Discussion in 'Archives' started by Lead, Dec 4, 2018.
Stuck on my phone for a little while longer
Based on the information you provided, B is the only person who has actually taken any action to censor another person. In fact, telling someone to "shut the fuck up" could be construed as fighting words in some localities (i.e. a crime). It sounds like B is challenging A to a fight, like he's saying "shut the fuck up, or I will shut you up."
Option B is like the Antifa guy in this video:
He's so convinced of his own correctitude that he's willing to label strangers as "Nazis," threaten them, and tell them to STFU. In other words, he's an insufferable jerk who need his clock cleaned. Fuck B.
Mr. A sounds like a guy I would disagree with because I value freedom of speech. If he ever tried to silence me, he'd soon find out that I won't be silenced easily. But he has not done that. He hasn't told B or C to "shut the fuck up." I don't know how you're defining "fascist," but B clearly sounds like more of a traditional fascist than A.
Mr. C sounds pretty cool. Maybe. I don't know anything else about him. He reminds me of Bill Maher in this clip:
Yeah, and still literally none of this has literally anything to do with what I was talking about.
You saw the word centrist and it triggered you into defense mode when I was never talking about ideological centrism to begin with.
I was talking about "centrists" remember, I used the quotes right? In reference to idiot e-centrists like Sargon or Molyneux.
John Adams is a God damn saint in my eyes considering the era he lived in
Thinly veiled @Limbo Pete callout.
TBH, you sound an awful lot like C already. Perhaps that's why I like you. Beneath the far-Left veneer, you're actually a pretty cool guy with a sense of humor, and respect for freedom of speech.
Person B did not call A a "dumb cunt." That's not the hypothetical. He ordered A to "shut the fuck up." A and B are probably going to get in a fight. C will probably have to break it up and lecture them both on the need for tolerance and respect.
You got person C all wrong. Person C pays his bills, shows up to work on time, gets the job done, and takes care of his family. He just came to the bar to unwind. He's not trying to start trouble. He probably thinks A is a kook, so he stopped listening after a few seconds. But when C hears B tell A to STFU, he has no choice but to step in. C is the adult in the room. Now he is forced to tell B "back off dude, this ain't the Soviet Union. A gets to speak. Leave him alone."
C is likely very popular with most people. The ladies love him, although he stays faithful to his wife. He's an exemplary dude.
I believe he's arguing that B is a better proponent of free speech than C because B is intolerant of intolerant speech.
That's the argument, though I don't necessarily agree.
I'm a centrist, you and I seem to get along.
@Lead already said we would have our own categories. The "sketch" award and the "sniper" award
That's when you know you've made it
You dont get to make up what person C does. This is @Higus' story. For all you and I know, person A has a micro penis. Person C is Socially awkward, and person B has a large cock, is attractive to the ladies and well into his night of drinking and politely asked person A to stop talking about politics because it was killing his buzz. Person B finally snapped when person C said "fuck the jews, when my party takes control we will stop freedom of speech" then person B said "shut the fuck up". We need more info now from @Higus.
So this is basically a popularity contest isn’t it
We're the main attraction around here.
No, this shapes the Wr. It is very important business. Only the best and brightest are allowed to run.
Well Higus, that's a pretty slippery slope. Person A hasn't done any of those things, and a lot of stars would have to align for him to ultimately seize political power. But even if that happened, we live in a government with checks and balances (or at least I do) and it would be virtually impossible for him to take unilateral action. If A actually tried to force people to STFU, he'd find out that people don't want to STFU.
I'm actually more afraid of person B. For one thing, there are actually people in government who have the mindset of B. They believe censorship is right as long as you're censoring the right people. Person A probably fits the bill ("hate speech"), and person C is not far behind ("facilitation" or "encouragement" of hate speech, etc.). In countries where people like B seize power, everyone sounds like B. There are no A's, C's, D's, E's, F's, or G's. People are only free to express the opinions of dictator B. If anyone thinks like C, they dare not vocalize it. Dictator B will send them to one of his "Shut the Fuck Up" camps.
Person C will eventually have to stop either A and / or B from persecuting people. He always has, and he always will. That is the burden of Mr. C—forever a slave to his own virtue. History is the bittersweet story of Mr. C's triumph over A and B.
I got a little carried away with the Alphabet biographies there, but here's what we know:
C was the credited response, and it's not a close call. This is a very old debate. The idea that some ideas are uniquely dangerous / harmful is nothing new. Our finest minds have debated this issue thoroughly, and they ultimately concluded that freedom of speech means everyone gets to speak. That's the reason—the only reason—we're debating this in the first place.
This doesn't seem like a rational answer.
If @Limbo Pete doesn't get the award thread up soon, we riot.
I'm working on it right now
Separate names with a comma.