The western powers claim this was an attack on their “free speech”, but if so, it was only backup and catalyst to their own long-term goals of eliminating that value in the first place. Even now, people who question this narrative are being silenced through every available legal method, and the scope of such methods is only expanding. European governments want us to live in double think—concurrently believing that we’re defending ourselves from an enemy who hates our freedom of speech (as opposed to what we have to say) and supporting the governments’ intrusion on the same freedoms. There’s nothing rationalist about it, even if you 100% believe the official story about the origin of the attackers you’re socially required to respond in a profoundly irrational manner lest you be thought of as a “retarded islamophobic nationalist”.
I know there is a lot of controversy about privacy, but in what way are western governments acting against free speech?
It also seems like you are suggesting that the attacks might not have been caused by islamists, and suggesting that if the attackers are islamists then islamophobia is the rational response which is being suppressed. Seems like an odd combination.
I know there is a lot of controversy about privacy, but in what way are western governments acting against free speech?
Previously the UK moved to go near Chinese internet censorship by introducing a general internet censorship infrastructure and using it to censor things like videos of female ejaculation.
Now Cameron tries to be more totalitarian then China by banning general encryption.
Speak for yourself—I don’t support government intrusion on free speech at all. But even the most obnoxious proponent of banning offensive speech, campaign finance laws, strong libel laws, banning advertising for cigarettes, the “Fairness Doctrine”, and other such issues doesn’t go murdering a dozen cartoonists in cold blood.
The western powers claim this was an attack on their “free speech”, but if so, it was only backup and catalyst to their own long-term goals of eliminating that value in the first place. Even now, people who question this narrative are being silenced through every available legal method, and the scope of such methods is only expanding. European governments want us to live in double think—concurrently believing that we’re defending ourselves from an enemy who hates our freedom of speech (as opposed to what we have to say) and supporting the governments’ intrusion on the same freedoms. There’s nothing rationalist about it, even if you 100% believe the official story about the origin of the attackers you’re socially required to respond in a profoundly irrational manner lest you be thought of as a “retarded islamophobic nationalist”.
How sure you are that’s actually irrationality, rather than rationality with a different utility function than yours?
I know there is a lot of controversy about privacy, but in what way are western governments acting against free speech?
It also seems like you are suggesting that the attacks might not have been caused by islamists, and suggesting that if the attackers are islamists then islamophobia is the rational response which is being suppressed. Seems like an odd combination.
Dieudonné arrested over Facebook post on Paris gunman – French comedian accused of justifying terrorism after linking attacker to tribute slogan by writing ‘I feel like Charlie Coulibaly’
Sad.
Previously the UK moved to go near Chinese internet censorship by introducing a general internet censorship infrastructure and using it to censor things like videos of female ejaculation.
Now Cameron tries to be more totalitarian then China by banning general encryption.
Speak for yourself—I don’t support government intrusion on free speech at all. But even the most obnoxious proponent of banning offensive speech, campaign finance laws, strong libel laws, banning advertising for cigarettes, the “Fairness Doctrine”, and other such issues doesn’t go murdering a dozen cartoonists in cold blood.