This is sad honestly. Does a lot to undermine any cause they support from here on out, and several of their recent ones.

It's also not new. The ACLU decided that it would just be another financing wing of the DNC as far back as 2016, or even farther then that.

Aside from that, almost no civil rights organization in the country is not just a front for some political aim or another. I can only name like, one who would defend both a Nazi and a Hotep with the same vigor but that's literally it.

What’s the organization?

FIRE. It's probably an acronym for something but it's a general constitutional rights organization that deals with college related stuff.

How about Archive.org. They preserve some pretty controversial stuff.

Based FIRE is based. Noted Radical Centrist Jonathan Haidt wrote a book with a FIRE lawyer about a lot of the college censorship and general fragility of college students and it was based.

Posted article will tell you what FIRE stands for lol

I warn you, though: the initialism is a lot better than the name

seriously wtf has happened in the last decade? I graduated high school in 2010; nothing of public life was anything like this, and even campus life at university wasn't this insane (though I started seeing some pretty radical groups like BAMN by the time I finished in 2015). This shit has coalesced so quickly

The internet happened. Whereas before your garden-variety college progressive nutjob (read: SJW) could spread xer hare-brained message no further than xe could shout, nowadays ze and zer ilk feel the tangible moral support of thousands of others around the nation and the world, which galvanizes and emboldens them. This goes both ways, though: the internet created antivaxxers and Flat Earthers, SJWs and QAnon, all in equal measure. Hence unprecedented polarization. If you want to put a pin in the timeline, I think Gamergate was unironically the beginning of the end - not causally, of course, it's just a convenient marker.

I sometimes am reminded of the thousands of morons back in 2007 deflecting any concern or criticism by saying that it's somehow just an internet thing, or just a college thing, and that it's completely overblown, that it'll never affect the real world... Not a lot of people seem to be saying that nowadays. On the other hand quite a lot of people are insisting I take an interest in genitalia I would rather not.

They used to call the internet "the information superhighway", but no one thought to consider what exactly made it a superhighway only for actual information, and not just inflammatory drivel. Turns out "net neutrality" applies equally to information and data.

If you want to put a pin in the timeline, I think Gamergate was unironically the beginning of the end - not causally, of course, it's just a convenient marker.

I used to joke about this but I think that might actually be a massive part of it. I remember reading through arr tumblrinaction even in 2013 and being utterly dumbstruck at what people would post - and now those views are completely mainstream

Gamergate was the proverbial Pandora's Box that opened a spatial rift in the internet vacuum, unleashing a horde of Lovecraftian demons unlike anything we had seen up until that point.

gaymergays was the end of normality, the fact gaym*rs despite their unlimited -tism managed to lose their entire hobby to a bunch of stuck up c*nts that never played anything besides candy crush marked the end of any real resistance in the culture war

This has been a while in the making but the US had been fractured into groups constantly throughout the past 25 years to the point there is no “us” anymore. It seems to have started with third wave feminisms in colleges and spiraled out of control due to the internet.

I had the displeasure of sitting on a panel about free speech on elite leftist college campuses a few years back because some rightoid said something and got cancelled. The ACLU lawyer kept saying, over and over, that 1A does not apply to private colleges. The rest of us kept looking at him like no shit, we aren't idiots, this is about the philosophy behind free speech, which one would assume the ACLU would be interested in.

I pressed the ACLU lawyer and he actually argued against free speech because the guy being violated was a rightoid. It was then I knew that the organization was done. SCOTUS needs to ban them from the building.

The ACLU lawyer kept saying, over and over, that 1A does not apply to private colleges

This has been the dumbest hot take of the last decade. I guess companies can enslave people too, since the constitution and the ideas behind it don't apply to them.

Thats not what that means.

The first ammendment states, and I quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In short, the government can't make laws about what you can say (except for when they can). Theres no reason why a private college can't cancel a talk because they disagree with the person saying it.

