What country is the most brainwashed

@Katzenschinken said in #18:
> Do you fear that there's a bit more to your so-called examples than what you claimed? Or why else don't you provide links so I can inform myself instead of listening to someone with a certain track-record of distorting facts?

www.worldtribune.com/finnish-member-of-parliament-could-go-to-prison-for-quoting-bible-on-twitter/
alethonews.com/2022/03/22/professor-faces-government-action-for-questioning-ukraine-narrative/
yournews.com/2022/06/06/2354553/norwegian-feminist-faces-three-years-in-prison-for-saying-biological/

> That's just a load of BS. The commentary sections of german newspapers are full of pro-russian rubbish (a lot probably coming from troll factories in St. Petersburg) but nobody is arrested here. Find me a report of someone arrested by the german authorities for writing something pro-russian that wasn't hate speech. Just one!

multipolarista.com/2022/03/03/crime-support-russia-ukraine-eu-slovakia-czech/
rairfoundation.com/support-for-russia-outlawed-in-germany-displaying-putins-z-symbol-can-cost-3-years-in-prison/

i have not seen an arrest in germany (though what difference does it make they still made it illegal) but here is a report of an arrest in latvia of a man that held a russian flag at the ww2 memorial:
www.rt.com/russia/555514-latvia-flag-memorial-ukraine/

> §140 of the german penal code always prohibited public support/approval of certain crimes, among them conducting genocide or a war of aggression. This was the base for banning showing swastikas and it is now the base for banning the letter Z when shown in support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

ok? first of all... ok? what difference does this make? and secondly, it must be nice that the government can just ban speech by arbitrarily and unitarily deciding that it is a illegal. seriously who decided that the russian invasion is illegal or a genocide? as far as i am aware the UN said that it weren't either of those things.

> Despite that there are pro-russian demonstrations in german cities, even carrying flags with the Z but nobody is arrested for it. At most they are forced by the police to take those flag down.

so the police prevent german citizens from exercising their right of free expression and protest good to know.

> This:

when you ban speech you create a chilling effect, arrests only need to be made in a few show cases. either way here are people in the eu prosecuted for speech:
evangelicalfocus.com/europe/9248/german-pastors-sentence-for-hate-speech-against-homosexuals-prompts-different-reactions#:~:text=A%20court%20in%20Bremen%20%28Germany%29%20has%20condemned%20a,of%208%2C100%20euros.%20Latzel%20will%20appeal%20the%20sentence.
thenewamerican.com/hate-speech-u-k-political-leader-arrested-for-quoting-winston-churchill/
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/17/french-far-right-presidential-candidate-eric-zemmour-guilty-racist-hate-speech

@TheMuffinMan2000 said in #11:
> it is a misconception that people in an autocratic country are somehow more brainwashed, an autocratic country does not care what the people believe because the form of power is hard, as in it is power backed by guns.

TV program of Channel "Россия-1" (Russuia-1 - main state TV) today, .
I mark the brainwash transmissions with asterisk.

05:00 Утро России
*09:00 Вести. Местное время
09:30 Утро России
09:55 О самом главном
*11:00 Вести
*11:30 60 минут
*14:00 Вести
*14:30 Вести. Местное время
14:55 Кто против?
*17:00 Вести
*17:30 60 минут
*20:00 Вести в 20:00
*21:05 Вести. Местное время
*21:20 "Вечер" с Владимиром Соловьевым
00:00 Долгое прощание

"Hate speech." Have you (the reader, whoever you may happen to be, from time to time) checked the American First Amendment for a "hate speech" exception to free speech? Take the time to look for one -- it won't take much reading.

The Constitution doesn't need to protect speech we love. So what speech does it protect?

Some smart song-writer once wrote (more or less): Don't it always seem to go, that we don't know what we've got till it's gone? Please never trade real understanding for fashion. I might not like what you say -- I might even hate it -- but as an American, I'm in favor of letting you speak your mind. That doesn't guarantee I'll agree, or even remain polite. But it protects what matters.

My top 3:
- North Korea
- Russia
- China

definitly amarica

@TheMuffinMan2000 said in #13:
> in western countries you are not allowed to quote the bible, you are not allowed to be critical of feminism or homosexuality or islam or transgenderism or immigration or vaccines or ukraine and so on. in finland a politician was arrested for posting a screenshot of a bible passage on social media. the scottish government wants to put a woman in jail for years because she said that trans men are not real women. in scotland again, there is a college professor who retweeted a "pro russian" tweet and was attacked by the media and the university asked its students to report him if he says anything "pro-russian" in class. these are just recent examples off the top of my head.
>
> if you can tell me what are they not allowed to write in russia or china, and give examples like i did, i would appreciate it.
@TheMuffinMan2000

Ever hear of Winnie the pooh?

Majority of Russia

@TheMuffinMan2000 said in #20:
> yes that is correct, there is no principle to regulating speech. things like "hate speech" are just whatever the regime does not want you to say. people get caught up in the rhetoric but don't see the principle. what free speech means is the ability to say things that ARE controversial or unpopular. you don't need free speech to say things that everybody agrees with, if everybody just conformed then there would be no reason to have freedom to speak in the first place. now what you don't seem to understand is that controversial or unpopular speech is different from country to country. In north korea it is controversial to say that Kim Jong Un is a fat pig, it is not controversial to say that transgenderism is a mental illness. now which of those statements need protection?

Dude! Stop pretending you're an idiot 'cause I know you're smarter than that.

Why the heel do you think after 4 years of 45th regime you pretend it's impossible for a politician to say things things that are controversial or unpopular? Do I need to remind you some folks who get elected spreading lotta controversial or unpopular things. I'll give you MTG as a start.

Please stop acting like if others are idiots!

North Koreans are not brainwashed...they know exactly what is being done to them.
Russians are brainwashed...they do not know what is being done to them.

@TheMuffinMan2000 said in #21:

Dude!

> www.worldtribune.com

Here is what mediabiasfactcheck-dot-com has to say regarding this source:

> In review, World Tribune publishes news stories with emotionally loaded words that favor the right such as this: Unreported: ‘Christianophobic’ attacks on the rise in France and Germany. This story provides zero links to support their report. In another story: How Soros-funded out-of-state networks orchestrate state-level legislation, there is again zero linking or evidence to support their claims. Let’s go deeper and look at the science. When it comes to climate change, this source does not support the consensus of science at all. In general, the World Tribune publishes many true stories; however, occasionally, they publish outright fake news.
>
> Overall, we rate World Tribune a Questionable source based on a far-right bias (propaganda), and poor sourcing, and misleading science, as well as a lack of ownership transparency.

________________________________________________________________________________________


> multipolarista.com

And now you're citing someone who published on rossia today?!

________________________________________________________________________________________

> evangelicalfocus.com

Are you kidding?

________________________________________________________________________________________

> thenewamerican.com

Again, here is what mediabiasfactcheck-dot-com has to say regarding this source:

> In review, the New American publishes news that is favorable to the right. There is the frequent use of loaded emotional wording such as this: Rep. Massie Ridicules John Kerry’s “Pseudo-Science” on Climate. This story is sourced back to old New American articles and not too credible sources to support their claims. When it comes to science New American does not support the consensus of science on climate change. In general, New American publishes stories that are always favorable to the right such as this: Seattle Is Dying: Radical “Progressivism” Is the Reason. Finally, during the Covid-19 pandemic, they have promoted misinformation. See failed fact checks.