Re: How To Improve This Group

On 2025-04-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 4/12/25 18:58, Borax Man wrote:

On 2025-04-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 4/12/25 06:17, Borax Man wrote:

On 2025-04-12, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

Le 11-04-2025, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> a écrit :

>
Not sure I trust the Germans with my sensetive data.

>
Why? I would understand if you couldn't anyone with your sensitive data.
That's the only way. But why not the Germans? They lack far behind US
and China in the need to be extremely careful in what you give them.
>

>
They are overly sensetive about "hate speech", so consider censorship
and surveillance to be warranted.

>
I have already decided that I will never set foot in Britain or Germany,
despite my wife's love for everything European. I can't respect their
war on freedom of speech and don't want to even accidentally give these
people money. I'm not surprised that the area that spawned Peter the
Klöwn would wage war against a European's right to speak or tell the
truth yet disregard all crimes committed by anyone whose skin is
off-white or darker.
>

 
Germany does not have a good history with state suppression, and what
I've seen they don't believe in free speech, think "Hate Speech" is
something should be banned.

>
Except that there is no universal definition of "hate speech," so what
they are banning is "anything the government doesn't like." Besides,
hate speech is the very thing freedom of speech is meant to protect
since just any sentence uttered can be considered hateful. Heck, I gave
a grammar exercise to my students a couple of years ago and there were
two sentences that caused some of them alarm. One said something along
the lines of "all boys love sports" and the other said "all girls enjoy
romantic movies." To the woke cretins in the classroom, this was sexist.
The fact that it was a grammatical exercise escaped them. They would
have gladly caused whoever was responsible for writing the exercise at
the publishing fired for that.
>

"Hate Speech" is a construct of Political Correctness, and is nothing
more than a rhetorical device.  I do not consider "hate speech" as being
anything really different to "heresy" or "blasphemy".  The purpose of
defining speech as "hate speech" is to signal what speech goes against
the religious orthodoxy of the day.  It is threatened by "Hate Speech",
which could undermines it goals, therefore has to ban it.  No different
to a Theocracy punishing speech which questions the supremacy of their
Deity.

And the entire point of Freedom of Speech is to allow one to hear ideas
and speech which are considered to be wrong, and this means protecting
those disseminating it from repurcussions.  The Right get this wrong
too, as they equate it with the right to express oneself.

That means they cannot be trusted with my
data.  Any people who believe that certain forms of speech much be
policed cannot be trusted with regards to privacy.  They will have
strong motivation to work against it.
 
You've touch on an important point as well, the more determined the
state is to enforce diversity and tolerance, the less free it becomes.

>
To them, freedom means "the freedom to repeat the state's narrative."
Anything else is prohibited.
>

The state has no choice though.  It has committed, and gone "all in" on
social changes which necessitate the creating of an authoritarian state.
There is no point appealing to the state to allow freedom, it simply
cannot afford to do this anymore.  The sooner people realise this, the
better.