coming. Would surely be dangerous and traumatic for you to take a second to contemplate where all those negative feelings come from. Why, I daresay that process might even require the assistance of one of those shut down hospitals.
You might be perfect for that job, seeing as you already monitor Russian bear enthusiast forums for free LMAO
Yes, because in our society we don't have it.
Analogy: western "freedom of speech" is like "access to healthcare". Everyone is allowed to speak in the same way that everyone is allowed to have insurance, which is to say that you better have the money to pay for it or your fucked. Speech is even more exclusive than healthcare is, because even if you have enough money to get your message out there, you will almost certainly be doing it via a privately-owned channel, which gives the corporation that owns that channel the opportunity to censor you.
True free speech can only exist in a world where the means of communication exist in the commons, and no private party owns any piece of the communication infrastructure.
Why would any dumbass think free speech is under serious threat when you have screeching hogs freely spouting complete lunacy about masks and vaccines every single day with total impunity outside being banned from social media
hahaha no. the state only enforces it for the right wing to spout genocidal propaganda, while the left continues to be attacked for our speech routinely.
I’m looking for people to define their understanding of it for me, but in particular I am wondering if people on this site are like, “I’m very concerned about freedom of speech!” Which I am finding, is probably just the reactionary way.
Well, I think that a nominal protection of speech is necessary for a government to provide. While I’m a slightly more authoritarian leftist than I was years ago, I still don’t think it’s necessary or beneficial for a country to silence certain forms of dissent. I don’t see this happening in socialist countries anyways, so I’m not too concerned.
Keep in mind "authoritarian" is not "the government doing stuff." That's how it's usually used, so it's an easy trap to fall into.
If "authoritarian" has any worthwhile meaning, it would involve use of power that's arbitrary, unjustified, extreme, or against the public interest. There are many restrictions on speech that don't check these boxes.
As "more central state control." Centralized does not imply arbitrary, unjustified, extreme, or against the public interest. It can often be the opposite of those.
Free speech is a facile concept. It is about as meaningless as the abstract notion of freedom itself. Like Uncle Sam is clocking in overtime at the freedom factory so we can all get our freedoms delivered on time or some shit. If you're pro-free speech you're a nerd. If you're anti-free speech you're a nerd.
It is something which has never existed. People are retaliated against all the motherfucking time for telling their managers, landlords, cops, judges, politicians, and administrators of state institutions where they should stick it. But more often than not, there is no way to prove that the retaliation was a motivated by the victim's expression.
As a legal concept, it is utterly useless in practice. Unless you catch your boss on tape incriminating themselves, you have no recourse. If you have power you have the freedom to do whatever you want. If you don't have power, the state will do nothing to stop powerful people from grinding you into the pavement like a bug. And just as long as it isn't the state's shoe doing it, the libertarians are happy.
In conclusion, political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
A little bit...but my heirarchy of needs has changed considerably. The fetishizing of free speech is fundamentally idealistic in that it believes that prioritizing free speech and the flow of ideas above all else will inevitably lead to better outcomes.
As someone who is now materialist I say to you: there is no greater guarantee of free speech than to prioritize and universally guarantee life, food, water, shelter, and respectable standards of living. If those things are fundamentally guaranteed....with what shall they threaten your speech?
Yes if it is denied to us and no if it is denied to the reactionaries. I am as biased in the opposite direction as a typical 'china watcher' type on twitter, who screeches about the lack of it in PRC, while attempting to get those sympathetic to the place suspended. I support a 'china watcher' being suspended and denounce the suspension of a comrade. I use the concept like it has always been used, as a tool to bludgeon my political enemies whenever convenient. It is quite meaningless to me outside of this use. The concept is a tool and nothing more, I don't believe it has ever existed.
