[ cyb / tech / λ / layer ] [ zzz / drg / lit / diy / art ] [ w / rpg / r ] [ q ] [ / ] [ popular / ???? / rules / radio / $$ / news ] [ volafile / uboa / sushi / LainTV / lewd ]

cyb - cyberpunk

“There will come a time when it isn't "They're spying on me through my phone", anymore. Eventually, it will be, "My phone is spying on me.””
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)
BUY LAINCHAN STICKERS HERE

STREAM » LainTV « STREAM
[Return][Go to bottom]

File: 1445885882663.png (28.79 KB, 704x278, 1445544570856.png) ImgOps iqdb

 No.18220[Last 50 Posts]

What would a society with 100% free speech be like? How would they manage, for example, death threats over e-mail or something similar? In theory, the person sending the mail is in their right of expressing themselves that way, but should that person be detained, or investigated, for threatening another person? Wouldn't that violate their free speech rights? On the other hand, if violent threats are not moderated, they could lead to becoming true. How would they handle situations like this? How would the society be like overall? No need to be realistic, just theoretically discuss this. Reality is soykaf and that of course isn't possible these days.
>>

 No.18221

>>18220
Death threats are not a problem in themselves.
Using threats as a mean of coercion is though.
If someone coerces you through the threat of violence then they might as well have been using violence.

>>

 No.18222

America has free speech. Don't know what you're on about. Death threats are sent every day.

>>

 No.18223

>>18222
Is it really when you can be jailed for opinions?

>>

 No.18224

>>18223
Saying that you want someone killed isn't illegal.
Saying that if they won't stop what they are doing or you'll kill them is an indirect use of violence.
The threat is not a problem, it's the fact that you are backing it up with violence.

>>

 No.18225

>>18223
Threats of violence are not opinions.

>>

 No.18229

>>18221
But you allow yourself to be coerced, you can simply ignore verbal threats, because they cause no harm. All harm from threats is consensual.

>>

 No.18230

>>18229
But what if they're serious and will really harm (kill) you if you don't cooperate. Once you're dead, there's no use in calling them out on infringing your rights. How can you tell if they're serious and really have the resources and will to harm you, or if the threats are not really actionable.

If the latter is true, sure, 100% free speech gives them that, and you couldn't possibly require the state/overseer to act on them. On the other hand, if the former is true, that hasn't much to do with free speech, does it? Now, what do you do and how do you prove that they're capable of doing harm before they actually do it?

>>

 No.18235

>How would they manage, for example, death threats over e-mail or something similar?
Most, if not all, internet threats of violence and death are fake, as said by FBI. There is a slight difference between real and fake ones though, and that is if person knows the sender in person and has been getting threats on a regular basis for longer time period.

>In theory, the person sending the mail is in their right of expressing themselves that way
>"expressing themselves that way"
It's a death treat and threat of violence. The act of killing someone or being physically violent against someone is punishable by law. If I were to say "I am going to make meth, and I just bought the ingredients to do so, just come over to my house bruh" that would be me acknowledging I am going to do something illegal. If police have knowledge of future crimes that are going to be done, then they take precautions. You have all the freedom to say "I am going to kill you" to another person, you have freedom of speech, but if there is possibility of you killing someone be ready to talk to police.

>On the other hand, if violent threats are not moderated, they could lead to becoming true
Most violent threats are as >>18221 said, done just to coerce someone to do something they didn't have intentions to do. For instance, a kid who has an exam in his school tommorow and he didn't study for it, so he just calls in bomb threat to cancel the test.
There wasn't ever a real threat of bombing in school, and most bomb threats are faked, but boy was free to say that, police is right to interogate and punish the boy for doing that and school is free to take precautions.

We already have 100% free speech system, you're using it right now. The idea that you can say anything and for that to not hold any weight in how others act and say is absurd, as if speech can ever be free. You have freedom to say anything you want, but know that there will always be people who will react to your words in different ways, and they have freedom to do so. And if your words directly destroy financially someone, then you can expect to talk to police. If some really popular banker were to say "There banks are unthrustworthy, you people shouldn't be putting money in them, they are likely to crash soon" then a lot of people take their money out of those banks and the banks crash creating a great depression(yes, this is how it happened) then that banker is accountable for that whole event.
Actions and reactions. There is no freedom from system that exists in this universe.
Speech is an action in long line of reactions that will yield in expected reaction from others.

>>

 No.18274

>>18239
Yes but it's not the act of saying it that makes it illegal.
It's illegal because it's backed by violence.

>>

 No.18275

In the case of threats they'd just become uninformative, if they already aren't. What is the probability that someone perpetrates a violent act given that they have previously threatened their victim? Considering how low the unconditional probability of someone committing assault is compared to the probability of someone acting like an idiot online, I'd say it's pretty low. A better predictor would be the character and the location of the sender.

I'd also say that speech in general, if unimpeded, would become somewhat meaningless. Not that it would become content-less, but that it would become meaningless to potential listeners. And even more so in the case of anti-government speech. Because there would be very little to lose, little respect would be gained by "defiance". Rather, having a bunch of people throw impotent rants at you is a sign of power. Allowing people do as they please (because they aren't a real threat anyway) is another.

>>

 No.18285

>>18220
>What would a society with 100% free speech be like?
I think I would like it. I would think 100% free speech is a misnomer. Speech is either free or not.

This would lead to threats, slander, and lies being spread constantly, so things really wouldn't be much different than they are now, except people would be more realistic about them and probably also stop trying to have them censored.

>>

 No.18292

>>18276
Being an anti-contemporary-feminist and being a right winger are slightly different. I'm a left winger, but I'm anti feminist because of the way the movement progressed to "m-muh feelings" instead of "muh rights".

>>

 No.18293

>>18292
meant for
>>18284

>>

 No.18296

>>18220
>What would a society with 100% free speech be like?
Presuming nothing even resemling an exception on any level, someone would think to go around telling people their society didn't actually have free speech and that censorship was permitted, but defend their deception by saying it is itself an expression of free speech?

>>

 No.18305

>>18229
nobody chooses to be coerced, that's literally the definition of coercion

>>

 No.18306

>>18223
such as?

