He's drunk.

Mira… la cocaracha

That backstage shot was definitely unnecessary, but that's more of an editor error. With that being said, whoever was shooting gave some creeper vibes.

He was annoyed by stitched stockings

@Larry Bones I think he was trying to address the fact that at the beginning of the speech she said that bringing free speech up in an argument automatically stops any argument as if it was some field people dare not enter at the risk of losing their own right. He was saying, like you said, free speech is about expression of words. It enables discussion which in turn enables democratic debate.

Free speech also spreads fake news and makes our society very uneducated.

@@goldenhawk9322 Fake news only spreads BECAUSE people are uneducated, the solution is not to ban misinformation but to openly disprove it. The ability to be deceived does not justify the act of having one's thinking done for them by another, especially not by a centralized governing body.

Larry Bones what’s the point of communicating and offending? I think you need to dig deeper. She could have gone deeper in knowledge and empowerment. I think they all come down to agency - and then if your speech limits the agency of another then it is valid to question it’s utility. I’m still wrapping my head around the issue though.

Larry Bones why do you assume I’m being naive, lol. Who responds when our property is threatened, or our person? How do you suggest we respond when our agency is threatened?

Larry Bones also, she explicitly says 4:33 that she is not saying that the only justifications for free speech are knowledge and empowerment so your original comment is moot anyways 🤷‍♂️

@Larry Bones replace 'offend' with "expressing ideas people don't like" and everything becomes crystal clear

To prevent people from being himbos and bimbos!

@Larry Bones If only her talk was this clear, I would have understood it much more easily!

@@erincarson8998 Good point. I never thought of that.

You make a good point here. It explains why I felt like she was doing gymnastics with words, twisting them round and round as if she wanted to change them. Like when I make Rotis, I don't want to serve a raw ball of dough, so I work it this way and that, then lightly toast it so it fluffs/bubbles up.. and what I serve people is arguably the same, but is also very different. I think, if she was being more honest, as a smart woman she could have said it very clearly, without those strings of syllables. To avoid it being twisted like that, Free Speech needs to be defined as simply as possible: Anyone should say whatever they want (as long as it's not directly threatening or encouraging violence), then they should listen to what others have to say, even (and especially) if they disagree, and, when they finish, are free to criticise what has been said, and so it goes back and forth and thats how people end up coming to an understanding, or people watching the discussion decide for themselves which side they consider to be "right". BTW loved your video on Imaginary Numbers, it was very clear!

Larry Bones I agree that it can be said but should be looked into none the less better safe than sorry if someone says don’t go to work tomorrow that should definitely be looked into

North Koreans are coerced to vote a certain way. They cannot say no. Therefore they aren't really speaking.

One word: yes

What good is free speech if the listener only hears what they want? And creates a reality with seeds planted by those with very sophisticated means. For example, convince people your enemy is their enemy.

I'm not sure where in the presentation she mentioned free speech is reserved for only the educated. Could you identify when she said that?

She isn't saying his views would be discounted, just that it may (or may not be - she is talking on a general level, not about any specific individual) be more difficult for him to exercise his free speech to its maximum potential. She then advocates for better education to make sure that everyone is able to do what they want with words.

@Larry Bones sarahm is right and you are wrong. you didn't get langton's notion of speech, otherwise you wouldn't go on and on about censorship. but i think you got much more important issues to sort out so please don't bother.

@Larry Bones do you want someone to explain it? this is not a rethorical question.

Time stamps??

It isn't hard to troll post modernists. They think they are winners without ever having to compete or win anything.

Freedom of speech should protect all voices from coercive force.the her proposition is to censor argumentation. Argumentation is the point of free speech as she said herself. Censorship doesnt erase the idea. In fact, religion spreads faster and is believed more fervently under persecution. Common sense will tell you that people who use violence to protect their ideas do so because they cant argue from them and win.

@iii gaslighting

Good point.