Egregoros

Signal feed

API Docs
Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

12
Caleb James DeLisle

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote
Open link
The generally accepted "buts" are:

1. Fraud (knowingly lying to someone to take advantage of them)

2. Conspiracy "I just SAID that anyone who kills trump will get a million dollars in Monero, what ever happened free speech?! I thought this is America!!"

3. Child porn "Wow look, it's just a bunch of random words, totally speech, but when you use this little program to decode it, it's actually pedobear.jpg" - Interestingly, this is the only "speech" that is restricted not because of its result but rather because of it's origin.

4. Incitement to violence/crime: Trying to manipulate someone into becoming violent and/or breaking the law. A fairly straightforward case would be if a hypnotist were to hypnotize people and tell them to go do crime. But this is a controversial topic, there have been cases where factual news was suppressed by the argument that "if people heard that, they'd riot", which is very much bullshit.

An interesting case was in the 60s(?) someone had a kids TV show and they told kids to dial some phone number that was a pay number (like those old phone sex things). I don't think they really lied, but they did get in trouble because it was considered manipulative.
LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿

LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿

@LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club remote
Open link

@cjd
I would mostly agree, but the left had managed to subvert the points 2 and 4.

These people seriously believe, that saying your nation is worth protecting is a direct call for genocide, while they also claiming, that saying that whitey doesn't have any right for a job to feed his family is completely ok and violence free.

So, until I find a way to define these terms in a subversion free form, I cannot accept your framework, even though it would be completely correct in a sane world.

Caleb James DeLisle

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote
Open link
It's not really *my* framework, it's more just what people generally accept.

> the left had managed to subvert

When you don't have trust and assumption of good faith from the people in power, all is lost. I think we're already to the point that no serious person really believes in Democracy anymore, it's just that changing things is dangerous and nobody is 100% sure what to replace it with.

If the next thing is entirely autocratic with no way to hold those in power accountable, that's going to be out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire.
LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿

LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿

@LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club remote
Open link

@cjd
My point is, that in the same way as you wan to make sure, that you can say female to make sure no dudes are included when you say "women", I want to find a way to say "calls to violence" without making literally all of right wing thought illegal by misinterpretation.

It was not an assumption of bad faith from you. The problem is, that this definitional line was already broken.

Caleb James DeLisle

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote
Open link
> The problem is, that this definitional line was already broken

That's because the people defining it (government) are acting in bad faith.

If someone thinks "silence is violence" or whatever kids say these days, it doesn't matter as long as they aren't the ones governing.
LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿

LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿

@LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club remote
Open link

@cjd
Don't worry, this point is pure autism on my side.

I just find it hilarious, that if an average conservative had and IQ over 80, they could press a reset button on entire transgender debate by saying:

Sorry, these are male and female bathrooms...
Sorry, you cannot compete in female sports, but we have a female devision though..
and so on.

Caleb James DeLisle

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote
Open link
A lot of this comes down to democratic governance. The idea that decisions should be made via debate, so when someone comes up with a batshit insane idea, the culture is you debate them, and if you won't then they win and things work the way they proposed.

In a place like KSA or China, things don't work that way so when someone has a batshit insane idea, the culture is to say "STFU loser".

What we would want is a world like that, except when the government starts saying batshit insane / bad faith stuff, we can just say "your government sucks, I applied to join <someone else's> government and got accepted so I quit"
xianc78

xianc78

@xianc78@gameliberty.club remote
Open link

@cjd @LukeAlmighty
>Probably a tall ask, but it would be nice to have a choice of more different countries to live in, and not all just identical cookie-cutter democracies.

That's my only beef with it, but supposedly, a hypothetical panarchist society would have common law and private courts to deal with conflict between different law providers though maybe it would be easier just to have a patchwork of city-states, micronations, and autonomous zones.

Replying to @LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club

Replies

0
No replies yet.