not all opinions are equal and valid

No, your country is a fucked up totalitarian shithole for violating people's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression...stealing from, kidnapping and imprisoning them if someone says something they don't like...even physically harming or killing them if they resist tyranny. Without freedom of speech, effectively no one has any rights.

Doesn't matter. You already implied your country does that.

And I am telling you that you are unable to enforce such tyranny upon others. It's nothing but a fantasy.

Here in the United States, we have freedom of speech. If you want to remove that, you will have to come here and fight us. Good luck. ;)

Hey guys, let me know next time you decide to shit on France!


Your post is a bit hyperbolic, but the current constitution gives way too much personal power to the President, and the violent police repression is unpleasantly reminiscent of some fascist regimes...


It seems that the teaching of philosophy has declined a lot in France. Going from "not all opinions are equal" to "they should not be allowed" is a huge logical leap, and it should certainly be the state to decree what opinions are acceptable. Philosophy should actually teach you how to fight against misled people, not censor them, which will only make the situation worse. As my philosophy teacher liked to say: "You should not burn bad books, you should criticise them." The only laws that make sense are those that ban slander and defamation.


The propaganda you guys receive at school is insane, but I am bewildered to observe that it works on some naïve minds. See where the Lumières led us! How about the fundamental right to protest? Have you forgotten about the "yellow vests" (gilets jaunes)? Do you remember about the recent protests against the retirement pension reform?

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230324-rights-groups-accuse-french-police-of-brutality-in-pension-protests

Well, France conveniently does not publish racial statistics, but police brutality is a sad reality:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/06/1138247

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20201129-live-paris-prosecutor-speaks-on-brutal-police-beating-of-black-man

You can find innumerable instances of mere passers-by being arbitrarily detained by the police, and if a heavily armed Praetorian Guard is the only thing that keeps the so-called "Republic" together, you cannot say that you live in a true democracy.

Under the disguise of feminism and the dreary "value of the Republic," Muslim women are prevented from wearing the clothes they want, and the psychosis has become so intense that clothes devoid of religious meaning (like the kameez) have recently been banned banned from school—meanwhile, the average level of reading and mathematics of pupils is plummeting. Feminism should be about giving women the freedom to do what they want, not to force them to wear a crop top and a skirt if they do not want to. Once more, France does not live by what it preaches.

France is a very hypocrite regime that is racist but pretends that race does not exist (how convenient), that is secular (laïc) but has in fact atheism as a state religion (see how violent it is against most religions, and especially Islam), that is a champion of feminism but infringes upon the basic rights of women, that is violent but pretends to be the vanguard of human rights—which only means the rights of white Europeans. If France is one of the freest country in the world, it sets the standard really low.

P.S. You can reply in French if you prefer.

I stand by everything I said. Being freer than numerous other countries does not mean being free. A society without free speech cannot be free in any meaningful way.


You have presented no legitimate justification for this. All you've done is state your desire for people to not be allowed to say what they wish, declaring yourself an enemy of free thought and liberty.


Really? Not a single racially motivated crime committed by a French police officer?

Any individual (including a police officer) can commit a racially motivated crime, but there is no evidence of this phenomenon existing systemically in the American police force in recent history. (Racist attitudes, perhaps...but not racial crimes by cops happening consistently enough to be systemic.)

Additionally, you won't be able to prove that suppressing speech is the reason for a lack of racist cops or whatever it is you are suggesting. Correlation is not causation.

@DigiCat Well for example something like "jews are an inferior species and should all be burned". Even though some people are still thinking this way nowadays it doesn't change the fact that it is objectively wrong. I'd say all opinions promoting hatred and violence are objectively wrong. Doesn't mean you're forbidden from having these opinions though.

@DigiCat There are countless possibilities, for example he could have asked "Is it okay to be a useless person?" with 3 options "Yes it's okay", "No it's shameful" and "No they should question their existence". Of course I can't know if this would have worked as circumvention, but there sure are some more ambiguous and different ways to find out how people think about this topic.

@Zarutaku But that's not rephrasing, that's a completely different question

I'll add, questioning one's existence has a much broader meaning to it than having thoughts of death

Look at you, getting so triggered that you go off on desperate tangents without ever addressing my key point. But hey, I don't mind putting a wannabe dictator in his place.


