You must log in or register to comment.
I HOPE YOU DIEI AM GOING TO KEEP POINTING AT YOU UNTIL SOMEONE FROM MY TRIBE SHOOTS YOUI hope that by calling you an extremist threat, someone will do something about you!
… bUT hE Is JuST dEBatiNG a PoiNT wIth wOrDs!
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to shut the fuck up.”
Democracy, as in the idea that political power can only come from the people and only equally, is just not popular anymore and its kinda tragic. As an anti-authoritarian this is the hill I will die on, but it doesn’t have as many people as I’d like. it’s a cool-ass hill.
Well, we’ve never had direct democracy in the U.S. The People didn’t even vote for Senators for quite a while, and we still don’t vote for President, much less all the legislation and regulation done at various levels of government.
That said, I don’t really believe in unrestricted democracy anymore. I think the best solve for the “paradox of tolerance” is for intolerant persons to be prohibited from wielding political power, including the vote. I think the anarchist solve is non-binding democracy: a democratic decision, no matter how overwhelming, can’t reduce the freedom on the minority (and even the people that voted for it aren’t bound to it either, they voluntarily comply as long [or short] as they care to).
Iirc the solution to the ‘paradox of tolerance’ is to frame tolerance as a social contract, if you break the contract you are no longer protected by it.
Love the anarchist approach, not so much the other one. IMHO intolerant speech should be punished by social ostracizing, not legal consequences. I just won’t trust any government with the power of censorship.
Social ostracization or vigilante action IMO is a good blocker. Reminder the founders probably figured someone like Trump would’ve been tared and feathered then shot if that didn’t work.
I’m not sold on the anarchist approach because I do believe their should be an authority that is capable of redistributing hoarded (by a minority) resources back into the commons, and said authority should be democratically controlled. In short, I think anarchy tends to devolve into warlord-ism as the selfish (non-socialist “libertarians”, e.g.) choose to use violence to amass power.
I think a lot of hateful speech should be legal, tho subject to cultural isolation. But I also believe that there should be legal restrictions on speech, inciting violence should clearly be restricted, but I also think speech can be stochastic violence and that should also be restricted. I think it should be legal to insult and belittle and offend people, but not to dehumanize them, and I think dehumanizing people should be punished through the removal of political power. I think a democratically controlled State (e.g. the FCC) is a better way to implement these restrictions than a privately-owned corporate Capitalist structure (e.g. Meta, X, Skydance, etc.).
happy cake day!
ew please don’t
you will approve of wishing people a happy cake day
I prefer leaving the obnoxious redditisms elsewhere.
gee whiz can’t we find a moderate middle ground between these two extremist radical viewpoints?
We do. It’s something like “I agree with equal rights in principle, but meaningful measures to implement it would be difficult and expensive and would really piss off the billionaires who pay for our campaigns, so the best we can do is lip service and some rainbow emojis in June. Be sure to donate and vote for us like your life depends on it, because at least we’re not actively trying to kill you. 🏳️🌈🐴”
In short;
“equal rights except i’m dependent on cretin billionnaires and so i don’t do shit”.
I believe all humans are created equal and our political systems should reflect that, and anyone who doesn’t believe that should die?
I believe all humans are created equal and thus I hate them all and hope they all die?
Big brain moment.
You first! /s
Dang, brutal lol
Also happy cake day! (is that still a thing here?)
Yes, I was notified in the infosec.pub UI that today it was my cake day! 🎂
Not that I would agree, but it’s a solution for the paradox of tolerance…
Unironically, it’s how we won WWII. Imagine if we just had endless “peace negotiations” with the nazis instead. That surely would’ve went well…
“Meet me in the middle,” says the unjust man.
You take a step towards him, he takes a step back.
“Meet me in the middle,” says the unjust man.
– A.R. Moxon
I do agree, and it’s the only solution for the paradox of tolerance. We tried the “make them stay quiet about their bigotry, and it will fade away” tactic already, and all it did was make the bigotry fester under the surface until it erupted into what we have today.
If we overthrow the system and enact socialized medicine with therapy available to all citizens, maybe we could nip bigotry in the bud before it takes hold in a person’s soul, but once someone has decided to be intolerant, I believe it stays with them until they die.
once someone has decided to be intolerant, I believe it stays with them until they die
I don’t believe this is universal; we have at least one reformed neonazi that is antifa now.
So, I’m all for taking away the political power of the intolerant, but I don’t think we should kill them because they are intolerant, even proudly intolerant. Now, I do think it is much more likely that you will have to enact violence against the intolerant in defense of yourself or others, and if that happens to be fatal to the intolerant person I still find defensive violence justified.
Fair, I read the “should die” as “should be fought, and ultimately killed if necessary” rather than “should be rounded up and massacred.” I do think that the notion that people can change is more often used to excuse the bad deeds of unrepentant people than to actually redeem someone. Sure, people can change, and if they do, great, but if you avoid fighting them because you’re always holding out for a change that will never come, then you’re losing the chance you have to make real change.
I feel like to fight bigotry, you have to force them to be exposed to the truth. Like, force them live in inclusive communities, cut their old connections, let them build deep personal relationships with the people they hate.
It might sounds extreme, but that’s how faux news got them brainwashed in their little town at first place.
So say we all!
Believe or die? Please tell me this is satire.
I believe it was a satirical “compromise position” between the two positions in the image, yes.
All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others?
I had an Aunt, reserved woman, but honest. She was the first woman born in the entire family to be born with the right to vote. She managed to chisel herself a career in civil service for her entire adult life, never married, through all the rather distasteful attitudes she’d deal with on a daily basis.
Even she kept a copy of the constitution in her purse, a document that forbade her own mother from being able to vote well into adulthood.
Way I see it, our nation as such beautifully unceasing promise behind it, and they’re damn afraid of that fact.
Even she kept a copy of the constitution in her purse, a document that forbade her own mother from being able to vote well into adulthood.
Well it never forbade her. It was left to the states to decide who got to vote. That was the fault of the constitution, it gave too much power to the states for federal affairs.
man you can’t just post pictures of me and my parents that’s not cool
That could still be (from) the same, compatible view, technically speaking.
Controversial point I guess but the people that actively want me and my people dead are maybe not so good… And if push comes to shove, blicky-blicky.
deleted by creator
So you believe in a creator? Otherwise the way humans are created suggests that they are going to eat each other, like fish eating fish and mammals eating mammals. The vegans are on to something.
Every molecule and atom in our bodies initially came from nutrients consumed by our mother. Animals and plants that she consumed as sustenance. In that sense are we not all created equally, from the Earth?
Wouldn’t… evolution imply mammals eating each other?
If nothing else the vegan approach is much closer to creationism, so they’re not really onto anything.
Yes. So if we want humans to respect each other we have to make a conscious decision to do that, similar to vegans who decide not to hurt animals.
