>>muh freeze peach
>Is a meme
>It doesn't actually exist. Anywhere.
True. There is some oppression/control everywhere, states and other entities could not exist without this. But what fascist/statist types don't understand is there is difference in how much oppression is used, and weather it is used rightfully or wrongfully. Where only harmful and alien speech is censored, (and even that with judiciousness) there is in practice freedom of speech.
>Nor should it exist.
This the essence of why I dislike fascists.
Freedom is entirely artificial, but it is a precious thing, and socially vital. It should exist to the maximum extent possible. Fascist confuse eliminating subversion with oppression. Because they are an artificial political entity, and while they (like everyone else) are interested in power, they can only see it's use along artificial lines. They only see the "what" not the "why". The have regulations and principles, not goals and aspirations. They have euridite (which is greek for book smart) philosophies, not understanding based on experience.
>There will always be some limitations on speech whether based on legalities, what is socially acceptable, or cultural norms of groups.
True BUT not true. Professing to freedom of speech while eliminating jew-speech, or blasphemy might be categorized as hypocrisy, but in practice it is not hypocrisy. There IS freedom of speech, but if than under these conditions certain parties exploit the principle in unethical ways, than a respective bending of ethics is justified. once again the "why" over the "what".
>Fucking whinging about not having free speech on kike owned media
demand freedom for themselves, got to where (((they)))
are under the banner of freedom, sing about and swear to freedom..
Is it not ethical than that we should hold them to their principles? and that if they have a society built on freedom, we should expect it?
And if (((they)))
have extracted so much from people in the name of freedom that we should feel wronged to find injustice, tyranny and terrorism instead?
It's not the universalist principle, it's the injustice of it. Not the what but the why.
>Make your own platform if it matters so much to you. A site like 16 is like $30/mth to run.
Good idea. But than the promoters of freedom will shut it down, plus there will not be an audience, since the yids have the masses on their platforms. Another asset they are not entitled to, and not entitled to control or misuse, and an asset they gained in the name of freedom..
Yes you should make your own platform.
But you should also demand the yids not misuse the resources they have acquired in the name of freedom, and hold them to what they profess, and call them on the principles in the name of which (((they)))
have attained their privileges. You do this either to force them to give you your due, or to expose the basis of their advantage as false, and thus pull the rug out from under them.
This is the moral reason for it, and revolutionary reason for it, the "why".
No there is no freedom of speech, but there should be (with some ethically justified hypocrisy based on the interests of the majority - not the perversions of a batch of satanic invaders - it's the soundness of the ethics and the why that is the difference). And if they have demanded it, than we demand it too, and if they don't give it they should lose it too.
muh freedom of speech
or the yids should lose it too