Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote: baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true.
I said he was one.
(the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?).
WAT lol
I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity.
What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole.
Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK.
Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas
Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite.
What are the first principles here?
To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy
There is nothing extreme about it, It's just simply how the US defines it along with a decent chunk in the world (in theory), libel and harassment are not protected, just no hate speech laws caveats.
If denying the holocaust is a crime then it should also be to deny the holodomor, if a swastika is forbidden the hammer and sickle too but that's never the case because censors only ban speech they personally don't like, but in time those tools they created will be used against them.
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened?
I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice.
I also see this less as censorship, I'm very comfortable with laws that prohibit a very narrow list of certain types of speech, like terrorist recruitment videos, neonazi content, bomb-making with household items, or kiddie porn. There is definitely a useful discussion to be had about this, and my own position is that I don't think free-speech absolutism is the right approach.
On March 19 2026 08:17 Uldridge wrote: The only 2 reasons I want to be able to say the n-word is that it's just a really fun word to say. It's like a chef's kiss of a word to pronounce, right up there with fuck. 3 star Michelin dinner if you can use both, I'm so jealous lol. The other reason is that I just want to be one of the boys. Sadly, due to where I like and how I look I'll never be able to (and I'm fine with that) Also, stumbed upon this a while back, linguistics guy deconstructing black American speech. Didn't realize it was this complex, but I'm also not completely inundated in the ... culture, if that is the right word even.
Ok, sorry for this derail about my personal gripes with words that I can't use. On topic. @DPB: we talking ideal world, a world we should work towards or just today's environment?
Edit: actually it was this video.
Today's environment / our current reality / taking into account the history/context of certain targeted minorities, as opposed to a hypothetical or utopian future. (Just a reminder that JJR was originally talking about Jews, not black people, but there are some parallels between the two when it comes to this topic.)
On March 19 2026 11:24 KwarK wrote: Pentagon requesting an extra $200b for Iran but that’s likely lowballing because they still don’t seem to realize that absent any sudden collapse there will need to be an occupation.
No, this ends when Trump had lost so badly that he will claim he won and go home.
I suppose this really is a test of how strong Netanyahu's hold over Trump is. Because Israel wants to keep this war going for as long as it can.
It absolutely doesn't end then. Trump cannot simply call a timeout on the war.
The US leverage peaks on day 0. On day 0 there are a lot of important people alive in Iran and a lot of buildings still standing. The US shows up and says "do as we say or we'll level these buildings with you inside".
The problem the US has is that at the end of day 1 they can't threaten to kill those same people again. They've peaked. The buildings are already levelled. There's nowhere really to escalate to.
Iranian leverage is a much slower burn. On day 0 they say "leave us alone or we'll close the strait and set fire to the region". On the end of day 1 nobody has really noticed yet because there's still gas in the gas stations, there's a lag of months. On the end of day 10 people are noticing that tankers aren't leaving the region but there are huge national strategic oil reserves that can be tapped. Those can bridge the gap for months if needed. The pain kicks in after months, and rises steadily.
Iran cannot accept a ceasefire at this point because if they do they have lost their credible deterrent. They will have shown that as long as the strategic oil reserve is adequately stocked ahead of time you can bomb the shit out of them, make up the difference with oil from the reserve, then return to normal. They will have failed to inflict any pain on the US in return.
Iranian national survival hinges on them saying "no, really, do not put our back against the wall and force us to close the strait because if you do then it'll be like 2026 all over again" where 2026 was a crisis that people remember. That was always their plan. They didn't want to close the strait, they didn't close it over the bombings last year, it's an absolute last resort, but if they stick to it then it can be a viable deterrent.
The US wants to hit Iran hard and then call a timeout before Iran can hit back. For some reason people imagine Iran would agree to play the game that way. Would you in their place? Would you go "well we failed to hit America where it hurts but at least my family was killed by their bombs?"
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think count dankula being fined was stupid.
Fucking thank you.
It's so difficult to discuss in this forum where so many argue in bad faith and gaslights constantly it makes productive discourse impossible so tl.net has become this reddit-type echo chamber.
