Discussion about this post

User's avatar
SB's avatar

Free peach. Love it!

Also clever that you explored the difference between free speech and free reach.

I might argue that now political influence is much more important value to Musk than advertising. (He hardly wooed his advertisers when he acquired Twitter/X).

Trump’s tech bros’ advocacy for ‘free speech’ on the grounds that the traditional media system is suppressing ‘the truth’ is of course laughable, public awareness of the truth not generally being of the remotest interest to them.

Expand full comment
Boschkingninja's avatar

The speech you would ban is subjective and gives us an easy and obvious place to start in fighting back against this censorship movement you are currently campaigning for, it is just so damaging for our society.

TOXIC masculinity, when was this phrase first used, who was it used by and for what purpose? Is there actually a non toxic masculinity in the minds of the people who say toxic masculinity?

Let’s say that Elon accusing Jess Philip’s of being a rape apologist is an obvious example and we ban it. Do we also ban Jess Phillips from accusing George Galloway of the same in 2015 on the same platform? Is it ok to say the words if you’re of the correct sex? Is Phillips guilty of inciting the verbal and physical attacks Galloway suffered around that time?

You defined toxic masculinity in a way that EVERYONE agreed with of course. It stands to reason that you now should now define and ban toxic femininity, while you’re at it you should ban narcissistic behaviour, that’s toxic, oh and food recipes that aren’t healthy that’s literally toxic.

These are old and obvious arguments (shame we have to keep making them really) but the evidence around us of the slippery slope is everywhere and you’d have be blind to ignore it. To call for mechanisms to be in place for states to have such control over individual expression is self harm.

Do you want Reform to have the levers to control public discourse around race after the next election? Then don’t create them.

Let’s hope that Trump doesn’t pressure the American social media, fund ngos and “rights” groups, charities or just demand censorship directly in emails from the white house the way the Biden administration did. You better really pray that he doesn’t bring in his very own version of speech laws like we have in the uk. Say goodbye to your opinion for sure if Toxic Masculinity definitions were written or amended by people who think your opinions better reflect the words. I’m not sure I’d totally disagree with them.

There is a much more important group with toxic ideologies that we need to ponder. They fight to preserve the moral bounds of society and are oblivious to the consequences of censorship which are literally the studied and stated path to the worst societies humans suffer under. You deny reality and have to create new terms that have undefinable meanings. It’s interesting to see the new “absolutist” moniker for people who are anti censorship. It’s reminiscent of the recent “denier” moniker that folks added to global warming sceptics it’s great propaganda repetition though, top marks. You should try to go professional.

We have not found out yet in Britain exactly how our state and wealthy elites use (you would say corrupt instead of use) our speech regulations to their advantage to control the narrative and keep their statuses BECAUSE we have a small, scared shitless of the consequences, independent Media and a highly “regulated” Broadcast and now, almost unbelievably in a free society, print media also.

It was hard fought to get the establishment control out of the uk for example the blasphemy laws that allowed the church hideous undemocratic power (Ireland also of course). We are a whisker away from Blasphemy’s new incarnations in the UK again and the Scott’s have already crossed over that bridge. This will not create the haven of religious tolerance that you might believe.

Free speech is bad, people can be whatever they want, they can choose to openly hold toxic “false beliefs” but it shouldn’t be regulated, your authoritarian opinions turned into law have destroyed all trust and created a paranoid

The internet is printing the court transcripts that our media chose not to, believably because they feared being incendiary, it’s always been in the broadcast regulations that they will get in a lot of trouble for that. I bet it’s no 1 in the new print media ones. The stifling heat of regulation and law around race and fear of radical Islam leads to the continued rape of thousands of children. Not in all cases, but in thousands. Apparently we are again to be told we are only allowed to have the conversation if we don’t use hurty words. Well it’s happening and not pretty but it is unfortunate for the girls we couldn’t have it at the time because it has facilitated action already that other campaigns had failed to produce the pressure for and if it keeps up we might even see some accountability for the first time from anyone in authority. Censorship was a root cause in these cases, further censorship will likely further facilitate the coverup and the continuation again.

Whether an authoritarian establishment stooge or a useful idiot (get the reference) your dangerous words and malinformation can and may be used by an authoritarian state to justify the further removal of power from its population to organise and express opinion against it and that sir is why your words are far more dangerous than trolls on the internet.

I still think you should have the right to express them even though I’m pretty sure that their propagation and acceptance if by the majority or their misuse by a powerful minority (as in now maybe) will be the end of our dream of living in a liberal democracy.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts