MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

I'm not sure how i feel about free speech in the workplace. if i was
out in the public and heading some kkk rally does my company have a
right to get rid of me if they don't support my views or they think i don't support theirs?

Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.

He asked how I'd feel if my neighbor put one up. I said as long
as it's on HIS property, doesn't matter if I LIKE it or not,
it's not really my business.

He didn't agree... He said it should be banned. He went on
to say that the Rebel Flag should be banned as well from
any part of public view, because it is considered hate
speech to some.

I personally disagreed with this and said ANYTHING can be
called 'hate speech' by ANYONE, so in effect you are
banning ANYTHING except what is approved... And who is
doing the approving?

I told him the Gay Pride 'rainbow' flag could be called
"hate speech" but he said I was wrong about that. If
you don't like it, you're in the wrong, but if you
don't like <insert Nazi, Rebel, whatever> flag then you
are NOT guilty of hate speech.

So in that respect, where is the personal liberty?

Now to be clear, just because I CAN legally hang a
flag that might offend someone, doesn't mean I am
going to, but that longer answer probably belongs in
a differnt echo... ;-)

I wouldn't blame them for getting rid of a person like that but also
there seems to be a bunch of witch hunts that people enjoy.

The thing is, where do you draw the line? If it's the KKK, I
agree - I wouldn't trust those people either, and I believe
it's NOT a good thing, but someone else might see something I
like as offensive to them. Just because one person thinks my
'nativity' on my lawn at Christmas is offensive, does that
mean it should be considered 'hate speech?'

My point here is that we either have freedom of expression,
even things that people don't like, or we do not. And who
makes the decision on what is 'allowed' and what is banned?

We like to cancel people.

in my old town there was a witch hunt thing over google reviews and a
bar. and people ended up making up stories that the owner sexually assaulted people. people got together online and made up stories and
even went to the court about it when he was having a license review. I was even contacted online to make up a story and show up.

Some nuts were even saying the owner was going to poison them when he
had an event where he did free booze. That's just horrible and ugly.

That's just sad.

i think the human race is basically at war with itself. our monkey
brains and human brains can't figure shit out. ---

I agree with you! Humans are basically evil, not basically good.




... This tagline is donationware; send money to register it.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm

Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.

I disagree. I think you misunderstand what Free Speech is for. Most do.

I don't like the "hate speech is not free speech" argument, I think its subterfuge to block political opinion, but Free Speech is not about your right to express yourself however you want.

People think that Free Speech is about you saying what you like. The idea, the supporting philosophy for Free Speech is the need for ideas to be challenged, and for ideas to be challenged, then there must be protection for those challenging.

Free Speech is there to ensure that people are able to hear other peoples ideas, in particular, those which challenge the established norms, powers and are not the mainstream position.

The purpose of Free Speech, is to ensure that YOU can hear my argument if you want to, and ensure that I can make my argument to those who are a willing audience. If you are blocked from hearing arguments, you are harmed. It harms you more than me, because I already know what I'm going to say, but you don't.

Flying a swastica says nothing. It is not an argument, not a statement, and no one is harmed, or loses out on understanding a contrary point of view, by not being able to see one. Not that I necessarily think that ban is right, but its ont a free speech issue really.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm

Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.

I disagree. I think you misunderstand what Free Speech is for. Most
do.

I don't like the "hate speech is not free speech" argument, I think its subterfuge to block political opinion, but Free Speech is not about
your right to express yourself however you want.

Free speech is when you can SPEAK or WRITE, but not express
yourself however you want. Is expressing yourself punching
someone in the nose? That is not free speech.

People think that Free Speech is about you saying what you like. The idea, the supporting philosophy for Free Speech is the need for ideas
to be challenged, and for ideas to be challenged, then there must be protection for those challenging.

I don't disagree.

Free Speech is there to ensure that people are able to hear other
peoples ideas, in particular, those which challenge the established
norms, powers and are not the mainstream position.

The purpose of Free Speech, is to ensure that YOU can hear my argument
if you want to, and ensure that I can make my argument to those who are
a willing audience. If you are blocked from hearing arguments, you are harmed. It harms you more than me, because I already know what I'm
going to say, but you don't.

