Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "JD Vance and free speech- have we learnt to comply" video.

This speech was mostly directed toward Veep Vance's base, and therefore does not accurately reflect nor serve the interests and the welfare of anyone else. However, despite Vance's hypocrisy, we must accept that Democracy can only die not from the actions of external actors alone, but with the complicity and neglect of those within. That means it has to be actively maintained as events happen in and around democratic communities. And each community must decide for itself what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats it must adapt to, and how. Values have to evolve to meet the challenges change always presents, but the decision cannot be forced in one direction or another. It must be consented to, and that consent must be proactive. It cannot rely on passive consent or apathy for legitimacy. And it cannot be forced by flooding the zone, and obscuring reality either, as that is exploitation. Veep Vance has a huge burden, as his speech shows. Carrying around that huge beam in his eye is bound to cower his stature toward complicity with the corporate exploitation of his base. And our elites too cannot stand straight exactly either. Both sides of the Atlantic are suffering from myopia, as their elites struggle to square eroding the social contract with the people for personal and political gain. In this, the beams in their eyes bang into each other, creaking like great trees bending in the wind as corporations and plutocrats push to assert their will on the people. That is the pressure democracy is under most, from those who neglect democracy because it's hard to be patient and responsive when it's inconvenient and you're impatient. So, let us strive to remove the beams in our eyes, and clean our own Augean Stables. There's plenty of work to go round. The work never stops in a place that is home.
2
@georgesdelatour Then it's surprising Orwell did not directly do that. Ever. He couched his truth telling in allegory and metaphor. Why? He needed to eat. Go tell Elon Musk the truth and you get his bots set on you, and the more mad ones might even want to doxx people. If that's Free Speech, no-one needs it.
1
@georgesdelatour You obvious know very little about what George Orwell actually did. Thus even this appeal to moral authority is tainted by the reality. Go read a decent biography and you realise the difference between what is said and what is done.
1
@colonelangus8247 Then no speech is protected. If you go up to Mike Tyson and tell him about the sexual proclivities of his mother, and he removes your front teeth, then according to your logic, then the only thing you can do is go find a dentist. Your argument is too woke, and virtue signalling purely for social kudos.
1
@colonelangus8247 Dangerous freedom? Virtue signalling nonsense. You can say what you want, but even you would not advocate for an individual to have the right to kill you for it. So free speech is not free from consequences. You can demean someone's reputation as they can sue you for slander or libel. So Free Speech has never been free. There has always been limits. And if your hatred causes someone else physical harm, then they have a right to redress from you. Again, even between individuals there is no unlimited free speech that is free of consequence. Not even between parent and child. So all the Free Speech absolutionists are utterly self deceiving.
1