It's also just such a leap from what that question ought to imply which is "this is a hard problem, power like that is ripe for abuse, and so we should think carefully about how to implement something like this." Instead, the suggestion is that just asking the question "who decides" should constitute an argument for "nobody, because it's too hard to even try." I absolutely loathe this all-too-common attitude of thinking that social organization problems are hard, and therefore we should never try to improve anything under any circumstances.
These libs are the folks who say that they'd stand up to the nazis if they were in 1940s. They won't even fight back against nazis on an internet forum.
They're already doing that to cover up the fact that they're shitting themselves in anger that leftists are insisting that people who volunteered to wear SS uniforms were Nazis.
The thing is none of these fucking libs actually believe in free speech, they're just too dumb to realize it.
1000% chance they believe in laws against insider trading, false advertising, perjury, death threats, sedition, leaking classified intelligence, libel and copyright violation.
Libel, slander, false advertising, blackmail, scamming, identity theft, death threats, terrorist threats, fraud, unregulated claims regarding health or nutrition, perjury, extortion, child grooming, verbal abuse, (I know this one probably doesn't apply to you Nakoichi but...) treason.
Show me a true believer in free speech absolutism and I'll show you a hypocrite.
The only person who would be okay with this stuff is either a blind ideologue or someone who wants get away with doing this stuff themselves.
I think this is underestimating the power of privileged male Libertarian brain. Ideology is powerful and they will side with it over the obvious correct moral decision to not allow dangerous false advertising, for example.
Why do these dipshits always say it's bad when Nazis are forced into echo chambers? Seems pretty obvious that when they were on their own pathetic sites like Stormfront (original, not ), there were a hell of a lot fewer Nazis around. It's when they got onto more widespread spaces like 4chan and Reddit thanks to lax moderation and muh peach freedom we saw a marked increase in Nazis because they were able to actively recruit.
@flashgnash@lemm.ee come on in here and defend your bullshit in your precious free marketplace of ideas. Stop addressing the other people that are being more generous than you deserve show your ass.
I noticed you didn't respond to my comment, and I didn't think I was being too uncivil, not that I really care about civility when it comes to tired muh frozen peaches arguments.
The furry thing is just a weird thing to bring up, who's really hung up on banning furries anymore?
In a community that refuses to do anything about Nazis, that small group of people is the Nazis. There's a reason that nobody with the barest minimum of compassion can be found in any communities that allow them. Freedom to express yourself as a minority does not meaningfully exist if you're likely to encounter genocidal rhetoric in response.
In the 1950s, these same people would be saying that segregation isn't oppressive because it counts as the exercise of voluntary association.
Fairly sure there's still a widespread consensus that pedos are bad and shouldn't be encouraged to do pedo shit. There was a consensus about Nazis, too, until about a week ago. Personally, I would sleep very well knowing that Nazis and pedos get shut the fuck up online. Or in person. Less than zero fucks given for their feelings or their expression rights. No, that's not right. I want them to feel bad and silenced.
There is no slippery slope. You can actually quite easily define what is and isn't acceptable speech. When there's an edge case, simply debate and edit the law for next time. Don't these nerds like democracy and the rule of law??
Liberals hate democracy. That's why there are so many distortions about who counts as a valid participant (no kids, few immigrants, no felons, etc). The idea of granting any kind of power to the unwashed masses terrifies them.
The irony, if course, is that to the haute bourgeoisie they are almost all viewed as the unwashed. But then the working class libs do like it that way. They're easily convinced that under-educated, incompetent, and ignorant but rich or elected people are the best placed to make key decisions over our lives.
Society built on the notion that the one in the suit knows what they're doing because of the way they dress and speak and inject baby parts into their faces.
We already had multiple supreme court cases about this. There's several memorable phrases related to it. "you know it when you see it". "Fire in a crowded theater". They threw in jail for protesting WWI. America has never had true free speech for all, it's always free until you have enough influence to affect the levers of power
yeah, definitely we should just do the current system where you can say whatever you want, so long as you have a billionaire patron to platform you and ensure the state protects you from any consequences.
the free speech absolutist weirdos remind me of the bit in the yellow parenti lecture where he mockingly complains about the insistence on perfection for socialist state projects.... "what about civil rights for the fascists? why won't the revolution let them have their newspapers?" because that is 100% really what these people want. socialists are deplatformed as a rule and experience retaliation in the workplace constantly. state constitutions have rules about communists being allowed to be civil servants. somehow none of that rises to the level of criticism.
but stopping a rich white psychopath from trying to incite violence against marginalized people by claiming they are subhuman is somehow the literal destruction of a soul's right to breathe and the first step of government overreach.
We do: a vanguard of Hexbear posters get to decide what's acceptable discourse; to think that it's only the forum that's being actively moderated is to completely misunderstand the dynamics of modern cultural power
Since we've never had ratings boards for movies or television that get to decide what is acceptable and what is not we could never figure it out for the internet. Children are just allowed to buy and watch and be influenced by whatever.
Would it be perfect? Nah. Would it be better than nothing? Absolutely yes.
The question of “free press” and “free speech” is not separable from the question of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie versus the dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea of “political plurality” as such turns out to be the negation of the possibility of achieving any kind of truth in the realm of politics, it reduces all historical and value claims to the rank of mere opinion. And of course, so long as someone’s political convictions are mere opinion, they won’t rise to defend them. And so the liberal state remains the dictatorial organ of the bourgeoisie, with roads being built or legislation being passed only as commanded by the interests of capital, completely disregarding the interests of workers. Under regimes where political plurality is falsely upheld as a supreme virtue, the very notion of asserting oneself as possessing a truth appears aggressive and “authoritarian.”