Free Speech or Censorship: a gender divide?

[BlueOak]

Even if the question is just about safety. The question becomes do you want unconscious zombies acting out things without realising or a population that's aware of what is going on and can take appropriate action to safeguard others. People are aware of what they are aware of now because they saw, experienced it, heard it, read it etc.

Limit what people see and it still occurs, you and they are just no longer aware of it. If you limited this study from being published you wouldn't have access to the information and we wouldn't be talking about it, for others it would be an unconscious expression that happened anyway but they were not aware of it. 

The idea that silencing someone will stop something is simply untrue, and worse is when you ask me or someone else to decide what should or shouldn't be permitted to be broadcast its even worse. As now i get to impose my way of life on you by default.

The only exceptions to this are matters of safety, calling for violence, or breaking a law by harming someone. As long as people are safe and secure, not calling for violence to occur (theft, violence, intimidation etc) which I think is a definition which could be expanded to include certain associated rhetoric, then let people express their opinion and view.

As an example. A few years ago I was personally globally moderated off youtube/google for speaking about a diversive topic before the current media was ready to talk about it. Which it now is. Realising I could no longer speak on youtube, without having all my comments filtered by a third party (not the channel itself but the platform) I went elsewhere. I still have those views, I still express them and if I didn't they would still be unconsciously in me and acted upon.

Edited January 15, 2022 by BlueOak

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Very generally speaking, the masculine values truth more than the feminine.

My explanation: 

Feminine is collective oriented. The purpose of a collective itself is to distort reality. If you lived as an individual, reality can easily crush your fantasies, versus being in a group.

The ultimate truth, non-duality cannot be realised while you are part of a group.

On the other hand non duality is in sync perfectly with individual frame. Because you certainly exists.

Individualism need not acknowledge other individuals.

But collective certainty need to acknowledge other individuals.

"Others" is a self-delusion.

Feminine is physically/intellectually/emotionally weaker and gentler than the masculine.

The top 1% is almost all human endeavors business, science, sports etc are all dominated by males including intellectual sports like chess or shogi.

Because men,*on average* value truth and are willing to work towards it.

[ The people who value truth are going to be men. Not that the average dude on the internet is truthful. ] 

So the masculine is more in tune with the relativistic truths associated with life which are harsh and painstaking.

Weaker beings need protection from reality & truth. 

Women obsessively indulge in makeup to distort the reality around them. Men won't allow such behaviour, atleast among other men.

Men confront other men directly.

Self censoring to protect 1% of people wouldn't really be in line with truthful behaviour. Instead the 1% should just be more strong in accepting reality.

A huge backlash is inevitable if you artificially manipulate the flow of information.

(Misinformation and ad hominems must be censored, but censoring scientific findings is stupid.)

Reaching truth needs direct confrontation.

Raw reality is utter chaos.

And it favours the masculine which can induce order into it. ( You need order to survive in chaos.)

And within the protection of the masculine, the feminine gentleness grows. 

Finally, the feminine values being while the masculine values doing.

Men feel the need to go somewhere else, while the woman is comfortable being where she already is.

This could be a boon or bane. 

While being is more inline with truth, you need to do certain things to be in your true being state.

Because the default position that human find themselves in isn't truth.

So you really need to actively do something to reach truth, which men are better at doing, on average.

 

These are my interpretations, and I am not up for a debate. I want to read other well explained interpretations as well.

[mememe]

@BlueOak yeah, ofc let’s start republishing hitlers MEIN KAMPF internationally, i‘m sure men and women would like that pretty equally.

@Bobby_2021 can’t you update at least on your username?

Edited January 15, 2022 by mememe

[something_else]

2 hours ago, How to be wise said:

Most women I know are more interested in ‘feeling’ than in ‘truth’. If you ever debated your girlfriend, you’ll know this. Logic flies out the window for them.

I get the sense you think this is a bad thing

Often a POV based on intuition and feeling can be correct even if you can't necessarily find the logic to spell it out

[Bobby_2021]

Just now, something_else said:

I get the sense you think this is a bad thing

Often a POV based on intuition and feeling can be correct even if you can't necessarily find the logic to spell it out

Infact people who are logical and analytical need to put a lot of work into offloading those capabilities to your instincts and feelings.

 

The greatest masters never logical think their next move. They often feel.

 

[Bobby_2021]

@mememe

I don't think I can change it.?

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, mememe said:

@BlueOak yeah, ofc let’s start republishing hitlers MEIN KAMPF internationally, i‘m sure men and women would like that pretty equally.

I've never read it so I did a google. On wikipedia it describes it as threatening violence, etc.

