Uncle Van

Bullets don't hurt. But Taxes do.
I'm not.

Freedom is amazing until it's used to oppress other people. You can't have illimited freedom unless all people behave in synchronization and complete cohesion with one another.
Liberty and Freedom are inferently left wing. Sounds like you agree that laws are in place to restrict freedom and maintain order.

On top of that. You seem to think that saying oppressive things is a basic human right. You couldn't say something more pertinent to prove the fact that we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
People can, and should say, whatever the hell the want. Speaking is indeed, a very basic right. That doesn't however, excuse them from consequences. Even for this forum, someone can tell someone to kill themselves whenever they want. However, that would get them banned for saying something objectively messed up.

You however, are obsessed with suppressing harmless language to create an echo chamber.
 
Liberty and Freedom and inferently left wing.
Liberty and freedom are vast concepts. They are neither right wing or left wing. It's how we use them that counts.

Freedom of speech can be used to promote hate speech but the freedom of living without harm can also be used to prevent hate speech.

Sounds like you agree that laws are in place to restrict freedom and maintain order.
Laws are in place (ideally) to prevent behavior that can harm the group. Freedom as an illimited concept includes everything, including a range from hate speech to murder.

So yes, laws can restrict freedom as a absolute concept. Now the question is, are those behavior "freedom" ?

People can, and should say, whatever the hell the want. Speaking is indeed, a very basic right. That doesn't however, excuse them from consequences. Even for this forum, someone can tell someone to kill themselves whenever they want. However, that would get them banned for saying something objectively messed up.

You however, are obsessed with suppressing harmless language to create an echo chamber.
You seem to think that I want to suppress the right of people to express their opinion, however problematic they are.

This proves once again that you understand NOTHING about the way I think


I absolutely do not care if people want to express their support of fascist, genocide or treathen my live, even if I will try to make them think differently. I will NEVER prevent them from posting. No one should have this power.

What I wish is for the SYSTEM, to do a better job at moderating those content after the fact AND for the SYSTEM, to create an environment where those people will have less motivation to say those things in the first place.

Anyone can say whatever they want, THAT'S freedom of speech, but yeah, that's not freedom from consequence.
 
Do you guys think that we should cut the throat of our leaders and ask for direct and pure democracy like in ancient Athens ? :bamathink:

DEBATE !!
There is no such thing as pure democracy. There's Only democracy. Anything called democracy that incorporates oligarchic, feudalistic or authoritarian elements is not a democracy at all.
Post automatically merged:

Ancient Athens didn't let women nor slaves vote btw so bullshit system
Post automatically merged:

Death penalty part was a joke
Yes you are clever, don't tell the internet police your true intentions
Post automatically merged:

Also I prefer knives over guillotines. Guillotines do all the work for you which sucks, I want to have fun you know?!
 
You don't even know the basic values of lefitsm and it's history....and you brag about being French?
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with you.

When you do not understand that liberty and freedom are overarching concepts that can be used at the same time to do good and bad things, really... do not even try to give me moral lessons about leftism or historic leftism. You are really not the best seated to do that.


In a normal environement, they should be able to express themselves, and we should be able to moderate them and show them the consequences of their actions. Hence, those opinions should not be able to be shared by the system.

In other words, no one should be able to stop Bob from saying fascistic things but himself BUT we should be able to moderate what he says quickly and show him the consequences of his acts.

:kayneshrug:
 
Nope, only in theory. In practice, laws exist to suppress the people, the ones who devised them don't follow the law.
That's why why I said "ideally". In reality, people can do a lot's of things with laws.

That's why in absolute, I'm against them. But I'm forced to understand that in our current world, we can't work without them. I just hope there will come a day where our specie won't need any law to function socially.
 

Uncle Van

Bullets don't hurt. But Taxes do.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with you.

When you do not understand that liberty and freedom are overarching concepts that can be used at the same time to do good and bad things, really... do not even try to give me moral lessons about leftism or historic leftism. You are really not the best seated to do that.



In a normal environement, they should be able to express themselves, and we should be able to moderate them and show them the consequences of their actions. Hence, those opinions should not be able to be shared by the system.

In other words, no one should be able to stop Bob from saying fascistic things but himself BUT we should be able to moderate what he says quickly and show him the consequences of his acts.

