Eternal Sunshine of Guy222's and Rao's Minds (v2.0)

And just in case for those who might act like I'm being culturally insensitive... maybe Astner's country hasn't called out the transparent bullsh1t like mine has, but the United States has many races, creeds and religions. And despite what U.S. mainstream media tries to sell, today's America will happily call out those who act self-persecuted solely because they're upset their own persecution of others won't be sanctioned by the majority.

The typical quaneuver by these racists is to pervert the protections against hate speech by acting like you're being hate speeched yourself when you're not allowed to hate speech the way you feel like.

What could be more pointlessly ironic than this? What could be more pathetic than such utter lack of self-awareness?

If you were an abject minority within your own country, again... I might sympathize. But something tells me, Swede-man, you ain't a black, Muslim transgender. Just a b1tch-made white guy who acts like the 85%+ of your country's population are somehow being reverse-oppressed by minorities because you're not allowed to burn a Koran in public whilst others are burning Bibles protesting systemic pedophilia of church leaders.

Originally posted by ODG
^ And I think I narrowed down exactly what you are.

A closet racist who is too much of a coward to openly embrace said racism. You instead surreptitiously place blame on others with word salad prevarication over what free speech actually protects in a false bid for persecution, i.e., "All views should be protected so it's not fair for the world to look down upon my views~~~~~!!!who cares if it's thinly veiled hate speech"

If your own racist tendencies weren't the ultimate end-goal of your maneuvering, I might almost sympathize.

So how many times did the soft membranes of your brain fold over to make you feel persecuted for not being able to persecute others?

I...

....I think.. Hanma Yujiro fans suck him off way too hard.

Yes. Yujiro fans. HE'S NOT INVINCIBLE PEOPLE!

...Yujiro.

Originally posted by ODG
And just in case for those who might act like I'm being culturally insensitive... maybe Astner's country hasn't called out the transparent bullsh1t like mine has, but the United States has many races, creeds and religions. And despite what U.S. mainstream media tries to sell, today's America will happily call out those who act self-persecuted solely because they're upset their own persecution of others won't be sanctioned by the majority.

The typical quaneuver by these racists is to pervert the protections against hate speech by acting like you're being hate speeched yourself when you're not allowed to hate speech the way you feel like.

What could be more pointlessly ironic than this? What could be more pathetic than such utter lack of self-awareness?

If you were an abject minority within your own country, again... I might sympathize. But something tells me, Swede-man, you ain't a black, Muslim transgender. Just a b1tch-made white guy who acts like the 85%+ of your country's population are somehow being reverse-oppressed by minorities because you're not allowed to burn a Koran in public whilst others are burning Bibles protesting systemic pedophilia of church leaders.

I never took offense to any the insults your hurled at me throughout our debate, and I'm not offended by your baseless allegations of racism and pedophilia either. I'm not a hypocrite. I fully support your freedom to express yourself in whatever manner you deem fit.

The reason I pointed out that you used transphobic and racist slurs was to emphasize that you are hypocrite. I'm not upset with you for being a hypocrite, I'm simply pointing it out.

Of course, the debate is settled. In your last direct reply, you replied to three out of nine of my paragraphs, while not addressing any of the points raised. That's a concession by the burden of the rejoinder.

Originally posted by Astner
Like I've pointed out before. The debate between us that took place in this thread is very different from the debate that took place in your head.

Originally posted by Astner
I never took offense to any the insults your hurled at me throughout our debate, and I'm not offended by your baseless allegations of racism and pedophilia either. I'm not a hypocrite. I fully support your freedom to express yourself in whatever manner you deem fit.

This is the prototypical false humility aftermath of when a poster realizes they're not going to gain sympathy for calling out vitriol because they brought it on themselves. Haven't seen this quaneuver before.

Originally posted by Astner
The reason I pointed out that you used transphobic and racist slurs was to emphasize that you are hypocrite. I'm not upset with you for being a hypocrite, I'm simply pointing it out.

In which case, you've upended your own arguments that free speech is unfairly limited. But ok, not like didn't purposely lead you by the nose and corner you accordingly. 👆

Originally posted by Astner
Of course, the debate is settled.

I know you don't want to draw this out. I wouldn't either in your position.

Hey ODG, I don't want to get between you and Astner here, so just a quick question; (Open for anyone else too)

So we hear all the time how such and such group is getting shafted on money right? White folks have all the money, and every single "not white" in existence isn't making as much.

Yet they are very clearly being marketed to, and they are very clearly making a lot of money for people.

Isn't that a contradiction? Like, if these soulless corporate types who only care about money are adopting Pride flags and whatever the feminist symhol is and body positivity iconography, and they aren't directly targeting the group we're constantly told has more money then god, what does that mean?

