kek

Should freedom of speech maximisation be a goal worth while?

It really depends on what you mean by freedom of speech maximisation that is pretty vague.

Like anything goes

right to do libel, right to incite violence

while personally I think its cringe to be like "we can't allow people to question the state!"

I don't think one can really make a good argument for allowing crimes in the name of free speech.

Fraud, for example, I don't think should be allowed under free speech.

But the person is not punished because of some banned word or some idea not allowed to be shared, the act of commiting fraud is what is being punished.

If you conspired to murder someone. You should be punished for conspiring to murder someone. It doesn't matter if you used your speech to do it.

I don't think it conflicts with freedom of speech to punish acts.

If I scream in someone's ear so loud that they get hearing loss, I should get punished for that but I shoudn't get punished because of the word I was screaming.

That's my general position at least.

Punish acts, don't have a list of words or ideas that cannot be spoken under penalty of law. (unless maybe you have state secrets or non disclosure agreements or something like that)

Curt Doolittle is absolutely right on this issue. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want, but you should also be totally accountable for anything you say that has consequence.

@JFGariepy Any plans for TPS #666? Discussion of LaVeyan Satanism perhaps? The Catholics in the crowd might not like it, but I think it would be interesting.

do Crowley instead but yea do something spooky on 666

<:ahem:639979147782914084>

I always thought it would be silly to have anyone but Styx on for that one

Or Razorfist

Interesting guest, but not for #666

better for #669

Crowley would be interesting too, yeah

I remember back in the day, there were a lot of Varg Vikernes fans in the chat

haven't seen them much recently lol

now that Christianity has become popular again on the right

Based and Ryan-Faulk-pilled

https://youtu.be/MXiXhxPDnl8?t=1462

Yang knows what's up when it comes to racial hostility

I am sympathetic towards many of the ideas here, such as being opposed to the anti-white narrative that pervades western nations, being on board with European pride etc. But I am just wondering, why is it necessary to have an ethnostate?

@Patrick Clifford#9447 Very simple.
1)Homogeneous countries are more high trust.
2)Because each ethnic group has a proclivity towards their own kin, and wants to be around those like themeselves on ethnic and cultural lines. This not an argument that ethnonationalism is justified by virtue of being instinctively adhered to by the constituents of most ethnic groups, but that each group having and recognising each others' right to self-determination is conducive to preference satisfaction and thus well-being.

It's, crucially, only whites that are frown upon by wanting to preserve their own groups

Oh shit nvm

He left

wtf

I think he got banned

Was probably an alt or something

From that scottish named guy

<:ohaiShrug:553954608037494784>

@James Peterson Also add that homogenous areas have much higher social capital

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/ethnic-diversity-strength-or-weakness/