Are you feeling safer?

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 17, 2026, 12:39:11 PM

Look at the countries that really don’t have freedom of speech and see what they do.  Then ask yourself if you can see that happening in yours.  Some might say it already is.

Name them.
Go on.

I'll start.

1. Iran

You continue.
This is an interesting game.

2. Russia

Quote from: disputeone on January 17, 2026, 11:03:19 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 17, 2026, 12:39:11 PM

Look at the countries that really don’t have freedom of speech and see what they do.  Then ask yourself if you can see that happening in yours.  Some might say it already is.

Name them.
Go on.

I'll start.

1. Iran

You continue.
This is an interesting game.

2. Russia

Very good.
Exactly as I thought.

Does that mean you agree or I’m that predictable?  It could be both.

N Korea is probably the most extreme example. 

Hungary should be a warning for people who think it can’t happen to them. Where freedom of speech is supposedly guaranteed by the constitution, but has been systematically attacked.

This is the real reason freedom of speech is important:

https://theconversation.com/searching-reporters-homes-suing-journalists-and-repressing-citizen-dissent-are-well-known-steps-toward-autocracy-268747

One of the real reasons, I agree.

One of the real reasons, I agree.

Methinks you miss the point.

The accredited, blue check mark, journalist professionals shall have freedom of speech.

The peasants shall not, and they shall be put in their place by reliable agents of the government on a regular basis.

OH no, I do not miss the point. I know that up until pretty recently "journalist" was a blue collar job. You didn't need a degree, you just needed to be the kind of person who'd go after a story, who dug into stuff, like a private detective who writes. Now "journalist" is mostly something the children of the wealthy aspire to so they can get their faces on the TV.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 18, 2026, 08:00:07 AM

One of the real reasons, I agree.

Methinks you miss the point.

The accredited, blue check mark, journalist professionals shall have freedom of speech.

The peasants shall not, and they shall be put in their place by reliable agents of the government on a regular basis.

Then came the more expensive "gold checkmark"... on twitter/x, which is apparently a pricey $1000 a month!

But twitter blue being $8us a month for web users and $11us a month for mobile users is quite an odd way to price things. People who can might use the web version... (and the techies can use it on mobile but with a fake ua).

Then came the more expensive "gold checkmark"... on twitter/x, which is apparently a pricey $1000 a month!

But twitter blue being $8us a month for web users and $11us a month for mobile users is quite an odd way to price things. People who can might use the web version... (and the techies can use it on mobile but with a fake ua).

Your contributions are somehow soothing.

Does that mean you agree or I’m that predictable?  It could be both.

It was just the answer I expected.
If we went down the list it would be the list of countries FVEY considers threats.

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 17, 2026, 10:46:05 PM

This is the real reason freedom of speech is important:

https://theconversation.com/searching-reporters-homes-suing-journalists-and-repressing-citizen-dissent-are-well-known-steps-toward-autocracy-268747

One of the real reasons, I agree.

But it is the reason why it’s essential for a properly functioning democracy.

Authoritarians don’t generally care about what people say about some poor minority group.  Why would they?  Many happily use that for their own purposes. 

They do care what people say about them. They want to control the narrative and suppress opposition.  Not just journalists, but opposition parties, protestors, whistleblowers, sometimes lawyers, sometimes scientists, etc, etc.  Basically anyone who will stand up to say that what they are doing is bad and wrong.

It doesn’t mean I approve of clamping down on people being offensive, I can be pretty offensive myself.  But I do think there’s far too much talk about that side of things, and not nearly enough about the really sinister shit that’s an actual threat. 

The article you posted in the other thread briefly mentioned what real censorship looks like and then dismissed it as some that’s not going to happen.  Really?  Is he sure about that?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on January 18, 2026, 08:00:07 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 17, 2026, 10:46:05 PM

This is the real reason freedom of speech is important:

https://theconversation.com/searching-reporters-homes-suing-journalists-and-repressing-citizen-dissent-are-well-known-steps-toward-autocracy-268747

One of the real reasons, I agree.

But it is the reason why it’s essential for a properly functioning democracy.

Authoritarians don’t generally care about what people say about some poor minority group.  Why would they?  Many happily use that for their own purposes. 

They do care what people say about them. They want to control the narrative and suppress opposition.  Not just journalists, but opposition parties, protestors, whistleblowers, sometimes lawyers, sometimes scientists, etc, etc.  Basically anyone who will stand up to say that what they are doing is bad and wrong.

It doesn’t mean I approve of clamping down on people being offensive, I can be pretty offensive myself.  But I do think there’s far too much talk about that side of things, and not nearly enough about the really sinister shit that’s an actual threat. 

The article you posted in the other thread briefly mentioned what real censorship looks like and then dismissed it as some that’s not going to happen.  Really?  Is he sure about that?

Are you saying that the ruling elite is worried about what the professional journalists are saying but not worried about what the man in the street is saying?

No.  I’m saying that authoritarians care about what we say about them, not what we say about gay people or black people.

I thought that was clear. 