>>

 No.18307

there wouldn't be a society with 100% free speech the way you're describing. we informally censor and silence opinions we don't like all the time, especially when they come from people we don't like / don't think are capable of "rationality"
>>18292
I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience but 90% of the feminists I know aren't like that. don't believe the online rhetoric

>>

 No.18308

File: 1446009633605.jpeg (8.28 KB, 300x170, mmkm.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

>>18296
it is at this point that one realizes that "freedom of speech" is only an arbitrary term, similar to the word "blue." if you show two people a picture of the visible spectrum, they will draw lines at different points to signify where they each think the color "blue" is. ultimately, there must be a precise definition of "blue" for them to agree exactly. even then, it is still a definition that can be reinterpreted and changed.

>>

 No.18314

File: 1446011693148.jpg (39.02 KB, 300x240, dijkstra.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18308
>thinks there's such a thing as a non-arbitrary term when referencing real-world situations
this mentality is the root cause of people hurting each other

>>

 No.18315

my friends disgust me, i once mentioned an artist being arrested simply for drawing some not so nice pictures. their first question "well what did he draw" and i say "why the fuarrrk does it matter do you not support freedom of expression" and then they said "well it depends on what he drew!".

boggles my mind, how can you say you support freedom of expression or freedom of speech but then in the same sentence say it depends on what they said or what they drew. lately ive been making very aggressive and interrogative responses with topics like this. Oh what you dont support freedom of expression? Oh you do so you would support some sick fuarrrk drawing people getting raped? Oh you dont so people can only draw what you think is okay? of course id never do this to some stranger on the street just to cause trouble, but if it ever gets into a slightly heated debate il do it. scum of the earth, more fixated on appearing to be a good person than actually being one. if you even believe in good or bad, i dont really but i do think this shows the true nature of your average person and i like to think it raises some questions within them about what the hell they even stand for if they stand for anything at all.

maybe im just being a retarded asshole for no reason though.

>>

 No.18320

>>18292
foad liberal

>>

 No.18322

>>18320
not that lainon, but left-wingers aren't all spineless liberals, as if that word has any meaning anymore.

>>

 No.18328

>>18315
You're over reacting, but you're also not wrong. I think you're in the right but you're too passionate about it. Like I also believe in freedom for everything. Sexual preference, sexual interests (I may not like pedophiles because of traditional upbringing but if a ballot came to legalize it, I'd vote yes to it because they have rights too). Kinda like legalizing gay marriage. If you don't like hommusexuals and don't vote pro for it, but rant about freedom, then you're a hypocrite. You can hate them but still support their rights. That's what people don't understand. You're allowed to hate and still support something. Hate religion, but still fight for their right to have churches built if a petition came to it.

>>

 No.18329

Censorship isnt just laws, its social too.

>>

 No.18331

>>18315
The majority of people are completely unprincipled because they don't understand how to apply axioms to varied circumstances. Most people only know how to think about specific circumstances. Even intelligent people who seem open-minded oftentimes simply have a wide range of specific circumstances they've developed opinions on.

If you present a person with the axiom,"it should be legal to draw anything", they might agree with it. If you present that same person with the specific notion,"it should be legal to draw pictures that are bigoted towards muslims", their opinion is likely to be determined by their general politics, not by the axiom.

>>

 No.18332

>>18329
People are going to disagree with you there. There's a lot of people take the line that censorship means government only and social censorship should not even be considered censorship. Of course that's purely a semantic argument, but people do seem to love bickering back and forth about what the word censorship means as if it matters.

>>

 No.18333

>>18307
Something something anecdotal evidence. But it's not relevant to this discussion anyways.
>>18332
As much as i hate semantic arguments with a burning passion, agreeing on definitions is usually the only way to achieve consensus, and in this instance I think it is indeed debatable what is and isn't censorship.

My stance on it would be that you aren't entitled to plateforms but that the act of lobbying to silence someone you don't agree with (instead of demostrating why they are wrong) is, if not censorship, quite immoral.

Propaganda be dammed, if people aren't smart enough to defeat positions they deem wrong by debate and dialog, then the least that they could do is question their own position instead of trying to silence those opinions.

Chomsky was at least right on that: If you don't believe in freedom of speech for your worst enemies, you don't believe in it at all.

>>

 No.18334

>>18322
It's just that muhricans have been trained to think that anyone left wing is either a spineless liberal or a dangerous communist.

>>

 No.18339

>>18331
In their defense that sort of black and white thinking is often used when it doesn't apply. For example, many people believe gay marriage wasn't allowed in the US until very recently and get upset about it because "muh equality." In reality gays have been able to marry for a long time, they just couldn't get the tax breaks and other incentives from the government. Marriage is a religious institution, you don't need the government's permission for it to count. Why would the government offer incentives to some married couples and not others? The answer is simple: kids are (or at least were when manufacturing was big) good for the economy, and gay marriages tend not to result in kids. Of course there was lots of religious dogma and bigotry involved as well, but my point is it is rarely a clear cut case of sticking to axioms leads to everything being good.

Freedom of speech I think is a good one to take a hard stance on, but it is understandable that many people prefer a safer, more pragmatic (and of course hypocritical) approach.

>>

 No.18384

>>18333
anecdotal evidence is exactly what I was accusing you of. you can't believe random sources on the internet any more than you can believe your own experiences

we always rely on stories about bad things that happened elsewhere. if there's no radical feminists where you live, oh that's because they're in the city, or college, such and such liberal arts campus, tumblr, etc

it's always some other place that you aren't, or it's some extremist blogger on the internet who's been cherry picked.

>>

 No.18386

>>18339
>marriage is a religious institution
no it isn't, atheists get married all the time. marriage is older than christianity and most of the time when people say marriage rights they mean secular marriage

>>

 No.18389

>>18386
Married Athiest. Can confirm. It's very much a social and economic institution. Even when we cohabited before we were married money was harder to deal with and handle.

>>

 No.18390

>>18307
90% of the feminists I know ARE like that.

>>

 No.18392

>>18390
sorry to hear that. I'm a feminist, and I don't fit the stereotype that internet neckbeards seem to believe in, and neither do any of the feminists I know. you don't know me but I hope that helps.

>>

 No.18397

>>18392
Problem with labels like these is that literally anyone can claim to be one-of-***. I sympathise with you - this bad rep doesn't help you if you genuinely want to help the society.

Some years ago I'd have called myself a feminist. Now I'd just call myself "egalitarian", if only to avoid conflicts, but my views haven't changed, just the label.

So I'd say these labels are utterly meaningless, so instead of attacking strawmen and names, we should just discuss ideas.
Some of the prejudice against ideas can disappear that way, too.

