Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

This, Joe, is exactly the reason I argue with you about the absoluteness of the First Amendment protections on speech and press.

 

And this is why I argue for censorship of progressive sources. THEY'VE ALREADY FIRED THE FIRST SHOTS.

 

If one side is able to do this, and the other isn't, that's creating an imbalance that must be corrected.

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

And this is why I argue for censorship of progressive sources. THEY'VE ALREADY FIRED THE FIRST SHOTS.

 

If one side is able to do this, and the other isn't, that's creating an imbalance that must be corrected.

 

 

If censorship is permitted by the government, then censorship is permitted by the government; and you'll be subject to the whims of whomever is in charge of the government at any given time.

 

You're advocating for the rule of man rather than the rule of law.

Posted
2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

If censorship is permitted by the government, then censorship is permitted by the government; and you'll be subject to the whims of whomever is in charge of the government at any given time.

 

You're advocating for the rule of man rather than the rule of law.

 

Question: does the left advocate for censorship of the right? Have they implemented censorship in the public domain already?

Posted
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Question: does the left advocate for censorship of the right? Have they implemented censorship in the public domain already?

 

The left's censorship is largely contained to the private sector, with the exception of universities.

 

I could care less what they advocate for.  They're free to hold bad opinions.

 

The proper thing is to advocate for free speech and free press.

 

Anything else results in a dystopian future you aren't going to like.

Posted
11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The left's censorship is largely contained to the private sector, with the exception of universities.

 

I could care less what they advocate for.  They're free to hold bad opinions.

 

The proper thing is to advocate for free speech and free press.

 

Anything else results in a dystopian future you aren't going to like.

 

And what is the consequence of one side advocating for free speech when the other side is actively subverting it?

 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

And what is the consequence of one side advocating for free speech when the other side is actively subverting it?

 

The same as it's always been, Joe.

 

Free speech has not been the norm for most of human history, and still isn't in most places around the world.

 

It is a human freedom that was thousands of years in the making, and it is a lofty ideal that is worth fighting for; as it will always be challenged by would be despots.  This has never changed and will never change.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

FakeBook and Tweeter are private enterprises. They can do what they want with their platformS. Rs (free enterprise/less regulation) are against this?

Edited by reddogblitz
Posted
19 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

FakeBook and Tweeter are private enterprises. They can do what they want with their platformS. Rs (free enterprise/less regulation) are against this?

 

I'm not a republican.

 

Posted
Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Free market: yes.

 

Free trade: no.

 

 

Cool.  I agree with you on the censorship thing btw.  I believe FakeBook and Tweeter are actively censoring opinions they don't like.  But again they are free enterprises and can do what they wish in that regard within reason and the law.  I think they "social media" is the most effective tool of population control devised thus far.  I suppose it is somewhat debatable if they are actively using it for that or not.  Certainly worked for Russia in the 2016 election.

 

My answer is to not use their "services".  Voting with my thumbs as it were.

Posted
5 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Are you a free market person?

 

Joe is a fascist who wishes to see an absolute and harsh dictatorship which conforms neatly to his world view, and punishes those who believe differently.

 

He doesn't believe in First Amendment protections of any sort.

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Cool.  I agree with you on the censorship thing btw.  I believe FakeBook and Tweeter are actively censoring opinions they don't like.  But again they are free enterprises and can do what they wish in that regard within reason and the law.  I think they "social media" is the most effective tool of population control devised thus far.  I suppose it is somewhat debatable if they are actively using it for that or not.  Certainly worked for Russia in the 2016 election.

 

My answer is to not use their "services".  Voting with my thumbs as it were.

 

Facebook was designed by the CIA to do exactly that.

Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Joe is a fascist who wishes to see an absolute and harsh dictatorship which conforms neatly to his world view, and punishes those who believe differently.

 

 

That’s hardly a fair assessment. I’m no book burner. But I’m not an “everything goes” guy. I’m a realist, and someone who can see the dangers the progressive left poses.

 

by the way, I didn’t always think this way. 

Edited by joesixpack
Posted
43 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

That’s hardly a fair assessment. I’m no book burner. But I’m not an “everything goes” guy. I’m a realist, and someone who can see the dangers the progressive left poses.

 

by the way, I didn’t always think this way. 

So, you were once more enlightened?

×
×
  • Create New...