Dude argues for both sides of the fence just to kill time

Woke is not cancel culture you f***ing idiot

Remember when some braindead ukranians got hurt over Asap Rocky's Z chain in honor of his son and they showed how racist they are towards Africans online

funny how after all that condescending guilt tripping about not having their support, 62% of Black men were behind asians as his second strongest demographic to victory.

I'd rather live in central America than Europe tbh...

It’s funny to me when someone says people were scared to speak because of cancel culture like speak what? What specifically were you scared to say?? Could it have been something racist or vile??

Like confederate defenders saying the civil war was about states rights, yeah ok a states right to what…?

Given that you can say extremely abhorrent s*** on TV or on Tiktok and get 100k on Gofundme, yes, they wanted to say something anti-human.

Good times

Being a bigot isn't an "opinion" that you should be "free to express" without consequences tho

This blackpilled me lol

Anyway

Pure comedy. Something like a parody.

And that’s fine

Yall are too obsessed w freedom of expression

There are ideas that simply should not be permeated and society should take steps to prevent this

I feel like this is kind of reductive. Freedom of expression doesn't mean promoting hate or being absolved of consequence.

to most people it quite literally means that there should not be institutional opposition to these things

by your own terms you agree with me in that there should be social moderation of speech

Sure in a sense, and there are levels to it, but I wouldn't openly state that I support the erosion of freedom of expression.

I also do not trust anyone who says 'cancel culture'.

Being fired from a job (private) for hate speech or being blackballed by an industry (collective of private companies) isn't protected by freedom of expression, that's just paying the consequences by a non-state

If anything, a group of people not messing with you for a hateful opinion is loosely freedom of expression. It is my decision to not see your shows, listen to your rhetoric, or purchase anything you sell.

How is “freedom of speech” being enforced by a non-state necessarily better or worse than it being enforced by a state?

How is a body of private businesses collectively suppressing your freedom of speech necessarily more appealing to you than them going through the state that they currently possess?

I never said it is better. It's just a factor of reality. Private businesses are concerned with optics, so they can do whatever they want, and people will accept it because a good per cent of the time it is combating offensive behaviour. However, such a thing is a slippery slope, as we all know businesses tend to be corrupt, and neutral/positive ideas can be censored.

Freedom of expression promotes knowledge, showcases the truth, and allows people to be better acquainted with ideas rather than succumbing to conditioned thought.

However, even after studying Canadian and American law, the current world, and our system, freedom of expression only goes so far, because the state serves not only the people but also its own interests. But I'd rather die than give up the opportunity for change, and you use rhetoric, which is brought about by freedom of expression.

People tell on themselves when they say woke is cancel culture, "cultural marxism" or that it is being an inherent, insane radical leftist towards others.

It literally just means being aware. Being awake.

Reactionaries despise those who are aware. And the capital class wants you to be unaware and simplistic so that you can engage in infighting and become reactionary yourself, as they tell you that all of your problems are the fault of your brown-skinned peers, and not the 1%/lobbyists.

If information, knowing history, law, politics, and having a moral system that is based on all peoples having equal fundamental worth are bad things, then so be it. Some of you people need to decondition your fascist tendencies. But you'd rather indulge in actions in spite, because the woke person rubbed you the wrong way.

lmao

Do you really think that the "freedom of speech" means promoting knowledge, the truth, or spread of ideas in this modern day? you're tripping. sure you're right that companies work to maintain optics. however, they have, and will, lie, manipulate, and cover up the truth to maintain optics and acceptance before they give you a cent.

Businesses are not primarily concerned about optics in a world where controlling material relations is more important than the control of information and optics and perspective. What you see as a concern for optics is in fact predicated on maintenance on their systems of exploitation and extraction. Why do you think they flip-flopped from the narrative wokeisms of the 2010's to the unabashed bigotry of the modern day? Because, as you said, it is to build percieved acceptance for their continued material exploitation of workers, which is what really matters.

The state is not a body that serves its own interests, but of those that control it. Capitalism and private interests control the state, and the common man does not. The laws of freedom of expression may therefore be followed or not followed upon the whims of private interests

The freedom of speech therefore does not not necessarily promote knowledge, the truth, or spread of ideas, it is used in the frame of the conditions of paragraph two as things stand now. If those require the emboldened conditions of this paragraph, then they will be accepted and propagated. If not, they will not. Palantir, X, Meta, Oracle, etc. all understand this framework and find profitability in the work done to protect the spread of information for the sake of other companies, and so must we if we wish to remain opposed to them.

and my ideas are not brought about by the freedom of speech. they're brought about by material a***ysis, and millions have been killed by capitalism across the world for assuming, expressing, and defending these ideas, including in the US.

read a book and stop thinking these liberal fantasies of social responsibility are a material law that will always win out. the nazis thought they were doing the right thing too. these ideas must be stamped out

however, they have, and will, lie, manipulate, and cover up the truth to maintain optics and acceptance before they give you a cent.

I don't disagree. But I put zero stock for a private company/industry censoring someone or not censoring hate speech (a la FB/Instagram allowing transphobia/homophobia under Trump admin). Supporting either is a fool's errand. If I find hate speech or something else infringing on me, I'll simply try to avoid it or fight back.

The state is not a body that serves its own interests, but of those that control it. Capitalism and private interests control the state, and the common man does not. The laws of freedom of expression may therefore be followed or not followed upon the whims of private interests

My point was moreso about neoliberal incumbency, hence my cynicism, but sure, we can speak about the alternative and tweak my sentence, as the dictatorship of the proletariat contradicts it.

Freedom of expression includes criticism, you should be allowed to criticise any government. Criticism provides the means for improvement. Of course, like freedom of speech/expression, what constitutes as valid criticism depends on the criticism itself. I mean, how else can you escape an echo chamber or find a solution to a problem? It's simply something that hasn't been tried so far, but it is necessary in both a capitalist and hypothetical communist world.

The freedom of speech therefore does not not necessarily promote knowledge, the truth, or spread of ideas, it promotes the conditions of paragraph two. If those require the emboldened conditions of this paragraph, then they will be accepted and propagated. If not, they will not.

I should correct my wording; I do think that freedom of speech doesn't automatically promote ideas such as knowledge/truth/spread of ideas; however, it can, and that's what is important. Ultimately, it is up to rhetoric and shared ideas/ideologies to garner what is 'right.' You might find this nonsense, but we've seen it historically.

Ultimately, limiting freedom of expression regardless of regime and ideology will result in a limitation of knowledge and truth. Whether this is intentional, beneficial or that the limitation will eventually lead to misinformation (or more drastically, decay), is still inherently repressive. Sure, freedom of speech won't prevent misinformation, but without it there's no alternative to such misinformation.

and my ideas are not brought about by the freedom of speech. they're brought about by material a***ysis, and million have been killed by capitalism across the world for assuming and expressing these ideas, including in the US. read a book and stop thinking these liberal fantasies of social responsibility are a material law that will always win out. the nazis thought they were doing the right thing too.

This is simply careful framing and semantics. None of us are propagated with thought individually, as you implied. I feel like you are attributing ideas to me that have not been said.

Addressing the latter part, I think you are under the impression I'm a pacifist and that we can debate fascists casually. I don't... I do think there's a line, even if you feel that it is contradictory

if you put zero stock in these concepts then how do we deal with meta and youtube wiping DropSite's archives over over 700 articles and videos documenting the palestinian genocide?

if the corporate monopoly over society also monopolizes control over speech, and speech IS controlled, then you may propose we divest and build elsewhere.

in this case, how do we deal with the propogation of misinformation and the violent efforts of the capitalist class and capitalist-controlled state in our new, divested structure.

it is inevitable that speech must be controlled and speech must not be free in any case where we go to revolution. you can't get everyone to come to the same conclusion against capitalist oppression through deduction. it's simply impossible