Non-Country An Arguement of Free Speech

[SSj_Ness]

holy shit lmao what a meltdown

> Has repeatedly whined about his "meaning" being changed by the removal of a few words.
> Gets shown a demonstration of how far he'll go out of butt-hurt but tries to turn that around and call it "Crying about stickers."

Go fuck yourself faggot.

Do a flip

 

[fag0t]

people do take their reddit points seriously its not a big assumption to make

 

[Chrysler Building]

But then, I'm trying to reason with a guy who came here, saw someone calling out his mental gymnastics, and proceeded to go through my posting history just so he could neg-rate everything I've said so far.... because one response offended him. Isn't that what you kiwis call "seething" and "butthurt?" And something you usually make fun of other people for doing?

He is a redditor of course he loves stickers

Quote his exact words, in context.

This is dumb but okay.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1577500016494903298

MW: "Fact three: girls between the ages of like 17 and 24 is when they're technically most fertile, okay? That's biological, that's a fact, alright I'm just stating facts, that's all I'm doing. But what happened recently, and this is the fourth fact, recently in the last thirty years or so, we decided that that's way too young to start a family."

"Why? Divorce rates would probably go up, and once you're that young you can't really make sure that you know--

"Girls were getting married early and marriages were lasting longer, you very rarely hear about these relationships that go to their diamond anniversary, your fiftieth anniversary, and all this. They're a dying breed of people out there--"

MW: "And those are all people who got married while they were pretty young... because they got married when they were teenagers! So what I'm saying is that the problem is not per se teenage pregnancy its unwed pregnancy. That's the problem in society! It's only problematic when you're not married and you don't have a man there to help take care of the kids."

>bequeathed by creator
>US defines rights
pick one

No point as I'm not a Europoor or a monkey.

Fact is the government decides what rights you do and do not have. The fact is that currently the corrupt liberal government says drag queens have the right to twerk half-naked in front of kids, that doctors have the right to mutilate children, and that propagandizing transgenderism to them are sacred civil rights. We need a decent government which restricts all of that, speech included.

Governments can't even restrict marijuana sales, they can't stop chinks from getting outside the Great Firewall of Chyna. You are not just morally wrong, you are retarded

It's certainly not, I agree...because under many circumstances you can't buy guns from a store. Even when you can, you have restrictions on what kind, how you use them, etc.

Only if you're a pussy. 3d printer go brrrrr

Free speech absolutism is retarded and doesn't exist anywhere, and never has, nor will it ever; neither can you make a good argument for it. Bad speech must be restricted, it just depends on how a society and therefore its government defines good and bad. We see how liberals define these terms, they're inverted.

I never advocated for free speech absolutism, only the First Amendment. You keep making things up so you can waste time tilting at windmills.

Spew your childish lolbertarianism some more, it's hilariously cringe.

but why would I want to be a lolbert? I'm only me. you can't even get your definitions right...

Stupid indeed, you had to inaccurately paraphrase what I said to erect your strawman. A bad government doing stupid things is not a free speech issue--it's a bad government doing stupid things issue, stupid.

I can smell your stinkditch from here...

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

He is a redditor of course he loves stickers

He's also a Kiwi and I recall one of my complaints being that they'll happily do things they would criticize other people for doing. Which is what I was trying to point out to him, but he chose to just project and deflect.

Governments can't even restrict marijuana sales, they can't stop chinks from getting outside the Great Firewall of Chyna. You are not just morally wrong, you are retarded

To be fair, to an extent I get what I think he's coming from when he says rights aren't inalienable and have always been determined by the government of the time.

The problem I have is that then he says things like "its a problem of evil being in power." So he believes in objective good and evil. But to do that, you have to believe in inalienable rights since that would be how you know a good government from an evil one.... but he completely rejects that notion.

It's like acknowledging darkness exists but then saying light is an illusion. One is literally entirely defined by its relationship to the other, so either both are real or neither are real.

But as you said, this dude is a redditor and redditors don't have any sort of consistent, reasonable structure of beliefs, but rather just a headache-inducing hodge-podge based on knee-jerk reactions (just look at how he defines "bad speech" as any speech advocating for something he doesn't like... much like SJWs do), and whenever you point out the contradictions, he prefers--again--to project and deflect and then go around awarding stickers, because throwing a hissy fit and shooting the messenger is easier than exercising his braincells.

I'm sure he's gonna award this an "autistic" sticker because in Kiwi lingo, "autistic" means anyone who has more education or thought capacity than a dog (its actually rather telling that they associate intelligence with a mental disorder)... or else use "tantrum" because that's his favorite go-to.