:kayneshrug:
Ok I get it. You have a very specific, narrow, and close minded view of what leftism should be. Anyone who doesn't fit into your very narrow made up version of leftism is called problematic. The fact you don't even know the basic values and history of leftism is telling.

Nobody cares a out your personal values and made up criteria. Learn history, use words correct by definition, tell things like it is instead of tossing personal values into everything etc. You'd make much better progress if you do that.
 
Ok I get it. You have a very specific, narrow, and close minded view of what leftism should be. Anyone who doesn't fit into your very narrow made up version of leftism is called problematic. The fact you don't even know the basic values and history of leftism is telling.

Nobody cares a out your personal values and made up criteria. Learn history, use words correct by definition, tell things like it is instead of tossing personal values into everything etc. You'd make much better progress if you do that.
What are the basic values of leftism, and could you please recommend some writings on those values, and of the history of it?,
Post automatically merged:

Liberty and freedom are vast concepts. They are neither right wing or left wing. It's how we use them that counts.

Freedom of speech can be used to promote hate speech but the freedom of living without harm can also be used to prevent hate speech.


Laws are in place (ideally) to prevent behavior that can harm the group. Freedom as an illimited concept includes everything, including a range from hate speech to murder.

So yes, laws can restrict freedom as a absolute concept. Now the question is, are those behavior "freedom" ?


You seem to think that I want to suppress the right of people to express their opinion, however problematic they are.

This proves once again that you understand NOTHING about the way I think

I absolutely do not care if people want to express their support of fascist, genocide or treathen my live, even if I will try to make them think differently. I will NEVER prevent them from posting. No one should have this power.

What I wish is for the SYSTEM, to do a better job at moderating those content after the fact AND for the SYSTEM, to create an environment where those people will have less motivation to say those things in the first place.

Anyone can say whatever they want, THAT'S freedom of speech, but yeah, that's not freedom from consequence.
On the freedom part of your post, I would recommend this video:

 
Ok I get it. You have a very specific, narrow, and close minded view of what leftism should be. Anyone who doesn't fit into your very narrow made up version of leftism is called problematic. The fact you don't even know the basic values and history of leftism is telling.

Nobody cares a out your personal values and made up criteria. Learn history, use words correct by definition, tell things like it is instead of tossing personal values into everything etc. You'd make much better progress if you do that.
Mate, you are the one not understanding the history and the basic values of leftism.. and you want to teach that to ME, the most politically engaged person here.

You don't know what most words I'm using mean, you have a good surface level knowlege, even better than me on some level, but do not use it to think. You don't understand linguistic, you don't understand the deeper philosophical conflict that is at the center of the political debate, you don't understand the notions of freedom and liberty, you don't understand the concepts of rationnality and radicality.

You are simply someone who protects the status co and do not understand what real activism really is. It scares you and makes you uncomfortable. Thinking that you have the openess of the mind and a complete rationnality when in reality all you do is fall for the rethorics of people on your right. You don't even see the path that is in front of you and you stick to your little corner of rationnality.

Leftism exist because rightism exist. It simple as that. This means that you can't connect the two, there are BIG contradictions on pretty much all the values.

But honestly, I'm done trying to explain things to you. I don't want to lose more energy trying to convince people who don't want to learn.

On the freedom part of your post, I would recommend this video:
Can you give me a quick summary please ? I'm watching a long stream right now, can't watch a video.
 

Uncle Van

Bullets don't hurt. But Taxes do.
What are the basic values of leftism, and could you please recommend some writings on those values, and of the history of it?
Using the term left wing and right wing to label political families originated the French Revolution of the late 1700s. France revolted against the monarchy, and when it was time to decide what role the King would play in society, those who supported to the old monarchy sat on the right side of the National Assembly. Those who supported the revolution and the new republic sat on the left. Hierarchy and staus quo on the right and later become conservatism, emancipation and liberty on the left and later become progressive. This became the core values that got more broad as centuries passed.

Then there's the history of liberty and freedom as a political value dating back to Ancient Greece, Acient Rome and the Athens. To keep this part from being too long, they settled on the definition of freedom as being "Freedom is both ruling and being ruled by, and the being able to live as one wishes without interference from others." During the conceptualization of Democracy, they made it quite clear that Freedom and Democracy is impossible without equality.

From history alone, Equality, liberty and freedom were left wing ideals.
 
Top