Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "This Was Eye Opening!" video.

@EmTaylorAuthor Don't know. What's an AK 15?
2
"without such few"? What an awkward turn of phrase! Or were you trying to avoid the more direct "with more"? Anyway, Bon Voyage.
2
@derKosmoprolet369 "I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of a civilised society at all ......the concept to protect the 'weak ' poor and vulnerable ones against the mighty rich.....if a government is refusing this service to his citizens you don't have a civilised society !" If your government has the power to protect you from ideas, it is oppressive. A common fallacy of utopian ideologues is that human nature is inherently good, but is being held back by some flaw in the social contract. In fact, the same flawed, imperfect, selfish, stupid nature that infests the lord, or the "capitalist", infests the revolutionary. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The "capitalist" AS SUCH, can only hire or bribe. An unchecked authoritarian government can do that (with other people's money), plus arrest, torture, and kill you or your family. It is incoherent to fear the former and not fear the latter. No "angel" is available to bear this power benignly. The power MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXIST. Your "concept of a civilized society" has been played out in history all too often. Leftist revel in the equivocation of taking common words which have earned a positive or negative connotation, and stuffing a proprietary syntactical load into them. What you're choosing to CALL "civilized" is oppression and oppression is barbaric. "you seem really keen to have ( and use))the right to spread lies" Yes, from the prohibition of a central "truth authority", the practical right to lie follows. However, you merely beg the question of whether any of the things you object to having the people hear is, in fact, a lie. You have named no lies. "and calling out for illegal activities" None of the persons whose censorship you demand have called for illegal activities. (But if they don't want me censoring them I can conclude that they must be up to any sort of "no good" that I can imagine, right?) You certainly are willing to take advantage of the "right to lie" yourself. "I listen to people with different opinions " But you're not willing to extend this "privilege" to others. "btw, why get all my comments get cancelled (by YT or GOOGLE? -- US companies!) as soon I mention certain names like 'snow den ' or -as ange?) ....freedom of speech ( a la american)?" Because YT and Google agree with you about the prudential limitation of free speech. I have grounds to complain about this. You do not. Enjoy the application of your "principles" upon yourself.
1
@ScurvyRascal Every vote in the UK since the first Brexit vote has been effectively a vote against untrammeled immigration, and the immigration policy has not changed. You may like the current policy, but having an alleged "democracy" systematically and stubbornly oppose the will of the people is ridiculous, and well beyond the point of humor. "The world" isn't the British electorate and shouldn't be dictating to them, even assuming you have your finger on the pulse of world opinion, which claim itself remains to be proven. The West has been an island of prosperity and freedom in a sea of oppression. Our freedom is not subject to a world veto. There is nothing democratic about a policy to end democracy.
1
@SleepyDave-f5d "That doesn't men his words aren't knowingly inflammatory" For heaven's sake he's trying to warn you back from the brink! That's the opposite of inflammatory. Every vote in the UK since the first Brexit referendum at least has been a vote against rampant immigration. Each has been ignored by the UK's "democratic instututions. You think you can continue to ignore what the voters have been voting for over a decade and there will never be any repercussions. History shows that you're wrong. UK immigration policy is inflammatory. You aren't immune from the backlash to your oppression, and shooting the messenger won't change the fact. You're wrong, you're oppressive, you're evil, and the least that we who at the moment still have freedom of speech on this side of the pond can do is call you out and pray for peace and sanity.
1
@JGG3345 No, and it's not protected free speech, either. What's your point?
1
@gjingodjango So your police chief is lying about your laws? Or are you?
1
Obviously, and ironically, the statement is protected by the First Amendment.
1
@WardenOfTerra "You do realise who Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler were, right?" Murderers. What is your point? Nobody arrested them for mean tweets. "Actions aren't the only way to be guilty." "Guilty" in the legal sense always takes an "of X" such that X is a crime. Moral guilt may accrue from speech, but law does not arbitrate moral guilt.
1
@christopherpardell4418 "Pointing out that its make believe is not ‘hate’," Then it's not relevant to the discussion, is it? His point is that criticism of Christianity is not treated the same as criticism of Islam, and insofar as your comment is relevant to that point, it confirms it.
1
@christopherpardell4418 If you're not familiar with the arguments for Christianity, you haven't looked. @donnastokes-manning6175 pointed out that criticism of Christianity and that of Islam are treated differently by leftists and the law enforcement apparatus that the leftists control. How is your PERSONAL ambivalence (if any) to the distinction relevant in response that point? Of course, the First Amendment was meant to protect speech that somebody didn't like. What you don't like about the current situation is precisely that mass speech is no longer limited to three TV networks that your comrades control. The side that seeks to settle a question of fact by the use of force is the obscurantist side, every time. That is you. That is how you know that you're the bad guy.
1
How is that relevant to the UK threatening those who did no such thing? You're not defending the UK government position, you're trying to redefine it and change the subject.
1
@weisemari The people the UK are arresting did not harrass anybody. You are saying the UK didn't do WHAT THEY DID.
1
@grebz "who, by his own admission, stays within the law and doesn't need investigation." Admission? We're discussing a tweet that was legal. @marianridler1831's response and Musk's are appropriate and of a piece. Respond to outrage with defiance. If such threats are merely passed by, the despots gain a point.
1