 

[EmmyRain]

It's important to keep in mind that righty and lefty are both pedo death cults. Lefty wants gay pedos and righty wants hetero pedos (see Matt Walsh and his pedo rant about how America needs to impregnate more teenage girls.) RWers online often hate feminists and feminism because feminists insisted on raising age of consent. That is the primary reason why Nick Fuentas and figures like him hate women and why incels/MGTOW communities are rife with pedophiles who want to lower age of consent to prepubescence.

As an aside, documenting the pedophilia that runs through most mens rights advocacy groups is something that Kiwifarms is very good for. Their incel and MGTOW threads are actually pretty good and don't attract the same sperging the abortion threads do.



People like SSj don't understand what "rights" are. They are natural rights bequeathed by the universe or the Creator or whatever you want to call it. The only thing the Constitution does is define them and why governments are wrong to oppress rights. Otherwise rights are universal and the definition of a totalitarian government is the oppression of rights. China is a mess right now because they murder civilians in the street for speaking out against covid lockdowns, as well as unjustly imprisoning people who have done no crime and without a fair trial (the Uighurs concentration camps.)

Of course people like SSj don't want to admit that because it completely undercuts their argument and exposes that they don't actually have a clue what "morality" is. They just want to murder and jail their opponents with impunity and anyone who disagrees is labelled "pedophile." In the Bush era, this buzzword was "unpatriotic."

Look at how SSj can't help himself, he refuses to connect the dots between China and Russia's political implosions and their authoritarian nature. He can't even admit that Russia and China are very similar to the US, not just in size but in terms of their sheer racial diversity and their martial cultures. He just kinda....collapses:



Honestly tho this is the smoking gun. Like many terminally online politispergs this dude thinks that "civil rights" are handed out from a Pez dispenser. The actual fact is that the founding documents of the US define rights as universal to all human beings (and in terms of race, Thomas Jefferson himself stated in his letters that slavery would become an issue that would haunt the US and that denying black slaves their natural rights could eventually lead to the crack up of the United States.)

Seriously, look at this. Acting like 2A is something you buy from a store. It reminds me of how trannies think you can buy "womanhood" at a plastic surgeon's office as they chop their cocks off and shove dildos into their stink ditches:



Black people in America have always had 2A but the truth is its a universal right and authoritarianism oppresses this. Imagine how different Italy or Germany or even China or North Korea would be if the the citizens there realized that they had always had the natural right to bear arms and defend themselves against anyone who seeks to do them harm.

Anyway that's enough politisperging from me today, I just think its interesting to see the RWer in action. This is why 1A is important, it exposes the fundamental iniquities in other people that we should all be aware of.

I can't speak for right wingers, but a lot of people don't dislike feminism over age of consent. It's because feminist theory is bullshit and often bigoted. Also, what's wrong with free speech absolutism?

 

[Stop Socking Gaylord]

I can't speak for right wingers, but a lot of people don't dislike feminism over age of consent. It's because feminist theory is bullshit and often bigoted. Also, what's wrong with free speech absolutism?

I dislike feminism because it's a human rights issue that was co-opted decades ago by Communist jews as a way to destabilize the Western family unit, something they view as a direct threat to Communism. The Frankfurt School was pretty open about their motivations and plan, so there's no real reason to not understand the semitic roots of the modern feminist movement. I can hate trannies without supporting a bunch of fat lesbians who think their daddy issues are a political ideology.

Serious countries don't let their citizens openly speak against it's power structure. I don't support general free speech for the same reason I don't support democracy, especially direct democracy.
Most people are retarded and need to shut their mouths.

 

[AnusSquirt69]

Most people are retarded and need to shut their mouths.

You start.

 

[Stop Socking Gaylord]

You start.

Heh, no.

 

[SSj_Ness]

This is dumb but okay.

You say okay, but then go on to not quote him saying "America needs to impregnate more teenage girls." Interesting tactic...?

point as I'm not a Europoor or a monkey.

Same energy as "I'm non-binary" lmfao

Governments can't even restrict marijuana sales, they can't stop chinks from getting outside the Great Firewall of Chyna. You are not just morally wrong, you are retarded

They can and do. How am I morally wrong when you're the one defending the advocacy of child mutilation, faggot?

Only if you're a pussy. 3d printer go brrrrr

So you don't actually believe in governmental authority...yet appeal to the U.S Constitution

I never advocated for free speech absolutism, only the First Amendment. You keep making things up so you can waste time tilting at windmills.