It's probably too ingrained in the forum culture but bad faith should warrant warnings/bans, when I was a mod that was the only reason I banned people, extreme freedom of speech no matter how heated it got as far as people were arguing in good faith.
I think the majority of responses that you've received have been in good faith and on topic, despite it taking some time for people to figure out the specifics of your Count Dankula scenario and how it pertains to anonymity and freedom of speech. Your introductory posts included a single no-context picture as well as (eventually) some one-liners, so there was a lot of elaboration left out - by you - that some of your interlocutors were trying to figure out. I don't think people being confused by / disagreeing with your initial half-explained posts means you should dismiss them as arguing in bad faith.
I know that your quoted comment above is in regards to moderating an internet forum as opposed to freedom-of-speech laws regulated by a government, but out of curiosity: do you think trolling / bad faith engagement should ever be curbed/punished when it comes to freedom-of-speech laws regulated by a government too? You seem to be more open to banning/punishing forms of trolling moreso than any sincere opinions/statements, and I'm wondering if that moderation of the former only extends to private domains, or if it ought to be legally curbed by governments too. Thoughts?
On March 19 2026 11:24 KwarK wrote: Pentagon requesting an extra $200b for Iran but that’s likely lowballing because they still don’t seem to realize that absent any sudden collapse there will need to be an occupation.
No, this ends when Trump had lost so badly that he will claim he won and go home.
I suppose this really is a test of how strong Netanyahu's hold over Trump is. Because Israel wants to keep this war going for as long as it can.
It absolutely doesn't end then. Trump cannot simply call a timeout on the war.
The US leverage peaks on day 0. On day 0 there are a lot of important people alive in Iran and a lot of buildings still standing. The US shows up and says "do as we say or we'll level these buildings with you inside".
The problem the US has is that at the end of day 1 they can't threaten to kill those same people again. They've peaked. The buildings are already levelled. There's nowhere really to escalate to.
Iranian leverage is a much slower burn. On day 0 they say "leave us alone or we'll close the strait and set fire to the region". On the end of day 1 nobody has really noticed yet because there's still gas in the gas stations, there's a lag of months. On the end of day 10 people are noticing that tankers aren't leaving the region but there are huge national strategic oil reserves that can be tapped. Those can bridge the gap for months if needed. The pain kicks in after months, and rises steadily.
Iran cannot accept a ceasefire at this point because if they do they have lost their credible deterrent. They will have shown that as long as the strategic oil reserve is adequately stocked ahead of time you can bomb the shit out of them, make up the difference with oil from the reserve, then return to normal. They will have failed to inflict any pain on the US in return.
Iranian national survival hinges on them saying "no, really, do not put our back against the wall and force us to close the strait because if you do then it'll be like 2026 all over again" where 2026 was a crisis that people remember. That was always their plan. They didn't want to close the strait, they didn't close it over the bombings last year, it's an absolute last resort, but if they stick to it then it can be a viable deterrent.
The US wants to hit Iran hard and then call a timeout before Iran can hit back. For some reason people imagine Iran would agree to play the game that way. Would you in their place? Would you go "well we failed to hit America where it hurts but at least my family was killed by their bombs?"
Sure Iran can keep throwing missiles and drones around at everyone after the US has withdrawn from the area but as far as the US is concerned the war will be over.
That is how the US gets out of this, its the only option left because Iran is not going to surrender and I don't believe the US is willing to go for a boots on the ground invasion.
If the US leaves but Israel keeps bombing then Iran will.keep lashing out, but if Israel also stops? Sure maybe Iran will keep going for a little while longer but then they to will stop and, rightfully, loudly proclaim they beat the US.
No I don't think Iran will now keep attacking everyone around them in perpetuity. The US leaving now with their tail between their legs doesn't cost Iran its credibility, it proves them correct, attack us and we will fuck things up so bad the worlds greatest military will withdraw in shame to stop the chaos we can unleash.