And yeah, there are always crazies and the honest people in all groups like these, and it is like kicking dead whales down the beach for the latter. I'll add that I'm what you'd call a GG-er, so maybe that'll prove my point further. Or not.

>>

 No.18404

Not attentively paying attention to this thread enough to see which post this is related to, so I'm just going to say:

Society's acceptance of free speech follows a flow, I think. As one generation is more sensitive to sex, violence and "edgy" things, the next is more lenient. Every once in a while there's that one movie, band, or whatever that turns the tables between one generation and the next, separating them based on their view on speech.

Some people get ultra sensitive about [3rd wave feminist issue of the week], while they still honor Pulp Fiction for "what it did". What it did was push the boundary on speech, which is being conflicted. So what we need is not more sensitivity, but another Pulp Fiction, Clockwork Orange, or what have you that pushes the boundaries.

Then again, in order to push the boundaries you must first have a boundary to push. So we have a system that naturally flows from more to less censorship. We're approaching a more censored environment, but after a bit we will have an edgy artist to make everyone rethink speech.

It's a shitty cycle but it works

>>

 No.18405

>>18386
I think that's missing the point a bit.
>>18389
My parents were never religious but when my dad died it made things a whole lot easier with probate and everything that they were married. The point is that legal marriage is mostly a convenience; most of its benefits can be had by other means like living wills and contracts. Of course gays can complain that the red tape is unreasonable and they wouldn't be wrong, but anyone who has visited the DMV has that same complaint.

What I'm really getting at is that there is subtlety in a lot of issues where the axiomatic approach would suggest a simple solution. It shouldn't be surprising that people claim to believe in the axioms while being reluctant to take them all the way.

>>

 No.18406

I believe in most of the tenants of feminism, but I'll never call myself a feminist. Feminism brought american whiskey production to its knees and put bourbon back 100 years. It took it until the late 90s early 2000 to really start gaining respectability. Thank god for the Japanese since in the 70s and 80s they were pretty much the only ones that helped the good distillers stay alive. But if it hadn't been for feminism we wouldn't have needed the Japanese and you could still get Turkey Diamond stateside.

>>

 No.18409

>>18397
but see, denying yourself a certain label because radical voices are also using that label is completely self defeating, it hurts the movement and it's letting them win. if moderate feminists get alienated and quit the movement then the movement will go nowhere, what's more fragmentation is also horrible for any movement. Take this in the context of there's "egalitarians" running around trying to shoot down everything said by feminists whose beliefs are a little bit different than theirs as if that mattered more than the oppressive society we live in.

on the other hand, I do encourage you to read about Womanism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womanism
it seems to be a women's rights movement independent of feminism due to feminism's lack of respect for black women, though it is also an egalitarian movement that stands for the equality of all people
>>18405
since we're on the topic of subtlety, there's much more besides legal recognition of marriage (which is again what most people are referring to when they say marriage) that gay people need - workplace discrimination is strong in many places, and don't bring something like don't ask don't tell into this because straight people bring their straightness into the office all the time. It is also still legal, in many places, to deny sale of products to gay people, and while a capitalist free market -should- push businesses who do this out of business we all know how well that actually works out in practice.

>>18406
not to soykaf on your hobby but if bourbon is really more important to you than social reform, well, I dunno what to say to that. probably that your political opinions are less important than your opinions on bourbon.

anyway, that was definitely not the same feminism that we have currently - in fact it wasn't even feminism. while the temperance movement and teetotalism were linked to women's suffrage, there was still a distinction and what's more there was a distinction between women's suffrage and feminism. the suffragettes, for instance, were incredibly racist and made some particularly nasty statements like “White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage.” Carrie Chapman Catt said that, but you probably have no idea who she is because the curriculum in the united states only tells us about Susan B Anthony and everything got better by magic afterwards

>>

 No.18410

ugh I got completely off the topic of free speech but whatever, the OP references feminism in its picture so I guess we're still on topic
>>18409
I'm not saying you're one of those egalitarians, by the way - I'm saying that there are definitely people calling themselves egalitarians who like to be contrarian assholes and act like detriments to the cause

>>

 No.18412

File: 1446093636127.jpg (90.25 KB, 500x750, tumblr_inline_nhou8qswz71q….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18409

Oh I wholeheartedly agree. But I'm a sucker for semantics and since modern feminism is choosing to use the same terminology as the temperance movement as the same terminology as the movement that embraced “White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage."

I don't understand why the wouldn't want to distance themselves from that group. But I suppose it's the same as modern socialists who will say the Nazi party or stalinism is a perversion of socialism, not an example of it.

As for bourbon being more important than political reform... well I have enough money to buy bourbon. I don't have enough money to buy political reform. And if you think having an opinion will actually influence social reform; you're wrong. Social reform is saved by ruling governments to dole out in order to distract the populace when economic and security issues are getting out of hand.

All of that being said, I do agree that women deserve equal pay, that we sexualize girls far too much, and a lot of media apparatuses don't appreciate women enough, but aligning yourself with and claiming to have a shared heritage with a group that was so damaging to American culture is stupid.

>>

 No.18413

>>18412
well, white nationalism is less dead than we'd like it to be and most people aren't as aware of their history as we'd like them to be. on the other hand, formalism is dead and meaning is always derived contextually so if a bunch of people start calling themselves feminists and they're the largest group of people pushing for positive social reform and I like their position better than the other feminists, then I'm gonna be a feminist just to take the word away from all the racists. Naturally labels aren't that important but they still make for a nice banner to rally under. that's why I still identify as a feminist, at least.

again there are alternative egalitarian labels to identify as well, like Womanism which I linked earlier or various other prefixes to feminism, another interesting one I read a while back was cyber-feminism and there's probably a lot more to look into.

makes me pretty depressed when you say >Social reform is saved by ruling governments to dole out in order to distract the populace when economic and security issues are getting out of hand
since radical reform is definitely a thing that can happen, I don't think it's completely hopeless though in our pseudo democratic state I doubt it's gonna happen without something revolutionary.

like I said earlier those people who "damaged american culture" (not that I was much a fan of it to begin with) are all dead now and we at least accept that level of racism as completely prejudiced and unacceptable. weren't you the person who said the label didn't affect the views earlier?

>>

 No.18414

>>18413
>>weren't you the person who said the label didn't affect the views earlier?

