/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

free speech is bad because idiots use it to talk to the police

5th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st

>Allowing free speech everywhere is good because it keeps Leftists honest and effective. Up until a few years ago, heavy censorship in social media and universities protected Leftists from any pushback which resulted in the creation of extremely retarded and divisive Leftist identity politics. This was deliberately done to ensure the left remained retarded and ineffective.

You're retarded dude.

>>2853570
>Up until a few years ago, heavy censorship in social media and universities protected Leftists from any pushback
No, you were just an ipad baby that believed everything 4chan and Funnyjunk told you about college campuses to scare you from learning uncensored versions things you learned in grade school.

I agree with op. It was necessary shock therapy.
I have always been a free speech maximalist for this reason. An efficient anti-free speech regime would have censored the shit out of kirkaucost memes by the way.
>>2853588
Yeah radical feminism struggle sessions becoming mandatory, reactionary brown cultures worship and pop zionism never happenned! It's le epstein /pol/ psyop!! These people also did not collectively stabbed us in the back in 2024.

>>2853592
When has radical feminism ever become mainstream ? All I ever see is liberal feminism, the radical ones are decried as being reactionnary and stuff.

>>2853594
No meaningful difference between the two since all legal battles were won many decades ago by the liberal feminism as radfems were sitting in the cuck chair doing air krav maga. Call it pop misandry, female identitarism or anti-male activism if you prefer.

>>2853596
There are plenty of difference between the two, liberal feminists are in support of the liberalisation of sexuality and romance, radical ones aren't. Guess who the ruling class supports.

>>2853570
stupid and wrong.
the fundamental result of free speech is not open debate, it is spam. the best way to prosper in an environment of free speech is to flood the entire environment with noise so nobody can see enemy signal. this is more or less what the right does. only when spam is censored can you have actual debate and discussion. i would support free speech for lolberts and other reasonably intelligent rightists, but idiots must be clamped down on totally.

much of right-wing idiocy comes from an adjacent phenomenon, which is that the most moronic impulses of the right are no longer gatekept. stupid, cruel politics is a demand lead phenomenon and until the internet era, this demand was capped by what Fox News anchors could say without feeling too embarrassed to show their face at media sector parties or without getting their FCC licence pulled. in the internet era this barrier no longer exists, a man in India will gladly tell you that Barack Obama was actually a transgender keynan installed by soros to make sure the plandemic went ahead so everyone would get vaxed and that Trump is literally physically fighting against the demons that puppet all of them if it nets him a dollar a day. leftists would lose less than nothing if this was censored.

>>2853592
that's right, these things never happened. you let yourself get psyopped by a blurry photograph of one trite "deloitte <3 diversity" poster at a university recruitment session. the zionist thing is the most comical red herring of all because basically every woke internet user immediately took against israel in 2024.

>>2853596
see >>>siberia/797302/ and grow up.

>>2853603
I think the issue is that the left isn't in control of public agora, supporting freedom of speech allows us to talk opposing it just means that it gives the large companies and the state the possibility to censor us.
We pretty much already saw that with Twitter, I remembered thinking that it was worrying that they could just remove the american president (Trump) from the public debate, I have no sympathy for him, but it showed that these compagnies had a lot of power but many leftists were celebrating because they, understandibly, didn't like Trump, but it's less about him then about the power these companies have.
But then Musk bought it, and now he's the one censoring and attacking the left, pushing his political views everywhere on the platform. Evidently, had there been a state enforced equality and freedom of speech, then there wouldn't be this issue.

>>2853603
>>siberia/797302/
Curious to see what that thread is.

free speech for me, not for thee
simple as

>>2853600
LOL you’re clearly stuck in the 1970s. Fact is, there’s no meaningful difference between libfems and radfems since it’s all female-only idpol brainrot. They only differ on their nastiness towards males as a gender and whether they think (male-on-female) rape is due to nature or nurture, nothing more nothing less.

