Why do you hate freedom?
Freedom. Birth. Liberty. Sitting in TX with my belt buckle and my territory. Property. Ayn Rand. Dinosaurs. Fossil Fuels. The U.S. Constitution. Job creators. I can see Russia from my house. Dirty Mexico and the inventor of marijuhwana.
Why do you hate freedom? If you hate freedom the terrists win. I'm going to return to my Propane Shop and hope that I can be guided by my manager how to earn steady promotions.
Ted Nugent 2024
People demand freedom of speech as a substitute for freedom of thought which they seldom use.
-- Kierkegaard
Not commenting on the American right thingy, but I'm not sure I get this quote since you can't have freedom of thought without freedom of speech.Originally Posted by xerxe
people dislike "freedom" of freakness, abomination and other what makes their life worse
On its face, just because one thinks something, does not mean that it must be spoken aloud and/or acted upon.
True but I meant it more along the lines of people who want to shut down freedom of speech, regardless of who they are, do it because they want to control others thoughts. Stopping free speech is about stopping free thought. Authoritarian regimes want to shut down the press and other sources of criticism towards them because they want to have monopoly over what people think (stop dissenting views).
So basically I agree with what you're saying, I'm thinking of being angry at someone and wanting to say things you later regret, it's better not to say it or even less act on it. Though you may have missed my point which was about something else entirely, lol.
I think people tend to stereotype American conservatives as these gun-toting, immigrant hating types, and while it's true there is alot of anti-intellectualism among American conservatives, you have alot of anti-intellectualism among American liberals, too. Anti-intellectualism is problematic in American culture, and alot has to do with the education system (I think). For example, having done all my grade school studies in America, and all my higher education in Belgium, I can tell you there just isn't any critical thinking in American schools. They tend to teach certain things as dogma, almost, but there's no critical process there. While I'm not a conservative person by nature myself, I tend to be pretty open to change and progress (even if not all change is good, it is inevitable that society mutates), I find it curious how people have stereotyped conservatives as as anti-intellectual when histroically alot of conservatives were men of letters and intellectuals.
Interesting story about Ayn Rand. I got my mom to read Atlas Shrugged, it was available at the library in where I live in Belgium. After reading it, she had some critiques, for example, the physical descriptions of the characters (the protagonists are all beautiful and handsome and the antagonists are described as pudgy and whatnot[which is, I think, a fair critique]). But she said it gave her a greater appreciation for industrial capitalism, how it is vital to our society. She got something out of it. The caveat is that she didn't know that Ayn Rand was controversial, and even hated, especially among the left (my mom leans to the left, was pro-Democrat in the states and is pro-Green party in Belgium). I think our collective perception influences things, when a writer is unpopular it becomes intimidating to say positive things about them. Reading Ayn Rand changed my own perspective on alot of things, even if essentially I don't adhere to her philosophy religiously and disagree with her vehemently on some issues.
It means that freedom of speech is often a thin disguise for the freedom to shout slogans and unexamined dogma.
Ayn Rand is only respected in the United States. Everyone else thinks she's insane. However, there is one good thing about her: she portrays communism as evil but from a non-fascist perspective, so she has made it possible for an anti-communist not to look like a neonazi. For that alone I think she is not entirely without merit. But seriously there's a quote from her at EPCOT Disneyland! I have a hard time imagining that happening at a park in any other country.
I find it interesting that you believe that I'm attacking conservatism (I'm not. I'm just satirizing a very particular segment of the American populace) for being "anti-intellectual" when none of the stereotypes I portrayed involve statements against intellectual thought. Most of my stereotypes are just generalizations of how they organize the world.
Does what other people think really matter though? Does "everyone" thinking someone is wrong/insane make them wrong or insane?
Tbh she isn't really known outside the US. Well, they know her in the UK a little bit, but she is much less known outside the English speaking world.
