Anonymous #1 8w

Strip away intent and the first principles actualize the same system.

-4

Anonymous OP 8w

As if intent isn’t a huge part of it 💀

4

Anonymous OP 8w

Strawman central.

5

Anonymous #3 8w

Point to the strawman. I’m describing system behavior, not emotions. If that stings, it’s not because it’s inaccurate.

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

Sure I can. I’ll DM you though so when this gets taken down we can’t keep going.

3

Anonymous #2 8w

So if a regime criminalizes dissent, disarms citizens, and filters reproductive participation, but smiles while doing it, it’s fine?

-3

Anonymous #3 8w

No, you can argue in public.

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

You mean like when a regime criminalizes criticism of the government, strips people of their rights based on race, throws away science when it doesn’t agree with them, and engages with neo-Nazi rhetoric and platforms neo-Nazis?

4

Anonymous OP 8w

I will, I’m just doing that too that way when it gets taken down. You don’t have the luxury of hiding behind a removed post. Do you think speech should be absolute, that we should be able to make credible threats towards the president or towards vulnerable groups like children, yes or no?

3

Anonymous OP 8w

I’m not even going to engage on how the right to choose is somehow “eugenics”, be so goddamn fr 💀

4

Anonymous #3 8w

There’s no such thing as partially free speech. Every exception becomes a lever, used first on the fringe, then on the dissenting, then on the inconvenient. The line doesn’t stay where you draw it and moves in perpetuity.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

Yes, that’s how authoritarian systems behave. You’ve just confirmed my thesis. If you think pointing it at the other side excuses your own system running the same code, you’ve missed the argument entirely.

-2

Anonymous OP 8w

Didn’t answer what I asked, yes or no? Try again.

3

Anonymous OP 8w

Except they’re not running the same code at all. Show me where democrats criminalized dissent

5

Anonymous #2 8w

Show me where people were stripped of rights based on race. Show me where science was selectively “worshipped”

4

Anonymous #2 8w

When 14% of the population accounts for 38% of abortions under persistent structural pressure, poverty, limited healthcare access, and targeted messaging, the result is not reproductive freedom. It is a systemically optimized reduction in future births, functionally indistinct from eugenic filtration.

-4

Anonymous OP 8w

btw, this admin smiles while doing it too, so obviously intent is not just about how they claim it’s being used. It’s about the meaning behind it. Stop being disingenuous

6

Anonymous OP 8w

Then maybe we should solve those underlying problems instead of cutting their access to healthcare even further, hmm?

2

Anonymous #3 8w

I did, and yes.

0

Anonymous OP 8w

Great so now we’ve established that legally you’re more than okay with pedophiles making credible threats against children sexually, and them facing no legal repercussions. Now that we’ve established that basis. Would you like for me to explain why free speech should have limits in order to maintain safe and secure environments for citizens?

2

Anonymous #2 8w

Great idea. Hold the price setter accountable and removed the shrouded third party negotiator. Glad we agree.

1

Anonymous OP 8w

Well you just equated the people who wanted to do that to Nazis, so…

5

Anonymous #3 8w

There's the false equivalence I was anticipating. You’re confusing speech with action. A credible threat is already prosecutable, not because of what was said, but because of its imminent, targeted, actionable nature. That’s criminal conduct, not speech. Have you ever read a first amendment case.

-4

Anonymous #2 8w

If we really want to discuss borderline eugenics, what happens when you cut food aid, education, and healthcare for the poor, who we know are disproportionately minorities?

3

Anonymous OP 8w

They were very obviously operating under a hypothetical framework, and you agreed, because you didn’t raise this issue when the example of credible threats against the president was mentioned

3

Anonymous #2 8w

Cutting welfare is catastrophic, but it’s not eugenics. Eugenics suppresses reproduction. Removing support may increase hardship, but it doesn’t reduce fertility on design. Abortion does. That’s the structural difference, one reduces life, the other fails to sustain it

-2

Anonymous OP 8w

If people do not have the means to survive, are they going to reproduce? Yes or no?

2

Anonymous #2 8w

Your standard seems to be, “If you didn’t object sooner, you’ve forfeited clarity.” Are you a toddler? That’s not how logic works.

