Thanks for validating my "collective power". On the other hand, you aren't going to change a moron's mind so what you are saying is that you like wasting your time talking to morons who are going to do whatever it is they collectively do. You don't even get a share in the power in that scenario--you are just a total loss of life/time.

Even the smartest guy on earth (obviously not me) has to spend all day talking to the intellectually inferior. Morons may be morons, but they have collective power and are important nonetheless.

You nailed it. I'm retarded. Of course, you are trying to argue with a retard, so what does that make you? Not very clever for being so smart, apparently.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

That's only if you are investing for ultimate winning. Ultimate winning produces highly likely ultimate losing.

Tor and I2P are useless when you can see every message pass from hop to hop on the global level anyway, why do they keep doing this shit? It must be a power thing. To show everyone not to try to fuck with them, even though it won't work

fuck antifa

bAd OnLinE bEhAvIoR. you know, the stuff that's existed since what like 2002. Useless research and money spending. Soon they might be monitoring voice chats if they don't already do that

Look into I2P.

Less centralization, (no hard-coded directory servers; because on I2P everyone is a directory server) more relays, (everyone is a relay by default) faster than Tor.

Downside: Less exit nodes. I2P is meant for communicating mostly within I2P, not outside. But this can be a good thing, because most of the attacks that the feds use to deanonymize tor users are based upon the user using exit nodes to talk to the regular internet.

I have had same issue after I upgraded Firefox ESR to version 102 from 91. No addons. HTTPS-Only Mode is disabled.

Edit: Somehow this issue was dissolved. And redirect to IP address url 23 . 137 . 250 . 250 occasionally on Firefox ESR 91 and 102 after RAMBLE site updated.

Yeah, I don't think Tor is the answer to this issue.