Fair enough. And pardon my aggression.

I've seen this particular tactic a half dozen times and I thought you were defending it.

No response? Figures.

Here we go again.

Op posted it in literally every sub at once.

Why do you care?

It's not my homeland. But I'm getting an SRS/AHS vibe from you.

Stop spamming, faggot.

Thanks, almost forgot.

You're a peach. ;-*

You call your opinion whatever you like, dear.

Women are the most fragile and unfunny people on the planet. They take everything personally and find offense everywhere.

Go the fuck back to sleep mama bear. We'll wake you when the fight is over.

Mama bears roll over and go back to sleep. Women in this timeline are doing nothing but attention whoring and demanding shit from men they don't know.

It's remarkably likely though.

The overwhelming majority of the OES is comprised of the wives of masons.

Because it's a remarkably tricky subject to handle fairly.

Everyone walks around pretending you can either be completely for or against it, but what we'll have to settle for is something in the infinite shades of gray.

I personally want something as close to truly free speech as possible. I know there are stupid cunts out there who will ruin that idea immediately, but I'll always prefer more speech than less.

A call to action for instance. If I were to communicate with a bunch of other people to raid someone's house on a specific day and time, that could be seen as a call to action.

But I'm not saying your speech hurt or violated me. I firmly believe that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want at any opportunity.

I'm taking this opportunity to tell you to chill the fuck out and stop acting like I'm attacking you.

My point is that you cannot have free speech while also censoring speech. It's in the definition.

If you set up a site for cat posting and you censor rape posts then you're acting as a publisher. And that's fine.

But if you set up a website dedicated to free speech then, by definition, you cannot censor viewpoints you disagree with. Otherwise you're still acting as a publisher and not a platform.

A publisher takes an active role. A platform is passive.

Legal repercussions. For instance, if someone got hurt/violated directly from the speech of a user on a website and nothing was done on the part of the administration of the website.

If that website were seen as a publisher of that content (ie. They have final judicial oversight of the words they choose to put into the public eye) then they could be held liable in a court of law for consequences of that content.

I'm not a lawfag, but that's my understanding.

Either be a "platform" and allow all speech or a "publisher" and police the speech of everyone and be held liable for any repercussions of that speech.

It's pretty simple. You can have one but not both.

That's a really really good question. Need more info immediately.

I mean, you're not wrong. . .

Look up who's been buying up all sorts of cheap land in the states.

Then look up who unleashed the virus.

I made my choice 18 months ago.