Why did New Zealand turn its back on free speech? -

Status
Not open for further replies.

YourMom'sBox

True and honest stink ditch
kiwifarms.net
The US has freedom of speech, in fact it has the most freedom of speech. The government cannot arrest someone for speech unless if the speech is threatening. The other restriction is defamation which can get someone sued. It is true that many people get assaulted at rallies but that is antifa thugs doing that, not the government. In fact, the government is considering labeling antifa as a terrorist organizations.

Freedom of speech is uniquely an American concept, making America the freest country. The worst tyrannical governments are governments that pretend that their countries are free which is the state the UK is in. That is Britain would be better off as an autocratic monarchy, because that kind of government is honest about the lack of freedom. A good historical example is comparing England under Charles I with England under Oliver Cromwell. Charles I believed he ruled by divine right and under him the English had the freedom to celebrate Christmas, play sports on Sunday, etc. Oliver Cromwell claimed he ruled in name of the people, but he restricted so much freedom that the English cheerfully welcomed Charles I's son Charles II back as king.
Hmm perhaps. Up until a few years ago, it wasn't really a 'thing'. We do have laws against discrimination, BUT again only very rarely are they an issue. I think what really woke people up the most was the threat to online freedoms. At least Trump put a stop to that.

NZ used to be a happy little nation, minding it's own bullshit, dealing with it's own bullshit up until a few years ago. The Government has successfully infected us with the same SJW anti white rhetoric that the rest of the West suffers from.

Most people here have common sense about what is right and what is wrong, but now that has become 'bad' and 'racist'. Some SJWs are in a conundrum because a Maori community leader has spoken out against accepting more refugee kebabs. This has led to more people coming out of the dark too. Maori are like NZ's black and native community- very marginalised and negatively over marginalised. Also, we have shit social welfare, social housing, health and education. Apparently wanting to help the poor people of your own country first is racist.


What is really wrong with NZers is that everyone just wants to be status quo. If someone dares to speak out for or against something you become a social pariah. Damn our British roots! https://www.noted.co.nz/health/psychology/tall-poppy-syndrome-psychological-roots/
 

Recon

Tactical Autism Response Division
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net

>asking this question
 

Whatdidyousay?

kiwifarms.net
New Zealand doesnt have a official charter of rights like the Americans. Therefore trying to project exceptional ideas that cant apply to the country is autistic
 

Fagatron

ArchFedora
kiwifarms.net
Actually despite living in a Republic, a lot of Americans are fans of British royalty. Many actively read news of Harry and Meagan Markle.

There are good reasons for non-Americans to be interested in President Trump. Many Brits are frustrated with their own government, so it is natural for a Brit to admire a foreign populist president because they want a populist leader in their own country to make their country great again.
Would you agree though that there is a difference between admiring the pomp and ceremony of a royal wedding and actively following Qanon on 8chan and taking part in uncovering the international satanic plot masterminded by Hilary Clinton to rape children?

Trump supporters outside the US are a very different beast from Trump voters; you do get the ones who admire him as a leader, but there's just as many if not more who follow the more extreme ideologies and mythos linked to his campaign. After all, we don't have to live with the negative aspects of his administration like cutting medicare; his devotees here can just admire him from afar without ever being personally affected by the cons of his reign.

The US has freedom of speech, in fact it has the most freedom of speech. The government cannot arrest someone for speech unless if the speech is threatening. The other restriction is defamation which can get someone sued. It is true that many people get assaulted at rallies but that is antifa thugs doing that, not the government. In fact, the government is considering labeling antifa as a terrorist organizations.
I'll believe it when I see it. The American government has handled any non-white terror group like the Black Panthers half assed for decades regardless as to who was in power at the time

Antifa is a terrorist organization and should be labelled as such. Whether it will be or not is another matter entirely.

America only has freedom of speech so far as you can defend yourself financially from a defamation lawsuit (you guys are the most legalistic and eager to sue people on earth), or gunfire and that's not just me being facetious.


Freedom of speech is uniquely an American concept, making America the freest country.
Actually, Thomas Paine was British at the time he advertised this idea to the Americans. Again, America is a country where megacorperations can and will utterly destroy you for criticising their products or farming methods. You're free, if you have money.

It can't just be me who remembers things like Oprah Winfrey vs the meat industry and how many millions it cost her in legal fees for daring to say she wouldn't ever eat a burger?

The worst tyrannical governments are governments that pretend that their countries are free which is the state the UK is in.
See above. I'm sure you've seen my post listing the statistics showing Americans have the lowest quality of life in the Western world by far elsewhere as well.

That is Britain would be better off as an autocratic monarchy, because that kind of government is honest about the lack of freedom. A good historical example is comparing England under Charles I with England under Oliver Cromwell. Charles I believed he ruled by divine right and under him the English had the freedom to celebrate Christmas, play sports on Sunday, etc. Oliver Cromwell claimed he ruled in name of the people, but he restricted so much freedom that the English cheerfully welcomed Charles I's son Charles II back as king.
Firstly, I think you need to take a look at British history and learn a bit more about the Puritans rule to see why they welcomed back a monarch with limited powers subservient to parliament vs a dictator who had dismissed parliament and the democratic process of the day entirely. It was Charles II who was seen as the "democratic" choice over Oliver's designated heir to borrow modern terminology .


Secondly, I think a short spell in a state like Saudi Arabia would give you a far better insight into what a theocratic absolute monarchy actually looks like.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: raymond

raymond

kiwifarms.net
Society has always been a corrupt authoritarian shithole. A lot of people are just spoiled by the wild west internet era. Time for that dream to die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino