Free Speech Goes Only One Way
-
Yeah, because only one side cares about language and the words we use. The other side is a bunch of disengenous fuck bags with zero beliefs outside of economics
Conservative economics are not actually good economics. I hate that even liberals like to concede to the “economics” brand that conservatives talk about.
-
Paul Pelosi so deserved that shit though.
For what?
-
Thank you! Seems like very few people understand the concept of free speech.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences, which is seeming what a lot of people believe
wrote last edited by [email protected]No, you are conflating the first amendment, a limited protection of free speech, with free speech itself.
It is very much a violation of free speech, its just not illegal. It still is immoral.
EDIT: fixed second amendment to first amendment
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
Yes
But,
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
-
Conservative economics are not actually good economics. I hate that even liberals like to concede to the “economics” brand that conservatives talk about.
Selling off state assets and cutting taxes for the rich isn't really good economics. Its selling the future of your children to the future trillionaires.
-
Слава Україні, Cлава Палестині.
I sure wouldn't say no if they got rid of Stephen Crowder, since he's the one in this meme.
-
Yes
But,
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Let it go dude. We are here now you don’t need to keep talking about your ex.
It’s virtue signalling at best as the overwhelming majority here agree with you. So what do you have to gain by saying this? You’re literally preaching to the converted.
Surely this isn’t your whole identity.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
That's basically the playbook.
The right cries free speech, but demands everyone else's free speech be removed.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend. Metallica taught me that in 1988.
-
Paul Pelosi so deserved that shit though.
I guess so did Charlie
-
It’s not like democratic presidents do shit about it
But, they shouldn't do shit about it? The president shouldn't be penalizing the media for saying things he didn't like.
I'm not complaining that the Democrat presidents let the media act like assholes, I complain that this administration tries to control the media and the media goes for it.
-
Thank you! Seems like very few people understand the concept of free speech.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences, which is seeming what a lot of people believe
Problem is there's a big undertone of the administration penalizing news organizations that day things that are unwelcome. Interfering with their business dealings, limiting their access to information they need to provide coverage, bending things a bit to help out "news" outlets that are treating him well.
-
Let it go dude. We are here now you don’t need to keep talking about your ex.
It’s virtue signalling at best as the overwhelming majority here agree with you. So what do you have to gain by saying this? You’re literally preaching to the converted.
Surely this isn’t your whole identity.
You gate keeping me from comments against Reddit?
Get bent.
-
You gate keeping me from comments against Reddit?
Get bent.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Nah fam. Carry on if you like just know you’re preaching to the converted, but if that’s what strokes your ego crack on.
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
Every Reich needs a Horst Wessel
-
No, you are conflating the first amendment, a limited protection of free speech, with free speech itself.
It is very much a violation of free speech, its just not illegal. It still is immoral.
EDIT: fixed second amendment to first amendment
I guess I misunderstood something here.
I just don't think you should be able to say whatever you want without any consequences. Eg. Call someone a slur, get punched in the face. I don't think that's a violation of free speech
-
Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
There is some notable discrepancy between how USA citizens describe their (theoretical & practical) "free speech" vs how the rest of the world sees their "free speech" in the same regard.
It's def a complex subject but I don't think a lot of people think USA is at the forefront of this.
(But it is extensively marketed - most countries/cultures/regimes have such tidbits, which differ a lot.) -
Let it go dude. We are here now you don’t need to keep talking about your ex.
It’s virtue signalling at best as the overwhelming majority here agree with you. So what do you have to gain by saying this? You’re literally preaching to the converted.
Surely this isn’t your whole identity.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, talking about you ex (while happily) on Lemmy seems unnecessary, tho it's not like they are expressing an uncommon opinion.
Not sure why they didn't express any opinion on fucking or bending Musky in the same context (it's right there, a perhaps weird omission). -
Conservative economics are not actually good economics. I hate that even liberals like to concede to the “economics” brand that conservatives talk about.
As someone who has actually taken whole assed courses on economics.... What economics?
Whether conservative or liberal, politicians don't make economic decisions, they make political decisions.
I have yet to see any politician who consistently made, or even publicly recognised, the better economic decision.
Economically, a well trained, and healthy population is a good thing. So providing relief for the costs of being healthy through something like a healthcare program, is in everyone's best interest. Ensuring that people can get the training they need to be the most efficient they can be, is in everyone's best interest. These things are good for the economy.
Conservatives make it seem like they're making choices that are good for the economy, and they certainly make statements that try to convince everyone that's the case, but bluntly, they make capitalistic decisions. Decisions that help capitalists. If they can rob, steal, kill, or maim someone to bump profits, they'll do it, and their friends in government will help them do it, and get protection for doing it.
They're not interested in the economy, they're interested in their pocketbook, and whatever make it fatter. Even if the cost is future economic downturn, they'll do it if it bumps profits this quarter.
.... Like firing an entire department to save on the wages of the people that they fired, when those people are still needed, and now you'll need to spend more money to hire replacements for almost all of them, but this quarters numbers will look amazing, and the CEO, and his buddies in the c-suite will get their bonuses, and the shareholders will get a few dollars more per share in dividends this quarter.
They wouldn't know good economics if they were surrounded by it. They can't see that far.
-
Using his wife’s position to do insane levels of insider trading.