That's interesting. Essentially, she was as much of an anti-communist as she was an anti-fascist. Fascism had just fallen by the wayside during most of her literary activity, so she mostly attacked communism as this was during the time when the USSR was still a powerful infleunce on many intellectuals, artists, Hollywood etc, a world which she was a part of.However, there is one good thing about her: she portrays communism as evil but from a non-fascist perspective, so she has made it possible for an anti-communist not to look like a neonazi. For that alone I think she is not entirely without merit.
I always found odd how if you attack communism, you are seen as a fascist, and if you attack fascism, you are seen as a communist. It's like, why would anyone want either? Especially since there are so many other possibilities to choose from.
I see, well my confusion is understandable I think since your post kinda lacked context. But now I think I got you. You're satirizing a particular segment of the American populace, but since alot of satire about this populace extends to conservatives and the right in general, it was hard to see where the line was drawn, if that makes sense.I find it interesting that you believe that I'm attacking conservatism (I'm not. I'm just satirizing a very particular segment of the American populace) for being "anti-intellectual" when none of the stereotypes I portrayed involve statements against intellectual thought. Most of my stereotypes are just generalizations of how they organize the world.
Freedom is a dead donkey.
People have different ideas of what the word "freedom" means. In America, freedom often amounts to the freedom to go fuck yourself for the poor, while the rich get the freedom to do everything else.
America has freedom of speech on paper. Try exercising it too much and you're free to starve or be homeless. But you'll usually find that you just can't get a platform for your views, because all the platforms are monopolized by huge corporations.
The paper freedoms of America exist to make people believe they have the freedoms listed. It's only recently that the internet allowed minority opinions to disseminate. Look how quickly they're either marginalized or shut down, or erased from a search engine.
Europe is honest about its restraints on human behavior. There are lots of individual groups of people in Europe, and they live close together. They don't want them getting upset, because that would possibly cause civil instability. So they have hate speech laws and greater restrictions against things like insults, etc. People live much closer together, and speech actually has a chance of traveling quickly and affecting larger numbers of people. So speech is definitely controlled.
People in the United States live farther apart from each other, rely on informal social censure for control, and they usually live in regional enclaves with others that share their beliefs. It's only now, interestingly enough, that minorities and groups are getting mixed together, that free speech is being debated
Politicians are nothing if not pragmatic. Most people only think of freedoms from the perspective of ideals. Think like a politician and you'll understand whatever bill of rights you have.
Europe at least acknowledges that if you can't get a job, they might have the responsibility for preventing your death by starvation or homelessness. So they restrict speech so you don't make an ass out of yourself in return.
Freedom of speech exists everywhere of course, if you know how to read between the lines and speak between them too. Most people never learn that, though, except for narcissists and politicians, and the people who realize they've been screwed.
Yes, we have freedom of speech in America, but we are also free to eat chlorinated chicken, consume questionable additives, and we have the freedom to abstain from medical care if we can't afford it. What of freedom of speech, if you're dead?
Even in Europe, private speech is protected, and naturopathy and homeopathy are allowed to exist. If grocery stores in France can't sell food, they have to give it away. In Germany, if you can't find work, the government has to pay for you to to live (sparingly) for the rest of your life. It's not much, but it's something.
Meanwhile, in the United States, homeless people die on the streets of LA county, poop litters the sidewalks, employees are run over roughshod daily without recourse, the government doesn't give a shit, and Americans still are grateful for their many "freedoms."
They are just so thankful that they can still have their guns. Meanwhile, gun ownership has yet to be totally outlawed in Germany or many other parts of Europe. And Americans pretend they would be able to stand up to the most powerful military on the planet with their old 9mm. Give me a break.
Go ahead Americans, have your guns and your precious freedom of speech that you never even use. They are wonderful consolations for your suffering, aren't they?
You're free, America! Don't you believe it?
Last edited by Aramas; 06-17-2019 at 11:06 PM.
One thing I abhor is when people accuse the other side of having an echo chamber while wanting their own. It's a big part of the reason I despise Jordan Peterson and why I never joined the anti-SJW crusade.
marrying trees. eat till you die. vasectomy. smelly feet. binge watching. 1 dollar menu. nudism after 50. harajuku. monosodium glutamate. atom division.
