Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[West Leas Oros 2]

Your use of the phrase miscegenated in a way I think is unironic is rather scary...

Thus if sexes or ethnicities exist in different circumstances, then there is oppression and the natural solution is to eradicate the sexes and the ethnicities until society is a uniform indistinguishable misciginated throng of asexual racially ambiguous NPCs...

Honestly I have to wonder why people claim Marxists support such outlandish things..

[Sanghyeok]

Meanwhile, I (used to before lockdown) travel in trams in Melbourne at around 11-16 kmph. S P E E D

Meanwhile, windows of bus transit stations in Jakarta is being destroyed by angry protesters opposed to the jobs law, but I guess it's not related, so oh well.

Or maybe it's related. Can vandalism, property destruction, etc. ever be considered freedom of speech? Or is it just a justifiable law-breaking? The sweeping jobs law (which curtailed labor rights into serfdom levels) was rushed by the government with little to no transparency, obvious oligarch interests plagued the laws, and the process was so chaotic that the law magically increased by 100 pages and then decreased by 200 pages after it was voted and ratified by the parliament. With how things are going, I'd say there's 0-3% chance of peaceful protests succeeding in forcing a change.

That is an interesting question.

[Sanghyeok]

Honestly I have to wonder why people claim Marxists support such outlandish things..

To be fair, I do unironically support FALGSC.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You are still using the phrase "cultural Marxism." Please explain the definition in your own words.

Certainly:

Marxism was defined as a political theory based on an ahistorical perspective of History, as a succession of conflicts between oppressors and oppressed.

That is false and bigoted of course. History had many conflicts and they were overwhelmingly NOT about class warfare. For every servile or social war in Rome there were 10 or 20 conflicts simply about competition for territory, resources, religion or political hegemony. Ditto for every other civilisation.

According to marxism then, when one cancels inequality, conflicts will end too. This theory informed the eradication of privileged classes in Russia, Cambodia, China, etc

The collapse of the USSR meant the intellectual collapse of marxism and marxist parties.

So marxists adapted and moved from the economic realm - where they had no arguments, something that continues today with their unwillingness to discuss North Korea, Venezuela, etc - to the cultural realm.

Cultural arguments are easier to make since they are less based on quantitative measurements and are far more subjective.

Yet, the marxist intellectual prejudice remains: any difference or inequality MUST convey oppression. That is the marxist dogma.
Thus if sexes or ethnicities exist in different circumstances, then there is oppression and the natural solution is to eradicate the sexes and the ethnicities until society is a uniform indistinguishable misciginated throng of asexual racially ambiguous NPCs...

Marxism is reductionist of course: not every social difference is oppressive and not every conflict between unequal foes is the fault of the stronger/wealthier/privileged party. But simplistic totalitarians are not big on nuance...

That was more amusing than enlightening.
But it does rather nicely characterize a perspective of the modern right, that all the things they don't like must be related somehow.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Honestly I have to wonder why people claim Marxists support such outlandish things..

To be fair, I do unironically support FALGSC.

Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism does sound pretty cool. Of course, what about the rights of AI workers? Are Artificial Intelligences not deserving of liberation?

[Atheris]

You are still using the phrase "cultural Marxism." Please explain the definition in your own words.

Certainly:

Marxism was defined as a political theory based on an ahistorical perspective of History, as a succession of conflicts between oppressors and oppressed.

Okay.

That is false and bigoted of course. History had many conflicts and they were overwhelmingly NOT about class warfare. For every servile or social war in Rome there were 10 or 20 conflicts simply about competition for territory, resources, religion or political hegemony. Ditto for every other civilisation.

Debatable, but go on.

According to marxism then, when one cancels inequality, conflicts will end too. This theory informed the eradication of privileged classes in Russia, Cambodia, China, etc

...I don't think this is true.

The collapse of the USSR meant the intellectual collapse of marxism and marxist parties.

This is blatantly false.

So marxists adapted and moved from the economic realm - where they had no arguments, something that continues today with their unwillingness to discuss North Korea, Venezuela, etc - to the cultural realm.