In fact, it was libfems that started MeToo, the hysteria over age-gap couples, pedo-jacket men who were into barely legal women and jailbait, the “sexualisation and objectification of wahmen in video games” discourse alongside lobbying the entertainment industry to remove fanservice from western media (in fact, they still whine about fanservice in anime), so on and so forth.

That libfems use different rhetoric doesn’t change the fact that they are ultimately misandrist that despise males sexuality as much as radfems do.

You don’t get to engage in revisionism to suit your ideological needs. Face it, feminism is an imperial project, always has been since the 19th century.

>>2853592
>pop zionism never happenned!
On that note, people forget how back in the 2010s a large component of the woke was philosemitism. In fact, back then being openly anti-zionist the way many leftists today are was impossible as you had to walk ouyghshells lest you were deemed an anti-Semite.

For example, in 2015 I had a leftist online meeting on campus where I said that Israel was a fascist state for its treatment of Palestinians before people booed at me, with one guy in particular telling me that I should be ashamed because Israel was founded by Holocaust survivors.

Decades later, I found out that same guy was the son of a Democrat operative, and died in a car crash.

But yh, much of the consensus among the woke was that philosemitic and the best a pro-Palestine activist could support within the Overton Window was a two-states solution. But Zionism? Fully mainstream, such that many in the alt-right wondered how much could they get away with “dropping red pills” to normies as long as they were shabbos goyim like Ted Cruz.

In fact, part of the reason I don’t see the woke coming back is because it would be incompatible with the current anti-zionist wave within the western left, considering how Zionism used to be part of the woke, especially as Zionists tried to portray Israel as some woke paradise in an alt-right sea.

Free speech under capitalist gov=good
Free speech under socialist gov=bad

Pretty simple stuff guys

>>2853592
>stabbed us in the back
No, they got what they wanted, and quit, that's it
There is a reason why people here say class first, because if personal problems actually get fixed, people just leave after, they're not gonna be loyal to you and you shouldn't be to them

>>2853640
Yes woke zionism it is a forgotten artifact, you still see them on tumblr and bluesky. Much of the internet censorship post-Charlottesville was the product of that awful zio-woke-radfem alliance. It feels like forever ago given how much the culture changed on the left, even among normie liberals actually.
>In fact, part of the reason I don’t see the woke coming back
true but when people say this they mean progressive politics still being there and strong they don't mean the original woke we went through. That shit was awful.
>>2853647
I don't expect any given minority we helped to be loyal forever of course but there is a difference between gay guys now voting 20% for the right when it used to be 5% pre-gay marriage VS having to deal with subversive strivers who infiltrate our parties and orgs just to crash them and join the right because we disagreed on them about one issue. Look at what radfems did to the SNP in Scotland over trans rights, that's a good example of what i mean. I did not mention gay rights in my post despite being from the same era because gay guys did not "betray" us even if RW gay guys are still retarded on a long enough timeline. Same with trans rights despite the fact half of them are clearly transhumanist lolbertarians who wouldnt mind Global Singapore, they did not stabbed us in the back because we didnt do trans rights fast enough or wathever.

>>2853632
You only think i'm stuck in the 70s because it was the last time radical feminism has been relevent. I only ever hear about them when they get called "terfs"
A part from Metoo, all the things you mentionned are purely cultural issues that are haven't had a large impact in the real world, most games still have sexualised women, creeps still go after highschool girls and fanservice is still present in most western media that aren't for litteral children.
Where the libfems have won is in the normalisation of pornography and of prostitution to a lesser extent nonetheless.
Radfems, however, are ideologically a lot closer to marxism. They view things based on a material basis, they share the same criticism of prostitution and the liberalisation of sexuality and romance.
Feminist was historically progressive and some branches still are to this day. Yes, some feminists were imperialists, no doubt about it, but it doesn't represent to whole movement, Kollontai wasn't an imperialist. Equality and the abolition of gender roles between men and women is progressive and a part of communism since Marx and Engels.

