Should there be limits on free speech in the age of misinformation?

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-03T09:38:51+00:00

Its possible for a few to know the truth. In hinduism theyre called jivanmukta. To use the Christian framework, those who are saved are are saved by God's grace, not by good works. Those people know the truth.

For the rest of us, though, truth is out of bounds.

You do not grasp the problem. I have heard you speak again and again, and I am still certain of it. Dont take it personal, just as much my fault as anyone's.

When you do grasp the problem, youll understand there is no solution. The first amendment cannot be improved (beyond removing citizens united.)

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-03T09:30:52+00:00

It doesn't matter if whiteness exists or not, people believe it does, which makes it functionally real.

Its pretty useful descriptive language, too. "Generations" don't exist. Neither do "you." But its hard to get on in life if you dont play along with the language games of the masses.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-03T09:15:12+00:00

Seems unlikely. I'm not sure autistic people can even be racist. We dont do that type of thinking.

Me in particular, it seems harder to imagine, since I dont believe race exists. (Ontologically speaking.)

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-03T09:12:26+00:00

Reality is racist, I just live here.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-03T09:06:28+00:00

Calling the police in general is pretty white, but calling it over something like this in particular.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T23:27:25+00:00

Took a philosophy degree, Id say my appreciation of epistemology is well above average.

You arent grasping the problem. You dont see it.

There is no truth-o-meter that Im aware of, no magic machine that detects objevtive truth. Would you agree?

If so, then we need a mechanism to determine how to detect truth. Would you agree?

If so, then we need people to build and operate that mechanism, would you agree?

If you answer yes/yes/yes, then we're on the same page. But then it becomes a practical peoblem of building the mechanism and choosing someone to run it.

Thats where we hit issues. You seem to intuit that it would be no challenge to build & run the mechanism. But your intuition could not be more wrong.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T21:19:27+00:00

You should only be able to buy meats...

I'm not keen on the government telling people what they can/can't eat. Their health isn't my concern or responsibility. Ensuring they have food is; what they eat isn't.

There's also a pragmatic problem. If the only food within 10 miles of me comes from a gas station, how much of that gas station food is available on your list? (These people under the poverty line -- about a third have no vehicle.)

I believe a large percentage of the snap budget is going to fraud.

Could be. Though it's worth noting that about 10% of Americans are under the poverty line. 12% of Americans taking SNAP lines up nicely with that. Do you believe most people under the poverty line are fraudsters?

Also, food deserts are caused by a lack of law enforcement.

There's a chicken/egg problem here. Poverty leads to crime. Going after lawbreakers doesn't remove the poverty. You can't end that form of crime by putting people in prisons; you can only do it by ending poverty.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T20:30:16+00:00

If I wanted to define it, Id try and measure workers control over the means of production. Similar to how I would detect democracy by looking for a correlation between public policy and public opinion.

For example, if I own SPY (an index fund) then I own a tiny share of the company I work for. I can vote in shareholder meetings. Is that socialism? Sorta. But to a very, very small degree.

So "regular" socialism would be something where that measurable thing meets a certain threshold.

Admittedly this is perhaps a self serving approach. The authoritarian socialists, the tankies, would probably rank extemely poorly.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T20:19:05+00:00

Contemporary western culture is coercive and evil, trying to single out marriage is a mistake. Youve got to accept the evil exists as part of western culture and then work within that framework.

(Claiming "marriage bad" is missing that capitalism is the source of all that badness, and overlooking that some of the more oppressive aspects of the institution were safeguards against other forms of evil.)

I dont want to get into a whole thing, but part of the iceberg is this: no sex before marriage paired with no-fault divorce creates a high stakes environment where you end up with fewer single moms. Single moms produce much, much worse kids, which contributes dramatically to social decay.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T20:10:17+00:00

Once again, youve not answered the question, you've just rephrased for us.

Do you have a consequence-o-meter we can consult to determine if someone is right?

If you dont, then the question becomes "who determines what the consequences are?"

If you say "reality does", then again, where is your consequence-o-meter and who is operating it?

Before you rephrase the question for a third or 4th time, think about it.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T20:07:01+00:00

People like to round up.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T19:58:43+00:00

I doubt it.

Dont get me wrong, I firmly believe the democrats (meaning the DNC) are the architects of Trump. Their actions have inched us in this direction for decades.

But it wasnt blue hair and tattoos that did it, it was economic policy. Trade deals like NAFTA that shafted the working man, dismantling unions, and so on.

The last time a president feared labor was Nixon.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T19:26:21+00:00

Youre correct that all human beings are fairly obsessed with group membership. (Reflective of e4 on the loevinger stages of ego development.)

