dangerous territory/devil's advocate

[The Dark Monk]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech.  And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free.  End of story.

Today's clue:  Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.

Also, this, as a more basic principle.

And that's exactly what it is.  A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.

Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant.  I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.

What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech.  And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free.  End of story.

Today's clue:  Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.

Also, this, as a more basic principle.

And that's exactly what it is.  A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.

Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant.  I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.

What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.

Yeah, that's nice.  But it wasn't what we were talking about.

And there's no fucking need for "superliminals".  They do it OPENLY, and people DEMAND MORE.

This is the kind of shit that makes me laugh at conspiracy freaks:  They keep spouting about esoteric means to control the population secretly, when the fuckers are doing it RIGHT IN THEIR FUCKING FACES. 

[The Dark Monk]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech.  And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free.  End of story.

Today's clue:  Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.

Also, this, as a more basic principle.

And that's exactly what it is.  A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.

Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant.  I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.

What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.

Yeah, that's nice.  But it wasn't what we were talking about.

And there's no fucking need for "superliminals".  They do it OPENLY, and people DEMAND MORE.

This is the kind of shit that makes me laugh at conspiracy freaks:  They keep spouting about esoteric means to control the population secretly, when the fuckers are doing it RIGHT IN THEIR FUCKING FACES. 

Superliminal is a joke I remembered from The Simpsons, where a drill instructor explained it as this:
HEY YOU! JOIN THE ARMY! and the guy he shouted at says OKAY!
Must be a private joke I thought more people got.

Anyways I also thought it fit because of this: There are simply people you cannot suppress no matter what type of censorship you have.
The idea of if Joe Teabagger got a muzzle because he was open expressing himself in any way he saw fit, and there were laws against it, wouldn't stop any of us from analyzing it. That right cannot be mere privilege, because you wouldn't let it be just a privilege, even if someone else said you did not have the right. Might sound crackpot to you but that's how I see it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It's true, if we didn't have all of the guns we have in Maine, the Massholes would be all over the damned place.

Don't forget that the only reason you're not a Masshole now is because Maine was created out of Massachusetts to admit Missouri as a slave state.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?

I would, except that you may as well be speaking Dutch right now. What the hell is a KSE?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.

You have to remember that a good chunk of our population doesn't give a flying fuck what the law says, and also believes that "getting caught" is for other people.

Just like Teabaggers collecting from the government. 

[EK WAFFLR]

Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?

I would, except that you may as well be speaking Dutch right now. What the hell is a KSE?

You amerispags are culturally deceased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also the sheer number of handguns alone in the US would make any form of disarmament nearly impossible.  There are an estimated two hundred million legally owned guns, but no-one really knows, because there is no centralized system for tracking ownership. 

Even when guns were legal in the UK, they were never present in such large numbers, making their criminalisation a rather simple act.  Also, the UK authorities had a more centralised database for gun purchases and ownership, and so could follow up on those people who did have firearms more easily.

Holy fuck. If those were evenly distributed that would be a gun for 2/3rds of the population.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech.  And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free.  End of story.

Today's clue:  Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.

Also, this, as a more basic principle.

And that's exactly what it is.  A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.

Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant.  I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.

What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.

Yeah, that's nice.  But it wasn't what we were talking about.

And there's no fucking need for "superliminals".  They do it OPENLY, and people DEMAND MORE.

This is the kind of shit that makes me laugh at conspiracy freaks:  They keep spouting about esoteric means to control the population secretly, when the fuckers are doing it RIGHT IN THEIR FUCKING FACES. 

Superliminal is a joke I remembered from The Simpsons, where a drill instructor explained it as this:
HEY YOU! JOIN THE ARMY! and the guy he shouted at says OKAY!
Must be a private joke I thought more people got.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xx4BsBr2fU

I would have caught it before you mentioned it if I had coffee. Also it was Navy, episode is when Bart was in a boy band. Evan eht nioj.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?

I would, except that you may as well be speaking Dutch right now. What the hell is a KSE?

You amerispags are culturally deceased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise

Perhaps, but not necessarily for this reason. So, it's basically an Easter Egg that you can get year round everywhere except the US and it has a toy inside the chocolate? Doesn't that get messy?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thread is now about chocolate eggs.

Why fight it?

Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them.  There is no disputing this fact.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Thread is now about chocolate eggs.

Why fight it?

Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them.  There is no disputing this fact.

Point taken.

So about there being almost as many guns as Americans. That's a friggin' lot. I know that some  gun owners out there have arsenals, and there's also the criminal element, but what's the average amount of guns someone with a firearms license has?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thread is now about chocolate eggs.

Why fight it?

Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them.  There is no disputing this fact.

Point taken.

So about there being almost as many guns as Americans. That's a friggin' lot. I know that some  gun owners out there have arsenals, and there's also the criminal element, but what's the average amount of guns someone with a firearms license has?

If I had my way, there would be 312,000,000 firearms, and no licenses.

It's the one thing Arizona does right.

And I don't know the average, but I do know that most gun owners I know have between 2-15 firearms.

I range between 0-5.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Thread is now about chocolate eggs.

Why fight it?

Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them.  There is no disputing this fact.

Point taken.

So about there being almost as many guns as Americans. That's a friggin' lot. I know that some  gun owners out there have arsenals, and there's also the criminal element, but what's the average amount of guns someone with a firearms license has?

If I had my way, there would be 312,000,000 firearms, and no licenses.

It's the one thing Arizona does right.

And I don't know the average, but I do know that most gun owners I know have between 2-15 firearms.

I range between 0-5.

I dunno about the non-licensing thing. It would be like everyone being able to get behind the wheel as soon as the turned 16 whether or not they've been properly taught.

Which brings up some other interesting things- do we let the senile have firearms? I love my Nana, but I would not want her to have any sort of firearm. It would knock her on her ass and she'd break her hip too.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I dunno about the non-licensing thing. It would be like everyone being able to get behind the wheel as soon as the turned 16 whether or not they've been properly taught.

That's how we do it here.  There is no driver's ed, and if you can pass the test, you can drive.  So, while it's regulated, there's no formal training of any kind.  Oh, and yes, we have horrible wrecks all the time.

My argument for having everyone armed is that it is obviously not safe, and I don't want anyone feeling safe at any price.  I'd rather see everyone adjust to danger or go mad.

"Safe" isn't a proper environment for primates.  "Safe" is a method of conditioning.  I'll expand on that if you like, after the morning staff meeting.