Yes, I am, so you're right I am being pedantic. I just really, really, really hate turn-of-the-century feminism and the Protestantism reformations that came along with it. In my opinion it's also what led to Goldwater conservatism and the eventual perversion of the republican party.

That all being said, and conceding that my distaste of feminism is really just a distaste of the term I would like to say: You saying " I doubt it's gonna happen without something revolutionary." is precisely what allows the constant release of small social concessions to work, because people consistently believe the move forward is grassroots and revolutionary, when realistically it's usually just conveniently decided or supported by the ruling party around the time major political moves are taking place. Take gay marriage, I thoroughly believe gay folks should be able to marry whoever the fuarrrk they want, but I also believe that the only reason the supreme court finally made a decision after putting it off for literally years was to distract the country from the Snowden revelations.

>>

 No.18415

>>18314
Wow that's one helluva strawman you just made

>>

 No.18416

>>18412
>we sexualize girls far too much
Who is 'we'? I'm not being snarky. Answer the question.

>>

 No.18421

File: 1446101528760.jpeg (193.14 KB, 325x480, c41bfcd17c1c0604d6410aff5….jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

>>18414
Not who you were talking to. What would you say if I told you my position is that our only realistic hope for legitimate revolution lies within the inherent inconsistencies of capitalism itself and as such the only revolutionary work any of us can do is to accelerate the capitalist organism to the point where its inconsistencies become entirely unsustainable and collapses from within itself?

And we may have our revolution after the collapse?

Anything else is just a petty victory that at best slightly mitigates the difficulty of our oppression without any hope for overthrowing it? At worst, it's counter-productive for deluding its would-be revolutionaries towards pointless tasks and illusionary prizes.

That in practice, I'd happily share that bourbon with you.

>>

 No.18426

>>18328
Underrated as fuarrrk

>>

 No.18427

>>18384
I know we are anon so this happens, but i'm actually arguing against anecdotal evidence here.
Protip: when there is no evidence to the contrary, always suppose every post is made by a different anon.

>>

 No.18431

>>18416
American and Japanese society. The two I'm exposed to most. ESPECIALLY Japanese society, but you see less sexual violence there, but much, much more income disparity and general sexism in the workplace.

>>18421
If we had our revolution after the collapse of the status quo economic system we would've had our revolution in 2009. The nature of Democracy lets us believe we're constantly in revolution, and we are, but it's not political or social revolution, it's simply circling around both sides of the same object.

>>

 No.18447

>>18414
>distract the country from the snowden revelations
wow that's ... really paranoid, honestly. not sure what else to say about it except that as fuarrrked up as our political system is separation of powers is still a thing and they can't just do that, and that I don't know anyone who acts like the struggle for gay rights is over like many did for women's rights after the sexual revolution before post- and third wave feminism. I'm not doubting they exist, or else there wouldn't have been 10 car lines at every chik fil A I noticed after the supreme court decision, but that I doubt the decision was made to smoke screen the Snowden revelations since the supreme court doesn't work that way?

If you're referring to early 1900s era feminism, well, that was 100 years ago and definitely not something to still be getting upset about, like I said they're all dead now.

>>18427
for the record, when I say "you" I refer to the group of individuals with the same opinion who may be replying to, as long as they have a shared agreement and I'm arguing against that agreement they are interchangeable, no? if that's too weird for you just imagine I said "anecdotal evidence is exactly what I was accusing him of" instead. if you were against all anecdotal evidence you would have challenged >>18292 as well, since you didn't there's obviously more at play.

>>

 No.18464

>>18224
>Saying that you want someone killed isn't illegal.
Though, I believe if you say this to a psychiatrist/therapist they are then obligated to commit you to a mental treatment center/facility.

>>

 No.18465

>>18315
>more fixated on appearing to be a good person than actually being one
^This

>>

 No.18466

>>18315
>My friends disgust me
>Scum of the earth
>More fixated on appearing to be a good person than actually being one

>I don't believe... [in good or bad]

K.

>>

 No.18467

>>18328
>(I may not like pedophiles because of traditional upbringing but if a ballot came to legalize it, I'd vote yes to it because they have rights too)
I completely agree with you, though, in regards to above, the problem might be how to know if the child in this situation can actually provide consent, and not merely be coerced into anything? I realize coercion technically means they were consenting, though...

>>

 No.18471

>>18466
i can apply morals and still question whether they have any real backing.

but furthermore i cant not help but feel a certain way about things, even if i recognize those feelings are unreasonable. im not a sociopath.

>>

 No.18472

>>18471
*cant help

i keep doing this recently where i say never not or cant not on accident. no idea why.

>>

 No.18475

File: 1446188451080.png (892.12 KB, 1198x806, Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at ….png) ImgOps iqdb

>>18328
What people don't understand is that tolerance means accepting homosexual degenerates as much as nazi degenerates.

When you define your position as "tolerance" and anyone who strays from your position as "intolerance," then your "tolerance for everything except intolerance" is as functionally open to genocide as much as any old fashioned bigotry.

Another example is the reason the average Nazi, i.e. otherwise normal people capable of committing atrocities, was able to do what he did was through dehumanizing the victim. If they're sub-human, then murdering them and their baby isn't an atrocity, it's like killing cattle.

Clearly we can see dehumanization is a problem. Instead we dehumanize Nazis and other people we dislike.

Why? Because we're fuarrrking stupid animals who as a whole, have no actual idealistic interest in our political formulations and instead operate through monkey tribal dynamics. We prioritize emotions, evolutionary instincts and our immediate social networks ahead of any abstract ideal or rational logic.
Of course, >>18315 is being an anti-social asshole for not understanding or accepting that. We all know deep down that we're dumb monkeys incapable of coherent, not-extremely-atrocious modes of civilization, but you just have to pretend and ignore it like everybody else. It's even more pathetic to have only half that sense, by the way.

>>

 No.18477

>>18467
>how to know if the child in this situation can actually provide consent, and not merely be coerced into anything
That's a very good question that I don't have an answer to. I'd usually say "make them take a polygraph if the child claims rape" but I looked into them and found out they are highly inaccurate.

>>18475
>If they're sub-human, then murdering them and their baby isn't an atrocity, it's like killing cattle
Well, I draw the line on murder. Not because muh morals but if we allowed murder to be legal everyone in the world would be dead, and that isn't conductive to society, or human rights, at all.