Theres no reason why a private college can't cancel a talk because they disagree with the person saying it.

as long as said college has never and will never receive a penny of funding from the state, including property tax grants/writeoffs/etc

I live in NOLA and tulane university, a rich haven for coke-addled east coast ivy league-rejects, has never paid a penny in property taxes. they also get millions in public funds because they spend millions to lobby the LA state gubmint

The government also gives subsidies and tax breaks to farmers.

Doesn't mean you can go to the middle of a corn field in Oklahoma and start screeching about how the moon landing was faked without the permission of the owner.

All the 1st A says is that the government can't arrest you for saying words they dont like. It doesn't say they have to provide you an audiance.

Doesn't mean you can go to the middle of a corn field in Oklahoma and start screeching about how the moon landing was faked without the permission of the owner.

in this instance you would be arrested for trespassing, not for speech. that analogy is doo doo

Exactly. And if you walk into the auditorium of a college, publically funded or otherwise, and start giving a speech after explicitly being asked not to, you will also be arrested for trespassing. Not for speech. They ain't gotta let you do shit.

what if a group of students at a publicly-funded school (be it, "private" like tulane or actually public) are interested in me giving a speech on ______ (anything) and so they set up a time to listen to me speak, but another group of annoying, sexless nerds shows up and shouts the idea down so the school cancels the event out of fear of social retribution from the sexless nerds? does the state have no obligation to the original students or to their parents, whose tax dollars help offset the school's overhead?

and even beyond that: are universities not the intended place to have such ideological disagreements? if we're not having these convos in higher ed, does that mean we all just stick our head in the sand, conform, and consume like good little worker bees?

you're either pro 1a or you aren't, and it sounds like you aren't. The argument you're making had a lot of merit 40 years ago, before citizens united and the corporations took over our democracy. now the line between your congressman and the CEO who paid for his campaign is so fucking blurred that there's no one to fight for your liberties

This is always the dumbest thing I read, because it's completely missing the point. The Bill of Rights is basically an agreement between American citizens & the ruling government of green text symbol current year. These are the rights we pwomise not to take away fwom you, and in exchange you don't kwill, or attempt to ovwathwo us.

The Bill of Rights not applying (because it was never meant to) to private colleges, companies, or conglomerates censoring you is not the point. The point is that as an American society -- and a Western one in the big picture -- we have decided that it is morally wrong to force other people into either speech they do not agree with, or forcing people to not say certain speech. The Bill of Rights came from this philosophical development not the other way around. To reiterate in a simple way to make sure you can at least have access to the information in the hopes of understanding: the Bill of Rights is not what led to our current understanding & beliefs of unalienable rights, the Bill of Rights is a covenant with the American people that is the result of our enlightenment in regards to unalienable rights.

Private colleges/ companies should not be able to censor people based on disagreement of ideology, because we have as a society morally decided that is wrong. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, other than the Bill of Rights being a reflection of this understanding, and an imposition of this on our government . Now, if we have regressed, and no longer believe people of all creeds and beliefs should be allowed to speak, then that my friend, and you'd be hard pressed to find people who see differently who are wise & tolerant, is a regression of our morals.

But free speech is an idea beyond just the first amendment.

The bill of rights didn't grant us rights, it protected our preexisting rights. Free speech is a right and violating rights is still wrong when private entities do it even if they legally can you stinky ret*rd.

If his line of thought should hold, then what was with all the fuss with the cake dude? ACLU should have been coming out in droves to defend that person.

Hypocrites, every one last of them.

The ACLU lawyer kept saying, over and over, that 1A does not apply to private colleges

The dude was not only a biased hack but also incompetent. There's plenty of precedent from the SCOTUS applying Constitutional restrictions to private entities, notably a bona fide company town. Given the similarities between a company town and a college campus, it shouldn't be too tough a case to argue.

Problem is, they don't wanna. Owning the rightoids is more important than principles. Pot, kettle, bl*ck, etc.

Problem is, they don't wanna. Owning the rightoids is more important than principles. Pot, kettle, bl*ck, etc.