Not trying to be deceitful while saying under my breath "It's because all the narrarives are BS! Mwahahaha", I'm pointing to a reality that kind of confuses me.

I'll just stop beating around the bush, if the white men have it all, why aren't the big businesses tryjng to get it all by pandering to them? Even if it meant embracing all the stuff that kept everyone else oppressed?

Because that's what they USED to do, so what changed for the "All we care about is money" greedy capitalists?

^ Because "big business" actually makes more money off of working people and always have. Selling a box of cereal to Elon Musk doesn't generate as much money as selling a box of cereal to a million Americans individually. And minorities are a market of working class people that isn't nearly as tapped into as the majority White Christian population. Hence the pandering to such minorities.

Granted... premium caviar, world class wineries and fine art dealers aren't pandering to recently relocated Mexican migrants but those are niche markets. But we all know they ain't got sh1t on behemoths like Walmart.

Originally posted by cdtm
I...

....I think.. Hanma Yujiro fans suck him off way too hard.

Yes. Yujiro fans. HE'S NOT INVINCIBLE PEOPLE!

...Yujiro.

Originally posted by ODG
You're the one extolling how free speech is unfairly limited. While I explicitly limited free speech to the point of how the audience would reasonably feel threatened. Yeah well, you're my audience. So just be honest. Are you now pissing yourself and shaking in your booties because I used terms like "n1gga" and "b1tch", Swede-man? Just say so.

Spoiler:
Seriously, Astner, I said don't read this, n1gga.

Spoiler:
Astner, b1tch, I done told you already.

Spoiler:
BTW, to anybody other than Astner, I will give any KMC poster 2:1 odds that Astner will start pretending to be some sort of obscure minority for internet points because he's so hopelessly mired in a self-inflicted, unwinnable position. Any takers?

Seriously, not you, Astner. F@ck off.

Originally posted by ODG
I'm no longer surprised that you couldn't follow the simple analogies.

Originally posted by ODG
This is the prototypical false humility aftermath of when a poster realizes they're not going to gain sympathy for calling out vitriol because they brought it on themselves. Haven't seen this quaneuver before.

Originally posted by ODG
You're the one extolling how free speech is unfairly limited. While I explicitly limited free speech to the point of how the audience would reasonably feel threatened.

Originally posted by ODG
Yeah well, you're my audience. So just be honest. Are you now pissing yourself and shaking in your booties because I used terms like "n1gga" and "b1tch", Swede-man? Just say so.

Originally posted by ODG
In which case, you've upended your own arguments that free speech is unfairly limited.

Originally posted by ODG
But ok, not like didn't purposely lead you by the nose and corner you accordingly. 👆 Edited for truth and justice. 👆

I know you don't want to draw this out. I wouldn't either in your position.

Originally posted by ODG
Astner, don't read this. It's not for you.

Spoiler:
Seriously, Astner, I said don't read this, n1gga.

Spoiler:
Astner, b1tch, I done told you already.

Spoiler:
BTW, to anybody other than Astner, I will give any KMC poster 2:1 odds that Astner will start pretending to be some sort of obscure minority for internet points because he's so hopelessly mired in a self-inflicted, unwinnable position. Any takers?

Seriously, not you, Astner. F@ck off.

Originally posted by Astner
The only reason anyone would find it tiring is if they were to disagree with it.

Originally posted by Astner
This presupposes that we can universally agree on what those limits would be. A majority support isn't enough here, because it would allow the majority to oppress a minority.

Originally posted by Astner
I don't see threats of violence as an exercise of free speech, I see it as a unilateral oral contract.

Nothing prevents it from being both a form of speech and a unilateral contract. An unbidden promise or pledge is both a form of speech and a unilateral oral contract. Those things are not opposed.

The fact is, threats are a form of speech that you've identified as an exception to the rule protecting free speech. It's up to you to rationalize where the line is.

Originally posted by Astner
I disagree. Unless we're talking of threats or incitements of violence this isn't an issue.

In fact, any "unilateral oral contract" is... speech.

Either free speech extends to literally everything or only to some things. (And the answer is it only extends to some things).

Can't shout fire in a crowded theatre just to cause a mob trample.

Can't lie to investors or the public just to inflate stock prices.

Cant blast music outside your neighbour's window at 2am.

Can't play your sex tapes on a billboard. Generally can't have sex in public.

Democracies infringe free speech all. the. damn. time. And generally, we all understand and accept those limitations as necessary for society to function. Until it gets to hate speech, and then certain folks trot out the "disagree but die on the hill for your right to say it" nonsense.

Originally posted by Astner
No, it's been going on throughout the entire debate. You've had a very difficult time keeping track of what I've been saying.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm not exhibiting humility here.

Originally posted by Astner
No, my point was the free speech isn't limited. North Korea has "limited free speech" which is to say that they don't have free speech. And any perceptions of threats to explicit non-threats is just nonsense.

Originally posted by Astner
I thought I made it clear to you that not upset with you for using the t-word or the n-word, like I said, I don't care, and I never even alluded to your use of the word "b*tch." The reason I brought it up is to emphasize that you're a hypocrite for propagating the vitriol that you supposedly stand against.

Which is my point. I, as the speaker, when speechifying to an audience must take responsibility for what the audience would hear it as. Here in this thread, I know who my audience is, i.e., a b1tchmade closet racist.

Whereas, you tried to assert that you "do not care what people see it as." That only implies some belief in the unfettered ability to express your beliefs and placing all responsibility for its consequences on the audience.

You resent having to take responsibility for the sh1t you stir? You either got your ass kicked in public for your racism or you're afraid to get your ass kicked in public and resent society for your own impotent fear. In which case, toughen up cupcake.

Originally posted by Astner
Imagine being this mad over losing a debate....

It's the internet. And regardless of armchair theories, the internet is equally as merciless to closet racists as it is to tolerant people.

Originally posted by Smurph
In fact, any "unilateral oral contract" is... speech.

Either free speech extends to literally everything or only to some things. (And the answer is it only extends to some things).

Can't shout fire in a crowded theatre just to cause a mob trample.

Can't lie to investors or the public just to inflate stock prices.

Cant blast music outside your neighbour's window at 2am.

Can't play your sex tapes on a billboard. Generally can't have sex in public.

Democracies infringe free speech all. the. damn. time. And generally, we all understand and accept those limitations as necessary for society to function. Until it gets to hate speech, and then certain folks trot out the "disagree but die on the hill for your right to say it" nonsense.

. . . . .

Ain't nobody accuse me of taking the higher ground in these matters, Astner. I'll leave that to my betters.

Originally posted by Astner
First and foremost, that's not what we were talking about.

Secondly, no I haven't. You're thinking of cdtm.

cdtm argued that since destroying a U.S. flag is protected speech, then destroying a Pride flag should also be protected speech, since both are flags:

Originally posted by cdtm
It's burning an American flag is a constitutional right then so is burning it pride flag or taking a dookie on it as happened.

ODG responded that the acts should be treated differently, because the former represents dissatisfaction with the U.S. government, and the latter could be construed as a threat toward LGBT people:

Originally posted by ODG
Disaffirming the current state of government isn't the same as disaffirming a group of people, you nunce. The former is the prototypical form of protest against a political power to let our elected officials know we're not ok with how the government is being run. The latter is a thinly-veiled hate crime that is intended to scare/threaten a group of people with physical violence.

You replied that burning a Pride flag does not necessarily constitute a threat toward LGBT people:

Originally posted by Astner
The burning of the American flag doesn't have to be in protest of elected officials, it can just as well be to signal a threat of violence against American citizens. But it doesn't have to be...just like burning a Pride flag doesn't have to be a threat of violence against LGBT-people.

ODG replied that the legal test is whether a reasonable person would perceive the burning of a Pride flag as a threat toward LGBT people:

Originally posted by ODG
Let me know the next time any reasonable American sees the burning of a Pride flag and doesn't see it as a threat of violence or dehumanization of those who identify as LGBTQ.

You replied that you do not care what a reasonable person perceives, and that your standard of free speech absolutism should stand:

Originally posted by Astner
I don't care what people see it as. Until someone is either physically harmed or threatened with physical harm it shouldn't be a crime.

Blithely ignoring the argument of ODG that the act itself constitutes a threat of physical harm. Hence, his reply:

Originally posted by ODG
And it shows, you piece of garbage.

To which you replied:

Originally posted by Astner
For not wanting dissenters jailed?

To which I asked:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Where is that happening?

Your entire free speech argument hinges on the notion that people are being jailed for bigoted speech which is not happening. Meanwhile, right-wing legislatures have actually banned progressive speech, and you are silent about it. So spare us your disengenous bullshit.

Originally posted by Astner

No, my point was the free speech isn't limited. North Korea has "limited free speech" which is to say that they don't have free speech.

Every noise bylaw. Every advertising requirement and restriction. Defamation laws. Laws against threats and harassment. Laws against perjury. Copyright laws. Content moderation and ratings systems. Laws against fraud. The regulatory systems governing what doctors and lawyers can, cannot, must and must not say.