>>2853609
The left cannot control state action so this is wishful thinking. If the left had been maximally pro free speech 2016-2026 musk would still have bought and censored twitter.

>>2853680
the SNP weren't wrecked by radfems, they were rocked by boomer reactionaries posing as radfems. there's a reason basically every TERF has grey hair and there's a reason mumsnet is a hive of TERFism. Bored old low status housewives discovered the joys of online sadism.

>>2853725
The SNP was wrecked by being a single issue party actually having to decide policies. Most Terfs are old both for the reason you said, but actual real Terfs, that are actual radfems, are old because radfems is an old movement that was last important in the 70s, it's like how most communists are old in the West.

>>2853592
>radical feminism struggle sessions becoming mandatory
Youtube Rantsona slop. There were no litterboxes in schools either, since you seem the mental caliber to fall for that one too.
>reactionary brown cultures worship
Irrelevant to your original point, also the issue there was SEO slop articles introducing cultures to people while withholding the advertiser unfriendly stuff, which was upholding conservatismism, not leftism.
>pop zionism
Irrelevant to your original point, also zionism is conservativism.

You're just throwing random shit at criticism of your point, inadvertently showing you indeed did get your worldview from 4chan and Funnyjunk.

>>2853723
>all the things you mentionned (sic) are purely cultural issues that are haven't had a large impact in the real world
False. They did, as much of the androgyny seen in female characters in western video games and western media in general, combined with all the libfem whining about “fat phobia” and “rape culture” led to the stigmatisation of male sexuality. Matter of fact, it was libfems who pushed the notion that a man fucking a barely legal teen was “pedophilia” which metastasised into the zoomer feminist age-gap discourse, and it was also those very libfems that pushed crap like “toxic masculinity” (later just masculinity) and “nice guys are bad” with the intent to further demonise men and manhood. And let’s not forget that libfems were the ones that pushed for sex negativity back during elevatorgate and GamerGate.

>most games still have sexualised women,
Most 2010s games that weren’t from Eastern Europe and Japan didn’t, unless you count anything short of dressing like a boomer as “sexualisation”. The MC of TLoU2 is a good example of what I’m talking about.

>creeps still go after highschool girls and fanservice is still present in most western media that aren't for litteral children.
>Where the libfems have won is in the normalisation of pornography and of prostitution to a lesser extent nonetheless.
Making shit up doesn’t do you any favor, especially today when porn artists get blocked out by puritanical payment processors and an increasing number of states are implementing age ID laws (that will conveniently collect user ID data directly) to ostensibly prevent kids from watching smut even doe there’s no conclusive evidence on its harm. And please, try to back them up with actual examples instead of weasiling in a series of claims.

Also, stop using the no-true Scotsman fallacy, no one buys it.

>They view things based on a material basis, they share the same criticism of prostitution and the liberalisation of sexuality and romance.
Now that’s rich, considering how their entire worldview is based on an ideology wherein rape is this spectacular event that warrants a fascist state to stop it, such that Andrea Dworkins went on a tangent over how gay porn is still misogynistic because the sub is metaphorically the woman ergo male-on-male sex is still male-on-female rape. Indeed, such that they are massive moralisers.

And lest we forget that the metaphysical notion of gender essentialism is the premise ALL radfems operate under.

Oh, it should also be noted that radfems emerged in opposition to marxism, so trying to claim radfems as “communist allies” doesn’t really work.

As for prostitution, you forget that the original Marxist criticism is that it commercialises human relationships, but it didn’t advocate for the kind of sterile and repressive puritanical regime radfems advocate, considering how pre-Stalinist USSR liberalised sexuality such that promiscuity and public nudity wasn’t uncommon. They weren’t libertine, just naturalists, as was the very Kollontai you cited.

And even in the Cold War, authorities only ever went after organised prostitution and pornography production, but never cracked down on amateur porn and free sex. Read: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html

Also, what is wrong with free sex anyway? If anything, it would be a lot more progressive compared to the current purity culture of today.

