put:fu:in Fuck Russians! - Page 6

On March 22 2022 10:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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.

Except that the woke censors claim the same thing, that "hate speech" costs lives, and allowing people to misgender them is why they commit suicide so often.


I agree society does not benefit from ppl discussing about exterminating, the world would be a better place without that kind of speech, but banning it creates a systemic risk far more dangerous, that is what you are not acknowleding, you act as if censorship stays where you draw the line, but it doesn't, how can you be so oblivious to this while witnessing it at the same time in social media.

I'm not sure if you ar familiar with the trans swimmer who won the US national competiton, well other women swimmers are complaining and are being banned by Twitter, the threat the silly norweigan nazi party poses to society is thousands of times lesser than what is brewing.

Perhaps you think the swimmer thing is a non-issue, but you would be narrowsighted if you thought so, because as stated before, they are shaping an anti-russia narrative, while Russia has banned FB, Twitter etc, everybody is controlling speech to favor their narrative, that is the danger already materializing infront of us, and sadly no there is no perfect solution hateful morons also get that right.

It's not that I don't acknowledge it, I just disagree/think you are wrong. I think some degree of censorship (but only of the most egregious statements - e.g. let's exterminate the blacks) is the necessary evil that you think allowing them to speak freely is. I have no problem reconciling the position that 'people are banning too much' and 'some degree of moderation of speech should still happen' - that's the position I've maintained as a TL moderator for more than a decade. I don't know exactly where the line between 'let's kill all trans people' and 'trans people would be better off dead' and 'society would be better off if all trans people would be dead' and 'trans people are mentally ill and they're committing suicide for this reason, has nothing to do with how society treats them' and 'trans people are mentally ill' goes, but just because I don't know where the line goes does not mean I have to be okay with the first statement (which I know is over the line) having a platform to propagate itself on.

The key difference I'm noticing is that I'm fine with some degree of arbitrariness and fine with the debate not being settled. I think we must continuously debate what statements are okay to make and what contexts make a statement okay to make/not okay to make. Attempting to settle difficult issues based around the strict application of a principle (e.g. 'no speech should ever be moderated' isn't going to yield good results either, from my perspective.) I also don't believe that the lack of such a guiding principle is inevitably going to lead to an increased degree of censorship - my impression is that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct in the US than it is in Europe, yet at the same time, that this censorship you complain about happens more in the US than here. (Here, where some countries actually have had laws against for example holocaust denial, we see that indeed, the actual censorship that happens is more likely to target people who argue like actual nazis than people who make jokes about trans people.) Again, also important to note that it's not a monolithic continent. You can accurately criticize Swedish media/Sweden for trying to conceal negative aspects related to their immigration, but you should then note that Denmark has a very different track record in terms of keeping and publicizing the very same statistics. Just because you allow for the potential of censorship does not mean you have to go Sweden, you can also go Denmark.

Also that I don't really care about twitter. A platform designed to avoid nuance is not one I'm particularly positive towards. I'm not sure to what degree twitter is doing what twitter is doing because of any laws though, rather than because they're concerned with maintaining their customer base?

You can get fined in France for insulting the president, and you can get fined in Britain for saying 9/11 was a good thing. It is not true that the focus is mostly on neo-nazi's, or that America suppresses speech more. Overall, Eu is more regressive on this issue.

It is easy to see that holocaust denial laws are not based off the evil nature of them, denazification, or harm prevention. Take for example the denial of the late victorian holocaust. Most people have no idea what that is, but it killed about as much, if not more people. People do not get fined for late victorian holocaust denial. Also there are other forms of denial that are much worse, and are totally acceptable in the world. Climate change denial is a lot worse imo, because it isn't something far back in history, and it will probably cause more suffering. So there is no good reason for fining people for being holocause deniers.

-----

Personally, I don't know what my gender is because words like "male", "man" have no commonly agreed-upon definition. I'm not sure if rationality is justifiable for these gender debates, but i'd point out that pretty much no one uses rationality in them, which is why I have steered clear.

----

Twitter is cancer.

I think those two first examples are ridiculously stupid - but not a reason to oppose any restrictions on free speech. They're examples to be opposed to. I also don't think the US suppresses speech more in terms of what is legally permitted, but Baal's complains seem to be related to twitter and 'cancel culture'. I have the impression that these issues are less prominent here than in the US.

Climate change denial is certainly more harmful, but I think that's extremely hard to police, much harder to contextually determine whether it's deliberate disinformation or merely ignorance, and also - there is actually disinformation on the 'other' side too. (We don't really have holocaust believers who argue that in reality, 20 million jews were killed). Additionally, while we know we're on an absolutely disastrous path, nobody can claim to know exactly what the future consequences will be. If the future is that 3.8 billion people are going to have to be displaced by 2100, is it denialism to say that only 300 million will be displaced by 2100, etc? (The holocaust is an established historical fact and denial of it is strongly connected with the opportunity to perpetuate similar events in the future, etc.. Some of this also applies to the late victorian holocaust - it's to a lesser degree accepted as a historical fact, and even among serious historians who have studied the subject, you'll find disagreement regarding to what degree it constituted a genocide, etc.) You can also argue that the strong focus on the holocaust and acceptance of the holocaust as part of European identity is part of what enables Israel to perpetuate the occupation of Palestine. I'm not really invested in defending laws against holocaust denial - but I'm saying there's a big difference between policing speech that attempts to justify the extermination of a group of people and policing speech relating to whether a transgender swimmer should be allowed to compete as a woman.

And again - just because climate change denial is worse but also harder to police is not a reason to permit statements that are less harmful but easier to police. (To be fair - even though holocaust denial is illegal in many European countries, it's not necessarily something I myself support being illegal. My stance on this issue is that I acknowledge that both sides have valid arguments. )

Fwiw I also don't care about the gender debates.

Anyway I also wanted to share this;



Alexey Arestovich, military advisor of Zelensky, in an interview from 2019 where he predicts much of what has happened since, while also giving analysis for why neutrality is not an option for the Ukraine, what the goals of Russia are, and what will happen in the next 15 years.

"is it denialism to say that only 300 million will be displaced by 2100".

That's a clear form of denialism as it focus's on the lower bound and is cherry-picking. A lot of scientists have been pointing out this kind of downplaying by the new generation of climate deniers (bjorn lomborg is a good example). This is quite common in genocide denial and war in general. If there are multiple studies with differing numbers, politically motivated people will cherry-pick the one that favors them. If by the other side, you mean the ridiculous claims by Stephen hawking that planet earth will turn into venus, or by the extinction rebellion leader that "6 billion people will die", then yeah that's clear misinformation, and it clearly gets people killed because it strengthens the climate denial position.

"The Holocaust is an established historical fact and denial of it is strongly connected with the opportunity to perpetuate similar events in the future.. Some of this also applies to the late victorian holocaust."

Like I've said, this is not true for countries like Britain, or France. Playing down capitalist crimes allows capitalists to commit more capitalist crimes. There are some historians like Nial Ferguson for example that still amazingly claim that India benefitted from colonialism. This has been helpful for those wanting to repeat neocolonialist programs in the 3rd world. Holocaust denial doesn't compare in the opportunities to perpetuate similar events, because Nazis aren't in power in Europe.

