Do you agree with this?

Do you agree with this?

Attached: xkcd-freedom-3.png (757x3030, 240.39K)

Not at all. The very first panel betrays the failure of "free speech." The right to do a thing does not in any way impede the agency that ostensibly guarantees that right from infringing upon it. Rights are the empty promises made by the fox to the hens.

Too many words fam

Flag checks out

No, "free speech" is a spook like every other liberal "right".

would the concept not exist in a socialist society?

It would not need to. Where people govern themselves there would be no authority to deny them the ability to say what they wish.

So, if communists came into power, rights would not exist.
Tell me why exactly anyone is supposed to support you dumbasses, again?

Nope, the concept of "rights" inherently assumes the existence of an organ able to deprive of such rights. The purpose of socialism is to destroy such organs.

So if I didn't like what someone said and punched them in the face for it, what would happen to me?

Oh? How would you prevent the tyranny of the majority?

They do not exist now. Suckers just delude themselves into thinking that they do.

Attached: The Hellion-Electric Eye - Judas Priest.webm (320x240, 6.01M)

What would even be the nature of such a "tyranny?" How would it function?

You would have just punched someone in the face.

Alice expresses an idea the rest of the community find obnoxious in the extreme. Bob, Carol and Dan resolve to kill Alice for speaking.

So, it works based off of the assumption that most people are psychopaths? Pretty unrealistic, to be honest.

Here's the thing:

Free speech is ok; just don't pretend you can always get away with everything you say. By this, I'm not saying the government must use authority to stop what you say, nor corporations or any form of authority figure. I basically mean, for instance, that if you call a black person a "nigger", don't get surprised you get your face fucked up by said black person.

Use common sense. It all boils down to it.

Speech itself should be abolished—then we will have no problems with muh free speech.

Of course. Absolute free expression is core to the functioning of democracy, and socialism without democracy isn't socialism.

Just because something is merely an idea, doesn't mean the conscious choice to uphold it can't be valid.

Spooks aren't any ideas, they're ideas one fail to acknowledge as merely ideas.

Attached: Egotist monster.png (523x452, 6.1K)

It's just like geo politics.
Players only play by the rules if they are winning.

It's really simple. Either internet websites are liable for all content which is the only reason they get to selectively enforce content OR they've engaged inmassive conspiracy, harassment, and defacement campaigns.

So either they could get their site shut down at anytime by the FBI and possibly fined/jailed for inciting violence and child porn

Or they could most definitely be fined and sued out of existence for what they've done to individuals.

Pic related

Attached: 3ccfdf1.jpg (720x861, 38.26K)

Patrician taste tbh

Back to Reddit liberal.

No. XKCD is a retard who thinks that "free speech" = "first amendment" which is retarded.

anrcho-socialism isn't going to happen. What would that even look like? People freely donating their time and money on a large enough scale to achieve egalitarianism? What would keep crime from going out of control?

The statement that "rights don't exist" does not mean you should restrict freedoms just because, or that certain freedoms should not be valued uniquely compared to others. It just means that they do not exist on a metaphysical level the way the phrases of "god-given rights" or "natural, inalienable rights" imply. In other they are, in reality, nothing but purely legal constructs that have been given special value by a culture and/or state, and are as a result very alienable whether we like that fact or not.

not necessarily. I don't think the founding fathers could predict shitposting but ok.

that being said, free speech is a dubious concept at best. deplatforming people causes radicals to grow, no matter who is doing the deplatforming or whom is being deplatformed. just because some edgelord is hurting CEOs pocketbooks is of no concern to me and there should just be a direct worker to state praxis. in "le current year" business controls free speech, most of the people in advertising and journalism. if we didn't have either, no issue. but we do.

yeah, good luck with that. literally why would they? this some 18th century utopianism type shit

back to /r/latestagecapitalism, tankie SJW


He's basically just defending censorship right? No, I do not agree.

I don't think I've ever seen an admission of illiteracy this bold
if you don't have the reading comprehension or attention span for for a comic with a couple of short paragraphs of text don't post your takes on it, they are worthless

If you need multiple paragraphs of text, then don't use a comic format. Just write a damn article.

I'd agree, but the purpose of the comic format here is to make the text more accessible to smartphone-social media people with no attention span

to be honest I think social media should be fined for playing favorites or get their assets seized.

none of those things matter unless you're gigantic moralfag.

Considering that some people are calling an 8 lines paragraph a novel, that's far from being enough

Lel the state is going to limit or fine the greatest domestic spying apparatus ever conceived. Also, lel the state > ruling class.

Lel state actions need to have rational justifications.

You rebut a comic with a comic.

xkcd itself is infamous for its excessive wordiness and total lack of art making it a terrible waste of the cartoon strip medium

Attached: thatsthejoke.jpg (600x450, 31.25K)