Your country is a miserable one where people aren't even allowed to defend themselves.

Criminals tend to obtain weapons illegally, in case you somehow did not know. Military war weapons were not even used by the type of murderers you alluded to; they used civilian rifles (ones weaker than but functionally the same as common hunting rifles) and pistols. I might as well mention that a little under 5% of all humans are psychopaths too.


Criminals target the defenseless, since they know they can't fight back. Schools with armed security do not have attacks like this. The criminals know they would be quickly stopped, so they opt for gun-free zones instead.

The same principle applies to the cities in the US with the strictest gun laws: they have the worst gun crime, precisely because criminals know the law-abiding won't be able to defend themselves.

The many millions of non-aggressive gun owners are in no way responsible for the actions of criminals.






So? People are allowed to have whatever views they want, including racist ones. They are also allowed to vote for whomever they please.


Show me credible sources for these so-called systemic murders.

I doubt you know what systemic means. (Even though I explained it.) When something is systemic, it relates to or affects an entire system, not mere individuals.

The BLM movement started in 2013 when George Zimmerman was acquitted of a murder charge on grounds of acting in self-defense. He wasn't a cop and he wasn't prosecuted for murder.

Some of the African Americans made famous by being killed by police in those early years of the BLM movement did things like trying to steal a service pistol from an officer. "Systemic murders" my ass.


No we don't. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Religious freedom was one of the most important factors in the founding of the country. In the US Constitution, the First Amendment (the same one that protects speech) specifies that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...thus preventing a state religion from ever forming and ensuring people can hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. It's perfectly legal to be non-religious in the US.


Unless they say something not approved by the state. lmao


Incorrect. Hospital emergency rooms (and government clinics etc.) are required to serve those in need, regardless of insurance status.


And all speech is regulated by the state in France. Nothing is ever truly free. When you let the government give you "free" things, you pay the price by surrendering your freedom.

Government health care is horrible quality and there's often a long waiting period in many countries. There's a reason people from all over the planet come to the US to get health care, even when their countries provide it freely. We also lead the world in medical research and innovation.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/khaled-dajani-usa-health-care-america-best-world-quality-health-care-system-world-news-34879/


The US is the world's #1 producer in the entertainment industry, with a huge range of content in every genre. (And from all sorts of time periods.)


Actually, I (along with most Americans) watch American entertainment quite a bit more often than Japanese anime.


Feel free to embarrass yourself further with more nonsense. Either way, know that nothing you said so far supports your position of opposing free speech.


But that is what you said:




In case you didn't read the thread, I already made the same points as you regarding the unequal validity of opinions.


You mean my rational attack against your position. You are the one who insulted my country first. You wanna make it personal? I'll happily oblige, kiddo.

@DigiCat The purpose is to find out how people think about the topic and both polls "Should useless people be ashamed or even k*** themselves?" and "Is it okay to be a useless person?" would yield very similar results, so the meaning of the questions can't be that different.
Someone who voted "no they shouldn't k*** themselves nor be ashamed" before, would vote "Yes it's okay" now.
Someone who voted "no they shouldn't k*** themselves but should be ashamed" before, would vote "No it's shameful" now.
Someone who voted "yes they should k*** themselves" before, would vote "No they should question their existence" now because these people would likely interpret it as "No they should consider to end their existence" which is close to the original option.
Of course questioning one's existence has a broader meaning in general, but what matters is how people interpret it within a given context.
Anyway the original topic is already gone so there is no way to verify or rebut this.

Hey guys, let me know next time you decide to shit on France!


Your post is a bit hyperbolic, but the current constitution gives way too much personal power to the President, and the violent police repression is unpleasantly reminiscent of some fascist regimes...


It seems that the teaching of philosophy has declined a lot in France. Going from "not all opinions are equal" to "they should not be allowed" is a huge logical leap, and it should certainly be the state to decree what opinions are acceptable. Philosophy should actually teach you how to fight against misled people, not censor them, which will only make the situation worse. As my philosophy teacher liked to say: "You should not burn bad books, you should criticise them." The only laws that make sense are those that ban slander and defamation.


