put:fu:in Fuck Russians! - Page 5

On March 19 2022 09:34 Baalim wrote: [QUOTE]On March 19 2022 01:59 Stroggoz wrote: If you believe the story and pics of Hunter Biden's crack addiction in the middle of an election isn't interesting you are either an imbecile or dishonest. Also it wasn't deemed "interesting" lol, it was said to be fake news and directly supressed by social media, funny that you complain about social media manipulation in the Russian/Ukrain war but in this case, you seem to defend it, are you trying to substitute for Ethienne or is this hypocricy innate to socialists?

I'd definitely prefer to be an imbecile rather than dishonest then. I'm clearly not defending Facebook, like I said it's a "grain of sand" on a mountain of media manipulation. But I pointed it out because I thought the blatant lack of principles and hypocritical righteousness was amusing, i guess.

On March 19 2022 13:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: If that's your attempt at honestly reading or interpreting my post then I guess congratulations on joining the legion of idiot right wingers?

I said "IF" thats where you are going, because I don't see whats your point there conflating "politically relevant" to "uninteresting" which isn't the issue, its about social media political censorship.


We can argue if its relevant or not to the quality of a potential president if their son is addicted to crack or not, but thats not the issue here, you could argue about security issues etc, but again, thats not the point, the point is that social media censored the story to help their goals, and now that they are manipulating the Ukranian conflict, now is where there is outrage, so I pointed out that I warned lefties about this one, thats the reason why freedom of speech must be absolute

On March 19 2022 13:42 Stroggoz wrote: In this context-'interesting' means 'relevant to politics', so I may as well have said that. Election cycles themselves mostly have very little to do with politics, they are largely entertainment shows, and so are not really that interesting either. As I said, the story here of media bias is pretty clear. Because these issues are obviously not interesting, it shows that the media is biased in reporting on these kinds of things. I'm sure CNN would post that story about Ivanka Trump, a lot. That story is also hardly relevant. If Ivanka sucks dicks, why is that an issue? You realize a lot of people suck dicks right, and it's a normal and healthy thing to do? Perhaps not if it's prostitution. Anyone involved in prostitution should be helped, not publicly humiliated by having pictures shown on CNN.

The point is not the bias, but the censorship... Facebook and twitter actively took down posts about the story.


Also relevant, the 50 intelligence officers who said it was Russia interfering with the democratic process were lying but obv won't face consequences.

The only way 2 teach stroggo is 2 capturr him nd force him to play 100k hands of poker a munth...

On March 19 2022 23:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 19 2022 13:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: If that's your attempt at honestly reading or interpreting my post then I guess congratulations on joining the legion of idiot right wingers? I said "IF" thats where you are going, because I don't see whats your point there conflating "politically relevant" to "uninteresting" which isn't the issue, its about social media political censorship. We can argue if its relevant or not to the quality of a potential president if their son is addicted to crack or not, but thats not the issue here, you could argue about security issues etc, but again, thats not the point, the point is that social media censored the story to help their goals, and now that they are manipulating the Ukranian conflict, now is where there is outrage, so I pointed out that I warned lefties about this one, thats the reason why freedom of speech must be absolute

That's what I wrote, though. The post you responded to contained the sentence 'The possible story here relates to media bias but nothing that has been revealed is in any way 'politically significant'. I agree that the censorship/media bias part is interesting. You also mentioned 'in the middle of an election' in your post - which to me indicated that you thought the story could be something that would influence voters. There, I'm saying that in the context of Joe Biden vs Donald Trump, if nepotism is a factor determining how you vote, you'll land on Joe Biden no matter how true this whole thing is.

Anyway - I agree that the discussion around freedom of speech is interesting, even though I don't give a shit about Hunter Biden's crack addiction or what was on his laptop. So let's talk about the former.

When you say that freedom of speech should be absolute, what do you mean by absolute? Should there be no limit to what lies and defamations you can state about other people? Should American presidents be allowed to claim that another country is producing WMD so that an invasion of said country for entirely different reasons can be sold to the American people? I honestly think your approach here is an extreme simplification of a very complex and difficult discussion. It's not a binary question of 'permit everything' or 'actively censor the news', it's about finding some type of balance. In a hyper-partisan environment like the US, it definitely seems like a tough challenge, though, because we've already largely created parallel information universes - a process exacerbated by 'big tech algorithms' determining what information people are subjected to based on what information they have reacted to in the past, but I remain skeptical towards the idea that 'permit everything, always' is going to yield the results either of us want.

We had this discussion before, and I had the impression you agreed with me that standing in front of a group of neo-nazis telling them that 'there's this jewish black fag who lives on x street of sodomytown. He'll be home in 2 hours. you should all go torture him to death when he comes home' and this resulting in the gang of neo-nazis torturing said individual to death, should probably not be legal. Am I right here, or do you actually think that's entirely fine and that it should not be punished?

IF you agree that this would be problematic, then it's a matter of distinguishing just where the line goes between this precise statement and something like 'I hate jews, fags and niggers' (a contemptible statement - but one that I agree should be legal to state, although I also think work places should be free (or even encouraged through 'market forces') to let employees go if they publicly make such utterances. And then, it's not a binary question of 'permit everything' or 'censor hate speech!!' - but rather, a situation where we need to make nuanced, case to case basis evaluations based on context and history that might sometimes look a bit arbitrary (because they are) and that sometimes might reach a wrong verdict (count dankula being fined was obviously ridiculous) - but at least we're not trying to pretend that something extremely difficult actually happens to be totally easy.

On March 20 2022 07:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: although I also think work places should be free (or even encouraged through 'market forces') to let employees go if they publicly make such utterances.

This is highly regressive imo, at least compared to liberal thinkers such as Bertrand Russell:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44932/44932-h/44932-h.htm

"The habit of considering a man’s religious, moral, and political opinions before appointing him to a post or giving him a job is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the Inquisition ever was. The old liberties can be legally retained without being of the slightest use. If, in practice, certain opinions lead a man to starve, it is poor comfort to him to know that his opinions are not punishable by law."

I think he made a good prediction here, he was basically right. I'd do a lot to be able to talk about politics without facing economic repercussions. Russell himself had some fairly despicable views about how we should not regret that indigenous populations were wiped out in Africa/America's, and he wrote about them around the same time he was jailed for pacifism and speaking out against WW1. It's not really enforcable but as long as their comments aren't interfering with work, people should be free from economic repression, for several reasons. 1 It should be a principle we accept (i.e, we should actually not need a reason to accept this principle). 2 If they are treated that way it can radicalize them further. 3 It's fairly common for people to have views like these, and worse views-especially when those worse views are standard, as in the case of Russells view's on colonialism.


---

Absolute free speech would be undefinable probably, I think Baal probably just meant for political views. Almost anything that is absolute is basically ruinous to political systems: For example, I love democracy. But in an extreme democracy where everyone votes on everything, it necessarily implies that everyone in the world votes on whether I can cross the road or not. But this implies everyone starves to death, so it's actually undefinable. This is the reason that legal systems are so much more complex than books written by political philosophers where they sum up a few principles to solve every problem in the world (lol).

If Facebook had competition then the censorship wouldn't be such a bad thing imo because people could just go and use a different social media. So the real problem is that they are a monopoly that makes all their decisions secretly, and hierarchically. Their power would completely evaporate with 1 simple policy, like this one: (There are many other suggestions).

1) Media which chooses not to advertise can make claims on funding which is proportional to how much they'd make from advertising.

So instead of making $200k a year from adverts shown to 20million viewers (making numbers up here to make a point), the public either pays that amount or some % of the money. So this would essentially make non-advertisers be able to compete with advertisers, and it would wipe out advertising. For some reason, virtually everyone ignores these ideas and focus's on whether Facebook should be allowed to remove nazi posts or not.

I should be clear in that I think people should not be fired for having extreme opinions, so long as they arn't babbling about at work to the point that it's unprofessional. I.e a professor should be allowed to be talking/twittering about anti-vaxx or w/e in their free time, but if they constantly rant about it in a class on linear algebra then facing repercussions is fine, because they arn't doing their job-(it's not about politics, it's about not doing their job well.)

Indeed with "Absolute" I mean't political ideals, theres laws against harassment, libel, incitement to commit an immediate crime and other exceptions that make a lot of sense.