>liberalisation of sexuality and romance.
We get it, you are a traditionalist Catholic who never had sex and now you’re pissed at the sex-havers and push for a return to sexual Puritanism so that everyone can a miserable incel like you.

>>2853734
>>2853603
Cope. It’s just a fact that the left in the 2010s supported censorship by the big tech despite not being in power with the sole purpose of shutting down “nazis” thinking it would be solely limited to the alt-right and no one else. They still didn’t do shit when even leftist critiques of the Syrian civil war and the Crimea crisis were shut down by big tech, nor when MAPs were censored. And that was when big tech was on the side of the Democrats. Now that big tech is on Trump’s side, leftists and rightists that criticise the regime are being censored, with the few moments of freedom being less because of the tech overlords’ decisions and more because moderation has been outsourced to shitty AI.

And now chuds are making the same arguments that leftists used in the 2010s (e.g., not all speech is free speech, shutting down speech in the name of fighting hate speech/terrorism is good, etc…).

You bitches got played like the side of capital, and you don’t even realize it.

Leftists really want to pretend that 2010s wokeness never happened, as if whites weren’t witch-hunted for racisms, and men for sexism and homophobia during that period.

Honestly, it’s better to have free speech considering how the leftist on X’itter are somewhat better compared to their Bluesky counterparts in that Elon’s loosening of hate speech moderation has led to leftists on X’itter to improve as now they have to actually argue and confront rightoids, as opposed to living in an ideological bubble of ignorance placed atop an ivory tower.

>>2853642
very true, socialism will take your free speech away, and that's good, because you shouldn't criticize the socialist gov, after all, it would never ever ever ever become revisionist

>>2853774
to be fair big tech would have eventually embraced dystopian censorship and manipulation of information whether or not 2010s radlibs signed onto it for SJW reasons. it's not like big tech said "ah yes, the radlib SJWs support us, time to do dystopian censorship that we would have never done otherwise."

>>2853781
>, as if whites weren’t witch-hunted for racisms, and men for sexism and homophobia during that period.
a witch hunt you say. were they drowned? hanged? lynched? thrown into jail? tortured? ohhhhhhh…. you're using witch hunt to mean "I was sometimes confronted by people I found highly annoying."

>>2853800
It gave them the legitimacy to do that, they'd probably have done so anything, but strong enough pressure on the left could have had stopped this in certain countries.

>>2853805
> but strong enough pressure on the left could have had stopped this in certain countries.
strong enough pressure = revolution and SJWs were not gonna do that ever lol

>>2853806
I disagree, this is something that could have been legislated in. I can even see bipartisan support for it.

>>2853728
The SNP haven't been a single issue party since the 1980s, since then they've carved out a very clear social democratic and anti-war position which is ultimately why they took power in 2007 (Scottish Labour surrendered this position by becoming right wing warmongers),their strategy has been to win people over to independence by showing that Scottish nationalism is the only route to social democracy in contrast to an increasingly reactionary UK.
although they've succumbed to most of the bad institutional incentives of the UK and nowadays don't really have a plan or strategy at all and are mostly firefighting a string of bad decisions. Still, it is some measure of how bad the alternatives are that they nevertheless won the recent Scottish elections.

It is true that some TERFs are "real" 1970s radfems but the median TERF is a small-c conservative type how knows homophobia is a bride too far. The average TERF org is a wokewashed conservative group based in Tufton Street alongside tax-cut wankers and climate change denials coasting off US evangelical funding and randomly dipping into homophobia (like opposing bans on conversion therapy or demanding children are outed to their parents)
I have family with such sympathies and they were all "judge people by merit instead of having quotas, I was hired because I'm good not because I'm a woman" types with no particular animus to transgender people who suddenly u-turned and now won't shut up about their new hobby.

>>2853570
I have to agree that its positive our enemies are more visible instead of hiding in the background.