3 ms·
Literally every single society of the past has considered certain types of speech to be harmful or banworthy. I imagine you disagree with the vast majority of
by bobcostas55 12y ago
Literally every single society of the past has considered certain types of speech to be harmful or banworthy.
I imagine you disagree with the vast majority of them (blasphemy laws, lèse-majesté laws, obscenity laws, etc.)
They all thought they were the good guys, that their actions were just and improved society and the people within it. Undoubtedly many of these people were far more intelligent and better educated than you are, yet the culture they lived in blinded them to faults in their thinking.
So my question is this: what kind of obscene narcissism gives you the idea that YOU are the one who finally figured out which stuff should REALLY be banned and which shouldn't? Is "matthieuh" really the endpoint of the history of ideas? Are YOU the man who sees clearly, who transcends his culture, where others could not?
Such lack of skepticism and self-doubt can only be the result of intense, willful ignorance.
- boracay 12y agoThe same narcissism that makes you believe that you are right? Not all people value the same things. That we can't give up freedom for security is still just an idea. How much of western culture is really better than something else and just not because we're prosperous.
- unethical_ban 12y agoThe difference between bobcostas55's "narcissism" and the communists, is that bobcostas55 is allowed to express his. Holy shit, do I really have to point explicitly to Egypt, Iran, China, Venezuela Russia and the old USSR to show examples of what happens when expression of dissenting thoughts are banned? Freedom of thought IS right.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- boracay 12y agoToo bad I got tired of sharing and explaining mine in this forum. None of those countries you mention are actually prosperous to a larger degree. Is really shouldn't be that hard making an effort to think outside of you own though pattern should it?