Not this one lemmy.ml is to be avoided for censorship reasons.

Hey for the record ive been banned for saying this perfectly proving my point.

The more i hear about twitter censoring shit the less i respect what elon has done. If he did what he said he would do great but unfortunatly i don’t see any of this free speach he allegedly loves.

Btw what was the exact link that twitter thinks is so dangerous?

Well technically it iant nor can the plan claim affiliation or support for any candidate. But its pretry clear to anyone with a brain that it does align very well with his ideology.

Ypur the fucking problem here. Going to extremes and shouting at teacher aboyt how you hate each other is exactly what both sides want. They want you distracted with your petty little issues while they consolidate your wealth in their pockets.

You used to be the laughibg stock of the western world and it seems that all Americans regardless of political outlook have no intention of changing that.

Sir David Attenborough

Doest the first amendment clearly state the government cannot enforce or prevent religioun.

Nothing wrong with being gay plenty wrong with wanting to fuck kids.

Removed by mod

So you’re a sociopath.

nope, we are currently disagreeing about the social contract hence proving we have different subjective understanding of what it includes. also calling someone a sociopath doesn’t seem like a good faith argument.

No, that would be a normal contract.

no shit Sherlock that would provide an objective contract thus solving the whole subjective issue.

No. Laws are a stopgap that puts our more important social contracts into an enforcement structure, but most of them we just live by.

sure so laws are the objective part of the social contract a majority of people have agreed (people still disagree about what laws should be)

So you want to change the social contract.

that’s called an opinion ones uses them to shift the social contract to better fit their subjective viewpoint

The free market only works to self-regulate when all actors (the company, the employees, and the public) have generally equivalent levels of power.

The marketplace of ideas in the conceptual gives every single person or organization an exactly equal level of power through the concept of free speech. I would argue lemmy has captured this ideal far better than anything yet by implementing censoring we destroy that equality we have sought to create. If fox’s ideas stop being supported/downvoted they fall out of the marketplace of ideas at which point they either adapt or die.

There’s also a demand for cannibalism by many people. Is that therefore a valid viewpoint? There were 18,456 murderers walking the streets in 2023.

absolutely we should let them speak and their ideas will be filtered by the marketplace.

Should we consider their viewpoints valid and entertain them without government regulations?

Doesn’t the first amendment literally prevent the government from regulating said viewpoints isn’t that the whole fucking point? Let people have an opinion and express that opinion as they wish. I fully support your right to advocate for cannibalism or murder (as long as its not directed at a particular person or group) i will most certainly down-vote it and call you a fucking evil monster but I support your right to say it.

Fox has created that demand, though; through fearmongering and misinformation.

That’s called good marketing

he should have that monopoly taken away from him.

Fox doesn’t have a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas nobody in history has ever had a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas to acheive that u would need to drive out every single person or organization capable of independent thought, or just start censoring people what you are actively arguing for

They’ve flouted the social contract in order to increase viewers.

At the end of the day the social contract is just that a SOCIAL contract so in reality its not really a contract is it but a convention most people choose to obey. If it is beneficial to disregard it people will disregard it that’s how evolution works. its your choice what parts of the social construct you want to follow. If you live strictly adhering to it then you are playing life at a disadvantage. Think about it this way your actions are being controlled by subjective contract that nobody else has to obey I would call that NPC behavior.

Im sick of hearing about the fucking social contract this social contract that. The social contract is a construct that exists purly in the subjective. I have no problwm calling u a cunt munching retard and have no proboem u call me the same or worse. I can say fucked shit to u and u can say fucked shit to me there are people who would say thats part of the social construct there are people who wouldnt. Unless u want to write said contract on paper and get everyone to sign it (is that not what laws are?) its purly subjective if not usfull way to explain the actions of people.

Lets take it all the back to the basic concepts of a liberal society. There exists the marketplace of ideas anyone or thing is welcome to add whatever they want to this marketplace like any other marketplace demand then governs the rest. There is a demand for fox by many people they are theirfore a valid (not nessasarilly correct) viewpoint. To ignore this view and/or to ban it is to ignore a vast amount of peoples demand for such ideas within the marketplace.

Life is as black and white as u want it to be. Do u feel proud of the things u have because u have them or because of what they do?

Keep choking down that copium eventually u will buy that thing u need and finally be happy.

I believe what i said is a very traditionally liberal veiwpoint which is almost by defininition the center of the spectrum so if u think thats right wing u must be so far into extreme comunist country u think starlin did nothing wrong.

You have a choice on if you want to engage in art u dont have to look at something if u dont want. Denying someone access to work that someone else wants seen who does not support your mission/application is taking away your right to consent. I dont take away ur ability to consent then forcefully make you engage with my artwork.

Men like this implying me? God you really are incapable of thinking for yourself. I am not addicted to outragw or misogyny in fact i despise both i very strongly beleive in equallity and cant see how calling objective inequallity what it is is outrage or mysogyny. Please explain how its mysogynous to hate hate ineguallity?

Equallity of outcome does not equal equallity of oppertunity.

Yep very clever looks like u’ve just discovered the problem with outrage art. If you are successfull it means you are a right old cunt who people hate. It performs far better as mockery of the concept itself than what i think the artist intended. The sueing of them was either a masterpiece 4d chess by the artist themselves or a lesson in irony.

Fuck i really must the spastic cunt.

Exactly you are under no obligation to entertain their nonsence this is no reason to ban and silence them