Freedom of speech is the freedom to threaten. How can you expect normal human interaction, if you place punishments on the people for making specific grunts of human emotion. No true peace can be had until we're able to express ourselves in the form of verbal outburst.
How can we redirect resources toward freeing ourselves from the laws against speech? Even on 8pol, how can we really even talk to each other?
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.li
bitchute.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
just give them a call
archive.li
Speak freely and truly in your daily life and be prepared to lose friends over it.
It's an* important issue. White Genocide is the most important issue.
Reminder that freedom of speech was first codified in law in England specifically to allow for the Barons (as well as everyone else, but it was specifically at their behest) to insult and threaten the Monarch (and anyone else, but it was originally all about the Monarch).
Getting tired of these gook threads.
Free Speech and The Inquisitorial vs Adversarial Paradigm
Free speech is often promoted in these circles as a principle, but I would posit that may be a mistake.
In the context of a normative, racinated, healthy, cohesive society? Sure! I'm all for it.
… But we don't have that. Not at all.
So let's consider what free speech actually does.
For that purpose, I'm going to utilize the paradigm of inquisitorial vs adversarial, as seen in judicial governance in Europe and the US (respectively).
To spoonfeed a bit, its basically like this: The adversarial position generates a truth-outcome via competition between two parties (in coordination with the evidence at hand) before a third party, while the inquisitorial position generates a truth-outcome via investigation and analysis of evidentiary data on behalf of a third party.
These are likewise the two positions as regards speech, or at least, these are two positions.
Consider free speech in the context of an adversarial context.
The consequential outcome of such a position is that truth-outcomes are heavily dependent upon presentation, that is, the evidence may well become irrelevant in the face of charisma and/or persuasive speech.
This position is considered beneficial in many cases, in that the authoritative body (state government in most cases) is restricted from inhibiting the speech of citizens… However, as a consequence of that position, "truth" is dictated not by evidence necessarily, but by the capacity of the presenter to espouse a charismatic or persuasive case. In other words, while it does ensure that the authoritative body cannot silence dissenters of a beneficial nature (assuming a corrupt authoritative body), it also cannot silence subversives of a malevolent or harmful nature (assuming a charismatic/persuasive actor).
Effectively, this position espouses a stance of hesitancy to accept the authoritative body, whatever it may be, as anything but corrupt, and thus untrustworthy to dictate "truth" and instead imposing that responsibility upon the masses themselves (a dubious prospect, given the masses are easily swayed by pleasant falsehoods even when confronted with enormous amounts of evidence disproving such falsehoods), and likewise espouses a stance of belief in the idea that "truth will out", despite the fact that, as evidence by our current status, this simply is not the case, particularly within such a paradigm. That is, "truth will out" is an obvious falsehood wherein the "truth" is dictated by what the masses can be convinced is reality and the capacity of those actors attempting to sway the masses (often irrelevant of evidence).
On the other hand, consider free speech in the context of an inquisitorial context.
The consequential outcome of such a position is that the truth-outcomes are heavily dependent upon evidence and the third party, that is, the evidence takes a greater priority than the capacity of those presenting it to be persuasive/charismatic, however that evidence, or portions thereof, can become irrelevant in the face of a biased or ideologically-motivated third party which refuses to acknowledge it.
This position is considered hazardous in many cases, in that, even assuming a position wherein the authoritative body is assumed to be ideal, the authoritative body is not restricted from inhibiting the speech of citizens, though, in an ideal scenario, the authoritative body's aim in application of restriction is oriented around the benefit or harm represented to the masses, which under ideal circumstances are not a deracinated and miscegenated mess, but a cohesive collective with a largely-shared identity and ideal/vision… However, as we know, the ideal conditions are not presently extant in our lands, as the authoritative body is anything but unbiased, nigh-universally acting in-league with hostile external factors whose interests directly conflict with the genuine interests of the masses, and thus as a consequence of this position it often becomes the case that "truth" is dictated by those who espouse an ideologically-motivated bias against acknowledgement of unpleasant or ideologically-unsupported "truth" and thereby any evidence supportive of such. In other words, while it does not represent significant hazard where the third-party authoritative body is acting in-line with the ideal conditions for such a body, where such conditions are absent there is the potential for significant hazard.
