Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "The Proper Limits of Free Speech (Hint, Freedom Doesn't End Where Feelings Begin)" video.

  1. "Freedom" with limits is no "freedom" at all. But now here is where someone says "Land of the FREE BITCH" and claims they are freer than the rest, so they are "truly free". But of course, that's not really the case.
    3
  2. It's just the only phrasing that's effective. Laws aren't even real. They are literally just words on paper. It's the CONSEQUENCES of how those words on paper are interpreted, that leads to "justice". You see what I did there?
    2
  3. I admit...I am a little in a shitposty kinda mood- but this is what it amounts to, I just...I see alot of haranguing of people, of entire nations, and it's not productive...I just wish to point out that there are even ludicrous-seeming limits on speech even in America, and I want us ALL to fight against it TOGETHER, as opposed to trying to jump down one anothers throats for being "too cucked", or whatever...that makes me want to point out the obvious problems regarding people's, honestly, compromised opinions. PS: Regulation...sometimes I even wonder if I should take the leap from minarchism to pure anarchism (but then again, not an altogether good look, plus, it just wouldn't work, everyone would still fight, only it'd be a fight therein anarchy...big difference...not)....Socialism is the bane of everything; unless you are Jesus with a small ass congregation, or you're a tribe circa anytime before Christ, and you can conform to either some nomadic tribalism or some small cullings- socialism SUCKS. We need better than this old timey shit...and then again, atheistic socialism a la the French Revolution sucks even worse...and EVEN WORSE is the fucking Fabian society types, trying to foist this anti-whiteness bullshit on everyone...and it just gets worse and worse.... facepalm to the point where you can't even tell who is coo'ing (cucking, J00ing) who anymore.
    2
  4. Hope you feel clean-as-whistle soon. The climate fucks with me as well. Thanks for the talk, and have a good one, man. =)
    2
  5. Seems prudent, but alas, incomplete. I guess it doesn't have to be, in the legal sense- probably, for the better, too -- but people do often make these really strange snap judgements outside of the notion (of free speech), and they make crazy-seeming moral judgements, sometimes. It's really strange- but it's not as bad as the dumbasses who claim "freedom of speech is bad", oh boy, those people are the worst. LOL.
    2
  6. Hate speech is just another conflagration of misuse, just like SJW and so many other dumb ideographs.
    1
  7. The Queen only has as much power as she is afforded by her constituents in office...we could completely lambaste her, if we didn't have those cohorts of her's in our parliament, and she wouldn't have any recourse, save to attack us somehow, either by military, or economically- and that's where the fear comes in the most- the monetary incentive to "support the Queen" is bigger (among parliament, not among fans of her popularity or royalty- no, those people are just stupid) than the wont of her regal authority. To be honest. She is not as powerful as people make her out to be. She is spookily present, sure...she has got our parliament in her bag, sure...we are invested in her, as a nation, sure...and that looks ludicrous, YES...BUT, we aren't attached at the hip, like most people suggest. We are not conjoined twins, in otherwords...we CAN distances ourselves from them...but look at Britain now...are the people truly happy? surely they'd rather see us all get along and just discard the monarchy together...and i'm sure, fucking Americans (love ya), that you want to fight the same battles we are fighting, that is, against such pervasive authoritarianism (even if it's just perceived or co-opted [by neolibs] or foisted-on authoritarianism). Yeah in America we just killed everyone that was against us having our own freedom.... Anyone can do that, no one gave us permission. Yep.
    1
  8. It's all just a show gallantry, at the end of the day, this pity party for the monarchy, that, and for their monetary ends. Good God, we always think about money, and numbers and statistics (especially socialists, for their aggregate of the countries monetary "profile", of course); what about fairness (sorry, just contemplating the current hate boner on "the right wing", and the hypocrisy of the claims and concerns therein said hate filled boner -- although, I bet this is a bit of a psychological backgammon counter against the constant hate spewed towards them from proponents on the right, though....)....fairness, just simply having some fucking backbone, too- in the case of the government of Canada. We do not need the UK- the UK should far and wide be disparaged for their centralization of powers. I don't mind having them as allies, but nevertheless, the train ends there.
    1
  9. Agreed.
    1
  10. Good luck with that. People'll start killing and maiming to tell you how free they are.
    1
  11. Now now, don't think you want to go there. I, after all, never claimed that they are "the same", those two acts. I said one will proceed the other, if you try to tell them what their limits are. Everyone, despite what they might think, or no, actually has the ability, and not only ability, but the necessity, to make their own choices...as soon as one group or individual tries to limit another, you meet in strife, and then what is "free" might lead to what I see some here are claiming as "consequences of speech", which are by and by NOT considered (by these people) to be adjoined to the speech they provide (almost a separate issue, but the point is...)-- when one party feels they've been slighted or limited, they'll go after what you deem to be free, and the contention is "who of you are in the right- who gets to limit who"; and in that case, who is really truly allowed "free speech"? If you have to go to court, or if you have to toe the line or be banished and de-platformed, or slandered out of their spotlight (cleverly, or no), for your "free speech", is that speech really free? or is it "free" but just "with consequences attached"?
    1
  12. Jesus wasn't a "socialist" per se...he advised people to be free from such things...but you misunderstand me, I think (sorry for the confusion)-- I never said Jesus was a socialist, I said that his small congregation was THE WAY to do things, actually. =) I might have implied that Christianity is socialist (not Jesus though- I said he 'kept it small', which is a good thing- read on, and you'll see what I mean). And they have been, for ages. See: Distributism -- But my point is, in saying what I said, friend, is that Jesus kept it small...his congregation was SMALL. Older tribes used to either be culled by nomadic life, or by cultural exchanges between tribes (war, a la blue plate special)-- they were kept Small, most importantly. I happen to believe Socialism is a sort of natural human tendency to provide a stop-gap against "inequality" in larger populaces (ie, within a republic, or even empire- a small bit of "redistribution" in some fashion is always employed, even if it's "better rations", or "better accommodations", or whatever the matter..."whores"....whatever the case.) The only political tendency, I find, that could avoid that, was within feudal systems....nevertheless, all of our "societies'" (pure fictions, like laws) seem to transcend (negatively) into a socialist mindset, because as they grow, the function of the church or the state tends to want to appease them, to avoid a conflagration against them, by the people. Because of such proclivities towards "weaknesses" (one might say), bigger populaces tend towards appeasing THEMSELVES with socialism, and/or some kind of nationalism (the two can be twain), or patriotism, of some sort. The tendency towards socialism is found within pagan tribes, empires, the church, cities and states, alike....all because of "the people" and their proclivity towards the path of least resistance...and why do you think they are given it; of course, to appease them means to make them weaker...so of course they would appease them...we are coming to only realize this now- and I assure you, only more confusion is on the way.
    1
  13. It's how it should be, sure. But when you get sued for defamation, that's also "all speech", you know. So how do you explain this inherent contradiction away?
    1
  14. Speech is basically unlimited. Except when it isn't. There are no police preventing the loss of free speech on campuses or online, is there? Nope. When are people who've been silenced gonna have their day in court? never, is when. What to do about that?
    1
  15. Legal buffoonery has always had precedent in the decision making process of courts.
    1
  16. Interesting semantic dichotomy.
    1
  17. True, but c'mon, it's, in a round-about way, considered somewhat "unjust", so the phrasing gets mixed up as "criminal" sometimes. We all know that a civil complaint is not necessarily criminal, but just a call to action of the courts.
    1