On March 19 2026 08:17 Uldridge wrote: The only 2 reasons I want to be able to say the n-word is that it's just a really fun word to say. It's like a chef's kiss of a word to pronounce, right up there with fuck. 3 star Michelin dinner if you can use both, I'm so jealous lol. The other reason is that I just want to be one of the boys. Sadly, due to where I like and how I look I'll never be able to (and I'm fine with that)
It is a word that seems to surprise some americans due to its pronunciation being somewhat close to the N-word, but it is completely unrelated. It is a slang term originating from Hamburg youth culture, and mostly used by young people and people in the hiphop world.
It just means something like "close friend", and some people use it basically as punctuation in every sentence. It is completely race-neutral. Basically, it means something like "Bro".
On March 19 2026 11:24 KwarK wrote: Pentagon requesting an extra $200b for Iran but that’s likely lowballing because they still don’t seem to realize that absent any sudden collapse there will need to be an occupation.
No, this ends when Trump had lost so badly that he will claim he won and go home.
I suppose this really is a test of how strong Netanyahu's hold over Trump is. Because Israel wants to keep this war going for as long as it can.
It absolutely doesn't end then. Trump cannot simply call a timeout on the war.
The US leverage peaks on day 0. On day 0 there are a lot of important people alive in Iran and a lot of buildings still standing. The US shows up and says "do as we say or we'll level these buildings with you inside".
The problem the US has is that at the end of day 1 they can't threaten to kill those same people again. They've peaked. The buildings are already levelled. There's nowhere really to escalate to.
Iranian leverage is a much slower burn. On day 0 they say "leave us alone or we'll close the strait and set fire to the region". On the end of day 1 nobody has really noticed yet because there's still gas in the gas stations, there's a lag of months. On the end of day 10 people are noticing that tankers aren't leaving the region but there are huge national strategic oil reserves that can be tapped. Those can bridge the gap for months if needed. The pain kicks in after months, and rises steadily.
Iran cannot accept a ceasefire at this point because if they do they have lost their credible deterrent. They will have shown that as long as the strategic oil reserve is adequately stocked ahead of time you can bomb the shit out of them, make up the difference with oil from the reserve, then return to normal. They will have failed to inflict any pain on the US in return.
Iranian national survival hinges on them saying "no, really, do not put our back against the wall and force us to close the strait because if you do then it'll be like 2026 all over again" where 2026 was a crisis that people remember. That was always their plan. They didn't want to close the strait, they didn't close it over the bombings last year, it's an absolute last resort, but if they stick to it then it can be a viable deterrent.
The US wants to hit Iran hard and then call a timeout before Iran can hit back. For some reason people imagine Iran would agree to play the game that way. Would you in their place? Would you go "well we failed to hit America where it hurts but at least my family was killed by their bombs?"
Sure Iran can keep throwing missiles and drones around at everyone after the US has withdrawn from the area but as far as the US is concerned the war will be over.
That is how the US gets out of this, its the only option left because Iran is not going to surrender and I don't believe the US is willing to go for a boots on the ground invasion.
If the US leaves but Israel keeps bombing then Iran will.keep lashing out, but if Israel also stops? Sure maybe Iran will keep going for a little while longer but then they to will stop and, rightfully, loudly proclaim they beat the US.
No I don't think Iran will now keep attacking everyone around them in perpetuity. The US leaving now with their tail between their legs doesn't cost Iran its credibility, it proves them correct, attack us and we will fuck things up so bad the worlds greatest military will withdraw in shame to stop the chaos we can unleash.
Iran will keep going until they get both reparations and either a nuclear umbrella from the likes of Russia or a recognition of their right to pursue a nuclear deterrent for defensive purposes. Or until regime change. This is going to end with boots on the ground.
For decades the international community has tried to convince Iran that the regime change threat isn’t real and that it doesn’t need to go full NK pariah state in order to protect itself. That it doesn’t really need a nuke, America may have an absolutely overwhelming military advantage and may constantly say that they’ll use it against Iran but it’s just talk. That’s over. The new ayatollah’s wife was killed. His son was killed.
