Why is free speech so important?
Because hate speech might be true speech. Because what you think is hate speech might be true. Because it’s a fail safe given humanity’s propensity for believing in really stupid wrong things which history has shown that groups will lethally impose upon other groups and prevent them from speaking out against.
Who historically has enjoyed the power of determining what constitutes hate speech? The Catholic church and its Inquisition is a great example. A modern example of an exclusive group determining what constitutes hate speech would be those who follow various forms of Sharia Law where it is punishable by death for criticizing Islam or its prophet, etc. Unless you’re a liberal you really don’t support the idea of a patriarchal religion determining what constitutes hate speech, do you? Strange that modern liberals and their feminists most of all people support patriarchal religious definitions of hate speech! They might hurt you if you don’t agree with them so you better agree with them in the name of liberal feminism. Not even right wing Christians support that or ask for it for themselves.
It’s a fail safe much in the same way that the 2nd amendment is one. In the US system the 1st fail safe to complete idiocy is the 1st amendment. The 2nd more extreme fail safe is the 2nd amendment. However if all you have is a society of idiots then free speech is hardly relevant, and you wouldn’t trust such people with firearms either. And isn’t this sort of Idiocracy exactly that which is being produced, most notably via the Liberal left? The 1st and 2nd amendments are only relevant in a civilized and well-educated society, aren’t they…and so you have to wonder to whose benefit does it flow to turn the US into a complete Idiocracy? Who would wish to rule people like that? Because that’s where it ends, is in a people who must be ruled. So, who likes ruling, and more, who likes ruling idiots? Psychopaths and sociopaths do…they really do. They love it. They want to be the best idiot there is and the way to do that is to game all of the other idiots into being subordinate to you, and that means making them stupider by getting them to believe in bullshit.
As the saying goes “knowledge is power”, and so the corollary is that “false knowledge is weakness”. Think on that.
But this splits into two ways. If you have a rational mind then you prefer the truth regardless of however the truth might make you feel in the initial moments. If the rational truth happened to make you feel uncomfortable, you know and understand that it is because you need to adjust your emotions to adapt to the new rational reality which has just been comprehended. Perhaps you need to solve a few other questions in order to find more support for the truth. Perhaps a few other things which you thought you valued are no longer that important with knowledge of this new truth, etc. However, if you are governed by your emotions then it is preferable to simply go with what makes you feel better with more people.
Climate alarm is a great example. For people who are governed by their emotions, the feeling that you could question something as scary as an ultimate threat to the planet and all life is just too uncomfortable. Why would you even question something like that? What kind of hateful monster would allow for the possibility of ending the planet by questioning all of the people who say that the planet might end? After all, you know that everyone agrees that the possibility is real, and what kind of monster do you need to be to think something different than everyone? It’s sickening!
You see, this is all emotionally unfathomable. It’s clever, quite rational marketing techniques by the people promoting this fraud. For those governed by their emotions they are simply unable to penetrate the concept of climate alarm skepticism. It’s simply too emotionally overwhelming. First of all the planet might end, second of all you’re being embarrassing by being so different. Emotionally-directed people are so hysterical that they actually have an extremely low tolerance for handling emotion. This actually means that they have very shallow emotions.
For the rational it is quite simple to penetrate: the reason you question it is because it might be wrong, and in fact it is wrong. For the rational it is sickening that emotional people are so hysterical that they are unable to perform the basic human function of thinking. The rational are monsters to the emotional, and the emotional are animals(!) to the rational. Rational people actually have much deeper meaningful emotions.
For the emotionally hysterical, free speech makes no sense. They simply cannot fathom it. They don’t understand it. You actually need to explain to them that free speech doesn’t mean being able to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. A rational person immediately understands that the highest meaning of free speech is in the freedom to speak about truth and to speak out against untruth. They understand that there is an ideal to strive for in the concept. They are basically familiar with the historical contexts and events which lead to the concept of free speech.
Emotionally hysterical people on the other hand literally believe that free speech is actually about trolling, about the freedom to troll. About the freedom to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. About the freedom to be a monster and disagree with everyone else, and to be scary. I gave a talk once on the fraud of climate alarmism and a (hysterical) professor chastised me saying that I shouldn’t present the information since it “went against the experts”; I replied that at the very least I have free speech, and he took that to mean that I was saying that I should have the freedom to purposefully voice untrue things. He was totally unable to understand any of the critical thinking I presented with information about climate alarmism, and thought that I was doing it simply to troll.
Emotional hysterical people are so disturbing. Their minds are so dark. Now, it might be true that we do live in a society of idiots and therefore free speech isn’t all that relevant, but at the same time this has always been true and the people who need it have always been the minority on the fringes, especially the rationalist smart people most of all. With rationalist smart people being in such low concentration, ending free speech now only guarantees that the idiots and the sociopaths/psychopaths will be in charge of determining what constitutes hate speech. And given the proclivities of the idiot emotionally hysterical liberal left it therefore reduces to corporate fascism lead by sociopaths and psychopaths who gets to define hate speech, i.e., Facebook, Google, and sociopathic/psychopathic free market globalist capitalism, etc. There is no indication that these entities are interested in increasing your intelligence…in fact such a thing would be a contraindication to these entities.
Speaking of the end of free speech:
Univ. of Maryland announces FASCIST student SNITCH network
Climate of Sophistry 
One of my latest obsessions has been with the Charlottesville riot fiasco — how the city council there consulted the citizens under what appears to have been a fake survey to collect name suggestions to replace the name of Lee Park with the statue of Robert E. Lee in it, only to find that over eighty percent of the respondents wanted the name to remain UNCHANGED, which would seem to be a pretty good indication that a majority of the tax paying residents (whose money is used to maintain the park) did NOT want the statue taken down, in the first place.
The city council concurrently set up a committee to determine top park names, and subsequently ignored that input too, in order to come up with a racially charged replacement name like Emancipation Park, now applied to the park, WHILE THE LEE STATUE REMAINED IN THE PARK. I still do not know how that name came to be the chosen one. Intolerance of the people’s input and intolerance of the OFFICIAL input led to the selection of a new park name that contradicted the very intent of the action being taken to change the old name.
And that appears to be the tip of the ice berg of idiocy going on there. One might say that the climate of intelligence in the USA seems to be entering a major ice age — the Idiocene.
Good one – Idiocene.
I’ve always heard that the civil war wasn’t actually about slavery or that the South wanted to keep it:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-24/paul-craig-roberts-explains-how-we-know-so-called-civil-war-was-not-over-slavery
Read the comments. Abe was apparently the pro slave guy and Lee was happy to have it end!?
It’s all the damned British at work!
I get the impression that the Civil War was about BOTH states rights AND slavery, which, in the case of the South, were intimately entwined — hard to separate out and say that slavery was not an underlying cause.
Abe was probably in a tough position, trying to preserve the Union, I would imagine. He might have been crafty and compromising of his own beliefs a bit to keep the Union in tact, which historians might read the wrong way — I just don’t know. I guess this issue is as heated as the climate-change issue.
But statues that have stood in the history of a country for countless years, to me, set a precedent that establishes them as parts of the cultural landscape, with, not only a symbolic narrative behind them, but also with an artistic narrative, a secondary historical narrative (i.e., “Southern pride”), and an established public-use narrative behind them, all of which together have now transcended ta SINGLE symbolic narrative alone.
This means that, just like with a painting in an art gallery, no two people see the same symbolism or the same meanings in the form or structure — no two white people, no two black people, no two people of ANY color. Children, for example, who know nothing of the Civil war, play near the statues and think that they are interesting, … want to climb on them — totally oblivious to this toxic narrative that Black Lives Matter, for example, raves about. Heck, I would say that many African Americans think nothing of those statues, unless constantly prodded by constant aggressive, radical activism.
Those statues have become, by their sheer longevity and public use in the landscape, hardly more than big pieces of landscape art to most people who visit public parks. They are NOT toxic, any more than a statue of say, Shiva, is toxic in a garden because it might force viewers to believe that this mythical creature with many arms really exists in the sky.
In general, removing statues of any sort that have an ESTABLISHED history of just standing for a time, starts civilization down a scary road. Removing a statue that has stood for decades, having accumulated decades more of history just by standing and being used, is NOT the same as spontaneously erecting a statue of Hitler in a place where it has never stood. People who use this argument are creating a grave error by ignoring the additional history of use that a statue gains by merely existing in one place undisturbed for decades.
Using Confederate statues the way that they are now being used by activists is a clear technique of dividing people, rather than uniting people further. Whether intentional or not, this divisiveness demonstrates a very shallow understanding of history and a type of ignorance or unwillingness to think deeply, and this has a destructive effect that can weaken governments.
Well, after a bit of research, I have come to the conclusion that Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist at heart, and that he used the issue of slavery tactically rather than ethically.
So much for Abe the god. Tear down the Lincoln Memorial now, why don’t we. Yeah, he made a good decision NOT to expand slavery and ultimately to deliver the Emancipation Proclamation, but his reasons were NOT pristine moral reasons — they were political and economic reasons primarily.
