What censorship?

He's (likely) remarking on how everyone who is anti-trump is sick of Trump Spam.

Personally I find it sad how all of a sudden this place has become a platform for TPTB through this crap, since we know no one becomes president without their stamp of approval. There is no 4D Chess: Trump, like Obama before him and Bush before him, is beholden to greater powers, and many of us are sick of having to comb through T_D spam. There is a sub to suck his dick in, why do they need every sub to do the same?

For example: a poster wrote that the Covfefe thing was a master plan by Trump when a bill came out with that name, then when it turned out it was a troll by his opponents the poster spun a new take where Trump trolls the trolls with their own bill (by firing the press corps, people who don't work for him.) That is Trump spam, and I'm happy to talk with a Trumper, by that sort of low quality garbage does not belong here.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that Trump was not supposed to win. 2017 was a year of panic and upheaval as a result. Whether you are a Trump supporter or hater, the entire world was against him: corporations, media, foreign governments. That leads to the sentiment that this guy can do some good, if not for the simple fact that he interrupted the script.

He may not have been supposed to win, but he was still a choice of the ruling class (of which he is a member.) Trump was given a caretaker, Mike Pence, who is the biggest piece of evidence that Trump was never in control. Why would Trump ever pick Pence on his own? He wouldn't. Pence is not a friend of his, Pence is a career politician who's role is to keep Things rolling how they want them to. When things go off the rails Pence steps in, such as during the transition. Trump may not have been their first choice, he was their second choice, which is why he was in the running.

People like to pretend the networks gave him all that coverage for ratings; that's just a façade, they gave him that coverage to make him a viable candidate. Using an Agenda Setting theory framework we know that the news gives us what to think about, not what to think. So when they show Trump every day people think about him. "Bad" candidates get no coverage which is the biggest hurdle to victory, because no one will evaluate you of they never think about you.

I think we can also mention that there is a significant amount of genuine censorship against t_d. While you want to complain about muhopinion, truth is t_d has been actively suppressed and multiple subreddits were created specifically for anti trump spam (which we are all aware of). You can still find users clamoring for t_d to get banned or shutdown which is real censorship, but hey, maybe you have actual evidence of this mythical conservative censorship instead of muhfeelings.

Sure, I'm banned from posting in T_D because I said something that didn't gel with the narrative. That is conservative censorship.

So here's a question, do we protect the speech of someone trying to end free speech?

And what about when s/he won't listen to reason, and members of the many-too-many won't either?

. Keep nurturing that seed. People will give way to reason, once they are able to see it.

Perhaps if we lived in Leibniz' "best of all possible worlds," but unfortunately we do not.

We've watched this idea fail before: In the 1800's German Romantics were saying that we were evolving and moving towards progress, that the age of reason and culture was coming while barbarism was waning. Then in the 1900's these same Romantics words were used as tools to drive Germany back to barbarism.

Look at the failures of the early communists (specifically those who didn't believe in a central party like those in Berlin.) They believed that people would realize the truth of communism organically, and yet the people never had time to consider the truth because the communists were brutally slaughtered by the fascists.

Logic does not necessarily win out ever. Hoping people will just "give way to reason" is naive to the facts of history. As the priest warned Zarathustra, the people do not want to hear some truth, just something to lighten their burden.

Sure, and like Rosa Luxemburg and her compatriots you'll end up dead in a ditch with your free speech lifeless next to you.

German Republicans knew what Hitler was, they knew what he wanted, and they allowed him and his Nazi Party to flourish. Von Hindenburg is complicit in the atrocities committed by the Nazis, as is everyone who allowed his Nazis to continue.

We're in a similar spot today. Allowing fascists and racists to flourish is never a good idea. We can make the choice that Von Hindenburg did not, we can stop the hate now.

All rights including freedom of speech include certain levels of both responsibility and care. There is a big difference between preventing someone from criticizing their society, and preventing someone from advocating for the genocide of a people. The latter's speech is violating the rights of their subject by calling for an act violating their right to life, and as such is not protected speech.