Effectively, this position espouses a stance of willingness to accept the authoritative body, whatever it may be, as anything but corrupt, and thus trustworthy to dictate "truth" and thus witholding that responsibility from the masses in that the authoritative body decides what the "truth" is, ideally in terms prioritizing potential hazard to the masses as the consequence of pleasant falsehoods being levied (such as in the case of Communist subversives), and restricts speech on those grounds (a dubious prospect given the potential for willful refusal to acknowledge evidence as motivated by ideology or self-interest, as in the case of most modern Western state-governing authoritative bodies). Likewise, this position espouses a stance that "truth will out" is a falsehood, as the consequence of acknowledgement and prioritization of the fact that, as evidenced by our current status, this simply is not the case, particularly in such a paradigm; that is, "truth will out" is an obvious falsehood wherein the "truth" is dictated by what the masses can be conviced is reality and the capacity of those actors attempting to sway the masses, and the assumption from this stance is then made that, given this condition, it is requisite that the authoritative body, assumed to be trustworthy, dictate "truth" and impose upon those attempting to levy "untruth", for example such pleasant falsehoods as promoted by Communist subversives and proponents of the race realism-associated "socio-economic excuse" cope, upon the masses, to their detriment.
I'm not really sure what position to take in this context.
From what I can put together, it seems that the ideal scenario of the inquisitorial position is the more preferable, wherein the authoritative body CAN be viewed as trustworthy to dictate truth in this regard; however this scenario has historically resulted in corruption and malfeasance on behalf of the authoritative body up to and including the attempt to silence those speaking righteously against the body on the basis of corruption in the form of restriction of speech for purposes other than the well-being of the populace (for example self-interest) or imposition consequential of somehow embracing a falsehood (for example many Western nations wherein ideologically-motivated individuals will act to promote political policies which, while seemingly beneficial in the context of the assumed falsehood, are actually detrimental thereto), thus arguably justifying the adversarial positions implementation, which merely takes the authoritative body (assumed to be inevitably prone to such corruptions) out of the equation and places the individual (oft bereft of knowledge, context or capacity as to effectively judge "truth") as the priority dictator of "truth" derivative from the argumentation of actors (of {both knowingly and unknowingly} righteous or malicious intent) whose charisma and persuasiveness can easily overcome any amount of evidence acting contrary to their claims/propositions.
My only real conclusion after all this is that the adversarial and inquisitorial systems suss out thusly:
An adversarial system will invariably lead to falsehoods being accepted as "truth" to a widespread, even ubiquitous degree, as the masses are largely incapable of discerning between pleasant or comforting falsehood and unpleasant or discomforting realities, and will thus tend to prefer pleasant falsehoods and seek to embrace such where there is not some force or factor forcing immediate reckoning and will continue to do so until such factor emerges as to force such reckoning, and even then they will often cling to falsehood if such continues to offer comfort or security in the face of reality.
The inquisitorial system thus appears preferable to me, albeit with the understanding that this system is functional where, and only where, a condition as-near to the ideal as possible is itself possible; that is, wherein there is little in the way of corruption on behalf of the authoritative body in terms of unjustified silencing of dissent, that is, silencing of speech for (knowingly or unknowingly) a purpose other than the benefit of the people or towards an outcome (knowingly or unknowingly) that is to their detriment, such that the body in question can be relied upon to dictate "truth" and act accordingly with regard to silencing speech.
Bereft of a mechanism to ensure such, bereft of a trustworthy authoritative body, an inquisitorial position as regards freedom of speech appears prone to extreme hazard; however, by the same token, complete removal of the authoritative body, associated with imposition of the requisite "truth" judgements upon the masses, creates conditions wherein hostile charismatic/persuasive subversives are extremely well-situated in terms of efforts to promote pleasant or comforting falsehoods as "truth" to the masses, even in the face of evidentiary data disproving such falsehoods.
IMHO, the adversarial position is one of inevitable downfall as the consequence of the mechanism via which "truth" is dictated, whereas the inquisitorial position is one of theoretically long-term perpetuation in the context of an authoritative body that has a vested and insurmountable interest in the well-being of the masses.
You don't have the first amendment without the second, OP.
Neither don't exist now
By creating new speech/language
Hobbyist
You're right. White people (and subgroups of white people) are the only group that gives a shit about freedom of speech.
The dark web is now the only place left in the world were true uncensored and genuine free speech exist. The boomerweb is now taken over by glowniggeroogle.
the glow is hard in this one..