>Instead we dehumanize Nazis
I don't dehumanize them personally myself, even though they'd hate me for nearly every reason under the sun. Most of the nazi officers were just following orders under the threat of death. Death has a way of making people initiate a fight-or-flight response. "Me or them".

>Because we're fuarrrking stupid animals
Agreed. I hate when people say humans are the smartest living things in, for all we know, the universe. We lock our keys in the car, we inaccurately remember events, we spend a lot of our life watching TV or using computers. We're actually not that smart.

>>

 No.18478

>>18475
>What people don't understand is that tolerance means accepting homosexual degenerates as much as nazi degenerates.
Faulty premises. False third position. Evading the facts that even after 1945 nazis has done more bad than homosexuals.

>>

 No.18479

>>18478
You're completely missing the point.
Hell, if anything he's just pointing out the highly subjective definition of that term.

>>

 No.18481

>>18220
>Reality is soykaf and that of course isn't possible these days.
but it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

>>

 No.18494

>>18479
tbh the dude wasn't responding to anyone's actual arguments anyway. just reciting a meme they read somewhere

>>

 No.18511

>>18478
Also comparing nazis to homosexuals is apples to oranges.

He's claiming that liberal tolerance should also be tolerant of political ideologies such as nazism as it does homosexuality. Modern liberals see sexual orientation as a part of ones nature like race where as nazis choose to be fascists. It's accept people as they are not necessarily as they choose to be.

>>

 No.18524

>>18494
>>18511
The first guy to bring up Nazis as a comparison always loses the argument, whether he has a point or not.

>>

 No.18526

>>18524
Godwin's Law.

>>

 No.18539

>>18481
If anyone comes to Denmark and feels like it, i could show you around this majestic freetown!

>>

 No.18540

>>18524
The Nazis are as viable a comparison point as anything else. If you think bringing up one cliche loses him the argument, you were just looking for an out.

>>

 No.18568

>>18540
>you were just looking for an out.
That wasn't me. Boy, your desperation is really showing.

>>

 No.18572

>>18568
That wasn't me either, dickface. I don't even know what this discussion is about, but "the first person to bring up nazis loses" is something only snarky morons think.

>>

 No.18578

>>18526
That's not godwin's law. It means that it will keep becoming more likely the longer an argument goes. His variation on it is idiotic. It's just taking the premise of "I saw a meme that makes fun of this as a common cliche therefore you lose"

>>

 No.18581

>>18225
buy it is speech, and having someone decide what defines an opinion would be kinda creepy (communism is no opinion, it's just a form of terror intended to make society collapse)

>>

 No.18582

>>18308
freedom of speech is quite non-arbitrary.
If 'speech'ing, on any platform, can get you punished because of what you said, there's no freedom of speech. In all other cases, there is.

>>

 No.18584

>>18582
You're just shifting the ambiguity to the definition of "punishment." If people stop being your friend because you say stupid soykaf does that mean you don't have freedom of speech? If a newspaper refuses to print your article does that mean you don't have freedom of speech? If a newspaper is required to print every article submitted doesn't that mean they have no free speech? If a politician can't punish his opponents by talking about them where is his free speech?

What really annoys me is when twitter or facebook or some other company takes something down and people get up in arms about censorship and freedom of speech. Why shouldn't they get to decide what goes on their own sites? The problem isn't the companies running the sites, it's the idiots who continue to entrust their means of communication to a company that has no reason whatsoever to treat them well.

>>

 No.18585

>>18581
I love how you just did exactly what you said was kinda creepy

>>

 No.18598

>>18220
Just like how it's supposed to work now.
If the thread is specific/detailed/credible/serious then the police are bought in.

>>

 No.18599

>>18584
Those sites have a responsibility now, because they are so widely used and an important part of everyone's life, whether you use them or not.

>>

 No.18606

>>18584
>it's the idiots who continue to entrust their means of communication to a company that has no reason whatsoever to treat them well.

10/10

>>

 No.18607

>>18599
>because they are so widely used
So being a widely used service makes it ok to silence the people saying things it doesn't like?

>>

 No.18608

>>18607
dude chill he's literally supporting your argument stop being so confrontational
saying large companies have an obligation to preserve free speech doesn't work for me since it stigmatizes sources of information that aren't large companies, since there's no legal obligation to stay neutral

>>

 No.18623

>>18511
In this context it isn't.
If there's people that claim they're tolerant, but dont tolerate rightwing opinions, then they're not being tolerant.
It's as simple as that.

People like that are simply circlejerks that all other circlejerks, but being tolerant to people that share most of your opinions is no tolerance, but just human nature.

>>

 No.18626

>>18599
The reward for creating a successful website is that you no longer get to decide what goes on it?

>>

 No.18627

>>18599
No those sites don't have the responsibility here. We, as users, have the responsibility to ensure that the sites which become popular are also those who preserve freedom of speech. That this is going very, very badly and the situation is dominated by places like facebook and twitter is unfortunate, but the only course is to stop using them and convince others to do the same.

>>

 No.18643

>>18322
>>18334

>>18320 here

By "fuck off and die, liberal," I meant both to tell the offending party to fuarrrk off and die, and also to imply that by rejecting feminism you also reject leftism in any meaningful form. It is not 1920 or 1890 and there cannot be a concept of leftism that is divorced from what we now know about feminism, white supremacy, imperialism, cultural imperialism, and speciesism (this one is more controversial, but it's what I believe).

If you don't see leftism for what it truly is - a rejection of hierarchical society, and an impulse towards freedom through real equality - you're not a leftist, but a liberal: someone who follows a corrupted/watered down version of actual leftism.

>>

 No.18644

File: 1446503133135.gif (52.16 KB, 634x634, ᚛᚜⦑߉⦒᚛᚜.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>18220

Fear makes it possible.

>>

 No.18659

>>18643
Are you even serious? If you're trolling you're pretty good at it, I'll give you that.

>>

 No.18681

>>18659
No asshole I'm entirely fuarrrking serious. Most of this board are anarchist fuarrrking cyberpunks, what the fuarrrk do you think that means? Go back to pol if you can't deal.

>>

 No.18685

>>18681
if your not trolling then you need to relax buddy. no need to be rude

>>

 No.18692

>>18643
>>18681
You can't be a leftist cyberpunk. Leftism is collectivism, cyberpunk is individualism. Individualism cannot exist in the presence of "real equality".

Cyberpunk is about surviving as an individual within the system. Leftism is about creating a system in which individuals can't survive.