Sounds like we are saying the same thing. You should have the
ability to express yourself with your words or symbols.

Flying a swastica says nothing. It is not an argument, not a
statement, and no one is harmed, or loses out on understanding a
contrary point of view, by not being able to see one. Not that I necessarily think that ban is right, but its ont a free speech issue really.

My point in using that example is that you and I might agree that
it's a bad thing to fly, but what about when 'pop culture' says
that my Christian flag is hate speech to a subset of the
population? I could argue all day long that Jesus is the
oppisite of 'hate speech,' but that won't change someone's
mind.

So the issue becomes, who decides what is free speech/hate
speech?



... I'd love to help you out. Which way did you come in?
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 20:38:47

---
þ Synchronet þ Enigma BBS -=- enigma-bbs.com

Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 20:38:47

Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.

I've always associated freedom of speech with government rather than a private company's response to your speech. I think to assume otherwise is kind of silly. I'd be glad if such individuals honestly suffered the social consequences (social consequences are not covered by freedom of speech, merely retaliation by government).

---
þ Synchronet þ Enigma BBS -=- enigma-bbs.com

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <6830BF65.75018.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <682DD3E1.65473.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm

Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.

Free speech is when you can SPEAK or WRITE, but not express
yourself however you want. Is expressing yourself punching
someone in the nose? That is not free speech.

Agree. People conflate Freedom of Speech with Freedom of Expression.
Limiting how one expresses themselves, without necessarily limiting
their ability to convey ideas, isn't to me an infringement on Freedom
of Speech. However, limitations on expression are really only
justified in narrow circumstances, where others would otherwise be *directly* harmed. Censorship is another matter still.

People think that Free Speech is about you saying what you like. The idea, the supporting philosophy for Free Speech is the need for ideas
to be challenged, and for ideas to be challenged, then there must be protection for those challenging.

I don't disagree.

Free Speech is there to ensure that people are able to hear other
peoples ideas, in particular, those which challenge the established
norms, powers and are not the mainstream position.

The purpose of Free Speech, is to ensure that YOU can hear my argument
if you want to, and ensure that I can make my argument to those who are
a willing audience. If you are blocked from hearing arguments, you are harmed. It harms you more than me, because I already know what I'm
going to say, but you don't.

Sounds like we are saying the same thing. You should have the
ability to express yourself with your words or symbols.

Sort of, though I emphasise the right to listen and read, over the
right to speak. Lets say you know that food additive XYZ is real bad
for your health. You aren't as harmed by being blocked from talking
about it as I am. You already can cut it out of your diet, but I
remain ignorant from not hearing you, I continue to ingest it, and I
am harmed.

Flying a swastica says nothing. It is not an argument, not a
statement, and no one is harmed, or loses out on understanding a
contrary point of view, by not being able to see one. Not that I necessarily think that ban is right, but its ont a free speech issue really.

My point in using that example is that you and I might agree that
it's a bad thing to fly, but what about when 'pop culture' says
that my Christian flag is hate speech to a subset of the
population? I could argue all day long that Jesus is the
oppisite of 'hate speech,' but that won't change someone's
mind.

So the issue becomes, who decides what is free speech/hate
speech?

If one group is wanting another group to remove symbols of expression,
because of "offense", then it may not really actually about speech, or expression, but about the exercise of political power. It is a
political move to remove an adversary. In the case of the Swastica,
in 1943 it would have been a clear statement to say "they are the
enemy to our nation", and that the restriction is to block an
adverserial out-group. If it were 1943, I would support a law against
flying it. I sympathise with objections to it today, but laws I don't
think are necessary, as that regime is dead and the war was won a long
time ago.

If Christians are being treated in similar ways today, then the root
motive is similar. The symbols are being seen as those of an
adverserial group. Its not really, in my view, a "Free Speech" issue,
but more of one of a group, or groups of people viewing the other
group as being "external" and seeking to remove them, by removing
their expression. "Hate Speech" is just a mushy, vague sentiment used
to blanket-ban and smear anything they don't want discussed. Its a
rhetorical device, a language construct used to sway emotion, not a
descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is
"hate speech".