I think we agree on free speech but what we don't share is the urgency to protect it, and given that in the vast majority of the world there is no free speech I think its of the utmost importance to defend it becaue its quickly shrinking and young people don't seem the looming danger they create when they equate speech with violence.

On March 20 2022 08:52 Stroggoz wrote: If Facebook had competition then the censorship wouldn't be such a bad thing imo because people could just go and use a different social media. So the real problem is that they are a monopoly that makes all their decisions secretly, and hierarchically.

Yes and no, the problem is that there is no competition but that isn't Facebook/Twitters doing it alone, there have been alternatives that get quickly shot down like GAB, but then Paypal and VISA block all payments to the platform, and then google stops hosting their site etc etc, these "alternative" sites are quickly purged by the amalgamation of government and corporations.

The argument that employers firing you for something essentially constitutes making it illegal even though it isn't, is something I can largely be on board with. But I also think employers should largely be allowed to make that decision - although it can certainly become a bit iffy, and again, something that ends up being a bit arbitrarily defined and where I might agree with the decision in some instances and disagree with the decision in other instances. However, I don't really have any problems with society sometimes being a bit arbitrary - I think that's a necessity, because purely principled rulings at every occasion nearly always run into some issues. Me saying 'encouraged through 'market forces'' is a bit facetious though, but that's aimed at Baal, as I expect he'd also strongly defend a company's ability to freely choose who they want to hire and for what reason they'd want to terminate someone's contract.

But I mean - if I run a hotel, and I have employed a guy as my concierge or whatever, and then suddenly after two years the guy decides to tattoo a huge swastika on his face, I do think I should be allowed to terminate his contract based on his expression of his political views, even if there was no earlier defined agreement that he's not permitted to tattoo swastikas in his face. However, I'd have a very negative reaction to the same hotel firing the same person because he 'voted for trump', or if someone fires someone for being gay. Different jobs will come with different expectations of what behavior can or should be considered acceptable - I'll have issues with a science teacher fronting creationism but be entirely fine with a nurse doing the same, and I can understand why health care workers who interact with immunocompromised or elderly and infirm might be required to get a covid vaccine (not getting into a debate about what degree it protects from infection, I'm sure you all get my point) or flu shot, while I think it's unreasonable to demand the same from a store clerk.

The central point I'm trying to make is essentially similar to yours, though - hardly anything can be absolute, and if it can be, it most likely already is.

On March 20 2022 09:27 Baalim wrote: Indeed with "Absolute" I mean't political ideals, theres laws against harassment, libel, incitement to commit an immediate crime and other exceptions that make a lot of sense. I think we agree on free speech but what we don't share is the urgency to protect it, and given that in the vast majority of the world there is no free speech I think its of the utmost importance to defend it becaue its quickly shrinking and young people don't seem the looming danger they create when they equate speech with violence.

What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer?

Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here)
To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?

I was confused by your comment on market forces, but I take it Rush Limbaugh would be wiped out by market forces in Norway. In America, he almost became a billionaire iirc. In any case, the media isn't controlled by market forces, that stopped being the case about 60 years ago.

I guess I agree with most of those examples, but there's no way firing scientists for teaching creationism could lead to any good, and it's not how science even progresses anyway. Not to mention it's an absolute gift to those tyrannical administrators. A lot of people on the right seem to think dealing with critical race theory or postmodernist nonsense is to just defund the humanities. There is a point to be made that some people in postmodernism are deep into some pseudoscience. But job cuts doesn't solve that problem, it just makes the environment more competitive and encourages people to make things up to survive. I think this is one of the major causes behind the replication crisis in science at the moment, which you may have heard of. Just having public debates or running experiments like the ones sokal, bricmont did has had good effects-that lead to a massive decline in pseudoscience in that area. Unfortunately, it's been politically exploited though...that's another story.

So no, I don't think pseudoscientists should be fired. I'd say that's true for most cases even where they are getting people killed as well. We aren't going to solve neoliberalism by purging the economics profession either. People just have to be willing to debate these topics. A lot of people seriously think that confronting pseudoscientists over their ideas is a good strategy as well. It isn't, what you do is you ignore them and go straight to the open-minded people, i.e, their students, and basically start saying "Hey, I've got something that's in your interests to know. This person has no clue what they're talking about, here's why."

