I Believe In You

[CMDR_Bob]

@Slash Gallagher: I don't think you allow an impasse on "free speech". You do gotta draw the line when it stumbles into the territory of propaganda and/or a "call to arms", and I think that's where it needs to end. Now, as to how it should be defined as either, that's really going to come down to the common sense and higher reasoning of the chosen representatives. I would think, though, as long as there are people who want to tell you what is okay to say according to them, it's probably not gonna happen that way.

As for guns, that's a tricky issue. People say "b-but muh Australia" as if socio-economic and geographical positioning don't have an effect, among other things. Canada is a hat on the US, yet our gun violence isn't as bad as theirs, even despite the surplus of guns either way. So, what the Hell? As well, statistically-speaking, something like 60% of all "gun violence" in the US is suicide-related. Figure out that one.

@Yukaphile: By whose authority? As I said, it's a regional issue. Do people get away with crimes nowadays? Sure. Is it something any of us should be used to? No. But, you're practically saying "well, it happened, and even if we didn't want it to, it's still everybody's fault that it happened." Okay, bud, where were you when it happened? Why didn't you prevent it from happening? Since, y'know, the rest of the world is going to take the fall for it, that includes you, bud.

Not so easy to cast doubt on the rest of the world when you're occupying the same relative region of the universe, eh?

[Yukaphile]

It's not everybody's fault. But it's our failure as a species. Because those and not recognizing those who misrepresent and lie about it today is part of the general flaws of our race. The pain, the suffering, the greed, the opportunism, the ambition. I dream of a just world, but a just world means those who never paid for their crimes will. Yet how does that reconcile with my spiritual beliefs? I was raised Christian, more or less, yet I don't hold to organized Catholicism anymore. One problem is the abuse of Christ's teachings in the hands of the wicked. The second is that I find it... perhaps a bit too forgiving? Sometimes true, impartial justices demands a certain level of ruthlessness. Just a little. The problem here also itself is that... the universe is yuuuuuuuuge. Billions of light-years, compared to, as who was it that said of leaders who wanna seize land here, a fraction of a speck of dust. We are tiny and irrelevant, so we should be trying what we can do to make life happier for one another, not push others down. If I got a billion dollars, one thing I'd do is put a thread here offering $100,000 to everyone on this forum. Do you know how much that would help? I wanna help. My resources are limited, but I want to. And I can't. And that's something else that eats at me, not just those who get away with it, but those who have the power to help, and don't, and those who do, and don't have the power.

[Karha of Honor]

@Slash Gallagher: I don't think you allow an impasse on "free speech". You do gotta draw the line when it stumbles into the territory of propaganda and/or a "call to arms", and I think that's where it needs to end. Now, as to how it should be defined as either, that's really going to come down to the common sense and higher reasoning of the chosen representatives. I would think, though, as long as there are people who want to tell you what is okay to say according to them, it's probably not gonna happen that way.

As for guns, that's a tricky issue. People say "b-but muh Australia" as if socio-economic and geographical positioning don't have an effect, among other things. Canada is a hat on the US, yet our gun violence isn't as bad as theirs, even despite the surplus of guns either way. So, what the Hell? As well, statistically-speaking, something like 60% of all "gun violence" in the US is suicide-related. Figure out that one.

Propaganda is not easy to define and a culture of free speech can counter it.

[Draco Dracul]

@Slash Gallagher: I don't think you allow an impasse on "free speech". You do gotta draw the line when it stumbles into the territory of propaganda and/or a "call to arms", and I think that's where it needs to end. Now, as to how it should be defined as either, that's really going to come down to the common sense and higher reasoning of the chosen representatives. I would think, though, as long as there are people who want to tell you what is okay to say according to them, it's probably not gonna happen that way.

As for guns, that's a tricky issue. People say "b-but muh Australia" as if socio-economic and geographical positioning don't have an effect, among other things. Canada is a hat on the US, yet our gun violence isn't as bad as theirs, even despite the surplus of guns either way. So, what the Hell? As well, statistically-speaking, something like 60% of all "gun violence" in the US is suicide-related. Figure out that one.

Propaganda is not easy to define and a culture of free speech can counter it.

A culture of free speech does nothing to counter propaganda, it just opens more sources for it.

[Admiral X]

That's nonsensical. Freer speech means less limitations on sources of information to counter propaganda.

[Draco Dracul]

That's nonsensical. Freer speech means less limitations on sources of information to counter propaganda.

And it means more false sources that spread their own propaganda. It also means that a propagandist can you multiple channels to make the information look more official at a fraction of the cost.

[Admiral X]

And it means more false sources that spread their own propaganda. It also means that a propagandist can you multiple channels to make the information look more official at a fraction of the cost.

And yet still better access to the truth. Limitations on free speech are what the propagandist would desire, as this would mean limiting access to the truth, and keeping it from being discussed.

[Karha of Honor]

@Slash Gallagher: I don't think you allow an impasse on "free speech". You do gotta draw the line when it stumbles into the territory of propaganda and/or a "call to arms", and I think that's where it needs to end. Now, as to how it should be defined as either, that's really going to come down to the common sense and higher reasoning of the chosen representatives. I would think, though, as long as there are people who want to tell you what is okay to say according to them, it's probably not gonna happen that way.

As for guns, that's a tricky issue. People say "b-but muh Australia" as if socio-economic and geographical positioning don't have an effect, among other things. Canada is a hat on the US, yet our gun violence isn't as bad as theirs, even despite the surplus of guns either way. So, what the Hell? As well, statistically-speaking, something like 60% of all "gun violence" in the US is suicide-related. Figure out that one.

Propaganda is not easy to define and a culture of free speech can counter it.

A culture of free speech does nothing to counter propaganda, it just opens more sources for it.

How does a culture of everyone watching their mouth arrive at the truth or solutions?
What are the benefits of doing that to gain the same in a place where wery few have the licence to shape ideas?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

@Slash Gallagher: I don't think you allow an impasse on "free speech". You do gotta draw the line when it stumbles into the territory of propaganda and/or a "call to arms", and I think that's where it needs to end. Now, as to how it should be defined as either, that's really going to come down to the common sense and higher reasoning of the chosen representatives. I would think, though, as long as there are people who want to tell you what is okay to say according to them, it's probably not gonna happen that way.

As for guns, that's a tricky issue. People say "b-but muh Australia" as if socio-economic and geographical positioning don't have an effect, among other things. Canada is a hat on the US, yet our gun violence isn't as bad as theirs, even despite the surplus of guns either way. So, what the Hell? As well, statistically-speaking, something like 60% of all "gun violence" in the US is suicide-related. Figure out that one.

Propaganda is not easy to define and a culture of free speech can counter it.

A culture of free speech does nothing to counter propaganda, it just opens more sources for it.

How does a culture of everyone watching their mouth arrive at the truth or solutions?
What are the benefits of doing that to gain the same in a place where wery few have the licence to shape ideas?

I think it's more about not judging people unfairly through misguided stereotypes and unfair generalization. Microaggressions are something we kinda aim to evolve past, but the idea there isn't to have everybody only having stake in being a PC Police to regress prospective discussion.

[Nealithi]

That's nonsensical. Freer speech means less limitations on sources of information to counter propaganda.

Okay I had to check and technically free speech will mean more propaganda. And the reason is in the definition. "It is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

So MSNBC, CNN, Fox News all of them are putting out propaganda. It is just not state mandated propaganda. Heck by definition us arguing which Trek is best is promoting a particular point of view and is thus propaganda. So I have to state that free speech = more propaganda generated.