It really is, with media blinkers on, we can be made to overlook anything:
And it directly led into the rise of that tiny little shitstain of an nation into becoming an massive world wide empire. The king got to hear some truth, and heard clearly his head was on the chopping block if shit didn't straighten out. This allows the king to start looking for outlet valves to allow disaffected people to funnel themselves out of the trap they feel they are in and into more productive endeavors. Like wars with european powers that made little real sense, opening up trade routes and encouraging ship building and the conscription of the poorest of the nation into those ships. Building up armies that are heavily weighted with commoners rather than relying on those already in power. Pushing to focus most of its armies overseas while limiting the number domestically in order to ensure should an war happen forces can be pulled back from the fringes and destroy threats without having to worry too much about rebuilding from scratch an loyal force in an potentially dissatisfied land. Colonies allowed massive pressure reliefs and the wealth to pay for loyalty from the plebeian mobs to the king over some dickhead low level royal they dealt with constantly and always had issues with. And by allowing grievance's to air, it undercut the low level royals ability to foment power by pointing at an uncaring monarch as the foundation of all ills and if only their 'known' low level leadership had power it would be much better than this the people live with.
Most european nations didn't do anything like this for centuries and it was directly reflected in their own ability to power project beyond their borders. When they ignored their own rules, merica was born. Then there was france, after centuries of build up, they just got eliminated outright because fuck talking to fools.
Freedom of Speech is gay, and I will happily have anyone who teaches leftist propaganda to children shot when I have power. The only point of "freedom of speech" is to point out that it's a lie and if we don't have it, it doesn't really exist.
The only value of "free speech" is to erode confidence in the "muh constitution" meme. And it's working. Keep attacking Q boomers and other conservative faggots who believe in democracy and rights. Once they're gone the right will be full nazi, or something close enough to it that we can start slinging nooses with necks in them.
That's true, but it's a weird way of putting it. Without freedom of speech, the only way to convince others is with your fists and firearms.
Getting rid of the kikes once and for all is the ultimate issue, above even our own survival as a species.
Honestly, everything is fucking pointless. Just keep your family safe, get armed, keep shit posting/annoying jews online, and wait for the balkinzation of whatever state you are in.
Bearing arms is free speech.
Just like people are free to scream fire in a theater BY LAW. There are no laws preventing that. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You are penalized for the RESULTS of the speech not the speech itself. You just can't be penalized for WHAT you say.
LMAO, bump, kill yourself, etc.
Have a white man read it to you monkey.
This is the better solution.
Violence always win over words.
No. It's over. It's 1984.
Are you a child? Not everyone needs to have a verbal outburst.
Those are long gone.
/thread. I feel ya, brother. Maybe the next world will be better.
Stop caring about what other people think and profit???
What is Spain? What is Portugal?
They were empire already, when in "free" England a police state did hunt wrong thinkers.
en.wikipedia.org
So, by that standard, Soviet Union had "free speech" as well.
Fucking hell I love you.
The OP cartoon shows a "Nazi" standing perfectly orderly in the "hate speech" line.
The fact that National Socialism is associated with hate is a pure psyop, whereas the NS platform is predicated upon the highest of human ideals, making the OP cartoon a representative of the confusion of the current state of the European nations.
Certain speech should be allowed and jews should shut up. This is why allowing referendums is the most important issue. They allow citizens to adapt to changing circumstances rather than letting one or a handful of old, easily bribed or threatened judges decide how to interpret laws.
We need to bring back ritualized combat. A duel between men is the most honorable form of conflict the can have. Even the loser of the duel can maintain his honor by fighting well. It releases a pressure valve for two people that cannot see each other's point of view. It's a necessary part of free speech.
Google (a company of far left niggers) can manipulate the search results of certain topics. Type in "free speech" and these pics related are some of the first 4 images they chosen. Tacitly condemning "hate speech" and threatening you to watch your mouth.
perceived threat =/= actual threat
this
all the more reason to segregate and kick out non-whites
without speech truth cannot be known
criminalizing speech implies the government knows the truth against humanity itself, people who speak words
government is not god, although many see themselves as such
speak
Choosing between the RTX 2070 and the Radeon VII for 3D content creation is the most important issue.
Only reason to get Radeon 7 is super sampling with max settings for content. Which you can't even do because the FPS is too low to be playable on those games. Which means you'll be knocking down the sampling to recording 1080p non-supersampled ultra settings; and 2070 provides you that playable, with room to record.
I thought this was a nigger ass-dancing.
I now know why men like large breasts. From far away, it looks like a lady dancing nude.
That moment when your carbon atoms get recycled into another living organism and you thus get reincarnated as a nigger in a new Utopian world. Proof of scientific reincarnation?
Nigger, what?
plz shut up then
We only have an illusion of freespeech.
Talk against the kikes?
Media defamation, lose your job, possibly assassinated.
If anotjer adolf hitler does come in our life time he will get assassinated.