On March 20 2022 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 20 2022 09:27 Baalim wrote: Indeed with "Absolute" I mean't political ideals, theres laws against harassment, libel, incitement to commit an immediate crime and other exceptions that make a lot of sense. I think we agree on free speech but what we don't share is the urgency to protect it, and given that in the vast majority of the world there is no free speech I think its of the utmost importance to defend it becaue its quickly shrinking and young people don't seem the looming danger they create when they equate speech with violence. What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer? Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here) To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?

Looks unjustified to me based off the wiki page. I could see how it could be justified if it was in the 1940'-50s during the post ww2 period. But in recent times punishing far-right extremists, and the commentary surrounding this topic has been about making oneself feel good. It is easy to demonstrate with the usual comparative examples that I make.

There is no point in confronting Nazi's, Exxon Mobil executives, or whoever it is, since they will not listen. The way to deal with this is just to ignore them and point out their policies and keep people informed about what Nazi's did and what their philosophy is. It makes no sense to punish an unpopular party that has no power.

"Here in norway"

No1 cares abut norwey

just came in to say i love norway but peace is the way

Piece is thw way

On March 20 2022 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer? Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here) To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?

The way you ended your post gives me a hint that you still don't view it as I do, you said:

To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?

Shutting them down isn't abhorrent at all, of course it feels righteous to shut them down, however allowing them to speak is a neccesary evil to stop an ever greather threat to rise.



Also sadly the discussion isn't about if Nazis can say an specific address or a region in a speech, we are talking about misgendering, race-IQ, migrations etc, sensitive topics often peddled by bigots, but very far from where the line should be.

On March 20 2022 10:38 Stroggoz wrote: i.e, their students, and basically start saying "Hey, I've got something that's in your interests to know. This person has no clue what they're talking about, here's why."

Except that campuses routinely cancel talks from any speaker that challenges progressive talking points.

On March 21 2022 23:05 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 20 2022 09:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer? Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here) To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent? The way you ended your post gives me a hint that you still don't view it as I do, you said:   To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent? Shutting them down isn't abhorrent at all, of course it feels righteous to shut them down, however allowing them to speak is a neccesary evil to stop an ever greather threat to rise. Also sadly the discussion isn't about if Nazis can say an specific address or a region in a speech, we are talking about misgendering, race-IQ, migrations etc, sensitive topics often peddled by bigots, but very far from where the line should be.

I'm turning it to nazis because you're saying it should be absolute, though. If you're saying 'free speech should be more protected than it is in many western countries today and the way people are being ostracized for having unpopular opinions is really detrimental to society's ability to debate topics in a healthy way to approach the best solutions', then I agree with you. However, I do think there is a line, somewhere. I can't define exactly where said line goes - but to me, society does not benefit from people being allowed to freely preach in favor of exterminating people belonging to the wrong race. I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it - I think it's possible for such a line to exist without it inevitably being moved to silence good-natured discussions on controversial or difficult topics.

I also don't agree with Stroggoz that simply ignoring these people is a good way of dealing with them. People engaging in this type of violent rhetoric are way more prone to also engage in violent action. Both Norway and New Zealand have experienced brain washed right wing extremists slaughtering many civilians because of the propagation of some of these beliefs. Now - I generally don't favor imprisoning or fining people for their beliefs - even genocidal opinions - but I do think the option must exist and that cases should be evaulated on a case to case basis, even if it sometimes results in controversial or 'wrong' rulings. (Because while you seem to agree that incitement of violence can/should result in legal punishment, defining exactly what constitutes incitement of violence is not an easy task and will depend upon context and interpretation.)

Just to be clear I meant ignore them as in don't talk to them because you can't change their minds 99.9% of the time. I didn't mean ignore the issue. If you try talking to ander's brehvik or others like him, I think you'll get nowhere. It's better to tackle the underlying root causes. I'm pretty sure there's research into violent terrorists and you can prevent people from going into that life by providing them opportunities that give their life some meaning (vague i know).

In response to Baal, yes there is canceling in universities. It's not too difficult to overcome that barrier, imo, and is still the best option. I havn't seen anyone suggest a better solution. Peter Singer and Stefan Molyneux have been cancelled from talks in NZ, but it's hardly stopped them from being influential.