Just pause and think about how stupidly broad your stance is. And then pause and ask yourself why hate speech is your hill where you plant your free speech flag.

Adam_PoE and Smurph speak their wisdom in a controlled manner.

. . . . .

Screw them both. ha-son

Originally posted by Smurph
No it doesn't. It just means that we all understand, because we're not idiots, that limits of some sort exist.

Originally posted by Smurph
And yet threats of violence are a form of speech exhibited freely.

Nothing prevents it from being both a form of speech and a unilateral contract. An unbidden promise or pledge is both a form of speech and a unilateral oral contract. Those things are not opposed.

The fact is, threats are a form of speech that you've identified as an exception to the rule protecting free speech. It's up to you to rationalize where the line is.

It's as if you tell a mechanic to fix your car, and when you refuse to pay, you're taken to court, and sentenced. It's not your free speech that's being infringed on here.

This makes more sense when you consider that the threat has to be deemed legitimate. In other words, there are instances where the same words are used in the same order, but aren't considered threats.

Originally posted by Smurph
That's nice. Since I've provided a reason and you've provided a handwave, I guess that's the end of the discussion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]Your entire free speech argument hinges on the notion that people are being jailed for bigoted speech which is not happening. Meanwhile, right-wing legislatures have actually banned progressive speech, and you are silent about it. So spare us your disengenous bullshit. [/B]

Whether or not people are actually being jailed is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Originally posted by Astner
Those limits would be arbitrary, and therefore should not be imposed at all.

Originally posted by Smurph
You cannot name a single country in the world that doesn't limit speech in thousands of ways.

Every noise bylaw. Every advertising requirement and restriction. Defamation laws. Laws against threats and harassment. Laws against perjury. Copyright laws. Content moderation and ratings systems. Laws against fraud. The regulatory systems governing what doctors and lawyers can, cannot, must and must not say.

Originally posted by Astner
One specified charge corresponds to one law. In this case it would be to form that illegal unilateral contract.

Originally posted by Astner
It's as if you tell a mechanic to fix your car, and when you refuse to pay, you're taken to court and, sentenced. It's not your free speech that's being infringed on here.

Your contract argument is nonsense and your analogy is a dud. Try again.

Originally posted by Astner
This makes more sense when you consider that the threat deemed legitimate. In other words, there are instances where the same words are used in the same order, but aren't considered threats.

Originally posted by Astner
No, you made a few vague and unsubstantiated a posteriori claims. If you want a proper reply, you have to show me that free speech leads to the dehumanization people which in turn limits their participation in society. These were your claims, and you provided no evidence to support it.

The fact that you get those terms mixed up is... telling.

^ Litigator clearly litigates. 👆

Originally posted by Astner
Those limits would be arbitrary, and therefore should not be imposed at all.

One charge corresponds to one law. In this case it would be to form that illegal unilateral contract.

It's as if you tell a mechanic to fix your car, and when you refuse to pay, you're taken to court, and sentenced. It's not your free speech that's being infringed on here.

This makes more sense when you consider that the threat has to be deemed legitimate. In other words, there are instances where the same words are used in the same order, but aren't considered threats.

No, you made a few vague and unsubstantiated a posteriori claims. If you want a proper reply, you have to show me that free speech leads to the dehumanization people which in turn limits their participation in society. These were your claims, and you provided no evidence to support it.

Option 1: Astner is a true proponent of free speech and understands that the concept is intrinsic towards benevolent self-governance in democratic societies particularly for minorities.

Option 2: Astner is a white man in a country with 85%+ white population who somehow feels marginalized (LOL) and so triggered over world events (that have nothing to do with him, btw) that he feels like his own bigoted fee-fees are hurt when he can't burn a Koran like others can burn a Bible.

We really going to pretend which is more likely?

Originally posted by Smurph
You cannot name a single country in the world that doesn't limit speech in thousands of ways.

Originally posted by Smurph
Every noise bylaw. Every advertising requirement and restriction. Defamation laws. Laws against threats and harassment. Laws against perjury. Copyright laws. Content moderation and ratings systems. Laws against fraud. The regulatory systems governing what doctors and lawyers can, cannot, must and must not say.

Originally posted by Smurph
Just pause and think about how stupidly broad your stance is. And then pause and ask yourself why hate speech is your hill where you plant your free speech flag.

Now presuppose you've had a bit too much to drink or you're in a heated confrontation and you accidentally provoke someone, this someone proceeds to beat you senseless thinking he's justified in it because you provoked him.

Like I said before, I'd rather live in a world where no one takes offense than a world where no one is allowed to offend.