aluminiumtrioxid

...wat.

9%. I'm twice the Hitler you are!

So, is it a 4E clone?

Sanders 92%, Stein 89%, Clinton 87%, Bloomberg (who the hell is this guy?) 68%, Johnson 63%. I have no idea how to save the results as an image. Apparently I'm strongly left-leaning but pretty much exactly middle of the road on the authoritarian-libertarian scale. Turns out my reputation as an oppressively authoritarian nazi SJW is somewhat undeserved, who'da thought.

Sure they did. Doesn't change the fact that the Paths they follow still resemble the utterings of a comic book supervillain. Revised's big contribution to making them more grounded basically boiled down to "but most Sabbatites can't actually maintain high Path ratings".

Wow, you're still arguing about this.

you want statistical evidence of improved quality of life resulting from a specific fundamental right? was that serious? ... really? What did you just say about argumentum ad absurdum just a page back? ...In any case, if you're arguing that countries that have hate speech laws are objectively in the wrong morally, legally, or what-have-you, it most certainly would be nice if at least some sort of concrete proof could be levied in favor of that stance. Because from where I'm standing, it suspiciously looks like an acute case of status quo bias. No. Then again, I'm not claiming to be the sole wielder of correct judgment in such matters. My stance continues to be "laws emerge in specific contexts, with the goal of garnering specific outcomes hopefully suited to resolving some of the challenges posed by said contexts, and to presume to judge them objectively, in a mental model devoid of those contexts, is an exercise in futility at best". Case in point: in the same situation, would you decry it as evil and objectively wrong from a moral standpoint if a nation would change its laws accordingly? It's not a characterization of First Amendment privilege. It refers to the fundamental unwillingness to consider said privilege as anything but an unalienable right in any just society. So it is a practical issue, then? People in aggregate tend to be stupid, therefore letting them set the limits on public speech could only lead to unpleasantness? I can respect that.

Okay, now I literally have no idea what perspective are we trying to tackle the issue from. From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least). From a philosophical POV, I see the issue as extremely malleable. Enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs is going to solve some problems (your society won't ever have the problem of silencing opinions diverging from those supporting the status quo) and run into some others (sometimes the status quo is really not that terrible to have, especially when the alternative is the ****ing nazis). In certain situations, it's better to have one, in others, the other. Admittedly, this is my completely uneducated opinion and I'm looking forward to seeing the problem from new angles I haven't considered yet (but am sure people who earn their living actually dealing with the tricky issues of lawmaking have).

I don't know. I fail to see restrictions on freedom of speech as categorically, axiomatically evil. It's like... You said it best: ...But sometimes it's not feasible, sometimes there are more pressing concerns for citizens than to argue with bigots in the faint hopes of convincing some passers-by that said bigot is wrong (because it's absolutely, 100% sure they won't convince the bigots themselves), and wouldn't it just be so very very nice to even out the playing field, since the effort required to educate, to do research, to factually refute wrongs is orders of magnitude higher than the effort required to spew thoughtless, hateful bile, and by the time any given point is addressed, the bigots have raised ten more?

Tautologic statements are tautological.

On one hand, I can empathize with that. On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA. are you sure you wanna use Germany as an example? am thinking gd gots some pretty compelling reasons to fear German examples o' suppression o' opinion. Touché Although I do feel compelled to point out that as far as I know, most of the laws regulating freedom of speech were coined after those examples, moreover: as a direct reaction to them. It's almost as if laws could be created and changed to adapt to the different challenges a society experiences in different times and circumstances? Fair enough. Britain is a far better example. (snip) There is a reason I used the examples of Finland and Germany, not Britain.

So what was the "troll" that earned you the sanction above?

Consider my curiosity piqued. About those sites or why I was banned from Free Republic? The reason you were banned. I've found out the hard way that it's better for my blood pressure to keep my distance from any congregation of internet libertarians (present company excluded).

On one hand, I can empathize with that. On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA. To be fair, I'm pretty sure you could also see the army storming your place of residence and try to pry your guns from your cold, dead fingers at the orders of the government at the first opportunity said governments gets to enact such orders, so I'm not sure how well your nightmare scenarios stand the test of realism

Consider my curiosity piqued.

That's absolutely fine. As somebody who isn't even up-to-date regarding the details of his own country's Constitution, much less the American one, I wasn't objecting to the idea that "the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech" is a flat-out wrong (as in, factually so) position for a Supreme Court judge to take. However, I did find GD's rather panicked "What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is." an extremely peculiar statement, given the vast historical precedent for countries that somehow managed to draw up hate speech laws that happen to clearly delineate what constitutes as such, and not serve as basis for the arbitrary punishment of People The Government Does Not Like.

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how?

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias? If you live in a country where expressing an opinion, no matter how stupid, ill informed, or downright mean spirited lands you in criminal trouble then it's already too late. You ARE in an Orwellian dystopia. let's not go all argumentum ad absurdum, eh? HA! Good Fun! lol

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

Interesting. From where I'm standing, that exchange makes remarkably little sense. In what world is admitting that you basically lied to the entire nation a reasonable move? It doesn't make you any less of a liar.

Maybe that was a change to the EE though, not sure I played before its release. Nope, that's exactly how I killed it as well. With or without specter oil? Also: When playing later installments, I kind of miss this awesome, raw power the signs had in TW1.

Maybe that was a change to the EE though, not sure I played before its release. Nope, that's exactly how I killed it as well.

It was also a well-formulated answer, which is infinitely preferable to a short and idiotic one.

Funny you say that, since lead acetate was a component of a certain artificial sweetener used by ancient Romans.