drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2025-03-25 00:54:31 +01:00
parent 3d11ef05d8
commit 21973f4724
31 changed files with 2096 additions and 1972 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
free_speech.md
View file

@ -2,9 +2,7 @@
Freedom of speech means there is no responsibility and absolutely no punishments or obstacles (such as [censorship](censorship.md)), imposed by anyone (government, [corporations](corporation.md), [culture](cutlure.md), society, technology, ...), against merely talking about anything, making any public statement and sharing or publication any kind of [information](information.md) at all. Adopting free speech is not about increasing the degree of speech tolerance as many erroneously think, it's rather a complete change of values and a switch of mentality, letting go of old, primitive kind of thinking and making the leap to a new intellectual level, to absolutely eliminating the very concept of limiting or punishing any kind of expression, like ridding an animals of its chains instead of just speculating about how long the chain should be, therefore **free speech has to be by definition absolute and have no limit**, otherwise it's not free speech but controlled, limited speech -- trying to add exceptions to free speech is like trying to limit to whom a [free software](free_software.md) license is granted; doing so immediately makes such software non-free; free speech "with limits" is like free lunch for a low price or vegetarian food with only a little meat in it -- it's not the real thing, it just wants to be called *X* without actually being *X*. **Free speech also comes with zero responsibility** exactly by definition, as responsibility implies some forms of punishment; free speech means exactly one can say anything without fearing any burden of responsibility -- if anyone says "free speech comes with responsibility", he has absolutely no clue what he's talking about, he is not against censorship, he just advocates self censorship (i.e. censorship done internally rather than externally). If you unable to say something or afraid of saying it because of any kind of punishment -- for example sharing someone's private information or a pirated movie, saying that you hate your boss, that you'd like to fuck your cousin, that there is a bomb on a plane, that you'd like to kill someone -- you have no free speech. True freedom of speech is an essential attribute of a mature society, sadly it hasn't been implemented yet and with the [SJW](sjw.md) [cancer](cancer.md) the latest trend in society is towards eliminating free speech rather than supporting it (see e.g. [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). Speech is being widely censored by extremist groups (e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) and [corporations](corporation.md), see also [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)) and states -- depending on country there exist laws against so called "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)", questioning official versions of history (see e.g. [Holocaust](holocaust.md) denial laws present in many EU states), criticizing powerful people (for example it is illegal to criticize or insult that huge inbred dick Thai king), sharing of useful information such as books ([copyright](copyright.md) censorship) etc. Free speech nowadays is being eliminated by the strategy of creating an exception to free speech, usually called "hate speech", and then classifying any undesired speech under such label and silencing it.
The basic principle of free speech says that **if you don't support freedom of speech which you dislike, you don't support free speech**. I.e. speech that you hate does not equal hate speech.
Free speech is based on the observation that firstly limiting speech is extremely harmful, and secondly that **speech itself never harms anyone**, it is only actions that harm and we should therefore focus on the actions themselves. A death threat or call for someone's murder doesn't kill -- sure, it may lead to someone being killed, but so may for example playing sports. If any kind of speaking leads to people dying, you have a deep issue within your society that definitely does NOT lie in not applying enough censorship; trying to solve your issue with censorship here is like trying to solve depression by physically deforming the depressed man's face into a smile and pretending he's OK. Offending someone by pointing out he's an idiot also doesn't count as speech causing harm, it's just a sad case of someone who is unable to bear hearing truth (or a lie), in which case he shouldn't be listening to people any more than someone with epilepsy should be watching seizure inducing videos.
The basic principle of free speech says that **if you don't support freedom of speech which you dislike, you don't support free speech**. I.e. speech that you hate does not equal hate speech. Free speech is based on the observation that firstly limiting speech is extremely harmful, and secondly that **speech itself never harms anyone**, it is only actions that harm and we should therefore focus on the actions themselves. A though itself is never harmful and speech is just shared thought; to limit speech is to limit sharing thoughts and therefore **thought control**. Of course thoughts can have good or bad consequences, but we should be focused on learning to derive good consequences from whatever thoughts occur rather than restricting thinking. A death threat or call for someone's murder doesn't kill -- sure, it may lead to someone being killed, but so may for example playing sports. If any kind of speaking leads to people dying, you have a deep issue within your society that definitely does NOT lie in not applying enough censorship; trying to solve your issue with censorship here is like trying to solve depression by physically deforming the depressed man's face into a smile and pretending he's OK. Offending someone by pointing out he's an idiot also doesn't count as speech causing harm, it's just a sad case of someone who is unable to bear hearing truth (or a lie), in which case he shouldn't be listening to people any more than someone with epilepsy should be watching seizure inducing videos.
Some idiots (like that [xkcd](xkcd.md) #1357) say that free speech is only about legality, i.e. about what's merely allowed to be said by the law or what speech the law "protects". Of course, **this is completely wrong** and just reflects this society's obsession with law; true free speech mustn't be limited by anything -- if you're not allowed to say something, it doesn't matter too much what it is that's preventing you, your speech is not free. By the twisted logic of "free speech with consequences" you always have free speech, even in North Korea -- you aren't PHYSICALLY prevented to speak, you just have to bear responsibility for your speech, in this case a bullet. A bullet is a bullet, be it from a government gun or a drug cartel gun, a gun pointed at one's face always makes one not want to talk, no matter who the gun belongs to. If for example it is theoretically legal to be politically incorrect and criticize the LGBT gospel but you [de-facto](de_facto.md) can't do it because the LGBT fascist [SJWs](sjw.md) would [cancel](cancel_culture.md) you and maybe even physically lynch you, your speech is not free. It is important to realize **we mustn't tie free speech to legal definition** (also considering that a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) aims to eliminate law itself), i.e. it isn't enough to make speech free only in legal sense, a **TRUE free speech plainly and simply means anyone can literally say what he wants without any fear at all**. Our goal is to make speech free [culturally](culture.md), i.e. teach people that we should let others speak freely, even those -- and especially those -- who we disagree with.