The Importance of Free Speech

[Younggun]

Recently watched a very long debate that cemented my views on the inportance of free speech. I've not really wavered on the stance and feel private platforms have every right to censor at will, but government censorship is bad in every way regardless of how bad the ideas are that someone is promoting.

The media has become such a sham that nothing on the news can be trusted. Even to the point it's easier to believe the opposite of what you hear. The only way to really know anything is to go straight to the source. Now imagine if the source were censored. Under the current standards I'd be inclined to just believe the opposite of what I hear.

So, I've heard about this debate quite a bit so I went to YouTube and watched a 3.5 hour discussion, unedited, between Richard Spencer and several other YouTube personalities including Sargon, Stix, Vee, Millinial Woes, and a couple others. I don't know all of them very well but they were each allowed to communicate their ideas. Some did so clearly, some poorly. Richard Spencer clearly communicated his ideas and I was able to obtain everything I need to know in order to know that his ideas are some of the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life. Who "won" the debate was irrelevant in my view, it was the importance of being able to hear from the source exactly what they would like to see and how they would achieve it.

That shows the importance of the 1st amendment and protection of free speech. It's not only about being able to voice your own ideas, but to be able to hear the ideas of others and make informed decisions on whether you agree or disagree, and then be able to accurately support or refute those ideas when challenged or supported by others. Exercising free speech is not only about speaking, but listening and using that knowledge to promote good and defeat bad ideas.

 

[Brains]

That's largely the point of free speech. To better the whole of the nation, individuals contributions need to be heard. Even good things can be learned from bad ideas.

But it also doesn't mean it's a free license to stay something stupid at the most inopportune time without then dealing with the repercussions

 

[TheDan]

Who "won" the debate was irrelevant

Exactly. The only winner of a debate is truth. The narcissistic/sycophantic focus on who "won" or "lost" is another infantile product pushed by the media.

Was it this video?
I'm going to have a listen...

 

[Younggun]

Exactly. The only winner of a debate is truth. The narcissistic/sycophantic focus on who "won" or "lost" is another infantile product pushed by the media.

Was it this video?
I'm going to have a listen...

That looks like it.

I listened to it in several pieces while driving.

 

[Younggun]

That's largely the point of free speech. To better the whole of the nation, individuals contributions need to be heard. Even good things can be learned from bad ideas.

But it also doesn't mean it's a free license to stay something stupid at the most inopportune time without then dealing with the repercussions

Well, I guess that depends on the situation is and what is said. If you are attempting to spread the false idea that a building is burning at an inopportune time which would results in the injuries of people who take action due to the idea you have spread, I agree.

Saying something stupid regarding a particular race when surrounded by people of that particular race is pretty stupid and being said at a pretty innoportune time. Although negative consequences might be expected, not all consequences you might expect would be justified.

 

[benenglish]

Later, when I have time, you're going to cost me over 4 hours of my life. I'm not quite sure what to think about that...

 

[TheDan]

I'll listen to it while I poop. Probably take me over a week; unless I have some Indian food.

 

[TheDan]

If you are attempting to spread the false idea that a building is burning at an inopportune time which would results in the injuries of people who take action due to the idea you have spread, I agree.

I've always seen that worn out example as a strawman. If you actually enjoy fraud, liable, inciting violence, or just plain lying then you're not going to enjoy free speech or any liberties of others.

 

[Shady]

I just wish the liberals would learn that without the 2nd you are not keeping the 1st

 

[Younggun]

I've always seen that worn out example as a strawman. If you actually enjoy fraud, liable, inciting violence, or just plain lying then you're not going to enjoy free speech or any liberties of others.

I agree. Much like the child pornographer example which is about the violation of a child's rights, not free speech.

Wanted to cover my bases in my reply though.

 

[SQLGeek]

I just wish the liberals would learn that without the 2nd you are not keeping the 1st

Many neo-liberals aren't that keen on the 1st either.

 

[TreyG-20]

I'll listen to it while I poop. Probably take me over a week; unless I have some Indian food.

A week?! I should be able to get this done in 2 sittings. Going to have to Taco Bell it up tonight!

 

[TreyG-20]

Interesting topic. I have added it to my watch later on YT.

 

[benenglish]

Much like the child pornographer example which is about the violation of a child's rights, not free speech.

That particular subject is infinitely more complex and nuanced than people realize.

I'm leaving the house before I write an off-topic, multi-post essay.

 

[Charlie Primero]

The only winner of a debate is truth. The narcissistic/sycophantic focus on who "won" or "lost" is another infantile product pushed by the media.

I thought the purpose of a debate was to win by showing that your arguments are more true than your opponent's.

 

[TheDan]

More true?
I'm the truest.

 

[Younggun]

I thought the purpose of a debate was to win by showing that your arguments are more true than your opponent's.

The purpose should be to allow the best ideas to win, not the person supporting one idea or the other.

In this case for example, I believe Spencer was telling the truth while describing his idea. He convinced me his ethnostate-state and plans for achieving it are terrible. Sargon didn't effectively communicate his ideas in many cases and if judges. By that standard he lost, yet by allowing the spoofing view to be heard the better ideas (those he supports via resistance to Spencer's) still won out.

 

[Younggun]

In my subjective opinion of course. I'm sure a white nationalist would see it differently.

 

[Charlie Primero]

More true?
I'm the truest.

When you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next by saying "The only winner of a debate is truth. The narcissistic/sycophantic focus on who "won" or "lost" is another infantile product pushed by the media." ...I don't think so.

 

[Charlie Primero]

Sargon didn't effectively communicate his ideas

What was the question under debate?

I admit, I'm not going to watch 4 hours of autistic Spergs going at it, but I am curious what was under contention.