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Foriest Jan Smith wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 20:38:47

Interesting that you mention the KKK. I was talking to a friend
who said a Swastika flag was 'hate speech.' I said it's still
FREE speech. You don't have to like it.

I've always associated freedom of speech with government rather than a private company's response to your speech. I think to assume otherwise
is kind of silly. I'd be glad if such individuals honestly suffered the social consequences (social consequences are not covered by freedom of speech, merely retaliation by government).

Yeah - in this case, if a neighbor puts up a flag that the
other neighbors don't like, they can complain and they
can refuse to do business with him, etc.

BUT - they do NOT have the right to go on his property and
remove the flag.

So it's more than the government... The police telling him
he had to take it down would be the government stepping in
(and stepping over their authority).



... Hookd on foniks wurkd for mee!
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

"Hate Speech" is just a mushy, vague sentiment used
to blanket-ban and smear anything they don't want discussed. Its a rhetorical device, a language construct used to sway emotion, not a descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is "hate speech".

Exactly. I remember a few years ago when it was vogue to
describe something as a 'hate crime.' Isn't all crime
hate crime? You don't love your neighbor, so you steal
their property, burn their home, kill them, etc.



... Aibohphobia, n. -- the fear of palindromes.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: free speech
By: jimmylogan to Boraxman on Tue May 27 2025 08:29 am

Exactly. I remember a few years ago when it was vogue to
describe something as a 'hate crime.' Isn't all crime
hate crime? You don't love your neighbor, so you steal
their property, burn their home, kill them, etc.

A lot of crime is completely asocial.

Also, a lot of things are defined as illegal just because it suits the government, but that does not mean they are immoral. For example, tax evasion in tax heavy regimes is an act of self-defense but they will try very hard to convince the population that it is bad because it is illegal.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <6835DA59.75086.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <68313733.65564.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

"Hate Speech" is just a mushy, vague sentiment used
to blanket-ban and smear anything they don't want discussed. Its a rhetorical device, a language construct used to sway emotion, not a descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is "hate speech".

Exactly. I remember a few years ago when it was vogue to
describe something as a 'hate crime.' Isn't all crime
hate crime? You don't love your neighbor, so you steal
their property, burn their home, kill them, etc.

A lot of crime is senseless, and the attacker has no prior animus towards the
victim. We do distinguish that from premeditated acts, so "Hate crime" still
doesn't make much sense, except to elevate one type of person over another.


... BoraxMan
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: free speech
By: Boraxman to jimmylogan on Wed May 28 2025 08:48 am

descriptive statement. No one really knows what "Hate Speech" is
aside from a particular political class stating that such and such is "hate speech".

If a person believes there should be restrictions on Free Speech, they haven't been educated, they have been Indoctrinated.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: free speech
By: Boraxman to jimmylogan on Wed May 28 2025 08:48 am

A lot of crime is senseless, and the attacker has no prior animus towards the
victim. We do distinguish that from premeditated acts, so "Hate crime" still
doesn't make much sense, except to elevate one type of person over another.

the reasoning behind it is they want to punish people more for targetting and attacking someone based on their protected class.
religion, sex, race, etc
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <683768B6.15401.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <68364A9D.65619.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: free speech
By: Boraxman to jimmylogan on Wed May 28 2025 08:48 am

A lot of crime is senseless, and the attacker has no prior animus towards the
victim. We do distinguish that from premeditated acts, so "Hate crime" still
doesn't make much sense, except to elevate one type of person over another.

the reasoning behind it is they want to punish people more for
targetting and attacking someone based on their protected class.
religion, sex, race, etc ---

I understand the intent, it just doesn't make sense. If a black
person kills a white person because they are white, is that also a
"hate crime"?

This is to protect minorities, and enable the ruling elite to create a "diverse" society. Hate crimes are social control, nothing more.

I really do wish people would stop being so credulous and
just accepting everything they are told at face value.