No.  I’m saying that authoritarians care about what we say about them, not what we say about gay people or black people.

I thought that was clear.

It was.

As mud.

It is true they don't care what is said about brown people, they just use it as an excuse to clamp down on the little man and at the same time as cover for their plundering.

I'm not sure why you think I was disagreeing with you. Maybe because I do not respect mainstream journalists? I think they do not speak truth to power, they work for power. We've got the ones on the left and the ones on the right and very few interested in truth.

I'm not sure why you think I was disagreeing with you. Maybe because I do not respect mainstream journalists? I think they do not speak truth to power, they work for power. We've got the ones on the left and the ones on the right and very few interested in truth.

Tru dat.

untrue

that's a false equivalence

the "left news" is left of the right, but not the "true left".





but what is true, is that few are interested in the truth.

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/

What is true left? Communists?

Stop being retarted. Left is short for left of center. Right is short for right of center. The leftish media work for the Democrats, and Labour, and whatever leftish parties exist in other places. They work for the NGOs, too. Same for the right. 

no
leftish media don't work for labour


that's the trick
the illusion of choice
the illusion of equivalence
the illusion of bothsiding



overton window says being left of magahat land doesn't make you left














if we look, most MSM "left" are just center.
and they play the center because big corp won't let them actually tell the public who's the boogieman.
just keep them angry enough to keep infighting at the bottom.

No.  I’m saying that authoritarians care about what we say about them, not what we say about gay people or black people.

I thought that was clear.

What if the authoritarians are clever enough to secure popular support for speech laws that benefit them by wrapping it up as an issue about black people or gays.

All efforts to control speech, no matter how virtuous you believe the intentions are, are authoritarian in the purest sense, by definition.

Yep.



This is how they get you.

no
leftish media don't work for labour

Not "labour" (obv I am USA USA we don't spell it that way). I capitalized "Labour" for a reason. It is a political party.

You think you are showing me something with your graph that counters what I have been saying with words. You are showing what I was saying with a graph, which is nice and shiny, but the entire neutral area is bullshit.

AND the graph has Buzzfeed farther to the left than NPR. lol

Yes
So by definitons leftist media is actualky centrist media.
Your initial equivilation is unequivocal.



And i did two graphs because they are subjective.
These monkeys have cnn as left-ish.
Ive been seeing youtube shoutout ads for brown news filter that supposedly supposed to be more accurste.

What? Use English, please.

CNN is leftish.

I don't know what a brown news filter is.

These monkeys have cnn as left-ish.

Holy snowballs!

What? Use English, please.

CNN is leftish.

I don't know what a brown news filter is.

CNN is about as leftish as upper brass democrats schumer and pelosi
CNN is about as leftish as elder cuomo who had the support of billionaires and republicans and trump
CNN is left of maga.
but since maga is alt right, well, everythign is left of wackoland.


my bad
not brown news
ground news
https://ground.news/

You moved the left/right border at some point, but I haven't. Schumer and Pelosi are left of center.  I do not think everything left of MAGA is wackoland. You are projecting. You think everything right of center is alt right, and have for a long time. Leftish is my word for the progressives, it does not mean leftist (communists).


and now for something completely different

Why do the Chinese need a massive embassy? It seems this is the one thing that most of the UK political parties agree is a bad idea https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cly4r20q1qyt

Why do the Chinese need a massive embassy?

There's a lot of them.

You moved the left/right border at some point, but I haven't. Schumer and Pelosi are left of center.  I do not think everything left of MAGA is wackoland. You are projecting. You think everything right of center is alt right, and have for a long time. Leftish is my word for the progressives, it does not mean leftist (communists).


and now for something completely different

Why do the Chinese need a massive embassy? It seems this is the one thing that most of the UK political parties agree is a bad idea https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cly4r20q1qyt

no
i meant that magaworld/ wackoland is so far right that everything is by default left of them.

no
schumer and pelosi lose on purpose, gate keep the progressives, inside trade all beholden behested to big corp.
they are bastards and are most definitely right of center.

true left IS porgressive
we agree
so by definition, these people are not progressive.


no
the alt right is the alt right.
the right is the right
the center is the center
the left is the left

and everyone on the right who cowtows to maga by definition redefines themselves alt right
and more and more bootlickers showing their colours.

let's take lindsay graham
commonsensing and then boom
sucks the asshole of trump

compared to rand paul romney cheney and the like.
those are right wingers and i would not call them magaland.
they're waiting him out.






chinese embassy needs lots of computers to track all their spies
computers take up space.

my bad
not brown news
ground news
https://ground.news/

Brown news??

:D:D:D:D

thank you for that levity, Kab.

Kabool, I do not think anyone on the left is for progress. Progressive is something they identify as, and then anything they propose is progress.

Pelosi and Schumer are on the left. Just because you don't like them, doesn't change that they're platforms are on the left. Besides insider trading (which is how most of these people become truly wealthy after elected) name a rightwing policy either of them have promoted. They are on the left on climate/environment, social justice, LGBT, and healthcare.