4 ms·

As a reminder, it's okay to oppose this deplatforming and dislike Bitchute as a platform. I'm saying this because I'm personally nervous to share this story on

by kypro 6y ago

As a reminder, it's okay to oppose this deplatforming and dislike Bitchute as a platform. I'm saying this because I'm personally nervous to share this story on social media because I fear people will suspect I support the content on Bitchute. Macron recently spoke very articulately about why the speech itself irrelevant to the issue at hand [1]. If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu0JRs1KrAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu0JRs1KrAk

richardARPANET 6y ago
> I fear people will suspect I support the content on Bitchute. Do you support the telephone company providing a service to child molesters?
- Zealotux 6y ago
  We should have a Godwin's law equivalent for the "think of the children" argument, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter are the home of plenty of child abuse, I've seen it firsthand, shall we ban all social media? Shall we also ban all VPNs and internet companies as well? As well as TOR?
- eddof13 6y ago
  Absolutely, as it's a utility
- genericone 6y ago
  I think you're getting downvoted because people think you don't support fully open telephone access. I don't quite understand which side you stand on though, good satire being indistinguishable etc etc, but I think you understand what's actually at stake.
  - richardARPANET 6y ago
    I support freedom of speech.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- benmmurphy 6y ago
  In the UK there is a permit you need to work with children. Are you saying all adults in the UK should need this permit in order to use a phone?
- john_moscow 6y ago
  That's the beauty of due process. Once the child molesters get tried, convicted and imprisoned, the telephone company won't be providing them the service because laws say you don't get a phone line in your cell. What is happening now is attempts to replace due process with the "loudest mob wins" where the mob is also allowed to attack the witnesses and defenders of the accused. Economical lynching really.
Digital28 6y ago
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. --H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880-1956)
- stkdump 6y ago
  The Nazis openly mocked the democratic principles that they used (abused) to gain power to take freedom away from their enemies. It is a fact of life that sometimes the freedom of one party conflicts with the freedom of another. Every legal system acknowledges that. No freedom can ever be absolute for everyone.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    The Weimar Republic was a half baked democracy though. There were too many tiny parties with 1-3% which weakened the main parties, making it easier for the NSDAP to gain mindshare. Back then powers were not sufficiently separated and the president had more power than he should. Both the president and Hitler wanted a more authoritarian state and worked together. Hitler failed to get a majority but he wasn't satisfied with a coalition. He instead asked the president to arrange an emergency government to buy more time while Hitler used his goon squad to threaten members of the parliament to just quit or vote the way he wants until he finally got the majority of seats in parliament and then used that majority to abolish the parliament entirely.
  - rutledge87 6y ago
    There are competing tyrannies in every society: old/young, rich/poor, individual/society, etc.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with. The problem is that some people don't at all - either because they don't think the benefits outweigh the costs (quite a common point of view), or because such a freedom runs against religious dogma and religious law (the view to which Macron is responding), or because they think freedom of speech in its purest form, at least, is a dogma that is hard to justify philosophically (such people know what liberalism is, but reject it for one reason or another - they're not ignorant, and they publish their arguments, just as speech-defenders like Locke and Judge Easterbrook). It's easy to dismiss religious funamentalists as a reasonable person. It's significantly harder to dismiss the other two categories of people. Whether a right or usage of that right is "worth it" seems to be a personal value judgement of what an individual wants society to optimize for, whereas the philosophy of freedom of speech is a complicated matter sensetive to political factors and the purported function (and actual function in the real world) of speech.
zalkota 6y ago
This man speaks the truth, the best way to counter someone else’s views is with opposing view points, not cancel culture.

by kypro 6y ago

richardARPANET 6y ago

> I fear people will suspect I support the content on Bitchute. Do you support the telephone company providing a service to child molesters?

Zealotux 6y ago
We should have a Godwin's law equivalent for the "think of the children" argument, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter are the home of plenty of child abuse, I've seen it firsthand, shall we ban all social media? Shall we also ban all VPNs and internet companies as well? As well as TOR?
eddof13 6y ago
Absolutely, as it's a utility
genericone 6y ago
I think you're getting downvoted because people think you don't support fully open telephone access. I don't quite understand which side you stand on though, good satire being indistinguishable etc etc, but I think you understand what's actually at stake.
- richardARPANET 6y ago
  I support freedom of speech.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
benmmurphy 6y ago
In the UK there is a permit you need to work with children. Are you saying all adults in the UK should need this permit in order to use a phone?
john_moscow 6y ago
That's the beauty of due process. Once the child molesters get tried, convicted and imprisoned, the telephone company won't be providing them the service because laws say you don't get a phone line in your cell. What is happening now is attempts to replace due process with the "loudest mob wins" where the mob is also allowed to attack the witnesses and defenders of the accused. Economical lynching really.

Digital28 6y ago

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. --H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880-1956)

stkdump 6y ago
The Nazis openly mocked the democratic principles that they used (abused) to gain power to take freedom away from their enemies. It is a fact of life that sometimes the freedom of one party conflicts with the freedom of another. Every legal system acknowledges that. No freedom can ever be absolute for everyone.
- imtringued 6y ago
  The Weimar Republic was a half baked democracy though. There were too many tiny parties with 1-3% which weakened the main parties, making it easier for the NSDAP to gain mindshare. Back then powers were not sufficiently separated and the president had more power than he should. Both the president and Hitler wanted a more authoritarian state and worked together. Hitler failed to get a majority but he wasn't satisfied with a coalition. He instead asked the president to arrange an emergency government to buy more time while Hitler used his goon squad to threaten members of the parliament to just quit or vote the way he wants until he finally got the majority of seats in parliament and then used that majority to abolish the parliament entirely.
- rutledge87 6y ago
  There are competing tyrannies in every society: old/young, rich/poor, individual/society, etc.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with. The problem is that some people don't at all - either because they don't think the benefits outweigh the costs (quite a common point of view), or because such a freedom runs against religious dogma and religious law (the view to which Macron is responding), or because they think freedom of speech in its purest form, at least, is a dogma that is hard to justify philosophically (such people know what liberalism is, but reject it for one reason or another - they're not ignorant, and they publish their arguments, just as speech-defenders like Locke and Judge Easterbrook). It's easy to dismiss religious funamentalists as a reasonable person. It's significantly harder to dismiss the other two categories of people. Whether a right or usage of that right is "worth it" seems to be a personal value judgement of what an individual wants society to optimize for, whereas the philosophy of freedom of speech is a complicated matter sensetive to political factors and the purported function (and actual function in the real world) of speech.

zalkota 6y ago

This man speaks the truth, the best way to counter someone else’s views is with opposing view points, not cancel culture.