Exactly. I pissed him off by saying that refusing to defend the Alt-Right's freedom of speech will send them back to the State of Nature and their only option will be violence. He was visibly uncomfortable, laughed in my face and said that wasn't going to happen.

It happened.

Problem is, it's a double-edged sword... If you stifle them, they rile themselves up using the now-no-longer-just-perceived victim status, but if you don't, they organize, grow, and go out of control due to the conspirat*rd train having no breaks. It's lose-lose, really. Other than literally axing the entire public internet I can't even think of a conceptual solution, never mind an actually feasible one.

it didnt

if you mean the qoomering at the capitol that was pathetic

Charlottesville, Christchurch, etc.

the first one was pathetic, the 2nd one obviously not but it didnt happen in your country and it wasnt even carried out by a local but a literal foreign terrorist

Worse than foreign. Australian.

may allah forgive you for uttering that word

this is about the philosophy behind free speech, which one would assume the ACLU would be interested in.

Considering that, like he said, "civil liberties" literally don't apply in the case of a private college, I don't particularly see why they would be interested when the matter isn't actually predicated upon any conlaw.

Fine, private colleges can’t enroll students who depend on federally-subsidized student loans and the colleges themselves can’t receive any form of federal funding. If they want to be private so fucking badly they can be private.

Now do u see why this line of thought is pure sperg?

state schoolcels absolutely SEETHING

I was a member in my college chapter years ago. They were changing even before ochre father. Sad, really.

It's ochre daddy to you.

What causes?

They basically gave up on thw second amendment and decided to bow down to the orange man bad crowd.

Because they arent a 2A org and never have been. They used to be radical centrist 1A defenders. They dont defend the 3rd amendment either. Nor the 19th insh'allah.

They used to be radical centrist 1A defenders.

Weeellll... Plus race and gender stuff. But yeah, apparently the 2nd isn't a "civil liberty".

I mean, I don't consider it one either, but I don't go around calling myself a freedom fighter.

Used to be very big on first amendment and constitutional rights in genera

[deleted]

What’s why it’s perfect. Or as perfect as you can realistically expect from bureaucrats.

First 10 are given and not touchie. Everything else was able to be added because they had foresight that things would change when setting it up.

That said, they maybe shouldn’t have, because look at what happened 9 amendments later 🤮

[deleted]

The 3rd, of all the amendments, is the one you consider a mistake? That’s the least controversial one in the bill of rights.

[deleted]

It wasn’t good satire though

[deleted]

You need to pick one more controversial to make better satire. Good satire isn’t just saying dumb shit.

Are you a bong? Is that why you’re this unfunny?

mostly so that we don’t have a bunch of fishandchipcels arresting u for made up “offences”.

Agreed this is shitty. Basically now just the NRA of the left.

Really NYT is late to the game. There is a much better article that was published a while back. I’ll edit a link if I can find it.

Etárd: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick

FIRE is the new organization for fighting against Fascist ANTIFA progressive students and their Judeo-Christian puritan speech restrictions.

https://www.thefire.org/

Who needs free speech when everything that isn't aligned with my thinking is invalid? The time for debate is pretty much over. Why would you want to say something that's wrong anyway?

This is a very good comment

Of course they took the wokepill, Obama killed their donations cash cow, gay marriage.

They've got a new one.

Ive been around reddit for 10 years. Besides facebook it's probably the most consistently used platform for me in that time. Unlike facebook, the big cultural swings I saw happen on reddit seemed to have ripple effects out into real life. I'm not saying there was a causal link between the rise of ShitRedditSays or the SRDines and corporate wokeism, thought policing, cultural marxism etc... But the timing was not coincidental.

What crept into "intellectual" hangouts and began to dominate certain morality narratives online was growing all over the world.

As it relates to the article, I remember when I first started seeing freeze peaches being mocked on mainstream reddit threads. Until then I was openly liberal - but those shifts were evidence of a sea change I couldn't sign off on. It was hard to understand why someone would disparage free speech. How could they not think of any repercussions? But that it started at all was a kind of harbinger of philosophical disease taking over.

It's like a generational pendulum that swings between puritanism and individualism. The arguments change but the message stays the same. Think like we do, do what we do, outliers are banished and shunned. We left the individualism in the 70-80-90s and are now heading deep into puritanism.

Watch as the next generation rebels against their parents overly strict moral codes. Fucking clockwork.

It’s not that the pendulum swings in and out of existence, it’s that it becomes a game of hackysack between political poles as power shifts. In the Prohibition era, neo-puritanism was progressive. In the boomer generation, progressives stood for free speech, free love, anti-authoritarianism, etc. while conservatives campaigned for “law & order”, “public morality” and “decency” (i.e. their cultural values being enforced as the law of the land). Now progressive boomers are represented at the highest levels of media, education, industry and (sometimes) electoral politics, so suddenly the left loves authority and conformism and the right is super into free speech, relativism, ideological heterodoxy, etc.

And frankly this is still a massive oversimplification because there are and have always been clear divisions between the respective libertarian and authoritarian branches of both the right and left (the political compass isn’t total bullshit), but it more or less describes the gist of mainstream partisan thought in America. People whose politics are mainly dictated by partisan tribalism over abstract philosophy (i.e. most people) will just end up switching between authoritarian and libertarian positions on different issues depending on which serves their preferred narrative of the moment. Both the far right and far left will talk about valuing free speech and deny being authoritarians for as long as they recognize their views as existing on the fringe (even as they spin blatant authoritarian fantasies about Trump or Bernie or whoever), then drop the mask the second they get a whiff of real power.

As for the mainstreaming of left-wing cultural authoritarianism provoking a generational pushback, I think it’s already happening - anecdotally I feel like zoomers on average are already more divided over woke shit and jaded to online extremism than their millennial counterparts, and will only become moreso as more kids come of age in the complete shitshow that is the modern internet. And obviously there’s no better way to make kids stop seeing wokeness as edgy and subversive than to force it down their throats in school and mass media - the rise of “grillpilled”, “normcore” and “trad” as new strains of counterculture is already maneuvering in that direction.

right is super into ... relativism

Doubt. That's one thing the Left will always have a preference for. No objective truth (perhaps not even in math!), just everyone and their own equal opinions.

Who are the people fetishizing “fact checkers” and who are the ones talking about “alternative facts”?

“alternative facts”

Wasn't that just a Kellyanne thing? I don't see it in right-wing circles, unless it's meant ironically. You must've seen the Left admire "modern art" that we get these days, while the Right hates all that. Also, emotions and feels above truth, that kind of thing.

Cannot tell if you’re just doing this baby Ben Shapiro thing ironically or not, but the fact that you post on KiA suggests you aren’t

Evidence is thin on the ground. You'll need to convince me more!

Not sure how to begin a sincere response to babby’s first “left man do like this, right man do like that” post complete with inscrutably vague complaint about “‘modern art’”

Ooh the gloves are coming off eh. I have numerous left-wing views, but find me a single source discussion anywhere on the web where the Left are putting objectivity and inequality (everything being not equal) above subjectivity and equality (everything's equal).

It's not just art, but they tend to think the same about people too (e.g: "the rich always got to be rich not through skill and hard work, but always just luck"). They tend to believe in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, and at the limit, try to force the issue artificially rather than admit people just have different strengths and weaknesses.

For someone who “holds left-wing views” your knowledge of what they consist of seems to be about on par with Breitbart

I'm not saying all lefties are like how I described, just that there's a tendency in that direction.

If you're someone who doesn't think all art, music, cultures and people are equal and you don't think everyone's opinion on a piece of art or philosophical conundrum is "equally valid", then more power to you!

[removed]

Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

arent zoomers the gayest gen tho? I see far many more t-slur zoomers than t-slur millennials

In my experience zoomers are polarized between the ultra-woke and woke skeptics, and also despite what one might assume the sudden onset gender dysphoria people don’t all necessarily fall cleanly into the former category

A lot of it tracks back to neo-feminism and the humanities/soft sciences.

