Anonymous og_beer 6d

True’ If dems did this there would be tyranny!

1

Anonymous _orangutan 6d

all societies restrict speech because speech CAN be harmful. defamation, disinformation, hate speech, and other harmful and damaging forms of speech should not be considered protected speech. free speech is not real, it never has been. it’s an ideal, and one that is proving more harmful than beneficial

0

Anonymous _orangutan 6d

this entire time we have had supposed “free speech” it has been a privilege enjoyed only by the white owning class. the settler class does not get to universally indulge in this right, because the second they forgo their settler identity and align themselves with the rest of the exploited working class, that supposed “right” vanishes

0

Anonymous _orangutan 6d

and that’s the entire premise of it really, to guarantee private ownership over the means of speech and press. all of our mass media is collectively owned by who? not Jewish peoples, but white capitalists. it pushes messages to support who? capitalists. our only form of public media just got its budget GUTTED by a capitalist president. it cannot be more clear who our “rights” protect, and who they harm

0

well you fell for the antisemitism grift, so, deserved ngl

-2

I’m sorry WHAT DID I MISS

1

you called it the entity in three parentheses. “israel” is the zionist entity, that’s a fact. that’s not what you called it

-1

yeah it’s a dogwhistle

0

in what other context do you surround words with three parentheses?

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

I think you need to go back to history class. A fundamental core tenet of fascism is restriction of speech. People always talk about the Nazis burning books as one of their first actions. You do know what that means, right? And how that relates to criminalizing ideas?

1

Anonymous OP 5d

it’s also fundamental to liberal democracies. see the treatment of nonwhite peoples in the occupied Americas. they don’t burn the books here, they just beat the languages out of indigenous children in boarding schools

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

mind you, a supposed “right” to free speech. perhaps you need to reexamine history, because none of what i have said is incorrect

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

What you have just described is also fascism btw. I genuinely can’t tell if you’re trolling. Because how on earth is the genocide of Native Americans anything but fascist?

1

Anonymous OP 5d

fascism is also the colonial violence that capitalism is built off of. it’s the imperialized world that is constantly destabilized, bombed, and starved by a few wealthy and white nations. all of those liberal democracies espouse the same “right” to free speech before they then go deprive people of their basic human rights, living, shelter, access to food, etc., ignoring the civil rights they’re deprived of entirely, in the pursuit of natural resource and labor

0

Anonymous OP 5d

i’m not trolling, if you agree, then you agree 👍

0

Anonymous OP 5d

i’m just saying that it serves the interests of white supremacy and capitalists (who utilize fascism) to preserve this ideal of “free speech”. it doesn’t exist. there is protected speech, and regulated speech. free speech absolutists only want their “right” to free speech, so they can be useful morons and spout hate speech, all the while harming normal people

-1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

this whole time, they’re using free speech to intentionally mislead masses of people. speech is a tool, and like an axe, can be weaponized. we regulate it to prevent weaponization

-1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

And when regulations are weaponized against the people because we gave the government the power to dictate it?

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

and y’all were downvoting me for pointing out a dogwhistle. you’re just as useful idiots lol

0

Anonymous og_beer 5d

organize and revolt

-1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

at that point, it is a responsibility. silence is complicity after all

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

So we should just have a constant instability cycle of revolution and overstep instead of preventing the overstep?

1

Anonymous og_beer 5d

that’s sort of how history develops… a series of class struggles. this is why communists point towards the dissolution of class. class dynamics are what create this conditions

1

Anonymous og_beer 5d

the liberal democracies are much more preferable to the absolutist monarchies, aren’t they. they were earned through revolution, much like the rights of workers’ states

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

Surely the judge of what is defamation and disinformation will never be biased…

1

Anonymous #1 5d

nothing is unbiased? i don’t adhere to silly ideas that people or institutions organized by people can be unbiased

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

it’s chill, y’all are just liberals. i forget that regulating white supremacy isn’t okay if it violates one of your core beliefs. you don’t like what they’re saying, but you respect their right to say it. guess what, they don’t give a shit about you and will kill you after they have killed every other person marginalized by this racist and classist system. y’all are incredibly naive, and useful idiots for actual fascism. plot twist morons, the tolerance of intolerance ruins it for us all

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

So if you think the idea that the regulator is unbiased is silly, why propose regulations?