American surrender meeting the terms that Iran will require is not realistic. Iranian surrender doesn’t seem realistic. That leaves regime change.
On March 19 2026 11:24 KwarK wrote: Pentagon requesting an extra $200b for Iran but that’s likely lowballing because they still don’t seem to realize that absent any sudden collapse there will need to be an occupation.
No, this ends when Trump had lost so badly that he will claim he won and go home.
I suppose this really is a test of how strong Netanyahu's hold over Trump is. Because Israel wants to keep this war going for as long as it can.
It absolutely doesn't end then. Trump cannot simply call a timeout on the war.
The US leverage peaks on day 0. On day 0 there are a lot of important people alive in Iran and a lot of buildings still standing. The US shows up and says "do as we say or we'll level these buildings with you inside".
The problem the US has is that at the end of day 1 they can't threaten to kill those same people again. They've peaked. The buildings are already levelled. There's nowhere really to escalate to.
Iranian leverage is a much slower burn. On day 0 they say "leave us alone or we'll close the strait and set fire to the region". On the end of day 1 nobody has really noticed yet because there's still gas in the gas stations, there's a lag of months. On the end of day 10 people are noticing that tankers aren't leaving the region but there are huge national strategic oil reserves that can be tapped. Those can bridge the gap for months if needed. The pain kicks in after months, and rises steadily.
Iran cannot accept a ceasefire at this point because if they do they have lost their credible deterrent. They will have shown that as long as the strategic oil reserve is adequately stocked ahead of time you can bomb the shit out of them, make up the difference with oil from the reserve, then return to normal. They will have failed to inflict any pain on the US in return.
Iranian national survival hinges on them saying "no, really, do not put our back against the wall and force us to close the strait because if you do then it'll be like 2026 all over again" where 2026 was a crisis that people remember. That was always their plan. They didn't want to close the strait, they didn't close it over the bombings last year, it's an absolute last resort, but if they stick to it then it can be a viable deterrent.
The US wants to hit Iran hard and then call a timeout before Iran can hit back. For some reason people imagine Iran would agree to play the game that way. Would you in their place? Would you go "well we failed to hit America where it hurts but at least my family was killed by their bombs?"
Sure Iran can keep throwing missiles and drones around at everyone after the US has withdrawn from the area but as far as the US is concerned the war will be over.
That is how the US gets out of this, its the only option left because Iran is not going to surrender and I don't believe the US is willing to go for a boots on the ground invasion.
If the US leaves but Israel keeps bombing then Iran will.keep lashing out, but if Israel also stops? Sure maybe Iran will keep going for a little while longer but then they to will stop and, rightfully, loudly proclaim they beat the US.
No I don't think Iran will now keep attacking everyone around them in perpetuity. The US leaving now with their tail between their legs doesn't cost Iran its credibility, it proves them correct, attack us and we will fuck things up so bad the worlds greatest military will withdraw in shame to stop the chaos we can unleash.
Iran will keep going until they get both reparations and either a nuclear umbrella from the likes of Russia or a recognition of their right to pursue a nuclear deterrent for defensive purposes. Or until regime change. This is going to end with boots on the ground.
For decades the international community has tried to convince Iran that the regime change threat isn’t real and that it doesn’t need to go full NK pariah state in order to protect itself. That it doesn’t really need a nuke, America may have an absolutely overwhelming military advantage and may constantly say that they’ll use it against Iran but it’s just talk. That’s over. The new ayatollah’s wife was killed. His son was killed.
American surrender meeting the terms that Iran will require is not realistic. Iranian surrender doesn’t seem realistic. That leaves regime change.
Then its Iraq 2.0 but worse. Iran is a lot more mountainous then Iraq, guerrilla forces can hide everywhere. The US certainly has the power to go in and force a regime change but its not going to stick. And I can't see anyone else willing to join the US in a long term peace keeping force. The rest of the world learned from Iraq not to send their soldiers to die.