Gamer gate and it’s consequences have been a disaster for humanity

Delete this hate speech please, you're literally killing people by openly typing the G G word.

Good

REEEEEE

I don’t feel like essayposting response to that other guy, but this seems to be the case. There is a very clear progression from third wave to all popular woke shit.

I got confused and stopped thinking about it when people posted about links between feminist-aligned academic philosophy and heavy CIA/Intelligence funding. Imagine if the feds actually glowed so hard they mind melted their own country like it was some newly industrialized commie-adjacent backwater.

I tend to be skeptical of people blaming the CIA for creating woke studies because those same people are usually the sorts who see CIA spooks crawling out of their toilet, but it is plausible that CIA psyops helped push identitarian anti-materialist leftist theory during its infancy back in the 80s with the (correct) understanding that it would cannibalize and ultimately be more conciliatory to neoliberalism than the revolutionary theories that had been pushed by KGB psyops for decades.

the kgb was the power behind the power in the soviet union, so for the cia and other spooks being a commie-adjacent backwater would be an improvement

Until then I was openly liberal

So are you closeted now or something?

Ill just say, growing up as a kid/teenager under the Bush Iraq war era you get the impression that Democrats/Liberals are subversive, skeptical, questioning of the establishment, valuing the truth above all else etc. But I wasn't really informed or in touch with how the world worked. I eventually found all that energy I mistook for virtue was really partisan theater.

While I never had hope for the right, I had to learn not to have hope for the left. The whole thing gave me a bit of a mind fuck. A word like liberal is so laden with political connotation, if not an absolute product of it, I had to slowly dissolve the word from any relation to my identity. I just tell people I'm independent now.

entirely correct man. it's why the daily show under jon stewart was so successful. in the 2000s that was the counter culture. but in the end, everything just feels like posturing. that said, stewart at least seemed sincere and his 9/11-responder passion project was really good.

I don't know. it feels like the country and many parts of the world have been utterly overtaken by a feeling of suffocating cynicism.

cynicism would be an improvement over this shit

what you're seeing is the second cultural revolution

The pendulum swings

I hope

easy on the hopium

While I never had hope for the right, I had to learn not to have hope for the left. The whole thing gave me a bit of a mind fuck. A word like liberal is so laden with political connotation, if not an absolute product of it, I had to slowly dissolve the word from any relation to my identity. I just tell people I'm independent now.

didn't expect someone to have nearly identical political philosophy as me here arrgh drama. neat!

I just tell people I'm independent now.

And people are going to tell you that you are a conservative in denial. I sort of went through a similar political mind-fuck, and I just tell people I am self-identified liberal, or left-leaning.

I think my more liberal, or progressive, acquaintances don't really see me as a liberal since I bad-mouth the liberal institution too much, and my conservative acquaintances see me as a potential convert.

It's all so tiresome.

Just be yourself, don't worry too much about what the "left" and the "right" are doing. I wasted way too much time in my early 20's trying to fit myself into a mold for other people. Know your own values and stick to them.

He just fucks kids behind closed doors now

As the Prophet (pbuh) intended.

Until then I was openly liberal - but those shifts were evidence of a sea change I couldn’t sign off on. It was hard to understand why someone would disparage free speech.

I can’t wait until counter culture shifts again and this tactic is used against them.

The problem is it will be joyless since the irony, as always, will be completely lost on them.

Remember, 95% of people are entirely and completely incapable of principled thought. They don't think in terms of broad, measured, philosophical ideals from which they derive opinions inductively, they just go with their ill-informed gut, picking and choosing positions based on knee-jerk, instinctive reactions. Show some BLM activist a couple of pictures of cops beating Neo-Nazis into pink goo and he'll be waving a Thin Blue Line flag in a week.

it wont

The “freeze peach” jokes started as a response to rightoids screeching about “muh free speech” and casting themselves as persecuted Voltaire-loving Constitution defenders in response to shit that obviously was not serious free speech issues (loli titties being taken out of anime games, any kind of moderation on internet platforms at all, etc.). This still happens too, but thanks to 2010s social media making it impossible for any idea to exist in less than its most grotesquely extreme form, the “freeze peach” jibes are now also directed at anyone who thinks ideological censorship mobs being endorsed by supposedly liberal institutions is maybe also a bad thing.

shit that obviously was not serious free speech issues (loli titties being taken out of anime games, any kind of moderation on internet platforms at all, etc.)

First they came for the jailbait...

I mean, that sounds like I'm being ironic, but I'm not. It's a perfect parallel of the original poem: first, they're going to start with uncontroversially unpopular, reprehensible people/topics, and then little by little they chip away until in the end you can't even fucking ping somebody or say the dreaded r-word.

Once they came for fatpeoplehate I knew what was looming on the horizon, not just for this website but for the entire world.

I tried to warn them, I tried to explain what the consequences of a world in which we couldn't bully the obese would be. But they didn't listen, no one listened.

That’s literally not even what “First they came for the Jews...” means lol. Also sorry but I don’t think Japanese game companies deciding they didn’t want to be known for pursuing the Jeff Epstein demographic was what pushed us down the slippery slope.

That’s literally not even what “First they came for the Jews...” means lol.

No, it literally is. It's highlighting the idea that if you don't defend the rights of those you may not like or even hate, you are failing to defend your own rights.

Also sorry but I don’t think Japanese game companies deciding they didn’t want to be known for pursuing the Jeff Epstein demographic was what pushed us down the slippery slope.

You're mixing up cause and effect.

No it means that if you tolerate the unjust persecution of one group of people you’re allowing the persecution of anyone, not that the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany was a regrettable technicality that opened up a slippery slope to ethnic Germans losing muh rights to coom you illiterate lolbertarian dickcream. Pedophiles’ rights were not trampled in the US even once, and especially not by losing the ability to buy pedo games on their Sony systems. You are the exact person that “muh freeze peach” was turned into a jibe to mock.

No it means that if you tolerate the unjust persecution of one group of people you’re allowing the persecution of anyone

That's literally what I just said: "defend the rights" = "do not tolerate unjust persecution". And you call me illiterate...

I mean, maybe you're wanking yourself raw over the difference between rights and freedoms on a website, but the principle is the same: it's a slippery slope.

Also, lol @ me being a libertard... I think that was the final political ideology I had to be accused of belonging to to finally be granted my based centrist badge of honor.

What rights of pedophiles are or have ever been under attack? Do you even have the slightest inkling of how utterly ‘tarded you look analogizing them to Holocaust victims in order to try and make some asinine point about free speech absolutism?

Also people who self-describe as either “libertarian” or “radical centrist” while rubbing one out over middle school-level interpretations of freeze peach (yeah, you deserve it) tend to be pretty much interchangeable: they’re both conservatards ashamed to call themselves what they are because the people who call themselves “conservatives” are actually proto-fash cultists.

What rights of pedophiles are or have ever been under attack?

Going with the raw-wanking I see. K den, go nuts.

No, your initial comment was literally that pedos not getting their lolis was in fact the first step on a slippery slope leading to fascism/Literally 1984, so I’d like to know what you think has been done to pedos’ inalienable rights that’s analogous to Jews in Nazi Germany.

Again, this self-parodying “freeze peach” absolutist shit is a totally familiar and tired argument that’s as old as the internet and exactly what led to people mocking dudes who get autistic about anything even tangentially related to “free speech” in the first place.

My first comment was literally that pedos not getting their lolis was the first step toward us not being able to call each other the r-word here in arrdrama, and that's simply a fact. I mean, if you want to call that fascism be my guest, but don't like I did... I wasn't drawing an analogy to Nazi Germany, you just can't read, but I believe we've covered that already.

You're trying way too hard to put words in my mouth, sweaty, it's a bad look.

Oh of course, invoking a poem that’s explicitly about Nazi Germany to try and support your low-IQ argument about forum moderation isn’t making an asinine historical analogy, it’s... what is it, exactly?