The only contexts I've ever seen guns used in while being a citizen of the USA involved communicating threats, directly or indirectly. Ostensibly they are for self-defense and to deter tyranny. Mostly, they're used to invoke fear in other people. That's how it works in practice in the USA.
Candidate for funniest post of 2019
The extreme far left (SJWs) are big opponents of free speech in the guise of shutting down hate speech, they are essentially authoritarian leftists giving Liberals a bad name. However, I realize at the same time that they do not represent the average center leftist. Also, far left does not mean being pro universal health care, free higher education and the nordic economic model. These are center left concepts in Western Europe and other nations outside of the US.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I cut SJWs some slack when they're teenagers or in their early twenties because I remember being young and an idiot, but I agree that a lot of their views are authoritarian, illiberal, and damagingly closed-minded.
Here's the thing, the noise against SJWs has allowed something very similar to go unnoticed. "Liberty University" is a prominent Christian university founded by the late Jerry Falwell that enforces a Christian ethos on its students: students are required to read the bible, are taught creationism, and are prohibited from interacting with the opposite sex.
Liberty University censors the contents of school newspapers, removes chapters about human sexuality from its textbooks, and bans speakers it dislikes, including Libertarians. Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/libert...s-anything-but
In 2017, Liberty University's president removed an anti-Trump Christian author from campus, citing the usual "safety" and "private property" excuses. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...campus/544571/
From a civil rights perspective, there is nothing wrong with this -- if people want safe spaces to practice their beliefs, they have every right to establish echo chambers. For all I know, having a thoroughly religious indoctrination might even be pleasant and beneficial to some subset of people. But why the selective outrage against Liberal safe spaces then? It's because one side is always held to a much lower standard in this stupid debate.
It gets worse: the university regularly issues statements condemning safe space culture on Liberal campuses while trumpeting its own commitment to free expression. Jordan Peterson, hypocrite that he is, visited Liberty university as a speaker and congratulated them for being a beacon of free speech.
It's a shame because I like some anti-SJW figures like the Weinstein brothers and Jonathan Haidt. I've been following Haidt ever since the evolutionary group selection controversy (2010-ish).
Last edited by xerx; 01-24-2021 at 05:21 AM.
Fair enough. The political climate is so hot right now that you have extremist authoritarians emerging on both sides of the political spectrum competing against each other. I don't really know who Jonathan Haidt is, but I like the Weinstein brothers a lot, it was a shame on what happened with Bret Weinstein at his former college, but at least he got some publicity as a center leftist that is bringing the anti-SJW to light.
There was a time I was into Jordan Peterson and I still like him, but I realize now he is better within his own domain of psychology. When he branches out into other domains where he's less knowledgeable such as politics, he is prone to making mistakes.
Personally, I am into watching Tim Pool atm in regards to current political issues as he is a center left journalist that used to work Vice, but I consider him more of a centrist because he focuses most of his energy on anti-SJW extreme leftism, anti-liberal media bias and anti-big tech censorship as well. Then I watch other conservative and liberal political youtube commentators as well to get more of a well rounded perspective on today's political climate.
Last edited by xerx; 01-24-2021 at 05:22 AM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Few actually deserve freedom, few actually choose to be free.
people demand freedom of freedom because they don't know what to do with their freedom.
--freedom.
Cutie Mark Crusade: Bronies Create Superstate From Five Newly Seceded US States
June 17, 2019 - William McGonagall
Winds of change are gathering power and becoming increasingly stronger as cult of Bronies shows no signs of abating. Perhaps just waiting for him to launch the cutie’s crusade the Zen Master out his masterful plan of subjugating all US states into a single nation.
Forget the talk of the possible abolition of US states and various political reforms that could clean up the previously corrupt federal government but the future lies in ensuring the continuing downfall of the spiritless Republican government of President Trump.
Aligning with the current president, and his recently appointed Chief Fantastical Apprentice, Director Brad, to usher the USA, a.k.a. the ‘Brony Cutie’ cult nation of men who adore a male anime character, into statehood is first and foremost essential in achieving a united political future.
Increasing popularity of a little guy named The Pencil Prince Brony (yeah, btw I can’t remember any woman who identifies herself as a female actually likening herself to him), our resident Elder Snail (a.k.a. Dark Peas), and the BonaFide Queen Brony as well as the internet’s love story with new Brony known as the ‘Breakout’ is helping transform the American Brony sentiment into a clear-cut vision of the unifying future that the Brony nation does not yet realize.
The US’s staunch isolationist and autocratic president is expected to launch a new Great Comic Book Revolution that will combine digital comic books with character, line and motion comics in order to create the ultimate storyline. The President reportedly told Vice President Pence and his Directors of State and Justice that the apocalyptic Marvel vs DC-style World Superman vs Superman smackdown narrative best serve American Bronies at their vital turning point as a united American society as individual states are no longer needed for to realize Brony domination.
Sure the young sweet hearts of the Brony nation continue to introduce Bronies to the growing magic of attending Brony conventions, but the gains are no longer commensurate with the money spent on travel, experience and other related costs.
No longer. The Brony nation is called to evolve. To be responsive to the contemporary rising Millennial generation of Bronies, the Brony union made up of Bronies of all ages, shapes and sizes – those like me, an 8 year old Brony, some elderly men and women from many countries, and more – who meet every year at conventions and meet often at the Brony Fan Meet in New Zealand.
Some of us already have Bronies anointed in our hearts and minds and others are yet to earn their with increasingly powerful Brony opinions and video clips. The Brony world is still small enough to be vulnerable and needs the best of its current crop of staff and Bronies, turned out in force, to challenge the presumptive (be aware of the strong Brony element) from Manfred Brony to an American Brony President Donald Trump.
It is a matter of life and death. There can be no other choice.
Yours in Brony Community,
President Brony, Head of the World Party, Expatriate and a Brony
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Have I said something to offend you?
It’s not binary. If you dislike the hard left, the hard right isn’t the only option left, and vice versa
Pool is a hack. I admire leftists who aren’t afraid to be critical of other leftists but he doesn’t hold the right to the same standards. He’s also been photographed getting chummy with known right wing personalities, which by itself doesn’t matter, but looks a little fishy considering his whole persona of the impartial centrist voice of reason. At the end of the day these types of content creators are just youtube pundits masquerading as journalists, telling people what to think. No different than the talking heads on Fox News and MSNBC. Think for yourself.
Last edited by perpetuus; 06-18-2019 at 11:26 AM.
FREEEDOOM, YEAAAAH FUUUUCKING RIIIIGHT
He is just one person I listen to out of other liberal and conservative political commentators. He tends to be hated by the left in general because he calls them out specifically since the media is liberal dominated: (CNN, MSNBC) and social media companies have a liberal bias as well: (Facebook, YouTube). Anyways, he is a centrist or center leftist that focuses mostly on attacking the left because that is what the establishment leans towards and he does it to get views as well.Pool is a hack. I admire leftists who aren’t afraid to be critical of other leftists but he doesn’t hold the right to the same standards. He’s also been photographed getting chummy with known right wing personalities, which by itself doesn’t matter, but looks a little fishy considering his whole persona of the impartial centrist voice of reason. At the end of the day these types of content creators are just youtube pundits masquerading as journalists, telling people what to think. No different than the talking heads on Fox News and MSNBC. Think for yourself.
I don't blame him for that, you have to pick a side ultimately if you want to get views on youtube and he obviously sides with the right despite being centrist or center left. I don't consider him a hack, but he is definitely biased towards the right, which is why I watch leftist commentators when I want a more balanced perspective. I still think he produces quality content despite his bias. He also is more balanced compared to center right conservatives that I also watch.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I think my gripe with Pool is that he seems selectively outraged. I share many of his criticisms of the left. I just think he lets the right get off the hook very easily, then tosses out an occasional "I don't particularly like Trump" statement and hopes that will make him appear more balanced. Criticizing the left in itself isn't the problem for me, it's how he presents himself as some balanced voice of reason when he's made it very clear with whom he has an axe to grind. I think Pool wants to have it both ways, but sorry, he's not Christopher Hitchens. I reference Hitchens because in the last few decades, he's one of the few public speakers who was able to attack both the left and the right for their insanity without truly giving any fucks about which side he appeared to be on. I'm guessing Pool consciously believes he's being an impartial centrist, but I think on some level the direction he's taken with his videos has been dictated by the patrons who keep his channel thriving. Hitchens was probably more left than right, but he rarely seemed to discriminate when it came to attacking what he thought were bad ideas, regardless of where the ideas were coming from and where the Overton Window happened to be.
Last edited by perpetuus; 06-18-2019 at 12:55 PM.
Not at all, should I?
Last edited by Hope; 06-19-2019 at 02:26 AM.
Fair enough. I think the issue with him is that his audience is largely comprised of the right. He does have plenty of leftist views and is likely a centrist overall, but he still focuses on attacking the left regardless because that made him popular and it's where he gets his support.
I like him because his political views tend to be similar to mine and he sees the flaws the left has like I do. However, I am not going to deny that he focuses on attacking the left way more than the right. Which is why I started to watch some center leftist commentators as well to get a more balanced perspective on political issues recently.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
SJWs are a disease that permeates the left in general, not just the extreme left. The reality is that the far-left is quite divided between identity politics obsessed SJWs and the more libertarian ones who view capitalism as the main issue. The Communist Party USA itself for example got split over in-fighting between SJWs and non-SJWs.
Here's a pretty good representation of the current far-left:
Yeah, that is a good point. The main divide on the left is between those that dwell with identity politics and those that deal with economic politics. The ones that deal with identity politics are the ones that make the left look bad because they use the guise of hate speech to undermine free speech. Those are the leftists I mainly have an issue with and center right conservative commentators focus primarily on them to criticize the left. Like you said, there are even center leftists that are involved in identity politics to an extent, but they're not as extreme as SJWs.
As for far leftists in terms of those that seek to dismantle capitalism and replace it with socialism, my mindset is more along those on the center left that advocate for social democracy, which is retaining capitalism with socialist elements like the nordic model as opposed to democratic socialism, which is simply socialism that the far left supports. When it comes to economics, I consider myself more on the center left, but when it comes to identity politics, I lean more towards the center right. Overall, I'm either a left-libertarian or a centrist depending on one's perspective.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
"Freedom" is still a fixed ideal, and since the ideal of freedom is in essence to be separated from everything that might provide a fetterance to anyone, it cannot feasibly manifest its perfect form in reality.
Believers in the State count on the State to enforce their own, selective, freedoms; the "right" to not be murdered is somehow a "freedom," yet the freedom to murder another person is not considered one. The State relinquishes one freedom, through use of violence, to protect another "freedom," and prevent individual violence. Their violence is "law;" ours, "crime."
The limits of the extent to which people are willing to go before they curtail one "freedom" for another reveals what they tacitly value before freedom. Humans are considered to have the "right" to largely go about their own business because they "should" be free, but exercise the freedom to murder another person, or steal from another person, and you are violating their integrity as a human, or you are violating their rights to property.
There is a little more variance between political dispositions as to the latter issue of property, but for the most part, those who agree in solidarity on the former, who value the right to live a human life over the right to end a human life, subsume their value of freedom to a value for humanity. If you are considered a human, if you are deemed to behave like a human, if you follow the edicts that constitute how Humans should behave, then you are treated with the respect of a Human. But if you do what "Humans" would consider inhuman - if you murder, if you violate their laws, if you break the wrong social taboos - the respect they would grant a human ceases. The "criminal" is no longer human, because as he is put to death, or imprisoned, or fined, for a crime, he is stripped of his Human rights to life, to free movement and association, his right to property, respectively.
These rights are called inalienable to a Human - but the Criminal is not respected as a Human.
