How can gov decide what is acceptable speech?

@suzianne said
But it's not debates, is it, just you coming up with a bunch of lies.

That's not debate.

Debates are how people determine who is lying. Not you.

@suzianne said
You have the wrong end of the stick yet again.

I said Truth. Actual Truth. Not lies. If you want to tell lies to try to gaslight people into thinking your lies are truth, good luck. Most here see through your ruse.

You are calling the truth a lie again.

Most here see through your ruse because you never prove they are lies. You just troll lies about so called lies that are not lies.

@suzianne said
No one "decides" the truth.

It either is, or it isn't.

Profoundly correct. No debate, But again misses the point.
I tell you about the extreme levels of domestic violence by Aboriginal men in outback ( Australian) communities towards both Woman and Children, inc sexual abuse, and you say, truth or lie?? Can I say it or not?? You "decide", yea, get it. You need to answer, can I say it.

@suzianne said
No one "decides" the truth.

It either is, or it isn't.

If we're censoring people for spreading misinformation, then..

For the purposes of determining who will get censored and who will not, someone or some group will have to determine what is "true" and what is "not".

For example, if Venezuela makes it illegal to falsely assert an election was rigged, then President Maduro, or someone he overseas will be the one to decide if there is any truth to the allegations that the elections have been rigged. Such a law could only kick in if someone decides the allegations are false. And that person may be corrupt.

I don't know a whole lot about Venezuelan politics, but I'm going out on a limb and guess that the sitting president would claim he didn't cheat in the last election. That may or may not be true, but in and of itself that shouldn't be enough to decide that allegations cannot be raised.

@techsouth said
If we're censoring people for spreading misinformation, then..

For the purposes of determining who will get censored and who will not, someone or some group will have to determine what is "true" and what is "not".

For example, if Venezuela makes it illegal to falsely assert an election was rigged, then President Maduro, or someone he overseas will be the one to decide ...[text shortened]... be true, but in and of itself that shouldn't be enough to decide that allegations cannot be raised.

Naaaa, I think Suzianne is on to something, she certainly has dog whistled and gas lighted a lot more sense.

@suzianne said
Why do you (who I'm just guessing isn't a millionaire) stand up for and take orders from billionaires? It's not like they give a rat's ass about you.

Ahhh, you again bring up one of my mantras.....Why do you libs continue to worry about what billionaires are doing ? About How much money they have? If they don't give a rat's ass about you, how has what they think, or don't think, about you have anything to do with you!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!???!!??! Let's say a billionaire sees you walking down the street, and they think, or don't think, something about you........Suzy, what has that (what he thinks or doesn't) got to do with you?
This is question to Suzy. It is right up there with what Lie did Tucker tell tonight.
Everyone is standing by, especially me.

@suzianne said
Yeah, I do.

I agree with him.

You agree with who? Sonhouse does this a lot, ,must be in the blood, You should hit 'Quote'.

@averagejoe1 said
Ahhh, you again bring up one of my mantras.....Why do you libs continue to worry about what billionaires are doing ? About How much money they have? If they don't give a rat's ass about you, how has what they think, or don't think, about you have anything to do with you!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!???!!??! Let's say a billionaire sees you walking down the street, and they think, o ...[text shortened]... s right up there with what Lie did Tucker tell tonight.
Everyone is standing by, especially me.

This is a re-post with all due respects. Please all come back on this. We need to break some barriers. Break barriers, like highlighting all of the Tucker lies. I dont want to steal Suzianne's thunder, but let us have at it. Let her have first shot.

@averagejoe1 said
You agree with who? Sonhouse does this a lot, ,must be in the blood, You should hit 'Quote'.

Yeah, I did. See the post I replied to. Who did that post quote?

It's not that hard, Joe.

@techsouth said
If we're censoring people for spreading misinformation, then..

For the purposes of determining who will get censored and who will not, someone or some group will have to determine what is "true" and what is "not".

For example, if Venezuela makes it illegal to falsely assert an election was rigged, then President Maduro, or someone he overseas will be the one to decide ...[text shortened]... be true, but in and of itself that shouldn't be enough to decide that allegations cannot be raised.

No one "decides" the truth.

It either is, or it isn't.


Come on, man. You can read, right?

@metal-brain said
Debates are how people determine who is lying. Not you.

No, lies are lies way before the debate about it.

You still don't get it.

@jimmac said
Profoundly correct. No debate, But again misses the point.
I tell you about the extreme levels of domestic violence by Aboriginal men in outback ( Australian) communities towards both Woman and Children, inc sexual abuse, and you say, truth or lie?? Can I say it or not?? You "decide", yea, get it. You need to answer, can I say it.

It is already truth or a lie before it gets researched. The research just uncovers the truth or lie. Just because you don't know the truth, that doesn't mean you get to decide the truth. This is something MB never quite understood.

@suzianne said
No one "decides" the truth.

It either is, or it isn't.


Come on, man. You can read, right?

I think we're not on the same page because not only can I read, but I can think too.
I was hoping you were interested in moving beyond the slogan recital level of interaction and thinking about why it's not so simple to just censor things that are untrue.

@suzianne said
It is already truth or a lie before it gets researched. The research just uncovers the truth or lie. Just because you don't know the truth, that doesn't mean you get to decide the truth. This is something MB never quite understood.

So if I post this on facebook, along with 25,000,000 other truths, who do you suggest researches them all and how long before they are verified as truth or lie. In Australia we have an Aboriginal politician, Jacinta Price, that has been advocating for these marginalized Woman and children for a very long time but every time she brings it up she is shut down as lying. Her truth is censored. Now this is one small subject, Who decides what can be, put out there?? Simply an impossible task.
This so called committee will only end up being used as a political weapon, well at least in the main it will.
The ideology is fine but thats where it ends. It is impossible. 100% impractical.

@suzianne said
No, lies are lies way before the debate about it.

You still don't get it.

How do you know they are lies when you always fail to prove they are lies?

If someone says cows sleep standing up and I say they sleep laying down how do you know who is telling you the truth? You can say I am lying (as you always do), but that isn't the last word.

If most people say cows sleep standing up is it enough that the majority of people say it is so? Should consensus trump fact or should fact trump consensus?