... BoraxMan
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: free speech
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu May 29 2025 07:57 am

targetting and attacking someone based on their protected class. religion, sex, race, etc ---

I understand the intent, it just doesn't make sense. If a black
person kills a white person because they are white, is that also a
"hate crime"?

yes it's also a hate crime and black people have been charged with hate crimes against white and other races.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: free speech
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu May 29 2025 07:57 am

I understand the intent, it just doesn't make sense. If a black person kills a white person because they are white, is that also a "hate crime"?

I'd think so, yes.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

Exactly. I remember a few years ago when it was vogue to
describe something as a 'hate crime.' Isn't all crime
hate crime? You don't love your neighbor, so you steal
their property, burn their home, kill them, etc.

The intent of the law was that a crime was perpetrated on someone
*because* of their race or other protected status.

It's the difference between "let's kill this guy because he's an
asshole" versus "let's kill this guy because he's
black/muslim/gay/trans".

But, it can be loosely applied all too often - the same way everyone
except actual domestic terrorists can be called domestic terrorists.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Arelor wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Also, a lot of things are defined as illegal just because it suits the government, but that does not mean they are immoral. For example, tax evasion in tax heavy regimes is an act of self-defense but they will
try very hard to convince the population that it is bad because it is illegal.

It's also depriving the body politic of money that should be used to
provide for the common good, which is why it's bad.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: free speech
By: poindexter FORTRAN to jimmylogan on Fri May 30 2025 07:51 am

The intent of the law was that a crime was perpetrated on someone
*because* of their race or other protected status.

It's the difference between "let's kill this guy because he's an
asshole" versus "let's kill this guy because he's
black/muslim/gay/trans".

any killing is a bad, and all murders should be met with the same strict punishment.

But, it can be loosely applied all too often - the same way everyone
except actual domestic terrorists can be called domestic terrorists.

are you talking about liberals who riot, damage people and property and spray paint swastikas?
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Josh Bailey wrote to Gamgee <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Gamgee to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 08:56 pm

I'm forced to have 'British' as my nationality as legally it is
correct. However i have the right to state my ethnicity as Welsh as
that is legally recognised and also biological fact as i am nativly
from Wales. One day an Independant Wales, Scotland, England and a
unified Ireland will happen and we will all be happy and free.

You really should learn how to quote some of the message you are
replying to, so that there is some context available to help others know
what you are referring to...

Sure, you can state your ethnicity all you want, and I didn't say you couldn't. But you *ARE* from the U.K., and you don't get to "identify"
as to where you are from.. It's just a simple fact, and not up for
debate, nor a matter of opinion.

I don't know much about the odds of those 4 nations all becoming
independent, but I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for it to
happen. In fact I'd bet a lot of money that it *won't* happen... ;-)

Anyway, welcome aboard. I have Scottish/Welsh ancestry myself, although
my family tree has been traced back to my ancestors' arrival in the
mid-1600's in what is now Massachusetts, USA, and I therefore have no
problem "identifying" as American. ;-)



... Facts cannot prevail against faith, or adamant folly.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Josh Bailey to MRO on Tue Jun 03 2025 04:37 pm

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 07:52 pm

Not all of this happened in Wales specifically though? Wales is politically separate from other parts of the UK in terms of Wales having its own

i'm sure all kinds of things happen there.

they have stop and search right? that's a violation of rights. they shouldn't stop you and search you without a good reason.

healthcare in Wales that is even more free than what you can get in England.

*free
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Gamgee to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:28 pm

I don't know how to quote tbh on here so i won't until i know how lol.

I'm ethnically Welsh and Wales is a country so i may be in the UK physically and legally a citizen iw ould never say i was from the UK. It would be like saying i was from North America instead of saying Canada, or USA or mexico.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:27 pm

You don't need to pay for prescriptions in Wales or Scotland unlike England where you have to.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Foriest Jan Smith on Mon Jun 02 2025 03:01 pm

Is it wrong for me to have a 'slant' of prejudice against people of color because of my life's experiences? I'm pushing 50 and the experiences keep coming and are still occuring.

Until someone has worked with a group of blacks and been the minority, or sat in a lunchroom being the only white person and heard the word Ngr spoken more than I can count. In my opinion, they have no opinion. Racism is not a one way street. If I don't have to go into Brown Town, I don't.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Josh Bailey wrote to MRO <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:27 pm

You don't need to pay for prescriptions in Wales or Scotland unlike England where you have to.

Learn how to quote when you reply.



... So easy, a child could do it. Child sold separately.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Quoting Foriest Jan Smith to Jimmylogan <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: jimmylogan to Foriest Jan Smith on Tue May 27 2025 08:29:29

But on that same note I also don't CARE if they're being forced to
take it down. People like that should feel unwelcome to have those opinions, in my opinion.

I'll never be mistaken for a moderator, but I don't seem to be able to
follow your conversation. Your reply doesn't really contain any context
for me to grab onto.

Have a great day!

... Great minds think alike; small minds run together

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
---
þ Synchronet þ CJ's Place, Orange City, FL - cjsplace.thruhere.net

Quoting Josh Bailey to Mro <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 04:15 pm

I do not identify as British or being from the 'uk' ewww. I am Welsh
only and we have freedom of speech more than any other country,
especially America and that is the truth in my humble opinion. Diolch
yn fawr

The key words are 'your opinion'. Not neccesarily a correct opinion, and
not neccesarily a humble opinion. Of course, we all think our own
nationalities are better than others don't we?

So I said, "Yes Miranda, Wales is a part of the United Kingdom". Then
she said, well yes they do trample free speech, don't they.

Croeso

... Fieri dresses like The Hamburglar suffering a midlife crisis.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
---
þ Synchronet þ CJ's Place, Orange City, FL - cjsplace.thruhere.net

Quoting Josh Bailey to Gamgee <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Gamgee to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 08:56 pm

I'm forced to have 'British' as my nationality as legally it is
correct. However i have the right to state my ethnicity as Welsh as
that is legally recognised and also biological fact as i am nativly
from Wales. One day an Independant Wales, Scotland, England and a
unified Ireland will happen and we will all be happy and free.

And one day this may come to pass, but until then ~ You are from the
United Kingdom.

Have a great day!

... "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" - HAL

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
---
þ Synchronet þ CJ's Place, Orange City, FL - cjsplace.thruhere.net

Quoting Josh Bailey to Gamgee <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Gamgee to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:28 pm

I don't know how to quote tbh on here so i won't until i know how lol.

I'm ethnically Welsh and Wales is a country so i may be in the UK physically and legally a citizen iw ould never say i was from the UK.
It would be like saying i was from North America instead of saying
Canada, or USA or mexico.

You are a constant source of amusement.

Thanks!

... A feature is a bug with seniority.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
---
þ Synchronet þ CJ's Place, Orange City, FL - cjsplace.thruhere.net

Quoting Josh Bailey to Mro <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 03 2025 09:27 pm

You don't need to pay for prescriptions in Wales or Scotland unlike England where you have to.

Educate me.

Who exactly does pay for prescriptions in Wales and or Scotland? I
don't think they just appear on trees after the prescription is
written. Do you plant them and then pick the produce? Wait, maybe
someone else pays for them...

Have a great day.

... Great minds think alike; small minds run together

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
---
þ Synchronet þ CJ's Place, Orange City, FL - cjsplace.thruhere.net

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Josh Bailey to Gamgee on Tue Jun 03 2025 10:33 pm

I don't know how to quote tbh on here so i won't until i know how lol.

To start, have you tried looking at the help in the editor you're using?

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Cougar428 wrote to FORIEST JAN SMITH <=-

Quoting Foriest Jan Smith to Jimmylogan <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: jimmylogan to Foriest Jan Smith on Tue May 27 2025 08:29:29

But on that same note I also don't CARE if they're being forced to
take it down. People like that should feel unwelcome to have those opinions, in my opinion.

I'll never be mistaken for a moderator, but I don't seem to be able to
follow your conversation. Your reply doesn't really contain any
context for me to grab onto.

Yup, this seems to be a common theme with the noobs lately. Hopefully
they can learn how to quote sometime soon.



... Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

It's also depriving the body politic of money that should be used to
provide for the common good, which is why it's bad.