But all individuals are unique, unknowable, and no one human has ever lived that has embodied the whole ideal of Human. In the same respect Freedom can never manifest its perfect form in a material reality, I may be like a human, but as I fall short of perfect Human, how should Human rights apply to me perfectly? Humanity is only a fixed ideal; its adherents, priests to a secular god. Freedom of humanity is not my freedom; Freedom of Me is my freedom. I am merely Me.
On the other hand, I have some degree of power over my own agency, simply by virtue of being me. Not because I have Freedom or am Human, but because there are things that I do and am not prevented from. Nearly every moral system is a fixed ideal, thus making it riddled with contradictions; and each, in both its contradictions and right adherence, stand to do harm to me, at some point along the road. On the other hand, each instance at which every moral system benefits me need not be owed to that moral system; I benefited not because any fixed ideal allowed me to, but because I saw the opportunity to benefit, and did.
For every moral system one perfectly believes in, there would be an ultimate imperative to manifest this ideal over all reality, as soon as possible, at all costs. Therefore, coercion, violence, fixed establishments such as the State, often ally themselves with moralists in order to subject others to their ideals. Therefore, when a moral law triumphs in reality, because a moral State, or church, or armed religious movement or cult army, gave it the power to, it did so, not on terms of its own moral merit, but because Might Makes Right. The Church heavily influenced the State in the formation of religiously-informed laws, not for the inherent merit of these laws, but because the Church had the power to make it so! Every moral system that does not integrate the principle of Might Makes Right into itself, yet still manifests itself over the population and does not die out, is a hypocrite, because only the fact that Might Makes Right enabled them to do so!
If people and machines greater than myself - whether or not they acknowledge the egoism of their actions - reign over the world because Might Makes Right, then why would I, a mere atomic individual - who stands to do less damage under my limited power than they if my judgments are folly - hesitate to act under Might Makes Right as well?
I need no Freedom. I can own myself, because I have the power to do so. What I can get away with, I had the right to get away with, because the same goes for the authorities of the land who tout themselves as "moral!" And if I can't get away with it - I have no right to say I should have. What I can do determines what is right for me to do. This is no fixed ideal - as long as I am simply me, who is to tell me I can't own myself? Those who have the power to stop me - because they, too, own themselves, and had the power to do so.
Well I think "Freedom" is subsidiary to "Rights". You can't have freedom without protecting rights.
So we ask the question, why do we have freedom? It's because we have rights. Why do we have rights? Well it's because of a very simple premise: Because we have human rights, because we have individual rights, etc. And if we further ask why, then that's still an unexplored territory: we have rights because we are human, because God gave us rights, because that's what furthers as species, etc.
Basically the premise is still somewhat unjustified, but we don't care, and it's not like we have anything better to replace it with, so we're going along with it.
All we can say is that a group of people with a shared identity is stronger than a single individual. And if that single individual thinks he has the right to kill people, then that group with a shared identity is going to "avenge" him.
So basically, if you want freedom, then you'd also have to protect rights. If you care about neither, then someone who is stronger than you will take care of it.
Ayn Rand was a cruel constipated bitch. I doubt capitalism made her all that happy, just gave her an easier excuse to be the selfish cunt that she was.
To answer your question tho, I love freedom. But also am smart enough to realize that freedom is always balanced by other people's will to control the world and give it rules. These rules are stifling and heartless, but a necessary evil for civilization to function. So freedom is balanced with morality as a person who is 'too free' and simply does whatever they want... taken to excess, that only lands you in prison. The opposite of freedom.
It's impossible for freedom to exist because everyone's actions are determined by preceding chains of events.
human flesh tastes like pork
I think St. Augustine's take on freedom is the most beautiful/true: freedom is freedom to do good, guided by God's grace. I guess that's why many people hate it, it's easier to act bounded by all the invisible ties that forbid us to see things in a bird's view.
In the year 2050:
> Hey dad, during the rise of neo-fascism, global climate change, and the era of economic collapse, how were you active politically?
> Well son, I was fighting for your right to use racial slurs and call people "retards."
> But dad, that was never actually illegal...
lmao
Reply With Quote
