Oddbean new post about login | logout This is completely inappropriate. There is no harassment and no profanity in that comment. It is not aggressive and it is stated respectfully with no personal attack towards the OP or anyone else. An opinion you disagree with is not profane and it's not harassment. It's what civil public discourse is about.
Why are some people so bothered by free speech? We see how big of an impact censorship at Twitter had in the 2020 election vs. free speech at X during the 2024 election. I hope that people who used to work at Twitter don't bring those old, anti-speech, anti-liberty ways to #Nostr. That's really not progress. nostr:nevent1qqs9qxpm4pwe8r7alu68u4kwyjum0le4utwlkcm7wa3dcac932rw85cpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygywus5sex9jpv5ejyutxgh5vm4zp36kpr6k326neug5j2lekt5ynspsgqqqqqqswkxts7
That Rabble mf is frothing at the mouth for censorship.
> Why are some people so bothered by free speech? To be clear, free speech absolutely would include profanity as well. Yet, reporting profane content as "profane" would be right. I'm not advocating for censoring profanity. I'm not even advocating for reporting it. I'm saying, however, it would be factually accurate. Just expressing a stance on a political issue, however, is neither profane nor harassment. > free speech at X during the 2024 X is not a free speech platform now. Far from it. Elon Musk promised to only censor that which was illegal, but the policies of the platform are not maximally permissive, surely not to the full extent that the law would allow. It's true that many that were censored before no longer are, but that isn't that much of an improvement if other people are censored or shadow-banned instead. Of course, X wouldn't be censorship-resistant regardless (like Nostr is), but that is a higher threshold than just being a free speech platform: a criterion which Reddit arguably used to meet (but, clearly, no longer does) and which platforms like Minds arguably meet today (within the constraints of US law, because they do have to follow the law of their country).
My theory is that they want to slowly impose an hegemony of civil law and disrupt the "social intercourse" so we can fight between ourselves without remorse
What do you mean by "hegemony of civil law" in this context?
Civil law, as parallel (maybe opposed) to natural law, by Saint Thomas Aquinas https://mises.org/mises-wire/catholic-theologians-prostitution-should-be-legal
That lefty purple hair guy appears to have a lot of influence over nostr's development. I predict bad stuff. He also appears to have deleted his comment, unless I'm just slow in loading everything on my end.
it's not just an opinion it's an accusation firstly that men who have sex with the speaker are rapists, because they don't seem to mention anything about sex WITH consent and social security is a ponzi scheme, and is already running out of money, and if it's for a woman who is single with children... are you so sure she didn't get pregnant by a "rapist" to have a child so she could get money to not spend on actually raising this child, and put them into the sausage factory called The Department of Education to be miseducated and barely able to do math by the time they finish?
How about you worry about your own body? So what if they want to kill the embryo? So what? Better than 2000lb bunker buster bombs on schools and hospitals or are you okay with THAT kind of abortion?
Well, Trump isn't favorable to freedom of expression either. He wants flag burning to be punished. But, in the US, flag desecration is recognized as part of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. In my own country (Italy) flag desecration is, indeed, illegal. That is a defect in our laws, an unacceptable restriction to freedom of expression which shouldn't exist in any free country. Italy (and many other country) should imitate the US in this, not the other way around, and those who advocate for censorship shouldn't be regarded as if they were upholding free speech. https://www.thefire.org/news/trumps-proposed-constitutional-amendment-banning-flag-burning-would-have-unintended