That would only be true if we accepted that the government has a legitimate claim to authority, which is debatable.

ie. do you think it is ethical for a political party that got in power with 23% of the votes to build infrastructure which is clearly not
needed while politicians and contractors divert 50% of the budget of
each project to their pockets?

When people condemns tax evasion they do so based on the idealized
model of what the State is and what it does represent instead of what
the government *actually is* and how it behaves in practice.

I'd claim that the claim to authority is valid, but grift, while
damaging isn't a reason to deny the claim.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Foriest Jan Smith wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: jimmylogan to Foriest Jan Smith on Tue May 27 2025 08:29:29

But on that same note I also don't CARE if they're being forced to take it down. People like that should feel unwelcome to have those opinions, in my opinion.

You didn't quot what I said, so I assume you are talking about
a Nazi flag?

If not, then what?

If so, you might disagree with it, but do you agree with them having
the legal right to believe and say what they want?



... WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: free speech
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Arelor on Wed Jun 04 2025 05:13 pm

I'd claim that the claim to authority is valid, but grift, while
damaging isn't a reason to deny the claim.

It is easy.

In a modern nation-state it is understood that the legitimacy of authority comes from the fact they represent the interests of the people, who delegates power in the government. I don't agrtee but let's follow with the argument.

If a government does NOT represent the interest of the voters then you cannot say they are using the power the people delegated on it as intended. If they are outright abusing such power and not representing the people then they don't get to claim they work with the authority of the people and therefore nobody must take their ethical claims seriously.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

@MSGID: <6842C68A.37989.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <6840E135.1714.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
Re: Re: free speech
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Arelor
on Wed Jun 04 2025 05:13 pm

I'd claim that the claim to authority is valid, but grift, while
damaging isn't a reason to deny the claim.

It is easy.

In a modern nation-state it is understood that the legitimacy of
authority comes from the fact they represent the interests of the
people, who delegates power in the government. I don't agrtee but let's follow with the argument.

If a government does NOT represent the interest of the voters then you cannot say they are using the power the people delegated on it as intended. If they are outright abusing such power and not representing
the people then they don't get to claim they work with the authority of the people and therefore nobody must take their ethical claims
seriously.

I would go one further.

If the government is acting against the interests of the nation, and
by that I specifically mean its people, then it is *treasonous* and
should be treated as such.

A government that treats its people as hostile, has not only lost its legitimacy, but its right to continue. The people would be right to
treat it as an enemy.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

MRO wrote to Josh Bailey <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Josh Bailey to MRO on Mon Jun 02 2025 01:23 pm

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Foriest Jan Smith on Mon Jun 02 2025 03:01 pm

Free speech or the world will collapse!

you're in the uk. what do you know about free speech

Wow! MRO, you often (okay, USUALLY) post things I do not agree with. But in this instance....

TOUCHE!

Well played Sir! Well played!



... Remember... RAM is NOT an insertion technique!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ The Lost Chord BBS - Cheyenne, WY

Josh Bailey wrote to MRO <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Josh Bailey on Mon Jun 02 2025 07:52 pm

Not all of this happened in Wales specifically though? Wales is politically separate from other parts of the UK in terms of Wales
having its own Government and Parliament as a devolved constituent country. We have healthcare in Wales that is even more free than what
you can get in England.

---

So.... there's "free" and then there's "more free?"

Fascinating.


... "42? 7 and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?!"
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ The Lost Chord BBS - Cheyenne, WY

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Weatherman to MRO on Sat Jun 07 2025 03:05 am

MRO wrote to Josh Bailey <=-

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: Josh Bailey to MRO on Mon Jun 02 2025 01:23 pm

Re: Re: Re:free speech
By: MRO to Foriest Jan Smith on Mon Jun 02 2025 03:01 pm

Free speech or the world will collapse!

you're in the uk. what do you know about free speech

Wow! MRO, you often (okay, USUALLY) post things I do not agree with. But in this instance....

TOUCHE!

Well played Sir! Well played!

dude you sure got some balls to talk about not agreeing with what i post.
i still got the screenshots of that little girl picture you posted in irc on bbs-scene years ago.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::