New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you)

Well, that is your retarded argument in a nutshell. Which is the same argument as the censors and those fighting against free speech. I think you struck accidental lucidity.

No, that is someone's IDEA of the free speech argument. This isn't about what I "Like to hear". The classical argument is that you aren't, through free speech, allowed to yell out the word FIRE when there is no fire in a crowded theater. Such an action would cause probable death and panic. Therefore, the statement "your free speech doesn't go past your nose" is usually the metric because when you speak a thing, it enters into a larger arena than just your desire to say a given thing.

I'd argue racist statements are like yelling in that crowded theater when there is no fire. Just because you hate something or someone does not give you an automatic right to start raising an alarm about that someone or group of someones unless you have some kind of actual evidence. So, if I tell you you should be careful of the Chinese because of the Great Firewall and sleeper agents sympathetic to the communist party, that's different than if I say you should beware Chinese cause they gots yellow skins, and I hates me some yellow skins!

It isn't about what I want to hear, but it is about conveying information in a responsible way to a larger accountability than just saying whatever the hell comes into your mind. Most people censor themselves quite heavily, for instance, on a first date since they understand if they say things like "I want to be inside you" or "I want you inside me" most likely that isn't going to function in a way that moves to a second date and if it does, one has to wonder about the longevity of such a relationship since the sexual emphasis was so high and immediate...

No, that's the entire free speech argument. You don't need to protect the right of someone to say what you like to year. You only need to protect the right of someones saying things you do not like to hear.

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Gee golly. You totally supported your argument with all those facts. I feel like we are on an equal footing and you are a "smart person" who has the authority to call me names because you are so, so smart! Good job, you!

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

K. Since I don't believe in free speech, and I do believe you should shut the fuck up, I think you should shut the fuck up because you are dumb. New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you) (Just for reference, this is wholly satire based on your bad reasoning)

Just not true. Science is open to everyone. You might not be able to contribute anything new, but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.

Your mindset is essentially dogma. "Don't try to read the Bible yourself, we tell you what it says. Trust us."

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Edit:

usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

Thinking your definition is the only one is delusional, but that's neither here nor there. It's not just something "I don't like". It's picking a class of people for usually imagined reasons, and making up stereotypes so you feel better than them. That's called being a fuckhead and when people are fuckheads and start doing this, usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing which involves law enforcement and lawsuits which ultimately create police states because people aren't really relating to free speech in the sense that it is meant as a concept and pretty soon, "Free speech" is all weirdly interpreted because of a group of fuckheads who didn't think there was consequence to being prejudiced bitches. The whole idea of "protected classes" has come about due to idiots thinking free speech means you can go out in your finest white sheets and burn crosses on lawns. So, I don't like that a bunch of idiots who can't figure out cause and effect start to steer legislation that affects my ability to speak in general since legislators usually institute "Thought police". Go bond over something else other than your mutual hatred of a specific group of people--or if you are going to do that, at least do it in private places where you aren't going to suddenly involve law enforcement agencies who decide what the laws should be due to your being an idiot. If you start posting it in public places which are governed most often by laws of one kind or another, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when your little hate groups receive...well hate.

Free speech isn't free speech unless it includes people saying things you don't like. We are all prejudiced in some way: to think otherwise is delusional.

Sighs. I do get tired of people trying to define prejudiced speech as free speech. It winds up ruining free speech for everybody else because somebody wants to scream about "Spics" or "Gooks" or something else juvenile.

Adding a link to the global mod log on the front page would be good.

No, science is not something everyone can do. Most people have no idea how much work and attention to detail is involved. Most people are just too stupid to be scientists. Unfortunately comprehending ones own stupidity takes intelligence, and so it's quite hard to explain to those who really need to understand.

Yeah, I didn't actually read those articles.

If it's a 'news' specific rule then the removal is consistent. Of course the moderator should have written 'old article' for a reason, not 'spam'. The article(s) that were recent shouldn't have been removed. This one is recent:

https://inf.news/en/world/4a894d32a5273367f78eb683b420c22d.html

Edit: Actually, it seems to say it's recent ^ but it's not. Perhaps it's a retarded date format.

"Don't think for yourself, believe the Priest who tells you what is written in the Bible."

Yeah.. right.

It's just more tribalism. Science is something everyone can do. That's so neat about it. In theory, there are no gatekeepers. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that all the predictions in relation to climate science haven't come true.

If someone tells you the world will end in ten years and then it doesn't, why believe him again?

The dude was only posting articles about Vietnamese stealing, some of the articles were years old and not even recent.

No apologies needed from anyone who moderates RAMBLE.

The rules of /f/news state clearly in the sidebar:

Please make sure all news is current any from actual news articles unless it's a breaking news event, in which case linking to a Tweet ( for example ) would be appropriate.

Headlines may be modified by a moderator or admin to clarify region of news by adding a tag. (Ex: [USA] or [Russia])

Some Vietnamese dude stealing chickens in 2019 or something is hardly newsworthy.

I don't typically play mp4 files while browsing tor.

Climate change is a great example of vested interests empowering an army or morons who have absolutely no hope of understanding such a complex system.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/

^ An important message that's very hard to impress on people.

It's the same thing as long as you only listen to scientists of your tribe. Just take climate change as an example: https://files.catbox.moe/kh4kvl.mp4

"Science" has on ongoing replication crisis. And if it's not possible to replicate results, then they are meaningless.

Deport all Vietnamese out of Japan. They are extremely dirty people. Just search on Duckduckgo.com/Bing.com/search.Yahoo.com with keywords "Vietnamese stealing in Japan", "Vietnamese are thief", "Vietnamese pickpocket", "Vietnamese are rude", "Vietnamese are scammers", you will be surprised. But my experience is limited

So, you don't like Vietnamese people... personally I've always found them hardworking, intelligent and friendly, but my experience is limited.

No, it's not the same. Perhaps you have no idea about scientific enquiry or standards, and so your world is just a insane nightmare of lies with no conception of truth, and thus no hope of finding it.

Sadly the truth of many/most things is not clear, but some information does exist that we can learn from.

Good luck in your waking nightmare.

It still means the same thing. It's just more fancy sounding words for "does my tribe approve?". A "reputable journal" is "something my tribe screens for wrongthink" and "peer-review" means "a lot of people from my tribe agree".

The only reason you have an easy way to trust these is because they are from your tribe. So even if they are wrong, at least you are all wrong together.

It's essentially a form of confirmation bias.

I basically disagree with the author, but I found the discussion interesting as I'm familiar with EA.

Nah, you need to go easy on the red pills. Some tribes are genuinely stupider than others.

I should have been more specific, but my default reputable source is s peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal. That's pretty easy to find/trust over the internet.

Shit like this is ok if it's entertaining, but you're safer to assume it's a lie without a reputable source.

Sounds like a whole lot of useless commentary that could be summed up as "Do unto others".

By the way - and this came up in a different discussion I had today - a "reputable source" is nothing but an euphemism for a source that screens based on your own filter bubble. Essentially you are not asking for a "source" you are asking implicitly whether or not your own tribe agrees with this new information. (If it's not part of your tribe it isn't "reputable".)

What you should be asking instead is whether or not there is any evidence for the claim. But this is impossible to provide as information over the Internet, as information can be tampered with. So just take it as possibly true until you find corresponding evidence.

A source is just a different origin for the same claim and no evidence.

https://files.catbox.moe/1wvvcn.jpg