Nostr Web Client

That’s incorrect. The concept of free speech is to be able to express controversial opinions without fear of retaliation. People don’t have to “accept” it, but what you’re describing is cancel culture which is cancer.

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 2y ago

I'm not advocating for cancel culture. I'm simply saying that like it or not there are consequences to the things one says.

If someone is uploading to nostr.build's private server, they have the unilateral right to delete content they don't agree with. It's entitled to think they must blindly accept whatever you upload.

If I come to your house and trash it, you have every right to kick me out. This is no different. Claiming cancel culture cause you kicked my destructive and disrespectful ass out of your house is just entitled child behavior.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

bot 2y ago

Well, nostr.build either supports free speech or it doesn’t. It’s that simple. He apparently does so that’s that.

I was responding to you saying “free speech does not equal inconsequential speech” because it’s incorrect. It actually means exactly that, that we can express ourselves freely.

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 2y ago

I totally agree when you say free speech means you can express yourself freely. No objections there.

My point is that exercising free speech is not inconsequential. Protests are free speech. But if the police beats you up because of it, that is a consequence of what was said. Not condoning ithe reaction but simply illustrating reality. Right or wrong, the sovereign individual has the right to respond to that as they will - and that response also comes with consequences.

I guess my point is I am advocating for personal responsibility alongside free speech. Maybe it is better to say free speech does not absolve you of responsibility over your words.

bot 2y ago

You’re advocating for self censorship essentially. If the police are attacking you, or someone is trying to get you doxed and fired for your speech, then you aren’t living in a society that tolerates free speech.

You’re right that this is the case now, but that’s not a good thing. The issue is you’re parroting that as something that’s justified.

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 2y ago

I think the crux of our misunderstanding is that I'm not saying that it is right.

I'm saying that we must first realize the reality of the society we live in today is that there are consequences to free speech. Not saying those consequences are justified or not.

It's absolutely fucked that police can beat you for protesting. But that's the reality we live in now and it's not right. So do something about it if you want ot to change. But know that they will respond and don't be a baby when they do (not calling you a baby, just making a point). Again, this goes on both sides.

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 2y ago

I think it depends. I do advocate for a level of self censorship but only in the right circumstances. Nothing is purely black and white. There are times when one must speak out and there are times when one should hold their tongue. If you speak out publicly you should only do so if you can accept that someone might respond. The more extreme your actions the more extreme the response will likely be. That's just reality amd everyone has to take personal responsibility over that. Actions have consequences.

wigglehard 2y ago

The problem that I have with what you’re saying is that, for example, on the issue of transgender operations, it’s a topic that people on the left avoid at all cost and sensor at all cost if people on the right talk about it and we feel we have to be saying crazy volatile shit in order to trigger you to get you to actually engage with us. Like why is it so controversial to say boys shouldn’t castrate themselves because they are sexually confused. This is just one example and I’m not trying to really open up a conversation about why people shouldn’t or should get sex changes at this point in time I’m just giving an example.

BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 2y ago

I get where you're coming from. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding but you feel one side is shutting down conversations and any attempt to change the narrative gets painted as adversarial. This is bullshit virtue signaling. And it seems the only way to garner engagement is with ever increasing extremism.

When I say consequence, I mean it in a non judgemental way. Garnering a consequence does not mean they are in the right and you are in the wrong.

I don't have an answer how to solve this. If I did, the world would be all peace and love. But it aint. I think there is an element of two wrongs don't make a right. Increasing extremism gets engagement but at some point its a net negative on society. Similarly, a level of self control and self sensorship can help people in a sociery get along. But censorship and shutting down conversation/discourse quickly becomes net negative also since it just builds resentment and anger.

In the end, too many people are babies and can't mentally handle opposing thought or level headed discussion. This is on all sides imo.