The former is not true, and the latter isn't true either. North Korea and Venezuela aren't Marxist states and the former isn't even socialist. It doesn't mention communism, Marxism, or any other derivative at all in its constitution. It's a fascist, borderline Nazi, leader-worshipping ethno-state absolute monarchy, even if the Supreme Leader isn't called "King Jong-un" or "God Emperor Il-sung".

Cultural arguments are easier to make since they are less based on quantitative measurements and are far more subjective.

Debatable.

Yet, the marxist intellectual prejudice remains: any difference or inequality MUST convey oppression. That is the marxist dogma.

...No. That's simply not true.

Thus if sexes or ethnicities exist in different circumstances, then there is oppression and the natural solution is to eradicate the sexes and the ethnicities until society is a uniform indistinguishable misciginated throng of asexual racially ambiguous NPCs

Literally none of this is true.

Also, what's wrong with being asexual? I'm forever single and I'm proud, bucko.

Marxism is reductionist of course: not every social difference is oppressive and not every conflict between unequal foes is the fault of the stronger/wealthier/privileged party. But simplistic totalitarians are not big on nuance...

I wouldn't call Marxism "totalitarian". Statist? I'd agree with you there, but a lot of other people wouldn't. "Totalitarian"? Only two Marxist states in history have ever been what I personally consider totalitarian; Stalin's USSR and North Korea (before they adopted Juche, but even before that it was iffy at best).

[The Monopolies]

''Yes, I will bring Hitler into the argument. That will help.''

[Kiu Ghesik]

''Yes, I will bring Hitler into the argument. That will help.''

[Nuroblav]

''Yes, I will bring Hitler into the argument. That will help.''

[Atheris]

''Yes, I will bring Hitler into the argument. That will help.''

If anyone doesn't get the joke;

"Godwin's law is an Internet adage asserting that 'as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1'."

[Sanghyeok]

''Yes, I will bring Hitler into the argument. That will help.''

Certainly.

[Sanghyeok]

If anyone doesn't get the joke;

"Godwin's law is an Internet adage asserting that 'as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1'."

I see, thank you.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You are still using the phrase "cultural Marxism." Please explain the definition in your own words.

Certainly:

Marxism was defined as a political theory based on an ahistorical perspective of History, as a succession of conflicts between oppressors and oppressed.

That is false and bigoted of course. History had many conflicts and they were overwhelmingly NOT about class warfare. For every servile or social war in Rome there were 10 or 20 conflicts simply about competition for territory, resources, religion or political hegemony. Ditto for every other civilisation.

According to marxism then, when one cancels inequality, conflicts will end too. This theory informed the eradication of privileged classes in Russia, Cambodia, China, etc

The collapse of the USSR meant the intellectual collapse of marxism and marxist parties.

So marxists adapted and moved from the economic realm - where they had no arguments, something that continues today with their unwillingness to discuss North Korea, Venezuela, etc - to the cultural realm.

Cultural arguments are easier to make since they are less based on quantitative measurements and are far more subjective.

Yet, the marxist intellectual prejudice remains: any difference or inequality MUST convey oppression. That is the marxist dogma.
Thus if sexes or ethnicities exist in different circumstances, then there is oppression and the natural solution is to eradicate the sexes and the ethnicities until society is a uniform indistinguishable misciginated throng of asexual racially ambiguous NPCs...

Marxism is reductionist of course: not every social difference is oppressive and not every conflict between unequal foes is the fault of the stronger/wealthier/privileged party. But simplistic totalitarians are not big on nuance...

Mm Miscegenated. I like that.

Real talk black and white people having kids isnt gonna end society. This isn't even an issue and it never was and it never will be.

[Sanghyeok]

This isn't even an issue and it never was and it never will be.

Race is probably the worst of the commonly used social constructs.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

This isn't even an issue and it never was and it never will be.

Race is probably the worst of the commonly used social constructs.

While the earth burns, people are worried about race mixing.

[Sanghyeok]

Race is probably the worst of the commonly used social constructs.

While the earth burns, people are worried about race mixing.

And apparently people didn't think about having lovers from different regions before Marx wrote Communist Manifesto.

[West Leas Oros 2]

While the earth burns, people are worried about race mixing.

And apparently people didn't think about having lovers from different regions before Marx wrote Communist Manifesto.