I'm not making anything up, you're literally arguing with me because you think I'm wrong that certain speech should not be allowed, meaning you're a free speech absolutist.

I can smell your stinkditch from here...

Must be one of your two moms.

So he believes in objective good and evil. But to do that, you have to believe in inalienable rights since that would be how you know a good government from an evil one.... but he completely rejects that notion.

No I don't, as a Christian I know God gave us inalienable rights, but as a realist I know we're subject to governing authorities. There's no contradiction like you're insinuating.

whenever you point out the contradictions, he prefers--again--to project and deflect and then go around awarding stickers, because throwing a hissy fit and shooting the messenger is easier than exercising his braincells.

I'm sure he's gonna award this an "autistic" sticker because in Kiwi lingo, "autistic" means anyone who has more education or thought capacity than a dog (its actually rather telling that they associate intelligence with a mental disorder)... or else use "tantrum" because that's his favorite go-to.

I can't believe you actually keep crying with paragraphs of seethe over stickers just like I told you to

I can't speak for right wingers, but a lot of people don't dislike feminism over age of consent. It's because feminist theory is bullshit and often bigoted. Also, what's wrong with free speech absolutism?

There's very few people who dislike feminism over age of consent, and the majority of people who constantly want to lower it are liberals, not conservatives.

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

So you don't actually believe in governmental authority...yet appeal to the U.S Constitution

There's no contradiction there. the entire idea of the Constitution is it was (in theory) supposed to tell the government "these are things no ruler should be able to do."

Although you are part-right: in practice this has not worked out so well because part of the idea was that Americans would rally around an ideal and fight down any government infringement, and instead most Americans turned out to be lazy cowards.

Still though, its the same as how you can like Captain America without supporting the American government.

I'm not making anything up, you're literally arguing with me because you think I'm wrong that certain speech should not be allowed, meaning you're a free speech absolutist.

You ARE wrong, and ironically this is a point that's been made over on KF: the minute you decide its okay to ban certain types of speech, suddenly that means one day YOUR speech could be the one on the chopping block. They often say this to point out how stupid SJWs and their "hate speech" restrictions are.

Absolutism is just logical: everyone plays by the same rules and nobody can introduce shenanigans later down the line. It's either all okay or none of it is.

No I don't, as a Christian I know God gave us inalienable rights, but as a realist I know we're subject to governing authorities. There's no contradiction like you're insinuating.

Fair enough.

I can't believe you actually keep crying with paragraphs of seethe over stickers just like I told you to

Called it: Deliberate missing the point via projection and deflection.

I was even right about you sticking with the "Tantrum" label.

But sure, huff whatever copium you need to.

 

[SSj_Ness]

There's no contradiction there. the entire idea of the Constitution is it was (in theory) supposed to tell the government "these are things no ruler should be able to do."

It's still the government granting you something, hence its very existence and the courts which debate the interpretation thereof. If you just had those rights you wouldn't need to cite a document, yet you do.

Although you are part-right: in practice this has not worked out so well because part of the idea was that Americans would rally around an ideal and fight down any government infringement, and instead most Americans turned out to be lazy cowards.

Americans did turn out to be lazy cowards, upon that much we can agree, albeit from differing perspectives as to why.

Still though, its the same as how you can like Captain America without supporting the American government.

I'm not really getting this bit, maybe because I'm not familiar with Captain America at all.

You ARE wrong, and ironically this is a point that's been made over on KF: the minute you decide its okay to ban certain types of speech, suddenly that means one day YOUR speech could be the one on the chopping block. They often say this to point out how stupid SJWs and their "hate speech" restrictions are.

But we ALREADY ban certain types of speech. Threats, libel, obscenity, harrassment, incitement, perjury, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and many other things which are forms of speech. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The concept of criminalizing hate speech is fucking retarded bad, but criminalizing threats is good, for example.

See, we have this thing called DISCERNMENT and WISDOM (well, at least some conservatives do, nobody else does). Some speech is bad and shouldn't be allowed for logical and moral reasons, we all agree on that fact; it's just--as I said before--what we consider good and bad that we differ in, and how far we're willing to go to restrict what is bad.

Absolutism is just logical: everyone plays by the same rules and nobody can introduce shenanigans later down the line. It's either all okay or none of it is.

Absolutism is just NOT logical. Should you be allowed to threaten to rape a woman? No? Then you don't believe in absolutism and have introduced the concept of restricting certain speech. Now we can just argue what speech is bad and how bad speech needs to be to warrant restriction, which is where people will differ.

