s9w

69 ms·

571.
by s9w 7y ago
So you do want to punish people for simply being the (democratically elected) political opposition, hence proving my point. I think I'll run the other way now.
572.
by s9w 7y ago
You are free to find other sources, the facts remain the same. I can't talk about (these) political parties without being banned. If you really think that the guy deserves an unjust sentence for being right-wing, then I'm afraid o
573.
by s9w 7y ago
My reasoning was grossly oversimplified - I talked about three major crimes in one sentence. Would you say that every crime is either a "rational" crime (if I don't do this, my child dies) or done by someone crazy? If so, I
574.
by s9w 7y ago
If he gets in front of a court, his stolen work will literally be called a motive. And that's all I'm saying. The rest is just about how much of an overreaction this was. And it certainly was very much that - as I repeatedly said.
575.
by s9w 7y ago
Understanding the reasons for a crime does not excuse said crime, or say that you're ok with it. If someone robs a bank, I can understand the motivation: He wants money. If someone punches another, he might want to feel powerful. If so
576.
by s9w 7y ago
I literally called it an overreaction. But there is a very strong motivation for this. It's not like it came out of nowhere - which calling him mentally ill somewhat suggests. Who knows how big the financial damage was - maybe he lost
577.
by s9w 7y ago
Three people in here immediately blamed this on mental illness/mental health. That feels like such a strange reaction and oversimplification to this. If what I read is true: The work of the person who did this did get his work stolen a
578.
by s9w 7y ago
> I know plenty of people who critized the government for decisions around and after 2015, publicly even, and none of them were raided, sued, fined or jailed for it. That doesn't mean that these things don't happen. Just one re
579.
by s9w 7y ago
I didn't say that ideal exists anywhere. The US certainly gets much closer than any European countries I know. Many German citizens have been raided, sued, fined, jailed or otherwise silenced because they criticized the current governm
580.
by s9w 7y ago
I think free speech is usually seen in a non-national context in a sense of "you can say whatever you want. No exceptions". So Germany does not have that at all. "Hatespeech" on top of the "legal"/national
581.
by s9w 7y ago
Free speech is a pretty easy and clear concept. Europe definitely does not fulfill that. Also "we" (I'm German) do not (all) like the extremely limited range of things we can say.
582.
by s9w 7y ago
Europe does not have free speech. But that cocs conflict with free speech is true independent of national laws I think.
583.
by s9w 7y ago
Gabs response: https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1151559127681916928
584.
F-Droids statement on their ban of Gab(f-droid.org)
42 points by s9w 7y ago|89 comments
585.
by s9w 7y ago
These topics usually aren't brought up by myself - most often I just reply to them. Is the problem that I'm mostly talking about these? I feel like a lot of people talk mostly about a limited amount of subjects. If I were to reply
586.
by s9w 7y ago
I don't deny that I usually selectively comment on things that hit a nerve - often that is when lies being told about things I know a lot about. Interpreting that as an ideological battle is a little far fetched, no? Many many users
587.
by s9w 7y ago
It's a bad article, I called it out on that. That is being done all the time. It is not an ideological battle, certainly not "clearly" so.
588.
by s9w 7y ago
Right now, these are the top posts on voat: - A post about Vimeos removal of the Google/Veritas Video - A Post that criticized that r/the_donald removed 83000 posts in the last month (implying that relative to voat, T_D is too hea
589.
by s9w 7y ago
I don't know gab too well, but the chans and voat DO contain worthwhile discussions as well as news/facts that are removed from HN/reddit etc.
590.
by s9w 7y ago
That's orthogonal to what I said. I do have the right to say controversial things (at least I would have if I would be American, but let's assume that). Sites can limit that and delete comments they don't like - that's o
591.
by s9w 7y ago
I think your comment is misguided. I have neither used the term Orwellian or opressions, nor do I have any affiliation with this extension. I'm literally just saying that some people like to be able to say what they are allowed to, tha
592.
by s9w 7y ago
Well they have to, as it is law. I specifically wrote about legal speech. Extensions like this (or much more popular: dissenter) allows people to exercise that right on sites that limit their free speech.
593.
by s9w 7y ago
I have no idea. But I would assume they would comply with the law in order to not get sued?
594.
by s9w 7y ago
Some people just want to be able to say what is legally allowed. That ability is attacked again and again. You don't have to want that freedom yourself, but imposing that restriction on others can be criticized.
595.
by s9w 7y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/avaaz7/cnn_disg... https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ambn6m/saw_this... https://www.reddit.com&#x2F
596.
by s9w 7y ago
> the T_D is known to allow full threads devoted to violence, and they just leave them up that is not true
597.
by s9w 7y ago
reddit censored the_donald long before this. It was completely filtered off r/all. This effectively changes not that much.
598.
by s9w 7y ago
I would aggressively challenge that
599.
by s9w 7y ago
AOC said "never again" in her concentration camp remarks, CLEARLY making the connection to WW2 concentration camps.
600.
by s9w 7y ago
Seeing the word concentration tramp unironically being used in a current world is obscene. Where did that even come from? That cropped fake photo on twitter?

More ›