On March 19 2026 11:24 KwarK wrote: Pentagon requesting an extra $200b for Iran but that’s likely lowballing because they still don’t seem to realize that absent any sudden collapse there will need to be an occupation.
No, this ends when Trump had lost so badly that he will claim he won and go home.
I suppose this really is a test of how strong Netanyahu's hold over Trump is. Because Israel wants to keep this war going for as long as it can.
It absolutely doesn't end then. Trump cannot simply call a timeout on the war.
The US leverage peaks on day 0. On day 0 there are a lot of important people alive in Iran and a lot of buildings still standing. The US shows up and says "do as we say or we'll level these buildings with you inside".
The problem the US has is that at the end of day 1 they can't threaten to kill those same people again. They've peaked. The buildings are already levelled. There's nowhere really to escalate to.
Iranian leverage is a much slower burn. On day 0 they say "leave us alone or we'll close the strait and set fire to the region". On the end of day 1 nobody has really noticed yet because there's still gas in the gas stations, there's a lag of months. On the end of day 10 people are noticing that tankers aren't leaving the region but there are huge national strategic oil reserves that can be tapped. Those can bridge the gap for months if needed. The pain kicks in after months, and rises steadily.
Iran cannot accept a ceasefire at this point because if they do they have lost their credible deterrent. They will have shown that as long as the strategic oil reserve is adequately stocked ahead of time you can bomb the shit out of them, make up the difference with oil from the reserve, then return to normal. They will have failed to inflict any pain on the US in return.
Iranian national survival hinges on them saying "no, really, do not put our back against the wall and force us to close the strait because if you do then it'll be like 2026 all over again" where 2026 was a crisis that people remember. That was always their plan. They didn't want to close the strait, they didn't close it over the bombings last year, it's an absolute last resort, but if they stick to it then it can be a viable deterrent.
The US wants to hit Iran hard and then call a timeout before Iran can hit back. For some reason people imagine Iran would agree to play the game that way. Would you in their place? Would you go "well we failed to hit America where it hurts but at least my family was killed by their bombs?"
Sure Iran can keep throwing missiles and drones around at everyone after the US has withdrawn from the area but as far as the US is concerned the war will be over.
That is how the US gets out of this, its the only option left because Iran is not going to surrender and I don't believe the US is willing to go for a boots on the ground invasion.
If the US leaves but Israel keeps bombing then Iran will.keep lashing out, but if Israel also stops? Sure maybe Iran will keep going for a little while longer but then they to will stop and, rightfully, loudly proclaim they beat the US.
No I don't think Iran will now keep attacking everyone around them in perpetuity. The US leaving now with their tail between their legs doesn't cost Iran its credibility, it proves them correct, attack us and we will fuck things up so bad the worlds greatest military will withdraw in shame to stop the chaos we can unleash.
Iran will keep going until they get both reparations and either a nuclear umbrella from the likes of Russia or a recognition of their right to pursue a nuclear deterrent for defensive purposes. Or until regime change. This is going to end with boots on the ground.
For decades the international community has tried to convince Iran that the regime change threat isn’t real and that it doesn’t need to go full NK pariah state in order to protect itself. That it doesn’t really need a nuke, America may have an absolutely overwhelming military advantage and may constantly say that they’ll use it against Iran but it’s just talk. That’s over. The new ayatollah’s wife was killed. His son was killed.
American surrender meeting the terms that Iran will require is not realistic. Iranian surrender doesn’t seem realistic. That leaves regime change.
Then its Iraq 2.0 but worse. Iran is a lot more mountainous then Iraq, guerrilla forces can hide everywhere. The US certainly has the power to go in and force a regime change but its not going to stick. And I can't see anyone else willing to join the US in a long term peace keeping force. The rest of the world learned from Iraq not to send their soldiers to die.
Oh it will be way worse. Iraq didn't already have pre-existing history of the US installing a puppet leader. Whichever suckers the US tries to put in charge is going to have that baggage to deal with, it will be especially bad if it's Pahlavi. He might get literally torn limb from limb.
While I have nothing personally against the guy, it would be amusing just to see how much of a trainwreck that would be, and at least once he's dead that would be the end of that chapter of history.
