Would you be happy if your opponents were driven offline?

[bripat9643]

Differences are what makes the world interesting. Just remember you don’t have to get fighting mad at people who disagree with you.

Do Gulags make the world interesting?

 

[bripat9643]

The first amendment controls the relationship between individuals and the government. It has no bearing on speech between individuals.

A good tip when citing the Constitution is actually trying to understand it's content.

Facebook and google are tools of the government, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't mean that you have the right to be listened too.

Elon Musk can spend 40 billion on a platform from which he can be heard. Is that free speech? I have the right to ignore him.

When they developed the 'Fairness Doctrine" a hundred years ago it was because Congress realized the danger of one group getting access to a nation wide network and being able to broadcast the same political perspective 24/7/365. After RayGun gutted it, that behavior was not prohibited even on public air waves, or the internet. So what's the beef? Can private entities/companies publish freely or are they constrained by someone or some policy like the Fairness Doctine?

The government doesn't have the authority to tell private companies who they can censor, and that is exactly what's going on now, you fucking douchebag. Anyone who defends it is a tool of the police state.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'm happy when anyone is marginalized who willfully puts out disinformation.

But what if “disinformation” continually gets proven to be true after your initial censorship?

I wouldn’t trust your opinion on what “disinformation” is

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Democrats are pro censorship and any Democrats that says otherwise is lying to your face.

Free speech is dangerous, especially to totalitarian fascist.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

I'm happy when anyone is marginalized who willfully puts out disinformation.

Fascist like this will label any info Democrats don't like, true or not, as disinformation.

 

[Batcat]

Do Gulags make the world interesting?

I have never lived in Russia so my knowledge of the Gulag is limited.

Gulag - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Gulag[c][d][10][11][9] was the government agency in charge of the Sovietnetwork of forced labour camps which were set up by order of Vladimir Lenin, reaching its peak during Joseph Stalin's rule from the 1930s to the early 1950s.[12] English-language speakers also use the word gulag in reference to all of the forced-labor camps that existed in the Soviet Union, including the camps that existed in the post-Lenin era.[13][14]

The Gulag is recognized as a major instrument of political repression in the Soviet Union. The camps housed a wide range of convicts, from petty criminals to political prisoners, a large number of whom were convicted by simplified procedures, such as NKVD troikas or other instruments of extrajudicial punishment. In 1918–22, the agency was administered by the Cheka, followed by the GPU (1922–23), the OGPU (1923–34), later known as the NKVD(1934–46), and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) in the final years. The Solovki prison camp, the first correctional labour camp which was constructed after the revolution, was opened in 1918 and legalized by a decree, "On the creation of the forced-labor camps", on April 15, 1919.

The internment system grew rapidly, reaching a population of 100,000 in the 1920s. By the end of 1940, the population of the Gulag camps amounted to 1.5 million[15] The emergent consensus among scholars is that, of the 14 million prisoners who passed through the Gulag camps and the 4 million prisoners who passed through the Gulag colonies from 1930 to 1953, roughly 1.5 to 1.7 million prisoners perished there or they died soon after they were released.[1][2][3] Some journalists and writers who question the reliability of such data heavily rely on memoir sources that come to higher estimations.[1][7] Archival researchers have found "no plan of destruction" of the gulag population and no statement of official intent to kill them, and prisoner releases vastly exceeded the number of deaths in the Gulag.[1] This policy can partially be attributed to the common practice of releasing prisoners who were suffering from incurable diseases as well as prisoners who were near death.[15][16]

Almost immediately after the death of Stalin, the Soviet establishment started to dismantle the Gulag system. A general amnesty was granted in the immediate aftermath of Stalin's death, but it was only offered to non-political prisoners and political prisoners who had been sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison. Shortly thereafter, Nikita Khrushchev was elected First Secretary, initiating the processes of de-Stalinization and the Khrushchev Thaw, triggering a mass release and rehabilitation of political prisoners. Six years later, on 25 January 1960, the Gulag system was officially abolished when the remains of its administration were dissolved by Khrushchev. The legal practice of sentencing convicts to penal labor was not fully abolished even though it was restrained and it continues to exist in the Russian Federation, but its capacity is greatly reduced.[17][1

However some interesting books were written by people who had lived in a Gulag.