0

Anonymous OP 8w

You said yes and provided no further explanation. You also said that there is “no such thing as partially free speech” and “every exception becomes a lever”. You’re no longer being consistent

3

Anonymous #2 8w

Yes, people do reproduce under hardship. That’s why unintended pregnancy rates are highest among the poor, and why abortion rates are disproportionately concentrated in those same groups. The system doesn’t prevent conception. It targets the outcome post-conception, and that’s where the filtration happens.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

You barely were in the first place anyway

2

Anonymous #2 8w

I did, see above.

0

Anonymous OP 8w

That distinction doesn’t matter, because hindering the ability for children to survive after birth is filtration as well. If anything, there’s filtration in two places.

3

Anonymous OP 8w

No, try again

3

Anonymous #2 8w

That distinction matters precisely because intentionality defines design. A child dying from neglect is a failure of provision. A child prevented from being born through systematic pressure is a filtration mechanism by design. One is tragic. The other is engineered.

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

“Do you think speech should be absolute, and that we should be able to make credible threats…towards vulnerable groups like children” “Yes” “So…you’re more than okay with pedophiles making credible threats against children sexually” “No”

6

Anonymous OP 8w

You just threw out intentionality earlier in this thread. What happened to first principles actualizing the same system?

2

Anonymous OP 8w

Tragedies can be engineered, don’t be naive

2

Anonymous OP 8w

We already dont have complete free speech in the US

5

Anonymous OP 8w

Come back again when you can remain consistent for more than half an hour. This is laughable

5

Anonymous #2 8w

Cook goat

3

Anonymous #2 8w

You’re confusing mentioning engineering with arguing motive. That’s why you think I contradicted myself. You’re not wrong morally. You’re just operating at a layer below where this conversation is happening.

0

Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah, you guys didn't cook.

0

Anonymous OP 8w

You said you believe speech being FREE should be *absolute* That is the precedent you agreed to. If you think what I presented isn’t okay, you are in favor of regulated speech. Good job moron lol

7

Anonymous #3 8w

You’re conflating what I find morally repulsive with what I believe should be legally restricted. Free speech being absolute doesn’t mean I endorse the content, it means I oppose the state regulating it. The Supreme Court ruled this clearly in Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action. I don’t need the state to silence people I disagree with.

-2

Anonymous #3 8w

That’s the difference between someone who believes in freedom and someone like you, who confuses offense with illegality.

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

You don’t have to endorse the act, you endorse it being legal. That’s the issue. You set the precedent when you agreed you believe speech should be absolute, and free. And arbitrarily setting lines is something you disagree with.

4

Anonymous #3 8w

“I hate it, so ban it” isn’t an argument. That’s how authoritarians think both left and right. This is your argument.

-2

Anonymous OP 8w

so your argument is we should force people to have unwanted kids in order to change the demographics? i wonder how the nazis felt about white couples who didn’t have enough kids

5

Anonymous OP 8w

so if i shoot someone with a gun that’s murder, but let’s say i willfully let them fall out of a plane it’s not? you (being the disingenuous nazi fuck that you are) are basing all your arguments are straw men and false dichotomies.

4

Anonymous #5 8w

I never argued for forcing anyone to have children. I argued that when a system disproportionately incentivizes not having them, through economic pressure, policy design, and cultural framing it becomes a filtration mechanism by effect, not by law.

-3

Anonymous #5 8w

I'm not a nazi, in that I rebuke the logic. That said, shooting someone and letting them fall are both intentional acts with foreseeable outcomes. It’s called proximate causation.

-2

Anonymous OP 8w

It’s quite literally not my argument. Repeat your argument this time do not strawman me. You have agreed to my premise that speech should be free, regardless of what’s said. That means you are okay, legally, with credible threats towards cumbersome groups. That doesn’t mean you have to endorse them morally, only that legally you don’t think that’s something to stop.

0

Anonymous #3 8w

Free speech ≠ actionable harm. Key word here is action.

0

Anonymous OP 8w

One more time then. Do you think all forms of speech should be allowed without legal interference?

1

Anonymous #3 8w

Speech, yes. Action, no. I can’t make this any simpler for you.

0

Anonymous OP 8w

Great, so again. You think it should be perfectly legal to make credible threats towards vulnerable groups and have those individuals see no legal punishment for that.

2