>>

 No.18696

>>18692
Cyberpunk is resisting technocracy with asymmetric warfare.

Cyberpunk is networking with like minded comrades over secure channels over technocracy-controlled social media.

Cyberpunk is checking your privilege, whether it's male privilege, white privilege, or augment privilege.

Cyberpunk is punk, and punk is communist. Can't escape it.

>>

 No.18698

>>18692
>>18696
>cyberpunk is whatever I want it to be
Stop living in your fantasy worlds where everyone around you agrees with you. As you can see from each other, this is clearly not the case.

>>

 No.18708

>>18698
I think you're missing a point that >>18696 is making. Pulling valid, conflicting interpretations out of a specific genre is trivial. We need to stop worrying about whether what we're doing is cyberpunk, it's just a label that was applied after the fact.

>>

 No.18710

>>18623
why are you making this about opinions? your sexuality and gender are not a choice, but your political beliefs are. you can't use your own definition of "tolerance" and expect everyone else to conform

explain to me how "tolerance" of people who are frequent victims of violence, which is to say not perpetuate that violence, is the same thing as "tolerance" towards the perpetrators of that violence.
you can't, because it doesn't make sense.

though I would also argue that tolerance isn't the right word - tolerating someone's differences does nothing to help them. if everyone tolerated each others differences, sure, all we would have to do was tolerate each other but if there was anything 90's revisionism taught us that alone is not going to work and trying to pretend it does won't do anything to solve the problems we're having.

>>

 No.18728

>>18696
>punk is communist
Bull soykaf . 70s punk has origins in 60s low-life counterculture, which was opposed to the communist hippies. The communist punks of the 80s were just crypto-hippies co-opting punk.

Anybody who calls himself a "punk" but wants to impose a new social order is just the same, a crypto-hippy co-opting punk.

>>

 No.18729

>>18710
"Tolerance" is the method by which people become non-bigots.

Being intolerant of a variety of opinion is the actual definition of bigotry.

Tolerance is saying "hey maybe I'm not 100% right about absolutely everything, and I shouldn't try to impose my beliefs on everybody on earth, and persecute people who hold beliefs I don't like".

Tolerance is perspective and humility and anti-zealotry.

>>

 No.18736

>>18728
Dude... Have you been to a punk show lately?

>>

 No.18737

>>18736
Stop listening to libtard punk bands and maybe you'll find people with differing opinions.

>>

 No.18738

>>18736
Anybody going to a punk show after 1990 is a fuarrrking poseur.

>>

 No.18740

>>18737
can't believe I'm invoking wikipedia for another "what is punk" debate but you're wrong as heck
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_subculture
sure they're not all leftist but whatever way you wanna cut it punk culture is and has been pretty damn leftist

>>

 No.18742

>>18729
>actual definition of bigotry
tell me when being gay, black or female was an ideology. unless you mean to say that you've been using liberalism as a code word for minorities in your countless online diatribes against "leftists"

"accepting all beliefs" is a hopelessly narrowminded perspective that only people who haven't been harmed by certain beliefs have the opportunity to pretend they believe in. believe it or not, people take actions based on what they are thinking and ideologies tend to be thought by people a lot, if not be an essential part of their thought process

>>

 No.18758

>>18692
What? This is too simplistic. It's not about being "individualist" or "collectivist". Cyberpunk and all movements associated with it have been leftist to different degrees. Leftism is anti-capitalism and anti-authoritarianism at its core, it collectivizes the means of production to maximize individual freedom (means of production != you). Cyberpunk is anti-authoritarian, and no way in hell it's right-wing. You're basically spouting the common American propaganda that that capitalism and economic freedom are individual freedom while socialism is authoritarianism or other nonsense. Please research more on the subject. For example George Orwell, the writer of 1984, was a socialist.

>>

 No.18760

>>18728
>70s punk has origins in 60s low-life counterculture, which was opposed to the communist hippies.

Hippies weren't communists. They were the first liberals, and radical leftists have always hated liberals.
Punk has always been radical, and they hated hippies for being liberals. Punk is, historically, as left-wing you can get.

>>

 No.18771

>>18758
Collectivizing the means of production does not gel with "anti-authoritarian". Anarcho-socialism is a dysfunctional utopian fantasy. Inevitably, some clique will take control of the mechanisms of society and turn it into authoritarian state socialism. Any alternative is impossible.

Orwell was a socialist, but he understood that socialism taken to the extreme inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, which is what Animal Farm and 1984 describe. The pigs and the inner party are the leaders of a socialist revolution who become aristocrats. Thus he was a mealy mouthed democratic socialist, an insufficiently radical liberal, like this other douche is complaining about.

Capitalism taken to the extreme also inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, by the way. That's the point.

>>18760
>hippies were the first liberals
jesus

>>

 No.18780

>>18771
>Collectivizing the means of production does not gel with "anti-authoritarian"
How so? Collectivizing the means of production means that all workers control them and have voice in the workplace, rather than a single boss. That's as anti-authoritarian as you can get. Such collectivization makes it so that ultimately a state becomes unnecessary. See also anarcho-syndicalism.

>Anarcho-socialism is a dysfunctional utopian fantasy. Inevitably, some clique will take control of the mechanisms of society and turn it into authoritarian state socialism. Any alternative is impossible.
In the few anarcho-socialist revolutions this has never occurred so we don't know. And the exact same thing was said centuries ago about democracy and the abolition of slavery. But now that we actually live in a (representative) democracy, it's unthinkable to go back to absolute monarchies, and any monarchs don't have the power anymore to establish a monarchy again. Anarchism in general proposes different ways of organization, including markets and decentralized federations, which after they spread they can't be taken control of, just like a BitTorrent swarm can't be taken down by a single entity.

But if it's "impossible" or not is irrelevant here so please don't bring that argument here; I'm replying to you saying that socialism and leftism isn't anti-authoritarian.

>Orwell was a socialist, but he understood that socialism taken to the extreme inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, which is what Animal Farm and 1984 describe.
No, this has nothing to do about being "extreme", his Animal Farm book was a criticism of the USSR, not of socialism or "socialism taken to the extreme". He was against Marxist-Leninism and what Stalin did to the USSR, but he was in favor of anarcho-communism. He sympathized with the Spanish anarchists (which is as radical left as you can get) and even wrote a book about it, Homage to Catalonia. You're not criticizing socialism but Marxism-Leninism, Stalin and the USSR.

