fl0r1dakil0s

nobody has to agree with me for me to be right babygirl

https://x.com/thecainstruggle/status/1879949603627495655?s=46&t=w9cCNaJUxFOFqgWg4aEj3Q

well i actually do like u a lot bae but one of the warnings u gave me was fucking absurd you warned and put me on mod queue (for 3 whole weeks) for posting a fucking meme lol (this one) .. it's laughable imo.. images are very much valid responses and i'll die on that grave no matter how many times i'm unfairly suspended

perhaps encouraging and allowing true unrestricted free speech ??? which almost doesn't exist on any large social media platform as of today btw

because you maintain that free speech should be restricted??

you don't have to identify as a "free speech bro" lol but you're wrong. your beliefs marginalize your own people and largely hold society back. it's unfortunate

????? girl i'm on a lana del rey forum the fuck do you think i am what ?? i literally probably have more irl trans friends than you do.. like i know at least 30 trans adults (it's important to signify that they aren't minors) on a very close level and i'd say about 75% of them support absolute free speech - i only personally know like 6 trans ppl who don't believe they should be able to publicly present any opinion they feel represents their worldview and they're mostly public figures who only don't do so to not start drama and would think something very differently if they weren't public figures

ohhh this is SO fucking gross.. using the incredibly recent death of a beloved drag legend and human to support ur misguided and delusional opinion is disgusting. you have no idea why james allegedly committed suicide and ur post is actually gross considering his entire family has asked for the public not to speculate on his death and give him privacy i've gone to seen james perform live MANY times and seeing people use his death to propel their wild political agendas makes me sick

using karl popper's (a jewish man) theory that was established to explain the objective horrors of the holocaust to support ur misguided and just wrong opinion is CRAZY and a joke 😭 like what.... who determines what quantifies a "tolerant" person to you ?? like let's say person B, let's call her elle (hi) decides that person A, let's call him ultrabanisters (hi and pls leave me alone w the warnings) is exhibiting intolerant behavior and is therefore a threat to society.. so elle then decides that it's morally correct to act "intolerant" of john and treat him badly because she personally (subjectively) deems his behavior to be a societal threat.. but then person C, let's call him nikogo (hi and also pls leave me alone w the warnings) notices elle's intolerance and decides that it therefore must okay to be be an intolerant asshole to ultrabanisters bc elle does. and then person D, let's call him that venice bitch (no more warnings pls bae) also walks by and takes note and acts accordingly to nikogo's "intolerant" behavior to elle, fully thinking it's okay on every level insane opinions easily spread from one to the other. don't you see how crazy opinions would widely spread if certain theories (the paradox of tolerance) were widely accepted????

oh really ?? which countries in particular did this without also oppressing certain groups ?? china and the soviet union definitely can't say that. and even if some restrictions on free speech would work in the sense of protecting ppl for a limited amount of time who is to say that those restrictions won't ever be extended by nefarious governments and be used against those same people they were meant to protect ?? the only thing that guarantees this are SOLID free speech laws that aren't up for debate. ppl should always be able to say what they want as long as they aren't making threats. who decides what speech in particular should be restricted ?? and how do you know these restrictions wouldn't work against the protection of minority groups (take a look at the protests in singapore, specifically in 2017 and 2019 https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/singapore-new-prime-minister-continues-policy-of-silencing-dissent-by-criminalising-protesters-and-harassing-critics/) ??

well yes.. as i said (and i quote) in this thread 22 hours ago "obviously social media companies are private so our constitution doesn't apply to them but i think it's fair to say that it would make logical sense for the largest social media companies (which act as the center of the public exchange of ideas in today's society) to strive to reflect the ideals of the constitution at least in the sense of not restricting speech and expression"

i was so sad when i found out lost highway and inland empire are up there w my fav films of all time even tho the latter is confusing af

exactly.. because if it did, the speech wouldn't be free anymore.. free speech on social media means you can say whatever the fuck you want (beyond threats) as it has been consistently shown that counter-speech is FAR more effective than censorship in spreading political ideas.. ppl should be able to provide their own arguments as to why certain things are right/wrong

those things are always going to exist. they're going to exist in every single society, country, and continent for the foreseeable future because unfortunately it's human nature to create mental hierarchies in order to classify people and things. that doesn't mean that free speech ONLY harms those vulnerable groups in order to eventually change society's nature in the sense of abolishing the idea that ideological hierarchies accurately represent society, these groups who feel oppressed in any sense need to find logical arguments they can use to defend themselves against idiots. you guys can't just sit there and advocate for the suppression of free speech while illogically maintaining that ur view is the right one to have, just because it is. can you not use free speech to advocate against the people who don't believe in equality? why should dumb people with wrong opinions be silenced? the only way to encourage a society to disagree with certain values is to show them, in actuality and through logical arguments, the stupidity of those values. you can't just tell them to "shhhhhh" because that makes it seem, to the general public, that you're afraid of hearing other opinions that could prove yours wrong

girl the ICC has ZERO power they have only EVER enforced their insane rules in AFRICA which is among if not the MOST politically unprotected and unstrategic continent in the WORLD (israel has also never ratified their allegiance to the ICC. the ICC therefore doesn't have to do with them at all, like not even in the slightest, similarly to how it doesn't cover china, america, russia, india, saudi arabia, iraq, iran, pakistan, indonesia, north korea, indonesia, malaysia, vietnam, and turkey at all, as they all also never ratified an agreement with them)

or because they might have been tortured/raped/injured like dozens (likely hundreds) of others have been documented to have been under the evil hand of Hamas. just a thought!

and ?? are people not allowed to endorse values independent of how some other people who share that same value happen to act ?? supporting free speech isn't equivalent to defending other people who also support free speech and happen to use it to denigrate minorities.. free speech as a concept makes sense in and of itself.. to defend the suppression of it only through contrast by alluding to psycho MAGA worshippers who happen to be racist and insane says a lot about the weakness of any arguments that suggest restricting free speech incurs only largely positive effects

feelings are subjective.. there shouldn't be any rules about "hurt feelings" on social media platforms because how hurt one's feelings get by a given statement is HUGELY (perhaps solely) dependent on their insecurities and sensitivity level

this analogy doesn't stand because i think at least half of the rules on here are atrocious af (and only enforced when the mods active at the time personally don't like an opinion) i've been given warnings and put on mod queue so many fucking times and (imo) the only valid ones were the two times i accidentally shared high definition FLAC links to songs that were copyrighted (my bad ellybelly it won't happen again pls tell ur mods to leave me alone)

if a social media platform "doesn't allow" people to say certain opinions (that one could subjectively feel spreads hate) then that social media platform doesn't really have free speech as a value.. there can't be two sides of one "medal" because whether or not "hate speech" is banned is black and white, so i guess you could say there are just two different medals. you can't have free speech if xyz (unless you're threatening someone or inciting violence obviously). you either have it or you don't

i don't know if an analogy to the holocaust was the best way to make your point considering a factor that largely enabled it was the suppression of freedoms.. can you give me an example of how someone could use twitter, for example, to run "targeted campaigns against minority groups" ?? we don't live in a race war .. obviously social media companies are private so our constitution doesn't apply to them but i think it's fair to say that it would make logical sense for the largest social media companies (which act as the center of the public exchange of ideas in today's society) to strive to reflect the ideals of the constitution at least in the sense of not restricting speech and expression (even if they could constitute "harassment" when viewed through a certain lens) i also think your point about algorithms contradicts your point .. the algorithms you're talking about would only become "a major problem" when excessively restrictive rules on speech are made as the algorithms would boost and artificially inflate only the content that is "allowed" rather than the content that is actually representative of the public

"hate speech" is free speech. unless violence is actively being incited people should be able to post whatever opinions they want on social media

literally so what if that was the reason though lol like is it that serious??

ethel fucked lana's (now ex but not when the song was written) boyfriend babe