What kind of speech is getting censored? Is it genocidal speech only? Is it speech that is trying to incite violence?

Yes, those are the primary forms of speech being censored. From what I remember right wing terrorists have committed far more acts of violence, and killed more people than Muslims or leftist in the US have in the last few years

What is more comparable to Nazi Germany? A land in which you can speak your mind and have differing opinion. A land that tolerated hate. Of their leaders of their citizens. Where everyone was free to speak their mind. Or one in which everybody has to conform to what is popular.

The irony. As I pointed out, hate was tolerated in Weimar Germany, which, is what lead to the rise of Hitler. Von hindenburg complicit blah blah blah.

They have to tolerate the opinion of the majority, but anything outside the opinion of the majority will not be tolerated. Where you aren't free to express yourself unless it is in alignment with the majority.

This is the world of fascism. This is the world I want to stamp out. As I said, criticism is protected speech, incitement to violence against people, or violations of their rights is not. Someone who violates other's rights has violated the Social Contract, and is not then a recipient of protection under it. We can be civil and decide not to do terrible things to them, but allowing them to continue their criminal activities negates any semblance of morality.

So you better get in line if you want to participate. [throw] your identity out the window. We tell you how to act. We will tell you how to dress. We will tell you have to talk.

See the previous part, I just want to point out throw.

You are well read on history Nice good for you. You are blind to the facts of today though.

What I am doing is applying what we've seen to our current situation. I hate relying on common topoi, but those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. We've literally seen a similar situation destroy a continent, why would we turn à blind eye to the lessons of the past?

I will stress again. Speech which calls for a violation of someone else's rights (outside of appropriate circumstances such as a judge sentencing someone for a crime) is NOT protected free speech. It is an encroachment just like the act itself, and we should not encourage people to participate in this form of speech by allowing it and giving it a forum. Conspiracy to commit murder is a perfect example of this as something with which to sentence these people with. This goes in all directions, punching a Nazi is wrong, unless that person has previously advocated violence against people like saying something like: "For us, it is conquer or die. This is a unique burden for the white man, that our fate is entirely in our hands." which relinquishes his rights within the modern American society by calling for violence calling for the "conquer" of others.

What are you talking about, all speech should be acceptable debate their damn ideology. Rise up and tell people as to why their ideology is lacking.

And I gave you an example of why that is problematic. There are ideologies which have no interest in debating, they do not want opposing thought around them and will make a point to never allow it.

To the point about "all speech should be acceptable."

If a person shoots someone it is a violation of their right to life yes? If someone goes on the radio and tells everyone "you should shoot x" and x is shot, is that person who called for the act not responsible in their death? Their act if speech was the cause of someone's rights being infringed upon; why would it be that only the actions can be right or wrong, if a general gives the order for slaughter of civilians is he not equally responsible as the finger that pulled the trigger?

You bend a knee if you like. I am human first . I am man, second to that. I don't see color. I see freedom. I see people. I fight for free speech.

I do too, but I understand that freedom (anarchy) doesn't mean every action is allowed, it demands responsibility.

You can twist peoples words and try to paint an image of something that is happening that is not happening you are free to do so. You can live in your fantasy land and plea to the people that you should allow us to censor you it for your benefit can't you see we are only trying to help. But you won't fool me I am not blind I've eyes, and I've got ears. I've a brain. I can decide for myself.

I have given you example, points of contention, and you don't address any in specificity. You have yet to demonstrate any way in which your irresponsible formulation of freedom of speech works or is a positive, but have instead relied on scarecrows for your opposition and have repeated common topoi over and over. "Look I'm fighting for free speech.... No I will stand tall and weigh in. I will not cower. If they do not give in to reason...." and then the whole thing about censor-America being more similar to the lead up to Nazi Germany. In the latter case I pointed out that tolerance of hate (or the reciprocal to your position) is the cause of Fascism and Oppression in Germany.

