Controversial General Political Discussion

[Okamakama]

I don't believe in true freedom. :)

True freedom is just an excuse for real jerkyness (to be politically correct).

Let's take freedom of speech for example, do you think we should have true freedom of speech here ?

We should have true freedom -- but tempered by morality and compassion. The idea that we cannot have freedom because people will be jerks is authoritarian. We should trust people. Now, I know it won't always happen and there will be racists, bigots, etc etc, but without the ability to speak free all other rights are meaningless.

 

[Bob74h]

Sure, but I don’t believe antifa has ever done a mass shooting

they have burned like 4 cities
in the george flyod riots tho

And when has nazis done a mass shooting, I dont recall any such thing in WW2

It’s dudes with swastika tattoos that openly declare their admiration of Hitler.

if they didt commit any crimes
there is no reason why we should take away their freedoms just because of questionable beliefs


But can see your line of reasoning for why you think what you do
I find the problem being like slippery slope where yknow it starts with just the outright nazis dudes then we start targeting everyday conservatives then you go after the moderates or centrists like myself till only the leftists/liberals have guns

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Anti-Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) propaganda literature
Mark Aarons states that right-wing authoritarian regimes and dictatorships which were backed by Western powers committed atrocities and mass killings that rivaled the atrocities and mass killings that were committed in the communist world, citing examples such as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966, the "disappearances" in Guatemala during the civil war, and the assassinations and state terrorism that were associated with Operation Condor throughout South America.[143] Vincent Bevins argues that the anti-communist mass killings that were perpetrated during the Cold War have been far more impactful on shaping the contemporary world than communist mass killings have been.[144]

According to historian Christian Gerlach, communist mass killings were generally exceeded by atrocities which were committed by those who opposed them; he cites the crushing of the Paris Commune, the terrors of the Spanish Civil War, and the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 as examples, stating that "when both sides engaged in terror, the 'red' terror usually paled in comparison with the 'white'."

Do you read your sources before you post them?

 

[Adam 🍎]

Hot take, you should have to pass a polygraph if you want to buy a gun.
[automerge]1693370989[/automerge]
i think you should be of a certain moral character if you want to own a weapon.

Specifically, I don’t believe that nazis or other people with violent ideologies deserve the right to bear arms.

We shouldn’t need to wait until a nazi commits a mass shooting before we take his guns. Nazis shouldn’t have access to guns, period.
[automerge]1693371466[/automerge]
a lot of conservatives will argue “but the left calls anyone a nazi”. Imo the definition is very clear:

• If you sympathize with Adolf Hitler
• if you harbor extreme resentment against Jews, Muslims, or racial minorities.
• If you don’t believe the Holocaust happened
• if you support explicitly fascist causes(ex. The KKK)
• If you have a strongly held belief in the superiority of your race

You’re a nazi. You’re a dangerous person. And you shouldn’t be allowed to have access to firearms.

All extremist groups should be dealt with from left and right

There is no compromise with people that dont want to compromise


And fuck Nazis and all that have simpathy for them

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I don't believe in true freedom. :)

:holdthisl:

 

[Okamakama]

:holdthisl:

I... I'm agreeing with Maynard (again).

 

[Logiko]

We should have true freedom -- but tempered by morality and compassion. The idea that we cannot have freedom because people will be jerks is authoritarian. We should trust people. Now, I know it won't always happen and there will be racists, bigots, etc etc, but without the ability to speak free all other rights are meaningless.

True freedom can only be possible in a utopia where everyone understand the boundary of others. It doesn't exist yet

 

[Okamakama]

True freedom can only be possible in a utopia where everyone understand the boundary of others. It doesn't exist yet

We'll never have a utopia. People will never be perfect.
I feels like you believe humanity is innately evil and needs to be tempered by law.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

True freedom can only be possible in death

fixed

 

[Logiko]

We'll never have a utopia. People will never be perfect.
I feels like you believe humanity is innately evil and needs to be tempered by law.

You really don't listen to what I say, right ?

I don't believe in evil human.

But true freedom in our world is IMPOSSIBLE, it can only be done in a utopia where everyone understand the boundaries of others.

fixed

PLease, don't do that.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

PLease, don't do that.

Do what?

 

[Logiko]

Do what?

Change a quote.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

True freedom can only be possible in a utopia where everyone understand the boundary of others. It doesn't exist yet

True freedom can only be possible in death


Better?

 

[Logiko]

True freedom can only be possible in death


Better?

Yup :)

 

[Okamakama]

You really don't listen to what I say, right ?

I don't believe in evil human.

But true freedom in our world is IMPOSSIBLE, it can only be done in a utopia where everyone understand the boundaries of others.

PLease, don't do that.

I think we should still afford people the tools to reach freedom, even if this 'true freedom' you speak of will never come to pass. I fundamentally disagree with you that we need to 'respect everybody's boundaries' to be free. That in of itself is another form of oppression because it will cater to the most sensitive of all.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I think we should still afford people the tools to reach freedom, even if this 'true freedom' you speak of will never come to pass. I fundamentally disagree with you that we need to 'respect everybody's boundaries' to be free. That in of itself is another form of oppression because it will cater to the most sensitive of all.

Oh dear

 

[Okamakama]

Oh dear

Let me stress, I am not advocating for cruelty. However, I disagree that we need to cater to everybody's individual idiosyncrasies and sensitivities. For example, I disagree about catering to a student in a school who identifies as a cat. It's lunacy. People should be able to say what they they disagree with, and people should be able to do things others disagree with. This is freedom. 'Respecting Boundaries' will just become a slippery slope where others try to control others around them through their own sensitivities, which is anti-freedom.

 

[Logiko]

I fundamentally disagree with you that we need to 'respect everybody's boundaries' to be free.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Let me stress, I am not advocating for cruelty. However, I disagree that we need to cater to everybody's individual idiosyncrasies and sensitivities. For example, I disagree about catering to a student in a school who identifies as a cat. It's lunacy. People should be able to say what they they disagree with, and people should be able to do things others disagree with. This is freedom. 'Respecting Boundaries' will just become a slippery slope where others try to control others around them through their own sensitivities, which is anti-freedom.

I strongly disagree

 

[Okamakama]

I explain this a little more in my response to Maynard. People can weaponise their supposed 'boundaries' as a way to control others. Forcing others to conform to other people's desires is another form of control and anti-freedom.
[automerge]1693393529[/automerge]

I strongly disagree

And it is your freedom to disagree, my dude. No problems here.