And setting aside how very, very little Japanese video game publishers’ self-imposed content policies have to do with American social media moderation practices, the whole “if you moderate anything at all in any context we are doomed to lose freeze peach forever” remains as asinine an argument today as it always has been.

what is it, exactly?

An analogy to a slippery slope regarding rights/freedoms - I literally fucking explained it in the same comment I used it in, are you actually illiterate? It being related to Nazi Germany is entirely incidental and irrelevant, it's just the most famous notable reference of such a situation. Find me another poem and I'll go back and edit it.

But nice try with the feigned outrage, as if you care about Jews. Or maybe you care about them a little too much, you never know with you lot...

the whole “if you moderate anything at all in any context we are doomed to lose freeze peach forever” remains as asinine an argument today as it always has been.

LOL, this is the same rarted argument people were trying then, and it only got more stupid. In was just wishful denial then, now it's just flat out delusion. FFS, I can't even start a subreddit mocking lardasses on this site, never mind the ever-growing list of insults I can't use, and you're gonna try and argue that wasn't exactly the slippery slope that it was always assumed to be? How far does it have to go for you to actually realize it is a slippery slope?

Simple fact: this website (and others) used to have free speech, completely and totally, now it doesn't even pretend to. You're literally denying the slippery slope in a sub where I can't include an r followed by a slash in a comment lest the admins ban the sub... again. Honestly, why the hell do you even post here? Shouldn't you be in AHS being outraged that someone committed wrongthink?

lol presumably you’re posting on here and not 4chan/8chan because you actually do not want totally unmoderated free speech, otherwise you’d be enjoying a deluge of insufferable teen edgelords and raving sociopaths gumming up conversation at this exact moment. (nvm that they technically have moderation too, as Reddit always has.) But you do in fact have the freedom to make that choice, so if that’s your example of a heavy duty free speech issue and not just something you’re citing as a minor irritation that comes with using this shitty website, you’re gonna have to try again.

You still have yet to draw a connecting line between Hyperdimension Neptunia Nii-chan Oppai Mk. VI covering up cartoon child tits because Sony decided they didn’t want pedo porn to be part of their brand image and Reddit admins going mad with power, but okay, I’ll bite on the very vague argument I think you’re trying to make. Banning subs based on naughty word usage is obnoxious and overzealous but if the literal only two options are that or making the whole site a Nazi pedo haven, with no middle ground whatsoever, then I’m perfectly okay with the former option because people’s Reddit posting “rights” aren’t fucking rights and don’t actually matter at all. If Reddit bans content I like, I’ll find it elsewhere on the internet, and in the meantime I won’t have to wade through Nazi pedo breeding ground just because I want to talk about video games or internet drama. This whole thing is just a terrible example if you’re trying to make a point about anything that actually matters. Like who the fuck cares if you can create a subreddit for bullying fat people? Why would that register as a relevant issue on any functioning adult’s radar, let alone one that warrants high horse talk about democracy and fascism and free speech rights? Who do you think you are, Glenn Greenwald’s mentally deficient understudy? You’re the one deserving of mockery here.

lol presumably you’re posting on here and not 4chan/8chan because you actually do not want totally unmoderated free speech, otherwise you’d be enjoying a deluge of insufferable teen edgelords and raving sociopaths gumming up conversation at this exact moment.

Nah, it's because they don't have threaded conversations and downvotes. That's literally it. I do want unmoderated free speech, because I can scroll past what I don't like, but moderation has never prevented teen edgelords or raving sociopaths, LOL. That's literally what reddit has downvotes for, and even those barely do the work.

See, unlike you, I didn't join the internet 5 days ago and I don't need anyone else to protect me from all those terrible, terrible things that you think no one should be allowed to see, mostly because I've seen them all before. Shit, when I started out online the customary greeting any noob received was a deluge of links to goatse.cx and lemonparty (which I image you're gonna have to google). And when they whined they were told to submit a complaint on ED's "Offended" page.

