Post 9nSfrptNe7VNiaml7I by icameheretoawoo@kiwifarms.cc
(DIR) More posts by icameheretoawoo@kiwifarms.cc
(DIR) Post #9nSfH5SgnQbhI8mHFQ by popefucker@cybre.space
2019-09-30T21:58:27Z
3 likes, 1 repeats
I'm against political correctness because I think it prioritizes form over content, and is frequently used as a shield from criticism. I'm also pro free speech because I think people should be allowed to say what they think.I think you can embrace these two concepts and still hold people in contempt for their awful ways of acting and speaking, and I think physical force is entirely justified when they cross the line between being annoying and being threatening.
(DIR) Post #9nSflLCErM8OmNVd3o by quaylessed@pleroma.quaylessed.icu
2019-09-30T22:05:19.894566Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@popefucker i agree
(DIR) Post #9nSfrptNe7VNiaml7I by icameheretoawoo@kiwifarms.cc
2019-09-30T22:06:30.331671Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@popefucker >and I think physical force is entirely justified when they cross the line between being annoying>Crippling someone because they "annoyed" youTalk about taking things too far.
(DIR) Post #9nSivdJodVOdk6eWUS by jmgresham@gnusocial.no
2019-09-30T22:40:47+00:00
0 likes, 0 repeats
force cannot make right
(DIR) Post #9nSjIO19gtrSwpm2ng by policeinchains@todon.nl
2019-09-30T22:02:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@popefucker I doubt that many people say what they think. Most people repeat what they are fed. In this context freedom to speak means little.
(DIR) Post #9nSjIONqKY0e5COAAC by popefucker@cybre.space
2019-09-30T22:09:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@policeinchains Freedom of speech isn't there to protect them. They don't need protecting. Freedom of speech is for people who voice opinions that they don't like.
(DIR) Post #9nSjIOabZ6DYimMM3U by policeinchains@todon.nl
2019-09-30T22:17:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@popefucker I don't think 'voice of minority' you implied existing, actually exists. Most minority positions are themselves propaganda fed to people by alternatives to the one who feds the majority. And any actually valuable act of speech isn't defended by free speech, because inviting people to commit crimes is a crime itself.
(DIR) Post #9nSjIOz469mdwdntBI by popefucker@cybre.space
2019-09-30T22:23:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@policeinchains Do you think that you yourself think critically and have your own beliefs? You're not special in that regard.I also think you are mixing up the concept of free speech with how it is implemented in law. I do not think that the US is a free country, so I don't expect free speech to be protected by the US government. It is simply happenstance that, in many cases, they do. For instance, this message is not being dropped from the network for having illegal content.
(DIR) Post #9nSjIPDbE7PSfibUps by policeinchains@todon.nl
2019-09-30T22:37:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@popefucker I don't see an argument there. Some people think critically, some don't.I doubt this message being allowed in the network is an unconditional stance, by moderators or owners of your instance. Or by law in general. I don't see what free speech would have to do with being free, while there is a government called usa who will kill or keep you in a cage for crossing a border that you shouldn't cross. What does talking mean when they have guns, and the loudest voice by default through education, media, academia? It is allowed because it's harmless. Everything dangerous to them is illegal. Free speech does not make people more free than free jogging. So of course usa is not free. In a free world, people would think more often. But in todays world free speech means, government allows it's alternatives the space to propagate. And those who desire to be free can partially speak tocthemselves in this free space created for other political parties and politicians. That free space is not worth defending, apart from relative to party-doctatorship. To the extent that there is a power share.
(DIR) Post #9nSjIPUcCr1LWUZ5MG by popefucker@cybre.space
2019-09-30T22:40:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@policeinchains it is not the case that talk is harmless. Talk is what builds resistance movements. How do you think they get their goons? Through talk.It's just whether *they* consider the talk harmless.I think it's just hubristic to think of people as sheep. People have reasons for saying what they're going to say, even if they're repeating someone else's words. Maybe those words are what they want to say, and they're just not articulate enough. Maybe they haven't actually heard an opposing viewpoint
(DIR) Post #9nSjIPhNRPEGA4XHFY by popefucker@cybre.space
2019-09-30T22:44:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@policeinchains honestly I'm just having trouble understanding what your argument is here... how could freedom of speech be pointless? If you agree that it is even possible to say things which need protecting by freedom of speech, then why are you against the concept? If you don't think that it's possible to be a dissenting voice, then how can you possibly think of other people as sheep and not yourself?
(DIR) Post #9nSm81CJynqX8jkDTc by jmgresham@gnusocial.no
2019-09-30T23:16:35+00:00
0 likes, 0 repeats
To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will — at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?