On March 23 2022 08:11 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's not that I don't acknowledge it, I just disagree/think you are wrong. I think some degree of censorship (but only of the most egregious statements - e.g. let's exterminate the blacks) is the necessary evil that you think allowing them to speak freely is. I have no problem reconciling the position that 'people are banning too much' and 'some degree of moderation of speech should still happen' - that's the position I've maintained as a TL moderator for more than a decade. I don't know exactly where the line between 'let's kill all trans people' and 'trans people would be better off dead' and 'society would be better off if all trans people would be dead' and 'trans people are mentally ill and they're committing suicide for this reason, has nothing to do with how society treats them' and 'trans people are mentally ill' goes, but just because I don't know where the line goes does not mean I have to be okay with the first statement (which I know is over the line) having a platform to propagate itself on. The key difference I'm noticing is that I'm fine with some degree of arbitrariness and fine with the debate not being settled. I think we must continuously debate what statements are okay to make and what contexts make a statement okay to make/not okay to make. Attempting to settle difficult issues based around the strict application of a principle (e.g. 'no speech should ever be moderated' isn't going to yield good results either, from my perspective.) I also don't believe that the lack of such a guiding principle is inevitably going to lead to an increased degree of censorship - my impression is that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct in the US than it is in Europe, yet at the same time, that this censorship you complain about happens more in the US than here. (Here, where some countries actually have had laws against for example holocaust denial, we see that indeed, the actual censorship that happens is more likely to target people who argue like actual nazis than people who make jokes about trans people.) Again, also important to note that it's not a monolithic continent. You can accurately criticize Swedish media/Sweden for trying to conceal negative aspects related to their immigration, but you should then note that Denmark has a very different track record in terms of keeping and publicizing the very same statistics. Just because you allow for the potential of censorship does not mean you have to go Sweden, you can also go Denmark. Also that I don't really care about twitter. A platform designed to avoid nuance is not one I'm particularly positive towards. I'm not sure to what degree twitter is doing what twitter is doing because of any laws though, rather than because they're concerned with maintaining their customer base?

"Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", they are not remotely on the same league, If you even consider outlawing the latter statement, then we are in no way in the same page about freedom of speech, which is a bit my point why its much better to err on the side of "allowing too much" than to censor, because if that statement is a close one for you then to anybody else slightly more authoritarian than you then thats kosher and then we end up with censorship running rampant like today.

What do I mean with censorship running rampant? between 2010-2015, Twitter banned 12 famous accounts... in 2021 twitter banned 48 famous accounts .. that is a 20x increase in censorship and 2022 is going even worse, the reason of the bans in the 2010-2015 era it was ISIS and mostly ugly stuff, these days are antivaxers, "fake news", dead-naming/transphobia.

This isn't just twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and all the social media are the same.

Also governments are less tolerant of speech too, I can show you an alike 20x increase in people imprisoned regarding internet speech in the UK, the "nazi pug guy" isn't an anomaly, its the standard punishment for these actions.

An uninteresting, absolutely politically irrelevant video lol

It isn't actually a 20x increase in censorship. There are sbout 10x as many Twitter users now than in 2010. So probably more like 2-4x increase in censorship. It's really the unknown people you want to watch out for anyway.

That adviser to zelensky seems insane to me. He actually says he wants ukraine to join NATO to draw russia into a war.