6

Anonymous #1 5d

to limit harmful speech…? you should not be able to lie on mass media, slander someone, assault someone, defame someone, or incite violence towards people on the basis of their personhood (hate speech). obviously those regulations are biased towards all would be offenders

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

and whereas under the current child raping white supremacist regime, it’s biased towards all marginalized peoples

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

So genuinely what happens when the new government in charge deems your speech hateful? Why have to take the time, energy, and lose lives in a revolution when you could just prevent the power from happening? We already have ample regulations in place for what speech isn’t protected. We just fail to uphold those regulations. What makes you think more would mean more fair punishment?

2

Anonymous og_beer 5d

the current government deems my speech hateful, meanwhile racists are allowed to speak with impunity. we do not live in a utopian world where class does not exist. class exists, therefore states do. the state should be owned by the largest class, the working class, and should serve its interests, to which racism, slander, and all of the other suggested regulations are

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

racism, slander, and other harmful forms of speech aren’t in the interests of the working class to be clear, and if we agree that enforcement is what’s needed, then we agree 👍

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

In a utopian world where the state does not exist, who enforces this?

1

Anonymous #1 5d

we don’t live in such a world. we live in the material world, where states and class exist. i don’t entertain ideals

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

I know we don’t. I’m asking about a hypothetical, which you actually brought up first

1

Anonymous #1 5d

are you able to read? we don’t live in utopia, nor do i pretend we do

-1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

*I know we don’t*. I’m *not* asking you to pretend that we do. I’m asking who the regulator is in the utopian classless, stateless society you mentioned.

0

Anonymous #1 5d

i mentioned no such thing. communism isn’t your third grade definition of it. marxism is a science and a process. the state persists until it is able to wither away as class is dissolved

1

Anonymous #1 5d

what you’re doing is attacking a strawman

1

Anonymous #1 5d

but in any communist *state* the state is the regulator. hope this helps!

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

You did. You said “we do not live in a utopian world…”, meaning that you have identified what one would look like and entertained the idea to the extent that you see that our current world is different. You mentioned it.

0

Anonymous #1 5d

you’re assuming. we do not live in a utopia and i don’t entertain that ideal. next question or pipe down

0

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

Are you responding to someone else? Where did I say anything along the lines of a third grade definition of communism? I didn’t ask how long the state persists

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

as opposed to a utopian and idealist world, we live in the material world. that’s what i meant, not that communism is somehow utopian. i mention third grade definitions because idk why you’re talking about stateless and classlessness when we live in class society organized under states

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

like, i’m not an anarchist, the state will exist so long as capital needs to be oppressed

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

You said “we do not live in a utopian world where class does not exist”, implying that the dissolution of class is at least a necessary condition for a utopian world. Then you established that the existence of a class is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the state. Therefore, your own logic makes the dissolution of class and the state necessary conditions for a utopian world.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

you are implying that, not i

0

Anonymous #1 5d

we will never live in a utopian world, please quit pestering me with your strawman

0

Anonymous #1 5d

because plot twist moron, humans have lived in class society for only 8000 or so years. most of our prehistory was spent in classlessness. i don’t insist that primitive communism was utopian

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

utopia does not exist, i’m not interested in utopia. i’m interested in improving material conditions for the masses of people on this planet. not commit to an economic system that fails to meet basic human needs AND marches the planet towards mass extinction

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

capitalism presumes utopia. it presumes that something can grow infinitely in a finite existence

1

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

now please listen to what has been said instead of insisting what i said

1