• free speech

    From jimmylogan@VERT/DIGDIST to MRO on Tue May 20 20:38:47 2025
    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
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to jimmylogan on Wed May 21 23:23:45 2025
    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
  • From jimmylogan@VERT/DIGDIST to Boraxman on Fri May 23 11:33:09 2025
    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
  • From Foriest Jan Smith@VERT/NGMBBS to jimmylogan on Sat May 24 01:50:56 2025
    Re: free speech
    By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue May 20 2025 20:38:47

    ---
    þ Synchronet þ Enigma BBS -=- enigma-bbs.com
  • From Foriest Jan Smith@VERT/NGMBBS to jimmylogan on Sat May 24 01:52:45 2025
    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
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to jimmylogan on Sat May 24 12:12:00 2025
    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
  • From jimmylogan@VERT/DIGDIST to Foriest Jan Smith on Tue May 27 08:29:29 2025
    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
  • From jimmylogan@VERT/DIGDIST to Boraxman on Tue May 27 08:29:29 2025
    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
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANTIR to jimmylogan on Tue May 27 12:00:51 2025
    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
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to jimmylogan on Wed May 28 08:48:00 2025
    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
  • From Bogomips@VERT to Boraxman on Wed May 28 07:02:53 2025
    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
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed May 28 14:49:10 2025
    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 :::
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to MRO on Thu May 29 07:57:00 2025
    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
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Boraxman on Wed May 28 22:27:25 2025
    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 :::
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Boraxman on Wed May 28 20:49:19 2025
    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
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to jimmylogan on Fri May 30 07:51:07 2025
    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 :.
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Arelor on Fri May 30 07:51:07 2025
    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 :.
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri May 30 18:57:16 2025
    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 :::
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANTIR to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 3 21:28:00 2025
    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
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Josh Bailey on Tue Jun 3 21:27:56 2025
    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 :::
  • From Josh Bailey@VERT to Gamgee on Tue Jun 3 22:33:15 2025
    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
  • From Josh Bailey@VERT to MRO on Tue Jun 3 22:35:04 2025
    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
  • From Bogomips@VERT to MRO on Wed Jun 4 06:06:37 2025
    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
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANTIR to Josh Bailey on Wed Jun 4 08:12:36 2025
    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
  • From Cougar428@VERT/CJSPLACE to FORIEST JAN SMITH on Wed Jun 4 09:26:31 2025
    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
  • From Cougar428@VERT/CJSPLACE to JOSH BAILEY on Wed Jun 4 09:26:31 2025
    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
  • From Cougar428@VERT/CJSPLACE to JOSH BAILEY on Wed Jun 4 09:26:32 2025
    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
  • From Cougar428@VERT/CJSPLACE to JOSH BAILEY on Wed Jun 4 09:26:32 2025
    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
  • From Cougar428@VERT/CJSPLACE to JOSH BAILEY on Wed Jun 4 09:26:32 2025
    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
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Josh Bailey on Wed Jun 4 09:57:18 2025
    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
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANTIR to Cougar428 on Wed Jun 4 11:58:06 2025
    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
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Arelor on Wed Jun 4 17:13:41 2025
    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 :.
  • From jimmylogan@VERT/DIGDIST to Foriest Jan Smith on Wed Jun 4 21:23:38 2025
    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
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANTIR to poindexter FORTRAN on Fri Jun 6 05:44:26 2025
    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
  • From Boraxman@VERT/MSRDBBS to Arelor on Sat Jun 7 10:22:00 2025
    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
  • From Weatherman@VERT/TLCBBS to MRO on Sat Jun 7 03:05:00 2025
    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
  • From Weatherman@VERT/TLCBBS to Josh Bailey on Sat Jun 7 03:08:00 2025
    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
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Weatherman on Sat Jun 7 14:06:42 2025
    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 :::