So you missed where i said:

Quote:

The only exceptions to this are matters of safety, calling for violence, or breaking a law by harming someone. As long as people are safe and secure, not calling for violence to occur (theft, violence, intimidation etc) which I think is a definition which could be expanded to include certain associated rhetoric, then let people express their opinion and view.

End Quote:

Further as I hinted there about rhetoric, I feel the current laws are inadequate and behind the digital times when it comes to what is actually enticing or threatening, stiring populations up to action. People get to hide behind anonymity or double talk, hinting at something but not really saying it to their audience, and covering their identity with a moniker. A few can demonize people to the point their audience no longer considers them as people. This could be regulated against with some discussion on the topic, so that slander for example is still slander and can be taken further in court, or hate speech can cover things like claims that try to indirectly stir people up to cause violence.

There needs to be repercussions for what people do. Law, not companies deciding what people can say or see. None of that means people shouldn't be able to speak their mind. I'd rather know something than have it hidden from me for example. If people really feel a certain way, its better to have it in the open, so we can see it and address it or understand what they are really saying. Not unconscious and unknown, or going on in secret, that is far more dangerous. Have you seen the figures about how many criminals have been caught by facebook evidence?

Edited January 15, 2022 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Also anything that is entertainment not news, should by default be forced to remove the term news from their name. Whether this is a 1 person channel or a multi billion pound enterprise. Because this is truth, transparency, if its not news again by law and definition it shouldn't get to tell people it is.

[Dryas]

Well, there is the truth in not valuing truth. Or something.

[mememe]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I've never read it so I did a google. On wikipedia it describes it as threatening violence, etc.

So you missed where i said:

Quote:

The only exceptions to this are matters of safety, calling for violence, or breaking a law by harming someone. As long as people are safe and secure, not calling for violence to occur (theft, violence, intimidation etc) which I think is a definition which could be expanded to include certain associated rhetoric, then let people express their opinion and view.

End Quote:

Further as I hinted there about rhetoric, I feel the current laws are inadequate and behind the digital times when it comes to what is actually enticing or threatening, stiring populations up to action. People get to hide behind anonymity or double talk, hinting at something but not really saying it to their audience, and covering their identity with a moniker. A few can demonize people to the point their audience no longer considers them as people. This could be regulated against with some discussion on the topic, so that slander for example is still slander and can be taken further in court, or hate speech can cover things like claims that try to indirectly stir people up to cause violence.

There needs to be repercussions for what people do. Law, not companies deciding what people can say or see. None of that means people shouldn't be able to speak their mind. I'd rather know something than have it hidden from me for example. If people really feel a certain way, its better to have it in the open, so we can see it and address it or understand what they are really saying. Not unconscious and unknown, or going on in secret, that is far more dangerous. Have you seen the figures about how many criminals have been caught by facebook evidence?

yeah both examples, what countries are you speaking of? - i‘m really far from generalizing it, but women tend to be more generalists even if specialized, with some exceptions. men and women tend more to talk without being specialized nor having a general overview over a situation which would lead to the specific context of the discussion. this is not a new phenomenon but a social media phenomenon.

Edited January 15, 2022 by mememe

[BlueOak]

50 minutes ago, mememe said:

yeah both examples, what countries are you speaking of? - i‘m really far from generalizing it, but women tend to be more generalists even if specialized, with some exceptions. men and women tend more to talk without being specialized nor having a general overview over a situation which would lead to the specific context of the discussion. this is not a new phenomenon but a social media phenomenon.

I am from the UK so my frame of reference is partially that. We are stronger than america for example in some respects about freedom of speech and weaker in others. We can't use news or sports clips for example in a video, whereas Americans can. While I feel we are less censored than Americans are in large media, our debates for example tend to grill the person speaking more thoroughly and the prime minister can get a question asked to him each week from any elected official. Our large broadcasts tend to have a wider array of opinions shown at once but its all still for the status quo, and any large media broadcaster in the UK will heavily censor their comments or replies on youtube.

Our independent media scene is almost non existant over here sadly, and what existed has been squashed by youtube or google. When you can find a channel the discussion is much more blunt and to the point, the replies are less censored, more honesty. Independent media is ever reduced partially because of not being able to reference existing news or video clips, a youtube monopoly, corporate interest, and also the nature of the average person here trusting the established media more. Any discussion outside the status quo I do usually falls on an american website/service.  Because UK specific video sites or large open discussion areas are less common. My experience is straddling the two, as well as european law, growing up under the EU and communicating across a few European services (which of course is a multitude of different laws). Websites in some european countries have much more well defended freedom of speech laws, and are attractive as a result for discussions. So its a mix that i've encountered over my life time.

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

I just realised something critical. The mix of operating under both UK and US law heavily curtails UK Independent media as it has to satisfy both to operate.

[mememe]

@BlueOak can you think in another language?

how much would you estimate americans to think in a second language?