Fair enough.

Hm, you have a reasonable bone in your body, I respect that.

Called it: Deliberate missing the point via projection and deflection.

I was even right about you sticking with the "Tantrum" label.

But sure, huff whatever copium you need to.

I promise not to give you mean stickies anymore, okay? You can stop crying now.

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

It's still the government granting you something, hence its very existence and the courts which debate the interpretation thereof. If you just had those rights you wouldn't need to cite a document, yet you do.

More specifically, Chrysler does.

My own belief is Right is Right no matter what a piece of paper somewhere says.

I'm not really getting this bit, maybe because I'm not familiar with Captain America at all.

Essentially, he's an idealized symbols of American values, but not necessarily an arm of the government (in fact he's opposed the government several times). Basically Captain America fights for what the country should be, not what it is.

Basically I think the Constitution had a similar purpose and function--just that Cap is purely a symbol, while the Constitution is supposed to have actual legislative power. Again though, hasn't quite worked out in theory (for either of them).

Absolutism is just NOT logical. Should you be allowed to threaten to rape a woman?

... Yes. And with good reason: if someone is legitimately a threat to my wife or daughter or whoever, hearing them open their mouths means I'm forewarned, and forewarned is forearmed. Very often the first sign that someone is dangerous is that they open their stupid mouths. In such cases, speech codes are actually armor for these people.

I mean granted that's kind of just "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" but still.... its like you said, Discernment and Wisdom. If someone goes into a bar full of black people and he starts shouting N-word slurs all over the place, and he didn't think to pack heat.... that should be allowed to be a Darwin Award. Too many safety nets just leads to a very stupid society.

Perjury is an interesting one as its not the actual speech that is the problem, its that once you're in the courthouse you're essentially conducting a ritual or playing a game (however you want to look at it)--in either case, the whole point is you've agreed to certain rules for the sake of determining an outcome in a specific circumstance.

It's like boxing. Obviously, boxers aren't allowed to take guns into the ring and just shoot their opponent. But nobody would call that a win for gun control advocates.

 

[Patchy the Pirate]

The Constitution had a similar purpose and function--just that Cap is purely a symbol, while the Constitution is supposed to have actual legislative power. Again though, hasn't quite worked out in theory (for either of them).

Almost every decision Congress makes can be reflected back to the constitution, or at least needs to abide by it. It exists to grant legislative power to Congress as well as being a framework for any federal decisions. Cap started off as a jingoistic war mascot who becomes disenchanted with working purely through the system. I guess I don't really see the similarities. If you think the bill of rights has essentially no power, I avidly welcome you to visit a place that does not have the same built-in protections.

Although you are part-right: in practice this has not worked out so well because part of the idea was that Americans would rally around an ideal and fight down any government infringement, and instead most Americans turned out to be lazy cowards.

This is another thing I just think is a strange conclusion that I'm not sure how you reached. Americans are certainly no Frenchmen, but they do rally around ideals and try to fight government infringement quite a bit. When Americans decided they didn't like the Vietnam war, they were very happy to use their free speech to protest it. I think it's easy to fall to negative bias in how you read the news, but I remember seeing how many people on both sides of the George Floyd protests were going out of their way to work together to point out looters and bad actors to law enforcement. Not necessarily the same but Americans even now have a decent sense of civil awareness, at least compared to other places.

Absolutism is just NOT logical. Should you be allowed to threaten to rape a woman? No? Then you don't believe in absolutism and have introduced the concept of restricting certain speech. Now we can just argue what speech is bad and how bad speech needs to be to warrant restriction, which is where people will differ.

I think this all boils down to freedom of speech shouldn't enable freedom of consequence. Espousing certain ideals that a lot of people are uncomfortable with is one thing, intentionally inciting a riot is another. Freedom of speech only works if you acknowledge that there will always be bad actors who try to use it as an excuse for their pre-mediated attempts at chaos. Which is why absolutism is nuts to me, because it caters to these types who will try to close the trapdoor on their way up. I can't help but think of how quick Null was in the past to try to silence anyone who shits on his now dying website despite being a huge proponent of total free speech, lol.

 

[Chrysler Building]

I can't speak for right wingers, but a lot of people don't dislike feminism over age of consent. It's because feminist theory is bullshit and often bigoted. Also, what's wrong with free speech absolutism?

There are lots of great reasons to hate feminism (like the Duluth model and how this has destroyed objective understanding of domestic violence) but the truth is most humans are lazy tards. They don't hate feminism because they know what the Duluth model is, they're mad about it because they think it's stopping them from getting something they want.