The narrative in question, then, is NOT as simple as the activists try to make it, and so the response to the narrative is not as simple as tearing down and erasing those monuments related to this time in history.
Oh, just to back up my previous conclusion, I guess I should list an information source that was key to my arriving at this conclusion:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:20?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
In Abraham Lincoln’s Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858, Lincoln said:
. . . hate speech? You be the judge.
Indeed. My findings too. The war was over economics and also apparently a ploy by the British to weaken the US. In the end, good that slavery was abolished, but that wasn’t half the story at all by any means. Now, race issues are being brought up again to cause division and national weakness, but this time they are actually inventing and manufacturing a racism problem where none exists; no, now it is about “privilege”.
I miss the 90’s! The 90’s were so great. Everyone respected and valued each other for their talents and abilities and didn’t care the least about skin color.
“The Idiocene.”
I will be looking for someplace to bring that up. Excellent !
As a black man, not bitter about the past, I wanted to share this tune:
You can always some sophistry back on them:
Did you pay to hear me speak? No? Then it’s free speech.
Great tune, AfroPhysics.
I continually scratch my head at Leftist insanity, everything they believe is the opposite of reality.
You cannot be part Left, it is all or nothing, in or not in.
You ha e to lie all the time to stay Left, ignore reality, follow the media herd, it is sickening to watch or listen to all the dumb new white Islamist converts, who haven’t the slight idea of what they have become, non-practicing Muslims.
Thats what they have become an extension of political Islam, everything, and i do mean everything about them is white Taqiyya.
To realise just how dumbed down this latest generation is, is sickening.
Simple history, never taught them, wouldn’t know who Nelson or Napoleon were.
They look normal, they function normally, but they are ”normal” compared to my 45yrs as an adult and being aware.
They have been damaged, and i honestly believe maliciously so, the Left have created damaged minds millions of them, firstly i think the chemical kosh through mandatory vaccines, then junk food chemicals keeping the hormonal imbalance going as children develop, then their rancid leftist education leaves them wide open the herd maintaining media shepherd.
It works with those that the process feminise’s most, those with higher testosterone levels are far far less susceptible, its no co-incidence most lefties are Beta-people.
Or feminist’s striving to become alpha’s amongst the alpha’s they see as ”toxic” males, all they ever achieve is alpha-dom over the Beta-people.
Music, sitting the grandson on the knee waliking the dog .. all anti-Left therapy.
This is my style.
https://youtu.be/B9FzVhw8_bY
Great Music, heres my pick:
Pingback: Hate Speech is Free Speech | ajmarciniak
Vice’s racist idea: Free speech “connected to” white supremacists
Oh boy, you don’t know how much I miss the 80’s and the 90’s … life was so much easier, carefree. I have never known racism until the past decade or so. When I was in college, there was no such thing as racism in my world. To this day it is a concept that I simply do not understand. I have very close friends and colleagues of all sorts of races. Their race (or skin color) is never even a thought in my mind and I really don’t see them as “color” of any type. I absolutely love the fact that all I can see are “people” .. I guess I could be certified as “color blind”. I just don’t get it. Color seems to me to be such a stupid thing to segregate people by. My dogs and cats don’t care that they are all different colors. Why should we?
Right. We were all made by the same aliens. Just different flavors of ice scream. Jah knows what is in a man’s souls.
I never thought much about blacks and whites until black activism became so seemingly rampant, and now the very actions supposedly put forth to eliminate racism, in fact, ACCENTUATE it, thereby creating a fake racial crisis.
Businesses and educational institutions are scared to deal with people, because they are scared of being sued over racism, and so standards in all areas are taking a nose dive, because the real issues are kept out of view, and the necessary dialogue is bring silenced.
Today’s racial activism runs the risk of making people racists who were never racists before, because the rampant, manic professing of the racial-equality narrative becomes noxious.
“bring” = “being” in above post.
See…the only people who benefit from ending free speech are the ones who shouldn’t:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-09/death-political-correctness-student-charged-islamaphobic-hate-crime-after-mocking-is
Interestingly, liberals identify Islam directly with ISIS terrorism…and protect it.
Hello Joseph,Here is our message.”Contra Mundum”
Nice “song”. I liked it.
Me too. I thought it had a pique to it.
The internet is destroying humanity.
I found the beginning of this man’s observations confusing…either purposeful or ignorant non sequiturs. It is difficult to follow the reasoning? Or is that just me being a dumb white right wing fascist . Right place for it though Climate of SOPHISTRY
This is brilliant
Disgusting fucking idiots: