3 ms·

I don’t think that living in a liberal society means you must allow every hostile foreign actor free reign in your society.

by nkrisc 3y ago

seydor 3y ago
well that's actually the definition of a liberal society , and the opposite of "free reign" is not "completely blocking"
Gud 3y ago
This is not about “allowing”, but actively blocking. The European Union bureaucrats can keep their filters off my packets.
- simondotau 3y ago
  > This is not about “allowing”, but actively blocking. What's the difference other than semantics? When a government decides to "not allow" something, it's often achieved through active enforcement, or threats of active enforcement. Remember, the EU is the ones that enacted the single most consequentially moronic internet-related law, the so-called "ePrivacy Directive", which has infected countless websites with stupid cookie nags. Governments tend to be pretty stupid when it comes to technology policy; my advice is to shut up, quietly work around it, and be thankful that they aren't any smarter.
  - Gud 3y ago
    The difference is that in one case, we are subjugates ruled over by the European Union bureaucracy, and in the other case, we are free citizens.
geraldwhen 3y ago
The founding of America was built on seditionist terrorists broadcasting their very violent and hostile speech. Speech is speech. Only speech deemed non-normative needs defending. Words can’t hurt you.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  somehow a discussion of the EU still ends up about the US and American theories of free speech.
- nkrisc 3y ago
  A lot of people were hurt in the American Revolution. For better or for worse, words have consequences.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    Julius Streicher was executed at Nurenberg for just that, words. Vicious words he published in his newspaper Der Stürmer to demonize Jews and justify their extermination.
- Devasta 3y ago
  > Words can't hurt you. Sorry, but that is absurd. Propaganda has and will kill people. Look at the legions of dipshits who follow Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. Sure, all they do is sit at their desks talking absolute horseshit but it'd be deeply unserious to suggest that people haven't been killed as a result.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > Words can’t hurt you. Tell that to Samuel Paty, his decapitated ghost would be thrilled to hear that.
  - seydor 3y ago
    Samuel Paty died because he believed in free expression, and he would approve of it, no? Saying the opposite is probably insulting to his memory BTW he didn't die by "words", he died because a bigoted idiot attacked him
    - sofixa 3y ago
      > Samuel Paty died because he believed in free expression, and he would approve of it, no He probably would, but do note that he caveated his free expression tremendously, doing everything he could do avoid offending brainwashed kids and their retarded parents. > BTW he didn't die by "words", he died because a bigoted idiot attacked him Because people called for his death based on a misinterpretation based on a lie from one of the brainwashed students. That was the speech that killed him, not his own. (And for the record, thankfully, all the pieces of shit responsible are being tried - that includes the brainwashed students that spread the initial lies, their parents that spread them online even further, as well as those that called for his death online, and the students that directed the murderer in the direction of the teacher. )
m000 3y ago
That would have been a convincing argument, if we hadn't been collectively bitching (as West) for the Great Firewall of China. Or if we at least didn't call ourselves "liberal" as we're slipping down the slippery slope.
- nkrisc 3y ago
  You have to choose to draw the line somewhere. You can choose no line (absolute free speech), a conservative line that only limits some speech (where most of the West stands, staggered a bit), or a quite restrictive line that tightly controls public discourse (where China stands, to take your example). I don’t believe absolute free speech is a sustainable option for societies on the scale of countries. Absolute free speech would invite chaos. Free speech is not a natural phenomenon. It is an artificial concept created by humans, and thus we have the complete power to define it and choose what it means. Different groups choose differently.

I don’t think that living in a liberal society means you must allow every hostile foreign actor free reign in your society.

by nkrisc 3y ago

I don’t think that living in a liberal society means you must allow every hostile foreign actor free reign in your society.

seydor 3y ago

well that's actually the definition of a liberal society , and the opposite of "free reign" is not "completely blocking"

Gud 3y ago

This is not about “allowing”, but actively blocking. The European Union bureaucrats can keep their filters off my packets.

simondotau 3y ago
> This is not about “allowing”, but actively blocking. What's the difference other than semantics? When a government decides to "not allow" something, it's often achieved through active enforcement, or threats of active enforcement. Remember, the EU is the ones that enacted the single most consequentially moronic internet-related law, the so-called "ePrivacy Directive", which has infected countless websites with stupid cookie nags. Governments tend to be pretty stupid when it comes to technology policy; my advice is to shut up, quietly work around it, and be thankful that they aren't any smarter.
- Gud 3y ago
  The difference is that in one case, we are subjugates ruled over by the European Union bureaucracy, and in the other case, we are free citizens.

geraldwhen 3y ago

The founding of America was built on seditionist terrorists broadcasting their very violent and hostile speech. Speech is speech. Only speech deemed non-normative needs defending. Words can’t hurt you.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
somehow a discussion of the EU still ends up about the US and American theories of free speech.
nkrisc 3y ago
A lot of people were hurt in the American Revolution. For better or for worse, words have consequences.
- fmajid 3y ago
  Julius Streicher was executed at Nurenberg for just that, words. Vicious words he published in his newspaper Der Stürmer to demonize Jews and justify their extermination.
Devasta 3y ago
> Words can't hurt you. Sorry, but that is absurd. Propaganda has and will kill people. Look at the legions of dipshits who follow Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. Sure, all they do is sit at their desks talking absolute horseshit but it'd be deeply unserious to suggest that people haven't been killed as a result.
sofixa 3y ago
> Words can’t hurt you. Tell that to Samuel Paty, his decapitated ghost would be thrilled to hear that.
- seydor 3y ago
  Samuel Paty died because he believed in free expression, and he would approve of it, no? Saying the opposite is probably insulting to his memory BTW he didn't die by "words", he died because a bigoted idiot attacked him
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > Samuel Paty died because he believed in free expression, and he would approve of it, no He probably would, but do note that he caveated his free expression tremendously, doing everything he could do avoid offending brainwashed kids and their retarded parents. > BTW he didn't die by "words", he died because a bigoted idiot attacked him Because people called for his death based on a misinterpretation based on a lie from one of the brainwashed students. That was the speech that killed him, not his own. (And for the record, thankfully, all the pieces of shit responsible are being tried - that includes the brainwashed students that spread the initial lies, their parents that spread them online even further, as well as those that called for his death online, and the students that directed the murderer in the direction of the teacher. )

m000 3y ago

That would have been a convincing argument, if we hadn't been collectively bitching (as West) for the Great Firewall of China. Or if we at least didn't call ourselves "liberal" as we're slipping down the slippery slope.

nkrisc 3y ago
You have to choose to draw the line somewhere. You can choose no line (absolute free speech), a conservative line that only limits some speech (where most of the West stands, staggered a bit), or a quite restrictive line that tightly controls public discourse (where China stands, to take your example). I don’t believe absolute free speech is a sustainable option for societies on the scale of countries. Absolute free speech would invite chaos. Free speech is not a natural phenomenon. It is an artificial concept created by humans, and thus we have the complete power to define it and choose what it means. Different groups choose differently.