>democratic socialist, an insufficiently radical liberal
Democratic socialist isn't the same as social democrat. While it's true he wasn't completely radical, he was a socialist. Liberals on the other hand aren't socialists as they seek a mixed economy (capitalism + welfare basically).

The rest of your post is also just a criticism of the USSR vanguard party and temporary state, which are not requisites to achieving communism, and several other radical communist currents oppose this, too; therefore it's irrelevant.

>Capitalism taken to the extreme also inevitably results in aristocratic tyranny, by the way. That's the point.
No, even though I'm anti-capitalist, capitalism as an economic system doesn't create aristocracy; extreme capitalism can (and should) work as an unregulated free market without a state.

Social structures and economic systems affect each other but they aren't the same thing. That's why it's called "anarcho-socialism", it's a mix of a social theory (anarchism) and an economic system (socialism), and just like anarchism as a social theory doesn't dictate an economic system, socialism as an economic system doesn't dictate a social order either.

>jesus
Hippies popularized social democracy and pacifism in the US, no matter how you look at it they weren't communists.

>>

 No.18792

>>18780
>Collectivizing the means of production means that all workers control them and have voice in the workplace
What does "control them and have a voice" actually mean? If you mean evenly distributing control through direct democracy, that's mob rule. Equality for the majority. As somebody who is often in the minority of thought, this doesn't seem like a good deal for me.

>And the exact same thing was said centuries ago about democracy and the abolition of slavery. But now that we actually live in a (representative) democracy, it's unthinkable to go back to absolute monarchies
Our representative democracy is ruled by cliques who abuse the mechanisms of society for their own advantage. "Democracy" legitimizes the current state of affairs in the same way "divine right" legitimized the ancien regime. Individuals are not empowered by democracy, they're diluted by it.

>Anarchism in general proposes different ways of organization, including markets and decentralized federations, which after they spread they can't be taken control of, just like a BitTorrent swarm can't be taken down by a single entity.
I can propose we invent a magic machine that creates infinite food and electricity, and design a society around that. I don't go around calling myself a magicist and trying to achieve that society, because regardless of the theoretical quality of such a society, there's no reason to think it can exist.

>But if it's "impossible" or not is irrelevant here so please don't bring that argument here; I'm replying to you saying that socialism and leftism isn't anti-authoritarian.
It's absolutely relevant. It doesn't matter that you are anti-authoritarian in theory if the only possible practical expression of your ideas is an authoritarian society. What is possible and impossible is always relevant unless you are operating exclusively philosophically.

>You're not criticizing socialism but Marxism-Leninism, Stalin and the USSR.
Since true equality of power is impossible, effort to establish such a circumstance will inevitably result in the next closest thing. The next closest thing is either direct democratic mob rule, or rule by a small upper class over a majority of equal slaves.

>extreme capitalism can (and should) work as an unregulated free market without a state.
It CAN'T work as an unregulated free market without a state. At some point, some group will accrue enough power to dominate as a de facto state. Where there is balance, it will be unbalanced. Where there is a vacuum, it will be filled. Where everyone is small, some will eat others and grow larger. No equilibrium can last.

>Social structures and economic systems affect each other but they aren't the same thing.
They aren't the same thing IN THEORY. In messy reality, they are the same thing.

The problem with you, the problem with all anarchists, is that you are more concerned with the theoretical, philosophical, platonic dream of society than you are with the human animal's waking world.

>>

 No.18897

>>18421

You sound like the fuarrrking unabomber. Without mercantilism, capitalism, and free trade, you'd still be someones serf.

>>

 No.18911

>>18897
>Without mercantilism, capitalism, and free trade, you'd still be someones serf.

I'm surprised you believe this

The capitalist system will inevitable fail and after it falls we will transition to a more free, less state controlled, less capitalist, and more prosperous society called anarchism. It's a matter of the inherent self-destruction of capitalism and anarchism being the logical conclusion of democracy. You can think of it like a high/low pressure system.

>>

 No.18918

>>18911
>we will transition to a more free, less state controlled, less capitalist, and more prosperous society

Did you find that out with a crystal ball or something?

>>

 No.18926

>>18792
you pose as a moderate but your politics are entirely reactionary
>mob rule
as soon as democracy is mentioned you revert to "mob rule", as if organized labor wouldn't have the structures to mitigate this.
>individuals are not empowered by democracy because our society is undemocratic and posing as a democracy
which says nothing about democracy and rather about our current state of affairs
>scarcity is always present
look at the reckless overconsumption of the first world and tell me again there isn't enough for everybody
>In messy reality, they are the same thing.
in messy reality these systems don't actually exist. they're abstractions any way you cut it

>>

 No.18929

>>18911
governments today are no different from the gangs and groups that would form out of anarchism. they form, they fight against each other for territory, and eventually one comes out on top. the only difference from the tribes and groups then and now is the amount of power.


when capitalism fails expect the same fuarrrking people to be in power, especially in america. americans are so deluded these days that no matter what cause they are fighting for its still someone in the governments agenda, if its a popular cause even more so.

if we started again from a blank slate, lets picture whatever dream society you have in mind forms a group and they come out on top. they have the most power, you take over a large space of land, you stay established for hundreds of years. The rules for the land were those that the large majority of people decided on. Well then a hundred years later values change and some guy is crying out that he doesnt feel safe, he wants more rules and restrictions. that its inevitable this society you created will collapse.

no one is controlling you right now, you can go out and do whatever you want. there is an entity, that is your government wherever you happen to be, and if you dont play by their rules will imprison or kill you. like an alpha wolf in a pack, they have been around longer than you and know more than you and are stronger than you. the same natural forces are keeping these groups in power, but instead of individual people or wolves fighting its now entire groups which take time to grow, often longer than our own lives. Thus we are left feeling "controlled" because individual power means nearly nothing anymore.

>>

 No.18946

File: 1446981766815.gif (400.78 KB, 1266x750, 1366325686669.gif) ImgOps iqdb

Most if not every argument here against anarchism are based on a capitalist mentality. The idea of people wanting to steal and abuse anarchism is based on the idea that people are fueled by a capitalistic greed.

Sure, a fast transition into anarchism would probably lead to the dysfunctional society alot of people here exemplify. But all these bad things are rooted in capitalism.

If we instead were to make a slow transition into anarchism then we could probably leave the capitalistic greed behind us, in the distance.