Marx invented Race mixing after writing the Manifesto. /s

[Albrenia]

I've found that people using the term 'cultural Marxism' generally have no idea what they are talking about.

[Sanghyeok]

I've found that people using the term 'cultural Marxism' generally have no idea what they are talking about.

Or they're the ones who benefits from people not knowing what they're talking about, such as certain state leaders.

[Turelisa-]

Everyone should have freedom of speech. We all want to express our thoughts about things. Restricting it violates human rights.

Free speech is circumscribed by intention, and intention is clearly defined by context. The intentional distress of a hateful, aggressive sentiment, written or spoken, is not the same thing as the outraged reaction of a minority group to beliefs based on a philosophy or a religion because thesee beliefs, in contravening their demands, hinder their fulfilment..In this case, freedom of speech tends to become conflated with discrimination.
Because the demands of a minority include the freedom from any discrimination, which causes emotional distress, governments and judges decide, with the same subjectivity, that to oppose or even disagree with a minority's interests is criminality, and, in an act of legal tyranny, justice, which is meant to uphold the freedoms of us all from tyranny, is abused to protect the minority group from 'discriminatory' freedom of speech by intimidating people who hold dissenting views to be silent. Even the rules of Internet forums are being applied subjectively to decide what is trolling or a legitimate expession of opinion - when using my previous account, I had the motto 'Pride is Sin' removed from it because the moderator believed it was trolling against LGBT people.

[Velosia]

As for where I stand, I think all forms of speech need to tolerated in a democracy. The only potential exception I can think of would be perhaps speech that openly advocates for violence.

So, FDR's day of infamy speech should have been censored, as it openly advocated for violence against the Japanese?

No. But then I don't see something like that as the same thing as a radical Muslim preacher advocating for the mass killing of non-believers.

[Nejii]

Just imagine being Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar making an inspiring speech about crushing the filthy barbarians/Persian dogs and then some random toga wearer with an armload of scrolls suddenly appears by you and relieves you of command for "unsettling xenophobia and racist views."

[Kexholm Karelia]

Just imagine being Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar making an inspiring speech about crushing the filthy barbarians/Persian dogs and then some random toga wearer with an armload of scrolls suddenly appears by you and relieves you of command for "unsettling xenophobia and racist views."

They don’t do it alone, they only do it in mobs or behind a computer screen. That’s how they get away with cancel culture without being held accountable. The best thing we as Americans can do is firmly reject these new Witch Trials and hold those perpetrating it accountable for their own actions

[Shazbotdom]

Everyone should have freedom of speech. We all want to express our thoughts about things. Restricting it violates human rights.

Free speech is circumscribed by intention, and intention is clearly defined by context. The intentional distress of a hateful, aggressive sentiment, written or spoken, is not the same thing as the reactive distress of a minority group to beliefs that are based on a philosophy or a religion because they, in contravening their demands, hinder their fulfilment..In this case, freedom of speech tends to become conflated with discrimination. Because the demands of a minority include the freedom from any discrimination, which causes emotional distress, governments and judges decide, with the same subjectivity, that to oppose or even disagree with a minority's interests is criminality, and, in an act of legal tyranny, justice, which is meant to uphold the freedoms of us all from tyranny, is abused to protect the minority group from 'discriminatory' freedom of speech by intimidating people who hold dissenting views to be silent. Even the rules of Internet forums are being applied subjectively to decide what is trolling or a legitimate expession of opinion - when using my previous account, I had the motto 'Pride is Sin' removed from it because the moderator believed it was trolling against LGBT people.

To break down your argument to the level of ignorance and it, this is a privately owned and operated website, the moderators and admins can set whatever rules they want and you have to follow them.

You got deemed for breaking the rules. If you don't like the fact that those rules are there, then you have the choice to leave the site. Or, you can choose to follow the rules like everybody else.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words leave psychological wounds that never heal.”

So lets not speak?................

You know that cars actually kill many people annually?

Time to erradicate driving too, I say. Convenient transportation is such a bourgeois fad anyway.

Best to focus on real #FirstWorldProblems.............................

Lemme just take a flamethrower to that strawman you’ve just constructed there.... *fwoooooooosh*....there, it’s gone now.