Honestly, imagine coming to reddit of all places because of its moderation, LMFAO. I'm a fucking mod and that still sounds insane.

Besides, nice job keeping up, 8chan is only on TOR now, and I'd prefer not to get v&.

You still have yet to draw a connecting line between Hyperdimension Neptunia Nii-chan Oppai Mk. VI covering up cartoon child tits because Sony decided they didn’t want pedo porn to be part of their brand image and Reddit admins going mad with power, but okay,

Implying that I ever cared about degenerate weebshit... I literally never commented about whatever the fuck that is, why would I care about connecting it to anything other than a high-voltage line?

I’m perfectly okay with the former option because people’s Reddit posting “rights” aren’t fucking rights and don’t actually matter at all

Jeez, just spit it out: you're an unrepentant tankie. Get it over with already, it's embarrassing. It's one thing to live in denial about what's happening around you, but you really need to come out to yourself about your love for Stalin-chan. Say it with me now: you know better than anyone and what you don't enjoy no one should be allowed to even encounter. Your likes and dislikes should have the power of law.

There, doesn't that feel better?

This whole thing is just a terrible example if you’re trying to make a point about anything that actually matters.

I mean you're literally doing exactly what that poem referred to above says you ought not to do, i.e. ignoring what happens to things you don't like simply because you don't like them, but whatever... Those who fail to learn from history and all that.

[deleted]

ACLU, used to be one of the last based organizations.

“I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

stand on principle

Burgers can't stand on anything these days without making it crumble to bits.

People used to have some semblance of "principals" in early to mid 1900s.

Then it just went all down hill after that.

How the fuck were you able to quote the word twice and misspell it the immediate instance you had to type it yourself?

Shut down my school bro

That is interesting, because did you know It's always been a fantasy of mine to be a sex slave for 2 bears, male and female, pleasing the male when she's tired, and vice versa. Slowly sliding my lips up and down his thick shaft, tasting his pre-cum on my tongue. Once he's had enough of that, he rolls over onto his back, lifting me up as though I weighed nothing. Gently placing me on his cock, I guide him in, feeling him stretch me wide open. I moan with pleasure, feeling him fill me up. He growls softly, I feel it rumble deep in his chest, vibrating all the way down his body and through mine. He continues to lift me up and then pull me down. He's doing all the work for me, it feels so good, the warmth of the fur, his paws either side of my waist. He is in total control, I'm just nothing compared to his vast size and strength, but I have total trust in him, I know he won't hurt me. I feel the pace quicken, almost imperceptibly. I slowly stroke myself, feeling myself nearing the point of no return coming closer with every stroke. I can hear the growl getting louder now; he speeds up even more, forcing me further and further down onto his thick cock. If it wasn't for the fact I my body is releasing so many endorphines, I would probably be screaming in agony. Except I am panting and whining, just like a bitch, begging her mate to fill her up. His claws dig in deeper, the pain, its excsquisite. It sends me over the edge. My head goes back, I let out a short grunt, I feel my cock explode, covering his chest fur in my seed. I keep stroking, it looks as though I'm trying to rip my cock out. I let out another grunt, another torrent flows forth, then another and another. A drop lands on the beasts muzzle. He seems confused for a moment. That's what I think. He digs his paws in even harder now and slams me onto his cock, I feel his grumble turn into a roar. He's cumming, oh my god. I can feel in, filling me up. It's undescribable. He's mating with me, he's claimed me. I feel him slow, his cock still throbbing within me, it seems as though there's no more room for his cum. It's dripping out of me, onto his fur. I reach down, and then bring my hand up, tasting him. It's more than I ever expected. It's heaven.

Snapshots:

1. Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the ... - archive.org, archive.today*

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

GOTTA LOVE PAYWALLS

can the aclu go back to defending n***s?

Good, fuck free speech.

how dramatic :p

all you're getting are sad outs, because free speech is one of the few things dramatists actually care about unironically

as much as I love denying spoiled westerners their "rights", this one actually helps make the world more dramatic

[removed]