Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

[Lord Sovereign]

People forget that as much as we look back on Stalin for being a huge dick, he uhh, won.

I’m not entirely sure there. Given how the Party basically dumped him and his policies not long after the body was cold, and that his death was not only suspicious (one of his inner circle poisoned him I reckon) but quite avoidable if he hadn’t sent all the good doctors to the Gulag, I think the Fates must have been cackling as he lay dying in a pool of his own piss.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I’m not entirely sure there. Given how the Party basically dumped him and his policies not long after the body was cold, and that his death was not only suspicious (one of his inner circle poisoned him I reckon) but quite avoidable if he hadn’t sent all the good doctors to the Gulag, I think the Fates must have been cackling as he lay dying in a pool of his own piss.

If you're allowed to be alive for like 20 years as Stalin, you've won in the game of Stalin.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If you're allowed to be alive for like 20 years as Stalin, you've won in the game of Stalin.

If it was victory, it was short lived in the grand scheme of things. And given how it ended…in Stalin’s position I wouldn’t have been sure if “winning” was worth it.

Meanwhile, Augustus Caesar could be a dick of biblical proportions, but it is undoubtably true that he won. And for all its ups and downs, his life was dramatically happier and more beneficial for mankind than Stalin’s. I would certainly regard that as “winning bigly.”

 

[ATP]

That's the fun part, they know exactly how they're acting, because they know its basically guaranteed victory unless somebody does something about it.
People forget that as much as we look back on Stalin for being a huge dick, he uhh, won.

True.Russians could kick out soviets - but most decide to do notching.And later died or lived in gulags.We could all end in green gulags,too.

Until reality slaps them upside the back of the head. She tends to not use lubrication.

True.But,we could be in mass graves then,if we do not act when we still have chance.

 

[Cherico]

If it was victory, it was short lived in the grand scheme of things. And given how it ended…in Stalin’s position I wouldn’t have been sure if “winning” was worth it.

Meanwhile, Augustus Caesar could be a dick of biblical proportions, but it is undoubtably true that he won. And for all its ups and downs, his life was dramatically happier and more beneficial for mankind than Stalin’s. I would certainly regard that as “winning bigly.”

Augustus had the advantage of a population that had seen too much excess too much chaos and who just wanted stability with the factor that the last of the crazies had been violently purged during the civil wars. Ugly things happened over a periods of decades to allow him to be Augustus.

 

[Typhonis]

Augustus had the advantage of a population that had seen too much excess too much chaos and who just wanted stability with the factor that the last of the crazies had been violently purged during the civil wars. Ugly things happened over a periods of decades to allow him to be Augustus.

He also possibly had help from Julius in what he did before his possible suicide.

He changed his will, he received a warning not to go to the Senate and did so anyway. He dismissed his own body guards...within five years of his death Augustus was emperor and his enemies were all dead.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Holy shit lmao, these people are unhinged, wanting to imprison and non-person people for speech. Whatever treatment she wants for people, should occur to herself, sounds fair I think?

Jacqui Lambie is very much *not* leftist; she's an Australian independent politician. Very extreme views, but in many ways a scatter-pack of hard left and hard right.

For example, in October 2016 she called for preemptively pardoning anyone accused of war crimes against the Taliban or the Islamic State, arguing that they should be excluded from the rules of war due to their "vile, disgusting culture and ideology". In January 2017, she enthusiastically endorsed Trump's restrictions on immigration and said that Australia should not only follow his lead, but double down and summarily deport anyone who "supported" Sharia law or was on a terror watch list, or "at least" charge them with treason for their opinions.

If she's any one thing, it's, "Enthusiastically authoritarian."

 

[Ixian]

Jacqui Lambie is very much *not* leftist; she's an Australian independent politician. Very extreme views, but in many ways a scatter-pack of hard left and hard right.

For example, in October 2016 she called for preemptively pardoning anyone accused of war crimes against the Taliban or the Islamic State, arguing that they should be excluded from the rules of war due to their "vile, disgusting culture and ideology". In January 2017, she enthusiastically endorsed Trump's restrictions on immigration and said that Australia should not only follow his lead, but double down and summarily deport anyone who "supported" Sharia law or was on a terror watch list, or "at least" charge them with treason for their opinions.

If she's any one thing, it's, "Enthusiastically authoritarian."

So she is the kind of person to support any authoritarian regime, regardless of their political flavor... with the exception of religion I suppose?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

So she is the kind of person to support any authoritarian regime, regardless of their political flavor... with the exception of religion I suppose?

She is aggressively anti-Islam and anti-China, and favors authoritarian measures to suppress opinions in their favor.

 

[Jormungandr]

As soon as it interfered with their business, Google have sacked and cracked down on Leftism and wokeness, apparently. (Except the Anti-White stuff).

When the monster escapes its leash, they get their skulls metaphorically cracked.

And the hilarious thing is that Leftists still think Google is on "their side."

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I don't think corporations are on anyone's side but that of profits. Capitalism even says that's *supposed to be* how it is.

 

[Ixian]

I don't think corporations are on anyone's side but that of profits. Capitalism even says that's *supposed to be* how it is.

No, Capitalism requires a free market, what we are currently experiencing is Corporatism. We have a government that has effectively ended Capitalism in the US by over regulation on small businesses while allowing megacorps to do whatever they want with little to no consequences.

No Free Market = No Capitalism

 

[ShadowArxxy]

No, Capitalism requires a free market, what we are currently experiencing is Corporatism. We have a government that has effectively ended Capitalism in the US by over regulation on small businesses while allowing megacorps to do whatever they want with little to no consequences.

No Free Market = No Capitalism

Uh, no.

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are primarily or entirely under private ownership and operation for profit. Free market or laissez-faire, is one form of capitalism and is considered by many to be the most desirable and/or most efficient form, but it is by no means the only capitalism.

 

[LordsFire]

Uh, no.

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are primarily or entirely under private ownership and operation for profit. Free market or laissez-faire, is one form of capitalism and is considered by many to be the most desirable and/or most efficient form, but it is by no means the only capitalism.

Part of the problem is that 'free market' and 'capitalism' have been confused as terms, arguably deliberately so.

Socialists, especially marxists, tend to call all free markets 'capitalism,' and that rubbed off on western culture in general.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

No, Capitalism requires a free market, what we are currently experiencing is Corporatism. We have a government that has effectively ended Capitalism in the US by over regulation on small businesses while allowing megacorps to do whatever they want with little to no consequences.

Worse than that actually.

Various left leaning governments put in these wonderful and moral sounding regulations some decades ago that strangle small businesses whilst the big ones can just about survive them, made all the worse by bureaucratic bloat over the years. Still not great for them though; in my country, we have a progressive tax rate and it is a brutal thing. If you’re earning over a hundred thousand a year, you get slapped with a fifty percent tax.

 

[Jormungandr]

Worse than that actually.

Various left leaning governments put in these wonderful and moral sounding regulations some decades ago that strangle small businesses whilst the big ones can just about survive them, made all the worse by bureaucratic bloat over the years. Still not great for them though; in my country, we have a progressive tax rate and it is a brutal thing. If you’re earning over a hundred thousand a year, you get slapped with a fifty percent tax.

Worse still, Biden wants to increase Capital Gains to 44.6%, IIRC.

I'd say Biden needs to be shot in the back of the head, but c'mon, we all know that he's not actually in charge.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Worse still, Biden wants to increase Capital Gains to 44.6%, IIRC.

For context, the highest historical capital gains tax rate was 35% for individuals throughout the 1970s, and 35% for corporations from 1993 to 2017. It was also 30% for corporations from 1975 to 1979. In 2018 the corporate capital gains rate was reduced to 21%, while individual capital gains remained at 20% which it had been increased to from 15% in 2013.

The Biden Administration has made two separate proposals to change capital gains; the 44.6% figure would be the maximum possible capital gains tax if both proposals were stacked on top of each other. The primary proposal is to raise the long term capital gains rate to 37% for taxable income over $1 million; the other proposal is to raise the net investment income rate by 1.2 percentage points above $400,000.

 

[shangrila]

Man, remember the good old days of complex bartering of financial instruments and properties between rich people and corporations, because an arms length exchange that doesn't involve cash doesn't count as a sale and so doesn't trigger capital gains?

I'm sure a lot of accounting and tax law firms do. No surprise so many uber-rich are so leftist nowadays when so many leftist ideas boil down to "fuck everyone beneath that class that always has an accountant and lawyer on retainer".

 

[LordsFire]

For context, the highest historical capital gains tax rate was 35% for individuals throughout the 1970s, and 35% for corporations from 1993 to 2017. It was also 30% for corporations from 1975 to 1979. In 2018 the corporate capital gains rate was reduced to 21%, while individual capital gains remained at 20% which it had been increased to from 15% in 2013.

The Biden Administration has made two separate proposals to change capital gains; the 44.6% figure would be the maximum possible capital gains tax if both proposals were stacked on top of each other. The primary proposal is to raise the long term capital gains rate to 37% for taxable income over $1 million; the other proposal is to raise the net investment income rate by 1.2 percentage points above $400,000.

Higher taxes are worse for the economy, worse for government revenue, and worse for basically every purpose except giving people a feeling of vindictive satisfaction.

There is a tax rate below which it stops just being better for everyone, but we certainly haven't seen that point in our lifetimes.

Every time someone tries to push for higher taxes, they're demonstrating one or both of the following:

1. They don't understand how economics work.
2. They want more power.

 

[IndyFront]

Higher taxes are worse for the economy, worse for government revenue, and worse for basically every purpose except giving people a feeling of vindictive satisfaction.

There is a tax rate below which it stops just being better for everyone, but we certainly haven't seen that point in our lifetimes.

Every time someone tries to push for higher taxes, they're demonstrating one or both of the following:

1. They don't understand how economics work.
2. They want more power.

Perhaps my left-leaning bias is showing but, I don't think there's a particular problem with reasonable taxes on wealthy individuals making above a certain income? Ideally, if they want to keep living in this country and reaping the benefits that come with living in this country, they shouldn't protest too loudly about a little government incentive to pay their fair share, imo...