On March 26 2022 05:59 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 23 2022 08:11 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's not that I don't acknowledge it, I just disagree/think you are wrong. I think some degree of censorship (but only of the most egregious statements - e.g. let's exterminate the blacks) is the necessary evil that you think allowing them to speak freely is. I have no problem reconciling the position that 'people are banning too much' and 'some degree of moderation of speech should still happen' - that's the position I've maintained as a TL moderator for more than a decade. I don't know exactly where the line between 'let's kill all trans people' and 'trans people would be better off dead' and 'society would be better off if all trans people would be dead' and 'trans people are mentally ill and they're committing suicide for this reason, has nothing to do with how society treats them' and 'trans people are mentally ill' goes, but just because I don't know where the line goes does not mean I have to be okay with the first statement (which I know is over the line) having a platform to propagate itself on. The key difference I'm noticing is that I'm fine with some degree of arbitrariness and fine with the debate not being settled. I think we must continuously debate what statements are okay to make and what contexts make a statement okay to make/not okay to make. Attempting to settle difficult issues based around the strict application of a principle (e.g. 'no speech should ever be moderated' isn't going to yield good results either, from my perspective.) I also don't believe that the lack of such a guiding principle is inevitably going to lead to an increased degree of censorship - my impression is that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct in the US than it is in Europe, yet at the same time, that this censorship you complain about happens more in the US than here. (Here, where some countries actually have had laws against for example holocaust denial, we see that indeed, the actual censorship that happens is more likely to target people who argue like actual nazis than people who make jokes about trans people.) Again, also important to note that it's not a monolithic continent. You can accurately criticize Swedish media/Sweden for trying to conceal negative aspects related to their immigration, but you should then note that Denmark has a very different track record in terms of keeping and publicizing the very same statistics. Just because you allow for the potential of censorship does not mean you have to go Sweden, you can also go Denmark. Also that I don't really care about twitter. A platform designed to avoid nuance is not one I'm particularly positive towards. I'm not sure to what degree twitter is doing what twitter is doing because of any laws though, rather than because they're concerned with maintaining their customer base? "Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", they are not remotely on the same league, If you even consider outlawing the latter statement, then we are in no way in the same page about freedom of speech, which is a bit my point why its much better to err on the side of "allowing too much" than to censor, because if that statement is a close one for you then to anybody else slightly more authoritarian than you then thats kosher and then we end up with censorship running rampant like today. What do I mean with censorship running rampant? between 2010-2015, Twitter banned 12 famous accounts... in 2021 twitter banned 48 famous accounts .. that is a 20x increase in censorship and 2022 is going even worse, the reason of the bans in the 2010-2015 era it was ISIS and mostly ugly stuff, these days are antivaxers, "fake news", dead-naming/transphobia. This isn't just twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and all the social media are the same. Also governments are less tolerant of speech too, I can show you an alike 20x increase in people imprisoned regarding internet speech in the UK, the "nazi pug guy" isn't an anomaly, its the standard punishment for these actions.

Those statistics don't represent a 20x increase in censorship. Twitter in 2010 had 10% of the user base it had in 2021. Yes, there's still an increase, but it's prolly more like 5x if you factor in the amount of people on twitter.(here) Still - that isn't really my point. I'm not disputing that the debate climate (especially in the twitter universe and world of social media, two arenas I generally strongly dislike for debating) has in some ways become worse. I'm very negative towards the polarization seen in society, and in general, I'm strongly opposed to ostracizing people for their beliefs. I am, in general, a strong proponent of 'let's have a healthy and honest debate about these issues'.

Anyway, I agree that "Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", and I'd never advocate for statement #2 being illegal. However, what I am saying is, I have no problems with thinking that the first should be illegal (in certain contexts - it would also depend upon the audience), that the latter should be legal, but that I don't know exactly where the line goes, which is what I tried to illustrate by giving progressively less bad statements (that still might be construed as hate speech by some people). 'Let's kill trans people' and 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' aren't necessarily as different. 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' and 'all trans people should be dead' aren't necessarily all that different. Etc, etc - if we start out with a direct threat/incitement of violence and gradually make ten following statements that are all slightly less threatening, then the 10th statement will look very different from the first, and it's easy to draw a line between those two. But it might not be as easy to separate statement #1 from statement #2. I don't think the solution to it being difficult to determine exactly where the line goes is to claim that there is no line and that everything should be permitted.

Consequently, if you agree that statements that are clearly inciting violence or that are direct threats towards someone can/should be illegal, then you do, effectively, agree that freedom of speech is not / should not be absolute, and rather, that it's about determining what statements constitute clear incitement of violence / direct threats towards someone.

I also agree that the UK has seen some ridiculous rulings. I'm sure many other countries have too. Still, that does not show that having some law against say, 'speech that incites violence or genocide' will inevitably transform into a law against bigoted statements or a law against racist jokes. I've never seen a similar ruling in Denmark, and while it's fine to disagree with ruling against the Norwegian party of let's forcibly sterilize all non-western immigrants, I don't think that was a ridiculous ruling either.

On March 26 2022 07:56 Stroggoz wrote: That adviser to zelensky seems insane to me. He actually says he wants ukraine to join NATO to draw russia into a war.