This will to consume, this insatiable hunger for things is not natural. It is actually something we ourselves have constructed, that means we can destroy it.

Look at the Mayans for example, they didn't exactly stab eachother for the latest Xbox like some Americans do on black friday.

>>

 No.18947

>>18946
Anarchism assumes that all people are benevolent and have an unfaltering sense of community/social responsibility. It also assumes that it's possible for a power vacuum to remain a vacuum indefinitely. This is naivety at its finest and totally misunderstands human nature.

>>

 No.18956

>>18911
If only this were true, lainon

>>18947
Anarchism is just a distributed system version of our current master/slave social networks. You don't need to assume individual servers are honest. This is well studied. fuarrrk off and read more.

>>

 No.18957

>>18946

>I have an opinion, so accept it as fact!

>>

 No.18958

>>18946
Mayan society collapsed because of resource depletion...

>>

 No.18959

>>18229
And what if the person making the threat is brandishing a (legal) weapon?

Ok, so make the act of brandishing illegal.

Now imagine a 6'8" muscular dude threatening a petite woman. He can tear her apart with his bare hands.

You can't ban sick gains!


re: the OP--I think there'd be a lot of vigilante violence. The kid who makes prank calls every afternoon and stands outside your window calling you a cunt will just up and disappear one day, or wind up in the hospital with a broken jaw.

The guy who makes nuisance calls to 911 and hides behind free speech finds his tires slashed, and when he calls an ambulance because he's having a heart attack, they'll drive over at 10mph, stopping at every red light along the route.

>>

 No.18990

>>18956
>You don't need to assume individual servers are honest.

Then the system is not only as bad as our current system, but far worse. Imagine if there were no rules and laws at all governing megacorps, except those that they themselves create. Our current system maybe corrupt and flawed to hell, but that doesn't mean it should be replaced with something that foregoes even an attempt at protecting the interests of the <2%. Government is a necessary evil, that will always need to exist so long as massive inequality exists in society.

If rats and other pests keep getting into your home through cracks and holes in the walls, you don't declare the wall a useless concept and tear it down. That sort of thinking is highly irrational.

>>

 No.18991

>>18220
I think a society like that would be too busy travelling through rainbow portals, and the tremendous amount of fun would ensure no one has any time to send death threats in email. Also, the rainbow optics cables they would use could eat the death threats while they are halfway between sender and receiver, so from one's perspective it was sent, and from the other's it never arrived. Such rainbow physics are necessary in any theoretical world where 100% free speech exists.

>>

 No.19007

>>18990
You don't understand the analogy and should gtfo lainchan. Maybe come back after reading about byzantine fault tolerance.

>>

 No.19010

File: 1447107316087.jpg (26.44 KB, 268x306, triggered.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>19007
>I'm going to use vague terminology and fail to make any concrete arguments to support my ideology, then insult people who disagree with me, ignore their rational arguments, and tell them they just don't understand.


Come to think of it, I've never actually met an anarchist who could defend their ideas in an actual debate. You guys are very similar to religious zealots and social justice warriors in that way. There's a place for people like you. It's called tumblr

>>

 No.19011

>>19010
One time I was arguing with my ancap friend who browses /pol/ and when I countered cornered the argument so he couldn't change the subject or argue something insane he just said it would work if their were only white people in the world.

Was finally confident I won.

>>

 No.19012

>>18946
if it were a slow transition you still aren't accounting for the fact that people are dicks. They see how doing something would obviously benefit them in the short term, and they take it. That is why people cheat in relationships, they instinctually think about themselves.

Maybe if everyone in the world were a thoughtful, empathetic, and well adjusted individual anarchy would work, but some people are dicks and would seek control over others or just to make others lives miserable.

>>

 No.19013

>>19010
Consider that you are the common factor between all your conversations with anarchists.

>>

 No.19014

>>19013
I'm not, smartass. That includes debates that I have merely observed, which is the majority.

>>

 No.19016

>>19011
The thing about idealogues is that they rarely actually understand their ideology at a fundamental level, simply by virtue of not having come up with any of the ideas through their own critical thinking process. They are merely followers, and consumers of dogma; they throw around smart sounding words and shallow bumper-sticker slogans that appeal to idiots who don't know any better, but they rarely have the intellectual power to defend against criticism and logical deconstruction of their ideals. Thus when they are actually confronted with the pragmatic problems and logical inconsistencies found within their ideology, they have no idea what to do and fall back to ad hominems, shaming tactics, character assassinations etc.

Feminists, SJW's, Communists, Anarchists, Nazis, religious fundamentalists - they all have this same thing in common.

Consider yourself lucky to have a friend who is at least intellectually honest when confronted in this way.

>>

 No.19017

>>19016
Yea but now he won't stop talking about inverse earth

>>

 No.19018

>>18926
I never "posed" as anything.

>as soon as democracy is mentioned you revert to "mob rule", as if organized labor wouldn't have the structures to mitigate this.
The fact that democracy has to be "mitigated" is evidence that democracy is bad. In a democracy, everything important, whether it be a necessary maintainance of infrastructure, defense against foreign threats, or the rights of citizens, has to be placed outside of the influence of democracy. The alternative of "mitigated"(ie fake) democracy is mob rule. Ben Franklin knew that.

I never said anything about scarcity.

>in messy reality these systems don't actually exist. they're abstractions any way you cut it
There's no difference between saying "in reality it's all the same", and "in reality, they don't exist". If two things don't exist, they are the same.

So thanks for agreeing with me.

>>

 No.19030

>>19017
What the fuarrrk is inverse earth? Is it what I think it is?

>>

 No.19035

>>19007
don't argue if you can't make a clear point or actually even make a point at all. So far all you've done is told him to read other peoples works or look up X which I can only assume means you yourself don't know them enough to explain.

>>

 No.19038

File: 1447142369356.webm (3.39 MB, 400x192, SMAC_Planetary_Datalinks.webm) ImgOps iqdb

We would see a resurrection of ideology; people who get ass enragement from the idea of lies/slander being peddled are really just afraid of the media losing control of information. When there is a diversity of opinion, it's easier to identify which "truths" are false.


Delete Post [ ]
[ cyb / tech / λ / layer ] [ zzz / drg / lit / diy / art ] [ w / rpg / r ] [ q ] [ / ] [ popular / ???? / rules / radio / $$ / news ] [ volafile / uboa / sushi / LainTV / lewd ]
[ Return / Go to top /