I am giving you a very clear position for us to talk about: Speech which advocates violence is an act of violence. Acts of violence are not protected rights (you don't have a right to kill anyone you want) so violent speech acts are not protected.

My original question was "do we protect the speech of someone who wants to end free speech." you said yes, we just have yo be patient. I gave you an example of such a situation (the Weimar Republic's allowance of Nazis) and additionally I pointed to a situation where patient people ended with a bunch of dead people at the Hand's of people who do not want freedom (Berlin 1919.) I twisted nothing, but responded to your points, and yet you do not hit on the question of violence I've been asking.

First, a note on formatting for reddit. Use a rightward pointing carrot to quote someone's post. If you hit the quote button it will automatically give you that format.

Second, you have avoided my point again. For the fourth (or maybe fifth time) is a violent act of speech protected speech? And if it is, how is it separate from a violent action which is not protected.

Third, address my second point.

Fourth,

We show them how to trust, by trusting them. The way you put it is as if we can never trust one another to do the responsible thing.

We are going around in circles. I have addressed this with the example of Rosa Luxemburg and the Berliners, as well as my original point that the many-too-many aren't waiting to trust, they want someone to make their lives easier, not truth, ease.

Fifth:

You only hide the fucking problem don't you get it. It doesn't make the hate go away. It hides it. You can't silence hate. You only hide it.

I don't think you're correct, but even if you are That's fine. Let me reconstruct your statement to what I think you mean:

You can't eliminate hate. You only hide it.

But the act of silencing it is eliminating it. It can only spread because we let it, cops protecting a clan rally is protecting/promoting this hate. If we tell them they cannot advocate anything which would violate someone's rights and they do then we don't use the state to protect them. They have violated the Social Contract so they have chosen to not be a part of society.

You have ignored me thusfar. If you get anything out of this conversation, please take this: Read the source material. What Jeffeson, Maddison or whomever right about about Free speech should also be considered next to Locke. I can explain these positions to you, but it's better that you just read them yourself. Also Read Nietzsche, Marx, read Sartre, De Beauvoir, Camus, Thoreau. All of these Authors will should give you very interesting points to consider as you are growing as a person.

Immanuel Kant credits Hume very prominently for tearing him from a state of dogmatism. Kant, like many of his peers, was stuck in a continental philosophic perspective which refused to question itself. By looking at Hume's criticisms of what Kant believed, Kant was awaken to write some of the most important work ever. Whether you like Kant or not, his work can't be ignored, and came from him considering, and then working through criticisms of his beliefs.

Half the user base wants to shit on anyone who disagrees with them and tell them how terrible they are. It’s happened to me a few times in the past week. I’ve tried a few different methods for responding to them. Sadly, outright trolling seems to be the most effective.

Answering them earnestly and treating them like human beings just encourages them to spew more hatred, and they are entirely unwilling to even consider anything that goes against the narrative they are hell-bent on protecting and projecting.

It’s almost as bad as /r/incels used to be, honestly. I can only assume these people (not all of the sub, not even most, but certainly a vocal minority) actually prefer the sub as an echo chamber and reinforcement exchange.

It’s strange but also quite interesting that there are people out there who can damn near hate you for disagreeing with them about what would seem to be something completely subjective, but alas.

It’s definitely going downhill, if you ask me.

Its been downhill for months. Its not a naturally occurring thing and reeks of manipulation.

I always see 9/11 posts when there is a big news story. Likely a diversion tactic

Not gonna happen as long as they have the upvote/downvote system, shills can mass downvote the good stuff until it's out of sight and out of mind.

There’s enough of us to make a difference regardless

Ha! Are you really that butthurt over the Q “fire truck” post that got deleted bc it didn’t have a submission statement? It was a dumb post and many around here are sick of the Qtard bullshit and Daddy trump worship.

The removal of that post was not censorship. It was just a picture of Trump in front of a fire truck and had no substance for discussion whatsoever. Get over it:)