Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

319

'We' only ever seem to be caring about over 'Freedom of Speech''ing 'them' while they don't care that their speech is right, that just care that their REACH is better.

Is it time to start developing the tools, platforms, and taking over platforms and destroying corrupted platforms to change the balance of REACH?

'We' only ever seem to be caring about over 'Freedom of Speech''ing 'them' while they don't care that their speech is right, that just care that their REACH is better. Is it time to start developing the tools, platforms, and taking over platforms and destroying corrupted platforms to change the balance of REACH?

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

Freedom of Reach

That sounds like a very jewish linguistic programming term. I don't want to use jew phraseology that disguises the true issue here. It's not that conservative and moral messages aren't being spread very far, the problem is that people who agree with those messages are afraid to speak out publicly in favor of them. We have to remove the fears and cancel culture so that moral conservative people don't feel that they must invisibly shake their head in agreement but stay silent in public for fear of being personally attacked. Until the fear and attacks are countered strongly, only the immoral liberals will be heard. It's time to stop being afraid to stand up for our beliefs and attack back at the corrupted leftist narratives.

[–] • 3 pts

Freedom of speech includes reach, free speech is absolutely useless without an audience.

[–] • 2 pts

Humans, as a whole tend to treat the most oft repeated "fact" as true. Or the most recently heard argument.

The side with the larger reach means more people hear the statement more. This adds some of what I'll call factual inertia.

Its kinda like food and water. Water may be more important, but you need both

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Reach is actually more important and you can prove these types of things by going to the extreme.

Being factually right but reaching no one = zero

Being factually wrong but being the only one who reaches anyone = winner

Your overall affect / "win" value is a product of both.

But still lets say you being factually right means your exposure wins out 100% of the time to someone who is exposed to both (which isn't even true in real world cases). Then reach STILL! wins.

If you don't even reach over 50% when the other side does you basically automatically lose. Whether you were right or not.

[–] • 0 pt

I did away with "freedom of speech" and replaced it with "flow of information", that is where the real fight is.

[–] • 0 pt

Freedom of Association. They believe in forcing you to associate with them on their terms.

[–] • 0 pt

Say something people want to hear and it will propagate farther, faster. everyone loves to have shit to talk about.

[–] • 0 pt

People on the 'right' have the 'word of mouth' and 'morally right therefor entitled to win' strategy.

[–] • 1 pt

I consider myself on the right of tyranny. I opine a lot of people you mention on the right that consider they are morally right are comparing themselves to the immoral left. even the slightest inkling of morality makes them holier than thou. They need to live their lives as if God is judging them and not as if Democrats are judging them. We are all sinners.

[–] • 0 pt

A LOT A LOT of democrat voters are atheists. A lot are even straight up satanists. Ask them you'll be surprised.

When Trump was the republican party, voting democrat was an act against God.

Now that the repubs / uniparty are gearing towards rigging Trump out and installing Desantis, as far as God is concerned it doesn't really matter if you vote republican or democrat. Basically doesn't matter if you vote anyways. At least in their system.

[–] • 0 pt

Anyone older than a good whiskey remembers when the right was the ones opposed to free speech.