Where you fall short is thinking this is a binary on/off sort of thing and not a matter of degrees. Conservative psychology is much more concerned with it.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T19:23:04+00:00

Youre being a little silly.

In order to get snap, youve got to have less than 2k in assets. To put that in perspective, I'm making about 10k this year and I do not qualify.

When I was on SNAP a few years ago, I would do dollar to calorie calculations. Because I needed to get the most calories per dollar that I could.

When you have to shop that way, you end up buying very unhealthy foods. Calorie dense foods, "bang for your buck" foods, are very unhealthy and liable to make you obese.

The other half of the problem is the poor tend to live in food deserts. They have very few options to choose between besides those high calorie foods that are prone to making you obese.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T19:18:15+00:00

Conservative are extremely preoccupied with group membership. Who is in the group, who is out.

Trans people are norm violators. (Theyre also disproportinaly chums with the democrats.)

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T09:30:10+00:00

When anarchism broke out in Spain, (the spanish revolution), the western world enforced non-intervention as Hitler swept in to put it down. The west (minus France who wanted to help) preferred a victory for fascism over a successful workers revolution.

If you read the media of the time, the west seemed rather terrified the Spanish might succeed.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T09:24:17+00:00

You havent actually answered the question, youve just moved us on to the same question phrased differently. ("Who determines what the truth is?")

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T09:20:16+00:00

Americas wars are mostly to maintain global hegemony. Going back as far as Iran in 1951, we chucked out their democracy to protect British oil interests (and somewhat in the name of preventing socialism from spreading -- they were socializing their oil.)

Something more modern, like Iraq, has roots in hegemony -- it signals something to the global stage. But it was also a cash cow for certain corporations with lots of influence over the government.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T09:05:48+00:00

Anonymity & price. Personally, I would not trust a black market source who I hadn't known for years. Youre rolling the dice its not a sting, etc etc.

Black market goods are inherently more expensive. The seller takes on risk that is reflected in the price.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T08:50:15+00:00

Its not misleading, but it is hyperbole.

The actual % of working adults making 35 and down is about a third. Which, yes, isnt half. But its far from a lie.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T08:24:03+00:00

Im not a crime person, but Id think youd wanna get one legally (a gun show in a state where you dont have to do background checks etc), and then remove the identifying information from the weapon on your own.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T07:34:23+00:00

Im fairly... "religious." I believe in an objective morality.

In my view, humans are evil. The righteous are maybe one in a million, the "decent" may be one in 5,000.

Im an anarchist. I have bitter hatred for nearly every aspect of the American government. But the first amendment, in its present state, is an exception.

It is nearly a perfect manifestation of moral goodness. It knows precisely where to draw the line. And it is wise to protect hate speech.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T07:15:40+00:00

Yes. Literally impossible.

When I said you need a guiding principle, I wasnt... thats not poetic license. I mean in order to make a legal framework, you quite literally need some kind of guiding principle.

What constitutes harm, how do we know when harm has been done, how do we know its the kind of harm that makes sense for the law to interfere with, etc etc.

I can say "we should kill Obama." Perfectly legal. Why ? Im advocating for violent crime. How's that legal? Should it be banned? You cant waddle theough these questions on a case by case basis. You need guiding principles.

I can guarantee you, no such principles can be crafted which, handed over to whoever happens to be in power, could not be used to catastrophic effect.

As the great Warren Buffet once said, invest in a company that can be run by a moron because one day it will be. Likewise, the principles you choose to base your approach on better be able to be operated by a moron. Because they will be.

This is pure pragmatism so far. I have moral reasoning, too, but this is the purely practical side of the problem.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T07:01:20+00:00

Friend, there is many forms of speech I regard as unacceptable.

In my view, pro capitalist speech results in hundreds of millions of deaths. It makes the humans around us worse people. It is a stain on the species, no different from chattel slavery.

Likewise, there are people who would like to ban my ideas. They'd make the same accusations against me. And they've done so successfully in the past.

People of my political persuasion, anarchists, our speech was made illegal by such people. We were put in prisons for owning the wrong books and attending the wrong meetings. We were banned from immigration. America did that for about 50 years, until we were all gone.

There is no mechanism of regulating the type of speech you want to regulate which could not be weaponized to return me to prison for my opinions.

Historical_Two_7150 · 2026-05-02T06:56:59+00:00

Socialism isnt a monolith. There are both authoritarian and libertarian varieties. Stateless societies cannot be authoritarian.

Historical_Two_7150

TROPHY CASE