The propaganda you guys receive at school is insane, but I am bewildered to observe that it works on some naïve minds. See where the Lumières led us! How about the fundamental right to protest? Have you forgotten about the "yellow vests" (gilets jaunes)? Do you remember about the recent protests against the retirement pension reform?

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230324-rights-groups-accuse-french-police-of-brutality-in-pension-protests

Well, France conveniently does not publish racial statistics, but police brutality is a sad reality:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/06/1138247

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20201129-live-paris-prosecutor-speaks-on-brutal-police-beating-of-black-man

You can find innumerable instances of mere passers-by being arbitrarily detained by the police, and if a heavily armed Praetorian Guard is the only thing that keeps the so-called "Republic" together, you cannot say that you live in a true democracy.

Under the disguise of feminism and the dreary "value of the Republic," Muslim women are prevented from wearing the clothes they want, and the psychosis has become so intense that clothes devoid of religious meaning (like the kameez) have recently been banned banned from school—meanwhile, the average level of reading and mathematics of pupils is plummeting. Feminism should be about giving women the freedom to do what they want, not to force them to wear a crop top and a skirt if they do not want to. Once more, France does not live by what it preaches.

France is a very hypocrite regime that is racist but pretends that race does not exist (how convenient), that is secular (laïc) but has in fact atheism as a state religion (see how violent it is against most religions, and especially Islam), that is a champion of feminism but infringes upon the basic rights of women, that is violent but pretends to be the vanguard of human rights—which only means the rights of white Europeans. If France is one of the freest country in the world, it sets the standard really low.

P.S. You can reply in French if you prefer.

En français, ça donne : « Écoute, si tu détestes la France, c'est ton choix, mais moi, je suis fier d'être Français, fier de vivre dans un pays laïque, libre et démocratique. »

Voilà à quoi aboutissent quinze ou vingt ans de blabla obligatoire : à vivre dans l'ignorance complète de réalité, et à se satisfaire de concepts creux. Mais si ça vous rend heureux, alors tant mieux... Être Français, ça ne veut malheureusement plus dire grand'chose, il n'y a vraiment pas de quoi être fier quand on voit le bilan social déplorable de ces dernières décennies, les guerres futiles auxquelles la France a apporté son concours, le sort lamentable réservé aux artistes et aux scientifiques, et la ruine presque totale du système éducatif avec des programmes réduits à peau de chagrin. Et ne parlons pas des hôpitaux qui feront bientôt pâle figure auprès des anciens centres médicaux soviétiques. 90% de réussite au baccalauréat peut-être, et 90% d'illettrés qui non seulement ignorent les règles de ponctuation et de grammaire, mais n'ont aucune idée de la syntaxe. Ce n'est pas très glorieux... J'aime la France par ce qu'elle a produit de grand (écrivains, mathématiciens, musiciens, etc), non pas par ce qu'elle représente aujourd'hui (presque rien que de la gasconnade) ; l'image du coq n'a jamais été plus fidèle à la réalité.


Thank you. I will maintain however that the constitution is at fault here, coupled with the change of length of the presidential mandate (from seven to five years). Since the main chamber (Assemblée Nationale) is elected every five years with universal suffrage, it almost coincides with the presidential election; therefore, when a candidate is elected for the first time (Sarkozy, Hollande, Macron), he always wins the majority at the National Assembly, which allows them to pass (almost) any law he fancies. And the Prime Minister, who is chosen by the President, has virtually no power, unless he is chosen from an opposite majority at the Assembly, something that has not happened since 2002 (Macron kept a relative majority in 2022). Although he has lost the absolute majority in 2022, very little can be done to oppose the laws he wants to pass, and in fact, a special disposition of the constitution allows one to even bypass the Parliament! It was already used in the past, but the last governments have made its usage almost systematic. To give you an idea, it was used 12 times between September and December 2023! (23 times in total for the Borne government, in the matter of a year and a half.)

https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/19494-le-recours-larticle-493-de-la-constitution

In other words, you can almost rule France by royal decrees. For example, this is how the retirement pension bill was passed last year, and it resulted in major protests (and subsequent violent repression) throughout the whole country.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2022/10/19/france-how-does-article-49-3-allow-a-bill-to-be-passed-without-a-vote_6001019_7.html

My point is that this "super-American" constitution basically reunites all powers in the hands of a single man, and that one cannot even claim that the current or past governments have ever abused of their power. The only safeguard of democracy is the Conseil Constitutionnel (Constitutional Council), that acts similarly to the Supreme Court in the USA. In the last years, it has heavily censored countless laws proposed by the successive governments.

Well, the Covid debates have surely skewed a bit the perception that people might have of me, but I have never supported any forms of censorship actually (with the usual caveats about defamation, spreading of disinformation à la Alex Jones, etc).

En français, ça donne : « Écoute, si tu détestes la France, c'est ton choix, mais moi, je suis fier d'être Français, fier de vivre dans un pays laïque, libre et démocratique. »

Voilà à quoi aboutissent quinze ou vingt ans de blabla obligatoire : à vivre dans l'ignorance complète de réalité, et à se satisfaire de concepts creux. Mais si ça vous rend heureux, alors tant mieux... Être Français, ça ne veut malheureusement plus dire grand'chose, il n'y a vraiment pas de quoi être fier quand on voit le bilan social déplorable de ces dernières décennies, les guerres futiles auxquelles la France a apporté son concours, le sort lamentable réservé aux artistes et aux scientifiques, et la ruine presque totale du système éducatif avec des programmes réduits à peau de chagrin. Et ne parlons pas des hôpitaux qui feront bientôt pâle figure auprès des anciens centres médicaux soviétiques. 90% de réussite au baccalauréat peut-être, et 90% d'illettrés qui non seulement ignorent les règles de ponctuation et de grammaire, mais n'ont aucune idée de la syntaxe. Ce n'est pas très glorieux... J'aime la France par ce qu'elle a produit de grand (écrivains, mathématiciens, musiciens, etc), non pas par ce qu'elle représente aujourd'hui (presque rien que de la gasconnade) ; l'image du coq n'a jamais été plus fidèle à la réalité.


Thank you. I will maintain however that the constitution is at fault here, coupled with the change of length of the presidential mandate (from seven to five years). Since the main chamber (Assemblée Nationale) is elected every five years with universal suffrage, it almost coincides with the presidential election; therefore, when a candidate is elected for the first time (Sarkozy, Hollande, Macron), he always wins the majority at the National Assembly, which allows them to pass (almost) any law he fancies. And the Prime Minister, who is chosen by the President, has virtually no power, unless he is chosen from an opposite majority at the Assembly, something that has not happened since 2002 (Macron kept a relative majority in 2022). Although he has lost the absolute majority in 2022, very little can be done to oppose the laws he wants to pass, and in fact, a special disposition of the constitution allows one to even bypass the Parliament! It was already used in the past, but the last governments have made its usage almost systematic. To give you an idea, it was used 12 times between September and December 2023! (23 times in total for the Borne government, in the matter of a year and a half.)

https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/19494-le-recours-larticle-493-de-la-constitution

In other words, you can almost rule France by royal decrees. For example, this is how the retirement pension bill was passed last year, and it resulted in major protests (and subsequent violent repression) throughout the whole country.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2022/10/19/france-how-does-article-49-3-allow-a-bill-to-be-passed-without-a-vote_6001019_7.html

My point is that this "super-American" constitution basically reunites all powers in the hands of a single man, and that one cannot even claim that the current or past governments have ever abused of their power. The only safeguard of democracy is the Conseil Constitutionnel (Constitutional Council), that acts similarly to the Supreme Court in the USA. In the last years, it has heavily censored countless laws proposed by the successive governments.

Well, the Covid debates have surely skewed a bit the perception that people might have of me, but I have never supported any forms of censorship actually (with the usual caveats about defamation, spreading of disinformation à la Alex Jones, etc).

You have to understand that this constitution was adopted during the Algeria war at a moment of extreme political instability, where there was a real risk that a civil war erupts. Unfortunately, this exceptional legislation has become the norm, with all the abuses that you can imagine.

When people willingly share information they know is inaccurate or misleading, especially if it has a defamatory character (that can constitute a form of moral harassment). It gets especially bad when people make money out of sharing disinformation. On Twitter, Community Notes are quite useful against trolling accounts (though they have their limits), but there is no such a thing in real life.