On March 19 2026 18:44 Velr wrote: Yes? Thats why everyone knew this was a stupid idea (until conservatives began to like it because their daddy did it).
Exactly. The best possible result in Iran was the one you would get from just leaving them alone, and slowly doing diplomatic things. That would have been best for the people in Iran, best for the countries around them, and best for the US.
We were well on this path in 2016.
Sadly, that is not the choice the complete idiots the US elected took. They think they are much smarter than everyone else, while in reality being basically uneducated braggards.
So now there is a big problem with no good solutions, that was very obvious to everyone outside of the MAGA morons way before they started this shit.
And most likely, the US will just piss off and leave the problem they created for everyone else to deal with. Because as we know, TACO.
Joe Kent is very complimentary of many of hte foreign policy moves Trump made from 2016 to 2020. He believes Trump should've threatened to take something away from Israel when they threatened to attack Iran in late February. He contends teh US should've back channeled with Iran that Israel was coming for them.
I agree with Kent. Trump and by extension the US government has been too pro Netanyahu since he started his 2nd term.
On March 19 2026 08:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's not what I asked about; please don't move the goalposts. I didn't ask if you thought non-Jews should be able to make fun of Jews. I asked if you thought there was any difference between Jews making fun of themselves and non-Jewish demographics punching down at Jews. (I'm sure someone could elaborate, regardless of their answer to my question, but you didn't give an answer to my question.)
i answered that. read my post. non-jews are not "punching down" on jews. "He is the `last man` you want as your calculus prof" the joke about how brutally tough jewish professors are etc etc etc. This is not punching down. There is no difference. Relax and have fun.
Jewish profs are , generally speaking, absolute total fucking pricks. Feel free to let off all the steam you want.
an orthodox jew taught this course mentioned here. he somehow thought we were buddies. fuck man. https://tl.net/forum/general/523711-the-math-thread#3 people were fucking pissed.. and i don't blame them at all. the prof was glad they were angry. he thought their anger would wake them up and make them study harder. The prof thought we were all coddled weaklings. Looking back, I'd say he was 75% right.
On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote: baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true.
I said he was one.
(the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?).
WAT lol
I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity.
What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole.
Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK.
Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas
Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite.
What are the first principles here?
To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy
There is nothing extreme about it, It's just simply how the US defines it along with a decent chunk in the world (in theory), libel and harassment are not protected, just no hate speech laws caveats.
If denying the holocaust is a crime then it should also be to deny the holodomor, if a swastika is forbidden the hammer and sickle too but that's never the case because censors only ban speech they personally don't like, but in time those tools they created will be used against them.
Why exactly is the slippery slope argument of "if you ban Holocaust denial then eventually people will use those laws to deny something that exists in good faith" more compelling than the slippery slope of "if we allow people to deny the Holocaust without consequence then eventually somewhere, someone will find it politically advantageous to do so"?
Like, if fascists take power and decide to censor their opposition, it won't matter whatsoever whether Holocaust denial was legal or not up until then, they're just going to censor whomever they want and use whatever bullshit justification they feel like.
On March 19 2026 06:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Trump congratulated Venezuala's win over the USA at the World Baseball Classic by inviting them to become America's 51st state. Perhaps Canada can be the USA's 52nd state?
I wonder if they are aware that there are a lot of brown people in Venezuela.
brown people? LOL. i was called "brown" when i crushed a math contest. it was a compliment and an insult all in one word.
is Julianna "the venezualan vixen" Pena considered a "brown person"? I know Pakistani and Indian immigrants to Canada are considered or so called "brown". I don't keep up with all this stuff.
any how, if she is considered "brown" ... then hey man ... bring the Venezuelan women in!
On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote: baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true.
I said he was one.
(the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?).
WAT lol
I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity.
What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole.
Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK.
Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas
Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite.
What are the first principles here?
To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy
There is nothing extreme about it, It's just simply how the US defines it along with a decent chunk in the world (in theory), libel and harassment are not protected, just no hate speech laws caveats.