Edited January 15, 2022 by mememe

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, puporing said:

A large part of this is a result of conditioning rather than from one's own natural tendencies if it were permitted/nurtured. If you read some feminist texts, it's a recurring theme that girls are more restricted in their upbringing and by society throughout their life relative to boys, and mothers (the primary caregiver) parent daughters much differently than they do sons, no matter what stage on the spiral the society is in. A woman who first conceives of the importance of freedom and truth above all and exercises them in reality can find almost no allies and would be lucky to not be persecuted

That's not the reason why. The feminine simply has empathy and communion as higher priorities than truth or freedom. This is necessary for mothering.

Feminists are not good to listen to on this point. Feminists often don't appreciate the asymmetry of the feminine and masculine as they try too hard to equalize them.

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not the reason why. The feminine simply has empathy and communion as higher priorities than truth or freedom. This is necessary for mothering.

Feminists are not good to listen to on this point. Feminists often don't appreciate the asymmetry of the feminine and masculine as they try too hard to equalize them.

Both sexes have biological tendencies which culture and society extends through conditioning.

[BlueOak]

I wouldn't comment on American's language only the things i've interacted with. You can pull statistics that say spanish is relatively well known and studied. I would guess english or spanish is the primary mode of thought from those i've spoken to, but I wouldn't like to state it for a foreign country.

Myself. Maths if you consider that a language. Touch. Imagery. Music. I tried learning mandarin for 6 months from the rosetta stone software, which is great. I did learn different computer coding skills. I do think of myself as sympathetic to celtic or folk language, art, music, because I am half scottish and I enjoy those cultures.

In the UK its still largely english that we communicate and think in but that language originates from many nations and cultures, you can see that best in the variety of names in cities or towns. Roman, Saxon, Norse, Celtic etc. The language and dialect came from these different cultures and others. Modern day there are more cultures here that are part of our national makeup for example these are interesting:

What employers in the UK see as useful languages (2015) https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/the-10-languages-uk-employers-most-want-their-staff-to-speak-7278966
There are a few % of people here that speak a different primary language:
(2011) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/articles/languageinenglandandwales/2013-03-04
(2013) https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/30/article-2270638-173FF389000005DC-320_306x448_popup.jpg But honestly for the massive majority they all speak great english.

Its difficult to find a modern day graph or census but this has continued to rise since those graphs were published 10 years ago, and is skewed towards london and other urban areas. Where I live for example further out in the country its almost exclusively english, and only english native nationalities here. Indian languages are probably among the more common languages you'll find in communities here, along with Cantonese communities from hong kong, both of which we have/had a lot of good relationship with over my lifetime. Pakistani and Polish or Eastern European communities are also reasonably common.

All of those things, cultures and influences have had an effect on my language, thought patterns and behaviors.

Edited January 15, 2022 by BlueOak

[mememe]

@BlueOak then would you say language is natural censorship? especially if a small ethnicity is not able to speak their language? express themselves?

like for example dwarfs.

Edited January 15, 2022 by mememe

[puporing]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Both sexes have biological tendencies which culture and society extends through conditioning.

That's what I was trying to say, there are natural tendencies based on biology, genetics, and chemistry, but once puberty hits conditioning also hits hard on both sexes on top of that, this plays a big role. A woman who has a natural tendency towards autonomy and raised like a boy or a boy/girl at the same time, and or a male who has a natural tendency towards communion/feminine traits and is not discouraged by it would both be able to live out their natural tendencies and be more masculine/feminine regardless of their biological sex. And also how much society is accepting of gender flexibility plays a big role. 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Feminists are not good to listen to on this point. Feminists often don't appreciate the asymmetry of the feminine and masculine as they try too hard to equalize them.

Right, some are like that and have blind spots, but let's not forget feminists are not all the same. A feminist could give the same importance to biological differences as well as the conditioning aspects. 

[mememe]

the „natural“ censorship on languages or culture is far more present than the censorship on hate speech.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language

[Karmadhi]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not the reason why. The feminine simply has empathy and communion as higher priorities than truth or freedom. This is necessary for mothering.

Feminists are not good to listen to on this point. Feminists often don't appreciate the asymmetry of the feminine and masculine as they try too hard to equalize them.

I feel like feminism these days is trying more to make females equal to men but in terms of masculine values. So females can lead, be boss etc.

Feminine qualities are still extremly underappreciated and feminism is not doing much on this regard.

There is no fundamental reason why masculine qualities should be prevelant in our society more than feminine ones.

Making females like men is not really solving the fundamental issue imo.

There is no reason why things like social sciences or art should be above hard sciences.

There is no reason why personal achievement and being traditionally "successful" should be more important than things like relationships or bonding.

We have these days a monopoly of masculine qualities dominating all facets of life.