Re: free speech absolutism, I actually don't have a firm opinion on it. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I just don't know much about it so I don't want to use it to define myself or other people.

You say okay, but then go on to not quote him saying "America needs to impregnate more teenage girls." Interesting tactic...?

He's advocating for teen pregnancies and teen marriages and agreeing with his co hosts when they say that teen pregnancy leads to "lasting marriages." If you can't figure out that Matty wants more pregnant 15 year olds because that's when they're just so fertile, then that's on you.

Same energy as "I'm non-binary" lmfao

I'd happily be an enby genderspecial if it was defined by shitting on Eurotrash, niggers, mudslimes and chinks.

They can and do. How am I morally wrong when you're the one defending the advocacy of child mutilation, faggot?

Whiny nigger thinks weed and Chyna's internet firewall is the same as... trannyifying kids? Okay, we'll roll with that I guess.
I've been buying weed bricks for twenty years, government can't restrict shit. They will ruin lives over it but they failed right out of the gate and now marijuana is being legalized all over. So they tried, and then they failed.

Now you're going to look at Colorado's pot smoking laws and call it "transgender" I bet

So you don't actually believe in governmental authority...yet appeal to the U.S Constitution

The Constitution is simply a piece of paper with a set of legal definitions. The physical object gets attention because it's the first time that a group of people actually sat down and thought through how this stuff actually works but if it burned up tomorrow than nothing would change. Freedom of speech is simply an intrinsic right, which you admit yourself here:

No I don't, as a Christian I know God gave us inalienable rights

But you also think the failure of anti drug laws and chinks looking at Youtube with their VPNs is transgenderism and the VPNs mutilate kids. You're kind of a retard.

I'm not making anything up, you're literally arguing with me because you think I'm wrong that certain speech should not be allowed, meaning you're a free speech absolutist.

You want to ban everything because right wingers are too stupid to actually provide workable options and opinions which means no one likes you or listens to you. So you tap out like a wuss, screaming THAT'S NOT FAIR BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT. You played the game and you lost, eat the consequences and git gud instead of flailing and crying that your opponents are too good at their jobs and everyone else needs to rewrite the rules for you. It's completely possible to defeat the party of child sacrifice at their own game; it has been done in living memory. The fact that you people can't do it yourselves is a skill issue and always has been. It's not the law's fault that you dumb motherfuckers are bad at this.

Must be one of your two moms.

Madame, your dilation station awaits.

He's also a Kiwi and I recall one of my complaints being that they'll happily do things they would criticize other people for doing. Which is what I was trying to point out to him, but he chose to just project and deflect.

It makes sense as a lot of SJWs formed on Reddit. It was only a matter of time before they came into conservative spaces and started their "Ban everything now!!! Free speech is evil!!!! Don't platform your enemies!!!!!!! I'm losing so that means everyone else is cheating, not that I'm a loser!!!!!!"

Something that KF was good for was showcasing how thin the line of separation between right and left really is. It's pedo deathcults all the way down and their footsoldiers are their SJWs, whining endlessly into the ether.

To be fair, to an extent I get what I think he's coming from when he says rights aren't inalienable and have always been determined by the government of the time.

It's not weird to look at governments having absolute power of their citizens and seeing how they control people and going "this amendment bullshit is for the birds." Fat lot of good 1A does someone in a concentration camp in Chyna. But that doesn't mean that the legal definitions of civil rights and the laws surrounding them magically don't exist just because of shitty governments that trample on people.

The problem I have is that then he says things like "its a problem of evil being in power." So he believes in objective good and evil. But to do that, you have to believe in inalienable rights since that would be how you know a good government from an evil one.... but he completely rejects that notion.

Because he knows that if he applies that objectivity test to himself and his political beliefs then he will fail it. Knowing you are just as evil as your enemies and that there is little difference between you and them is a trip.

But as you said, this dude is a redditor and redditors don't have any sort of consistent, reasonable structure of beliefs, but rather just a headache-inducing hodge-podge based on knee-jerk reactions (just look at how he defines "bad speech" as any speech advocating for something he doesn't like... much like SJWs do), and whenever you point out the contradictions, he prefers--again--to project and deflect and then go around awarding stickers, because throwing a hissy fit and shooting the messenger is easier than exercising his braincells.

Because "conservatives" are not particularly principled, honorable, or smart, its an ego-based religion where they see liberals getting what they always wanted and they get mad about it.