5 important Russian books about the Gulag and Stalin's Great Terror

There are many books written about this darkest period in Soviet history. We have selected the most important of them that give you an idea of what...

www.rbth.com

 

[Billiejeens]

The first amendment controls the relationship between individuals and the government. It has no bearing on speech between individuals.

A good tip when citing the Constitution is actually trying to understand it's content.

This isn't even the hard stuff.
When an individual is acting for the Government, the individual accepts the restrictions on the Government.

You either are extremely stupid or extremely dishonest.

I guess it could be a combination -
Do you have an answer?

 

[Man of Ethics]

Of course. What kind of Simp Soy Boy is bothered by the ineptitude of their opponents (to set up their own servers) or their cultural defeat? I would love to see Confederate culture for instance, shamed and ridiculed into extinction. What would be wrong with that? Would anyone cry over the cultural defeat of Nazis?

Definitely, overt Racism such as Confederate culture is Hate Speech. It is still forbidden even on Twitter. Overt Racism, like calls for violence and libel is prohibited in most of Europe.


Unfortunately, many Progressives are working to silence legitimate criticism and even campaigns for Human Rights. That is my experience.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Would you be happy if your opponents were driven offline?​

Would it require the suspension of laws, rules and any Constitutional provisions?

Asking for a friend.

No. It can be done through organized economic pressure.

 

[BackAgain]

well, maybe.

But I’m philosophically opposed to censorship, in actuality.

 

[Curried Goats]

Definitely, overt Racism such as Confederate culture is Hate Speech. It is still forbidden even on Twitter. Overt Racism, like calls for violence and libel is prohibited in most of Europe.


Unfortunately, many Progressives are working to silence legitimate criticism and even campaigns for Human Rights. That is my experience.

And so their idea of what is legitimate differs from yours. So what?

 

[Man of Ethics]

And so their idea of what is legitimate differs from yours. So what?

Why should they be the arbiters of what is a legitimate Human Rights issue?

 

[Curried Goats]

Why should they be the arbiters of what is a legitimate Human Rights issue?

They are the arbiters of what they find to be legitimate aren't they? Where you agreed with them, concerning Nazis and Confederates, you had no issue with you and they being the arbiter.

 

[Man of Ethics]

They are the arbiters of what they find to be legitimate aren't they? Where you agreed with them, concerning Nazis and Confederates, you had no issue with you and they being the arbiter.

I guess most people would agree on these issue.


Sadly Progressives want to dictate the rules of speech on many issues which are not clear cut at all.

 

[Curried Goats]

I guess most people would agree on these issue.


Sadly Progressives want to dictate the rules of speech on many issues which are not clear cut at all.

Everyone who casts a vote can be argued to want to dictate rules. What of it? You seem to have a problem with fairly normal behavior that even you yourself admit to engaging in.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Candy is simple.
You are talking about higher level thinking.

isnt that up to the people to figure it out, or are Marxists saying that some people just arent smart enough to?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Definitely, overt Racism such as Confederate culture is Hate Speech. It is still forbidden even on Twitter. Overt Racism, like calls for violence and libel is prohibited in most of Europe.


Unfortunately, many Progressives are working to silence legitimate criticism and even campaigns for Human Rights. That is my experience.

Wouldnt people want to know why the Southern White Democrats and Some Black Democrats wanted to keep slavery? That is our history and should be taught, so we dont repeat the same mistake again. Oh well, that is happening again, even as we speak.

 

[Lesh]

Hopefully you are right.

I guess I have inherited my innate fear of Totalitarianism from all four of my grandparents (RIP) who lived in USSR in 1937. But USA can become much worse then USSR 1937.

Are you fucking serious?

Stalin was killing millions back then. Starving whole regions

WhT a stupid insane statement

 

[frigidweirdo]

hadda lookit up, interesting concept! ~S~

The more you look it up, the better it gets. The least corrupt countries use it, the countries with the most sensible politicians get those politicians because of it. It least to POSITIVE voting, people campaigning for what they believe in, not what they think the people want to hear.