Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Liberty and Freedom are inferently left wing. Sounds like you agree that laws are in place to restrict freedom and maintain order.
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.
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 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.
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.
Do you guys think that we should cut the throat of our leaders and ask for direct and pure democracy like in ancient Athens ? 
DEBATE !!
DEBATE !!
Post automatically merged:
Ancient Athens didn't let women nor slaves vote btw so bullshit system
Post automatically merged:
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you give me a quick summary please ? I'm watching a long stream right now, can't watch a video.
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.
Can you give me a quick summary please ? I'm watching a long stream right now, can't watch a video.
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.
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.
What do you want to reply to something like that ? You just show how little you understand what you are talking about and I know that no matter what I will say, you will parade like you killed the game by saying more BS... It's useless with post like this.
Funny because what you just explained in your first paragraph (about the national assembly) is what I described here:
What you don't get on the other hand, is that politics evolves with time. What is left now is not the same as what was left then.
Back then, the left and the movement of revolution was pushed by the progressist bourgeoisie for the interest of the people. This was the birth of liberalism and capitalism as we know it today. Since then this alliance between the bourgeoisie and the working class was ruptured. Today, the dominant class is the bourgeoisie and thus the battle of the past are not the same as the struggles of today.
While the fundamental values remains the sames (reformism/change/progressism/materialism/equality VS conservatism/idealism/authoritarism/hierarchy) the struggle, actors and overall value are completely different.
When the problem - in the past - was feodalism and the monarchy, the current problem is now capitalism and the class domination of rich over poor.
The bourgeoisie of today is far more progressist than the bourgeoisie of the past. So while liberty and freedom were mainly used by the bourgeoisie for the people in the past to push reforms and change, it's now used by the current bourgeoisie to keep it's priviledges and thus liberty and freedom are used by BOTH sides for two very DIFFERENT things:
Reformism VS Conservatism : The liberty to profit from capitalim and the freedom to live a normal life without oppression.
So now, those who are fighting to maintain "freedom" are usually not leftists, unless we are talking about social movement or minorities, they are rightist. This is why those who talked about freedom the MOST in this thread are people like Ravager or Nameless or you who keep on saying that I want to end "freedom of speech".
The left do not need to speak about freedom 24/7, it's in our blood, we know what it means, our fight are indivisible from the notion of freedom ! But you guys... are appropriating this notion to serve your own interest, to defend the status co and to attack those, like me, who actually want to change things... by pushing an actual change actively.
In other words, you guys are my political enemies, not because you are on the right side, but because you do things that goes AGAINST change by using liberty and freedom as an excuse.
And this is why there is a left and a right today, different from what they were 3 centuries ago and why telling me that I have a narrow minded vision of what the left is or should be is a proof that you don't understand how the political battlefield has evolve across the ages and that you are - without realizing - placing yourself on the side of the dominant class and not the side of those who are oppressed or exploited.
Funny because what you just explained in your first paragraph (about the national assembly) is what I described here:
What you don't get on the other hand, is that politics evolves with time. What is left now is not the same as what was left then.
Back then, the left and the movement of revolution was pushed by the progressist bourgeoisie for the interest of the people. This was the birth of liberalism and capitalism as we know it today. Since then this alliance between the bourgeoisie and the working class was ruptured. Today, the dominant class is the bourgeoisie and thus the battle of the past are not the same as the struggles of today.
While the fundamental values remains the sames (reformism/change/progressism/materialism/equality VS conservatism/idealism/authoritarism/hierarchy) the struggle, actors and overall value are completely different.
When the problem - in the past - was feodalism and the monarchy, the current problem is now capitalism and the class domination of rich over poor.
The bourgeoisie of today is far more progressist than the bourgeoisie of the past. So while liberty and freedom were mainly used by the bourgeoisie for the people in the past to push reforms and change, it's now used by the current bourgeoisie to keep it's priviledges and thus liberty and freedom are used by BOTH sides for two very DIFFERENT things:
Reformism VS Conservatism : The liberty to profit from capitalim and the freedom to live a normal life without oppression.
So now, those who are fighting to maintain "freedom" are usually not leftists, unless we are talking about social movement or minorities, they are rightist. This is why those who talked about freedom the MOST in this thread are people like Ravager or Nameless or you who keep on saying that I want to end "freedom of speech".
The left do not need to speak about freedom 24/7, it's in our blood, we know what it means, our fight are indivisible from the notion of freedom ! But you guys... are appropriating this notion to serve your own interest, to defend the status co and to attack those, like me, who actually want to change things... by pushing an actual change actively.
In other words, you guys are my political enemies, not because you are on the right side, but because you do things that goes AGAINST change by using liberty and freedom as an excuse.
And this is why there is a left and a right today, different from what they were 3 centuries ago and why telling me that I have a narrow minded vision of what the left is or should be is a proof that you don't understand how the political battlefield has evolve across the ages and that you are - without realizing - placing yourself on the side of the dominant class and not the side of those who are oppressed or exploited.