Heaven's Hitman's channel

I don't even know you Mark. How can I hate you?

Hello Mark,
I´m happy to see you here, my friend!
Have a magical sunday evening!
Petra:)

I broke a baby’s arm at a house party and I went back and forth from denying I did it to blaming my ex Gary

I also never apologized to the parents even though the parents said themselves they won’t press charges they just want a apology

I am that hardcore bitch !!! ;-)

yes, those were my thoughts when I bring quotes I usually try to mark them.

hope I’ve managed to inspire you a little, and I would be very happy to read it once you’re finished.

I have many other interesting documentaries on this topic, but unfortunately, they are only in German. It would likely be too much of a hassle for you to watch them with subtitles.

My pip doesn’t cover blow up dolls :-(

Can you believe some trolls send me sanitary pads and tampons for Christmas some years back >~<.how rude of them to do that.Scotland Yard didn’t take my reports serious about this offense ;-(.it’s free stuff but we all know I’ll never use them.i will let them collect dirt and expire :-)

Right then, let’s go

hope you’ve made a bit of progress.

Nice. And then [what you said] got me thinking. A very interesting topic. Thanks for that.

Nobody believes me when I tell them I had a ex boyfriend .and I will always complain about my ex boyfriend even though we have been through since 2014!!!!thats 11 years of me complaining about my ex ruining my life and mental health >~<.Gary made me swore off men completely!!!

Approach A: Protection through restriction

We limit certain types of expression to minimize people’s exposure to hate, denigration, or extremist messages.

Approach B: Protection
We empower individuals to recognize problematic statements, examine them critically, process them emotionally, and counter them with arguments.

The advantage: People become less dependent on an authority figure to control their environment. They remain capable of navigating the world even when confronted with radical, hurtful, or manipulative positions.

If a society seeks to shield its citizens from every problematic statement by continually narrowing the scope of permissible discourse, it may end up with individuals who—while living in a controlled environment—are less practiced at independently identifying manipulation, propaganda, and ideological simplifications.

A resilient society, by contrast, would not require everyone to endorse every statement. Instead, it would strengthen people’s ability to distinguish between a claim and evidence, between criticism and dehumanization, and between an uncomfortable opinion and an actual threat.

One can contrast this with a different model of society: one whose stability does not rely on everyone using the "correct" language or sharing the same convictions, but rather on the capacity to navigate conflict.

This involves people learning that a hurtful opinion is not automatically sense of outrage is not, in itself, proof that one is in the right.

I have read through the introduction to your essay, and I find myself in complete agreement with you.

For a long time, I have perceived the dangers to freedom of speech as being more profound—specifically, the systematic alteration of language, or what is known as "Newspeak." The goal is not merely to penalize certain thoughts, but to shrink the linguistic space within which people are even capable of formulating such thoughts in the first place.

This is a crucial distinction:

Censorship of individual expressions: Certain statements are prohibited from being published.

Control of terminology: Certain words and interpretations are rendered taboo or branded with a moral stigma.

Alteration of the framework of thought: People learn to stop asking certain questions altogether, because the very act of formulating them is deemed illegitimate.