If denying the holocaust is a crime then it should also be to deny the holodomor, if a swastika is forbidden the hammer and sickle too but that's never the case because censors only ban speech they personally don't like, but in time those tools they created will be used against them.
Why exactly is the slippery slope argument of "if you ban Holocaust denial then eventually people will use those laws to deny something that exists in good faith" more compelling than the slippery slope of "if we allow people to deny the Holocaust without consequence then eventually somewhere, someone will find it politically advantageous to do so"?
Like, if fascists take power and decide to censor their opposition, it won't matter whatsoever whether Holocaust denial was legal or not up until then, they're just going to censor whomever they want and use whatever bullshit justification they feel like.
I think Nathan Fielder's Holocaust Denial humour is hilarious. He got a non-Jew to say on camera that he couldn't not say for sure if the holocaust happened because it was so long ago and the books chronicling the events were very old. https://summiticeapparel.com/collections/apparel/products/deny-nothing-baby-onesie "Summit Ice believes that brand loyalty and Holocaust education should begin as early as possible." "Summit Ice - Deny Nothing" rofl-copter
https://summiticeapparel.com/pages/about "in October of 2023 our sales plummeted by nearly 90% and we couldn't figure out why. After extensive research only one answer made sense... we believed the best way to achieve our goal of raising awareness is by shifting our primary brand focus from genocide to craftsmanship" "In this new era we `stand for everything` and that is something no one can deny"
Should this be "censored" ? I say NO. the general public should be permitted to be skeptical about 6 million people being executed. Hell, I am a skeptic of the "video game crash of 1983"... 1940... Fugheddaboudit.
I agree with Nathan Fielder 100% : These "Holocaust Awareness" zealots can get fucked.
On March 19 2026 21:03 LightSpectra wrote: Your trolling's gotten too obvious, nobody is going to fall for this.
it is dead serious and topical. Making fun of overly sensitive Holocaust Awareness zealots is a 100% healthy response to their idiocy. I 100% defend Nathan Fielder's right to make them look like the idiots that they are. I am tired of them screaming anti-semitism every 5 seconds.
On March 19 2026 21:03 LightSpectra wrote: Your trolling's gotten too obvious, nobody is going to fall for this.
it is dead serious and topical. Making fun of overly sensitive Holocaust Awareness zealots is a 100% healthy response to their idiocy. I 100% defend Nathan Fielder's right to make them look like the idiots that they are. I am tired of them screaming anti-semitism every 5 seconds.
Does mocking Holocaust deniers give you the same pleasure and satisfaction? Do you watch such content? Or just mocking holocaust "zealots"?
I find both extremes despicable and I derive no fun or happiness from watching ppl making fun of either - If neither group existed I'd be happier
On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote: baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true.
I said he was one.
(the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?).
WAT lol
I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity.
What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole.
Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK.
Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas
Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite.
What are the first principles here?
To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy
There is nothing extreme about it, It's just simply how the US defines it along with a decent chunk in the world (in theory), libel and harassment are not protected, just no hate speech laws caveats.
If denying the holocaust is a crime then it should also be to deny the holodomor, if a swastika is forbidden the hammer and sickle too but that's never the case because censors only ban speech they personally don't like, but in time those tools they created will be used against them.
I mean it kinda definitionally is the extreme position to be 100% free speech on the ‘what restrictions should there be on speech?’ scale. Not that it is necessarily an extreme position to hold.
My point was more that if one holds that position and sticks to it, it’s an easy one not to be hypocritical, or inconsistent on. Whereas it’s more difficult to be more restrictive, while maintaining a general capacity for free and open speech and not open up blind spots or arbitrary restrictions etc.
But just because that may be more tricky doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong general course, at least not for me.
Like TL would be easier to moderate and more consistently moderated if it wasn’t moderated at all, but that may not be especially desirous
EPT![[image loading]](https://i0.wp.com/caffeineandphilosophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dank-1.jpg?resize=331%2C247&ssl=1)