I understand him more to be saying that he wants Ukraine to join NATO because otherwise Russia will gradually conquer them, region by region, and that one big war (which he thinks they can win) is preferable to 'settle the issue' rather than facing a slow annexation into the Soviet Union 2.0. Neutrality is not an option (the way he sees it - and I really can't argue against him), because Russia won't allow it; Russia is forcing Ukraine to choose side, and then they want to side with NATO, even knowing that the price for this choice is a full scale war with Russia.

He is so certain that putin would invade ukraine that ukraine may as well join nato, get invaded, and "win" the war. Likely the consequences of such a war would be devastating to ukraine, and possibly the world. As well as a complete radicalization of ukraine, greatly empowering the far right authoritarian elements in the country.

There's no way he can have that degree of certainty, nor can anyone else that is currently pretending to be an expert on putinology. It doesn't even make sense even if he knew putin was going to do that because putin could either die or step down (in a coup) before it happened.

On March 26 2022 09:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: Those statistics don't represent a 20x increase in censorship. Twitter in 2010 had 10% of the user base it had in 2021. Yes, there's still an increase, but it's prolly more like 5x if you factor in the amount of people on twitter.(here) Still - that isn't really my point. I'm not disputing that the debate climate (especially in the twitter universe and world of social media, two arenas I generally strongly dislike for debating) has in some ways become worse. I'm very negative towards the polarization seen in society, and in general, I'm strongly opposed to ostracizing people for their beliefs. I am, in general, a strong proponent of 'let's have a healthy and honest debate about these issues'. Anyway, I agree that "Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", and I'd never advocate for statement #2 being illegal. However, what I am saying is, I have no problems with thinking that the first should be illegal (in certain contexts - it would also depend upon the audience), that the latter should be legal, but that I don't know exactly where the line goes, which is what I tried to illustrate by giving progressively less bad statements (that still might be construed as hate speech by some people). 'Let's kill trans people' and 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' aren't necessarily as different. 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' and 'all trans people should be dead' aren't necessarily all that different. Etc, etc - if we start out with a direct threat/incitement of violence and gradually make ten following statements that are all slightly less threatening, then the 10th statement will look very different from the first, and it's easy to draw a line between those two. But it might not be as easy to separate statement #1 from statement #2. I don't think the solution to it being difficult to determine exactly where the line goes is to claim that there is no line and that everything should be permitted. Consequently, if you agree that statements that are clearly inciting violence or that are direct threats towards someone can/should be illegal, then you do, effectively, agree that freedom of speech is not / should not be absolute, and rather, that it's about determining what statements constitute clear incitement of violence / direct threats towards someone. I also agree that the UK has seen some ridiculous rulings. I'm sure many other countries have too. Still, that does not show that having some law against say, 'speech that incites violence or genocide' will inevitably transform into a law against bigoted statements or a law against racist jokes. I've never seen a similar ruling in Denmark, and while it's fine to disagree with ruling against the Norwegian party of let's forcibly sterilize all non-western immigrants, I don't think that was a ridiculous ruling either.

You perfectly describe how allowing one censorious legislation can devolve into more censorship and a paragraph later despise watching it happen real time you claim it doesn't happen like in the UK because... Denmark lol.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect direct calls fo illeal action, I haven't said I would ever condone censorship ideas, and illegal immigrants being sterilized is an idea, an awful one, but an idea nonetheless, "lets go and castrate Pete who lives under the bridge" isn't an idea, its a call to commit a crime.

But for the 3rd time what we are witnessing isn't remotely between our differene to where to draw the line, its about censoring anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, misgendering etc, things way fucking past and instead of sharing the outrage, you go and argue about how it isnt a 20x increase for fucks sake.

I don't like how these intellactuals keep ignoring me n jlost..

Even baal has no more use 4 me now that we beat loco..

It's... about as many words as in the hungry caterpillar if you ever read that book back when you were a fetus.

Yea but vocab harder

Fu stroggoz

We were once Bros but then u decided 2 betray me with the dumb loco

I taught u everythin u kno about life...yet u still u betray me shame on yuu

Et tu brutus...