John Kerry Says First Amendment is a Major Roadblock for Government

originally posted by: chr0naut

Good debate can't happen in an environment of 'yes' men, all in agreement in a giant echo chamber, which seem to be what you are expecting.

How ironic that you would say such a thing in this thread.

Second Line.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

But I am not in the United States. The vast majority of people in this world aren't.

and yet you are insanely focused on the political situation in the US, and seem to side 100% with the authoritarian regime.

LIKE IT'S YOUR JOB. That just seems strange to me. A person (among quite a few who all seem to be "not from round here") who is always posting about how the establishment is right, and what we see on the ground is wrong.

I suppose it's futile, but I just assume everything you say is a lie, until I find out differently. It's proven to be a good working model thus far.

You seem to misunderstand the spirit of debate.

Good debate can't happen in an environment of 'yes' men, all in agreement in a giant echo chamber, which seem to be what you are expecting.

Your need for validation speaks volumes about confidence in your convictions.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: chr0naut

And they have even set up systems like the scientific method, and peer review, and philosophical debate, to test the veracity of those authorities.

And more often than not, the experts end up being wrong, or have
to change the "facts" afterwards. As for peer review, that is most
often bought and paid for by big Pharma, and as for philosophy,
who made anyone of them an expert?

See, you personally, can't even trust systems set-up specifically to verify stuff. Is there something wrong with that?

Perhaps you could rate the reliability of information sources and disregard the ones that can have no reliability at all, and then compare the info from the most reliable ones?

a reply to: chr0naut

See my post above yours. It seems what has happened
here is you ended up chasing your own tail.

Usually what happens when one sticks to a narrative
no matter the facts. Facts are a funny thing, they
have a way of percolating to the top and bubble out.

a reply to: chr0naut

You're using the wrong pronoun. "you" might trust those anonymous posters, but I do not necessarily do so. I trust data. Real, vetted, peer-reviewed if possible, data.

'Truth' arrived at by consensus is a false dichotomy.

a reply to: argentus

The MOB does not determine truth.

2nd

I use for example, Galileo.

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: chr0naut

You're using the wrong pronoun. "you" might trust those anonymous posters, but I do not necessarily do so. I trust data. Real, vetted, peer-reviewed if possible, data.

'Truth' arrived at by consensus is a false dichotomy.

Please re-read what I posted, with attention to the specific words I used.

I was saying that one cannot trust anonymous social media posters. They are the least trustable.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's not what Kerry wants. He wants to recreate the Thought Police to determine that which is truth and that which is not, and to punish those who don't align with his holy view.

Are you trying to tell me that you're not in his camp? That you wholly support freedom of speech? If so, I will apologize.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: chr0naut

See my post above yours. It seems what has happened
here is you ended up chasing your own tail.

Usually what happens when one sticks to a narrative
no matter the facts. Facts are a funny thing, they
have a way of percolating to the top and bubble out.

In the three posts you have posted in this topic thread so far, you have only attempted to insult me, someone who is probably fairly anonymous to you.

Despite referring to "facts", you have not actually posted anything verifiably factual in this thread.

Please review what you have posted with a view to itemising the specific facts that you believe you have so far posted.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Hard to tell when he became a NWO Pom Pom Boy.

Idk much about the guy to be honest.

Isn't he a part of the Skull and Bones though?

In no world should a government act like or be likened to a parental figure.

(Some seem to feel it should be)

Well, lets hope they disect him when he passes, and find out how/why an old worn out fossil, that must have had a stressful life, can still grow great, healthy, helmet hair on his head, after all he has been thru, at such a vintage age.

That Basturd!

Hopefully, Muskie will get onto it straight away....his transplants can't last forever.

originally posted by: Daughter2v2

originally posted by: chr0naut
" On the contrary, he was suggesting the creation of genuinely trustable fact checkers, and a process of reliably authenticating the stuff on social media. A situation where truth would overcome whatever happens to be the loudest lie."

Just out of curiosity, who these "genuinely trustable fact checkers" be?

A better solution would be to start teaching critical thinking skills.

originally posted by: Annee
Person with mind of their own — votes to elect person that best represents them.

Hey Annee, hope all is well with you and yours.

I am curious as to what your opinion would be in regards to lowering the voting age.

Let's say it was proposed that you must be at least 12 years old to vote.

Opinion?

originally posted by: chr0naut

Please review what you have posted with a view to itemising the specific facts that you believe you have so far posted.

1. Consensus does not equate to truth.
Consensus is the business of politics. The Emperor's lapdog has no place
in fact checking or censorship"

2. Irony
"a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

3. Cognitive Dissonance
When a person's behavior and beliefs do not complement each other or when they hold two contradictory beliefs


That covers all three of my posts.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: chr0naut

Good debate can't happen in an environment of 'yes' men, all in agreement in a giant echo chamber, which seem to be what you are expecting.

How ironic that you would say such a thing in this thread.

Second Line.

Indeed. The irony is that there are one or two voices that are saying things contrary to the crowd, and everyone is just repeating what they believe is alternative, but is actually totally towing the 'official' narrative of their government.

For instance, I was suggesting that the 1st Amendment does not grant US citizens the right of freedom of speech, but instead is a limitation specifically on Congress only (as opposed to all other jurisprudence, or personal rights of the people). But the majority of responders on this thread seem to think that they are 'covered' by the 1st Amendment, because that is what they are indoctrinated with.

- As someone from another country, I never received that indoctrination.
- I neve attended a single 'civics' class in my life (we did study political systems and economics, but they weren't of one system only).
- I have never recited a pledge of allegiance to any flag, country, system, or government.
- From my external standpoint, the people of the USA are almost as indoctrinated as North Koreans and their beliefs in their country are just as unshakeable, despite the failure of their beliefs under rational examination.

An example of the doublethink of US citizens, they believe that the Constitution is the supreme and overriding determinant of law, but there are multiple examples, even in the last decade, where the Constitution is countered by other new Federal statute on multiple fronts. Such as;
- FISA courts.
- NSA/CIA/FBI surveillance of citizens who are not felons.
- Whistle-blower prosecutions (even of non-residents/non-nationals).
- Military courts being used against non-military citizens.

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: chr0naut

That's not what Kerry wants. He wants to recreate the Thought Police to determine that which is truth and that which is not, and to punish those who don't align with his holy view.

Where does Kerry actually say that?

Kerry said "... what we need, is to win the ground, win the right to govern...". That doesn't sound like censorship. It sounds like he wants to establish trust and to win hearts and minds.

Censoring stuff in the information age will never be perfect, and will never elevate trust for that reason. It is counter to what Kerry was talking about.

In each of the many articles, on mainly right-wing favouring sites, they state (before they even quote him) that that is what he has said, but it is never stated by Kerry. You have just been duped deceptively to interpret Kerry's comments in a particular way. This is a familiar technique on propagandist sites.

Here is the whole discussion (It is far longer than the 2 minute snippet the is posted on nearly every right-wing site):

It's Not Easy Trading Green - WEF discussion

Are you trying to tell me that you're not in his camp? That you wholly support freedom of speech? If so, I will apologize.

No, I am very much against the public dissemination of child pornography, and of incitement to fraud, violence and crime. Not to mention public broadcast of confidential and proprietary information.

I believe that a review of recent history will adequately display that the invocation of a right to 'freedom of speech' has almost always been the last legal resort of criminals.

a reply to: chr0naut

If you read or watch his whole speech, he wasn't suggesting censoring. On the contrary, he was suggesting the creation of genuinely trustable fact checkers, and a process of reliably authenticating the stuff on social media. A situation where truth would overcome whatever happens to be the loudest lie.

That’s the funniest # I’ve read in awhile. Do you seriously realize what you just said???

“Genuinely trustable fact checkers”🤣🤣🤣 I have a Unicorn in my backyard, I’ll let it go cheap just for you, I’ll even throw in a bag of rainbow pixie dust and a fairy named Tinkerbell to sprinkle it.

a reply to: chr0naut

but is actually totally towing the 'official' narrative of their government.

Thought you might want to know it’s “toeing” not “towing”. Two completely different meanings and not proper verbiage in the manner you’re trying to use it. Just trying to help.

Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand in formation along a line.

I see you’re in your usual “let’s bash the stupid Americans” mode tonight.

a reply to: chr0naut

What he said was

So what you need, what we need, is to win the ground, win the right to govern by, hopefully, winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.

He wants to at least win 50.1% of the vote so that he can impose his change on the other 49.9% of the people.

That is the definition of "tyranny of the majority"; which we seek to avoid in western countries.

If he wanted to say "so what you need is to establish trust and to win hearts and minds." Than he would have said exactly that and he wouldn't need you to reinterpret for him.



I really don't understand why these concepts of Authoritarianism are hard for people to understand. Authoritarianism has been the rule of governance in human history not the exception. Even the most virtues people can sucom to corruption; "power corrupts" isn't a proverb for no reason.

So just because someone shares our personal outlook on current affairs we forget this fact and give them the benefit of the doubt?

Na, it should be the other way around. We should always be suspicious of government becoming authoritarian, its their nature.

Some reporter should have asked Kerry to clarify himself, because he was sounding Authoritarian ... maybe that wasn't what he ment, but it was certainly what he said. And just like the proverb goes "power corrupts" ... it doesn't happen over night; it happens one step at a time and while he may not be at the end of that road, Kerry is certain walking down it.