If your in line with the LGBTQ movement and want to express yourself you can but then those who are not in line with the movement also should have the right to express so.
Usually a fascist bigot who does not like what a person is saying and cannot come up with a decent argument against it. One of their favorite ways to do this is gain some kind of power as a moderator and then kick a person from a group. This will expose themselves for who they are but there are other situations and scenarios.
So all of the groups in the comic have actual legislators passing laws against their ability to express themselves and control their own bodies and relationships, and you’re mad some moderator of some online community somewhere told you to go be an asshole somewhere else.
Woh there. I think we can de escalate a bit. I appreciate you and your feedback. No need to bring in the artillery. My suggestion is to NOT be an asshole. I’m against bigots and fascist assholes. That’s been my point. Lets use our reasoning and open our ears .
On the moderator side, i dont think we need mommy and daddy tewing us babbies what we hab to dew. Hopefully especially in a federated community where people went to express themselves freely, we can agree that much. 🙂
No, you’re not against bigots and fascist assholes. You’re just trying to coopt that language and try to draw a parallel between community moderators moderating their community and bigoted, fascist assholes literally oppressing people. I wasn’t born yesterday.
Or that it specifically protects you from the government, not private entities that don’t want to hear their conspiratorial, hateful, protofascist bullshit lol.
I mean, for me, it means both. I’m a big believer in FDR’s concept of four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
Personally, I kinda roll Freedom of Expression into Freedom of Speech. Because any form of expression is essentially speech, even if it doesn’t use words to speak.
I would disagree. How you dress, how you present, how you act, these are all things that speak without words. I would call those speech.
Truthfully, though, if I were coining the phrase, I would have said “freedom of expression” and “freedom of thought” instead of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship”. Both of those are broader categories that encapsulate the concepts FDR articulated. After all, what is worship but conceptualizing the deep thoughts about where the universe came from, and finding a community of like minded folks?
Worship is however simply repeating the propaganda you were fed as a child or a vulnerable adult. Hardly deep thought involved. I’d classify it more as a mental health issue, believing in something for zero actual reason, imagining things exist that aren’t real, etc.
When I was taught it it was not pure left/right. Rather a method to differentiate levels of Libertarianism form other branches of liberalism focused on social justice (rising tide and all that). Any idea where you read it? Poli sci wonk phrasing being included into more popular literature is always fun to see.
I’ve heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. But also you could have libertarian leftists or anarchists that lean more towards negative liberty, as well as fiscal conservatives that lean more towards positive liberty on social issues, so it’s not fully a left/right thing.
Basically the difference is enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference by government or any other entity even if it limits options and social mobility for anyone but yourself due to their life circumstances.
Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia article on positive liberty that backs up this interpretation of the to/from distinction. (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty):
"Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types of freedom emerging alongside humanity’s evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, “is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of ‘freedom from’, namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions.”
I don’t know that I agree with that premise but it’s an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in relation to positive/negative freedom just so you know I’m not making anything up.
In Europe, most want “freedom from”. As in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from Nazis, freedom from gun owning cowards, freedom from bullying, freedom from corruption
Free speech is as outdated as handguns, if you want a peaceful life and happiness
Guess that’s where all your problems are coming from 🤷
I’m pretty sure people everywhere want “freedom to” have a house, buy groceries and receive good healthcare, which are the most practical forms of positive freedoms in politics.
That means that everyone has access to those means. Many liberals and most conservatives do not support providing free housing, healthcare and groceries to people who don’t work. That’s why it’s a leftist take.
Ah okay. I thought you were saying that those takes aren’t political because everyone wants it. (Which is obviously not true).
As far as I understand in Marxism freedom is understood as having all the means necessary to make decisions over your own live, like education, housing and healthcare. So ‘freedom to’ would be used in the context of having freedom to choose your own path.
Freedom to have a house is in that sense sounds to me like an example of the capitalist definition of freedom from restrictions, because the freedom to have a house means freedom from land ownership laws that currently prevent most people from owning the land they live on (or claiming land for their own that isn’t in use if they’re houseless)
I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻
I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures that enable freedoms and try to balance out everyone’s rights, like the right to exist, in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures and cutting out any middle man that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.
A while back on R*ddit I had this discussion with a “libertarian” where they unironically defended the idea that local communities should be able to dictate people’s clothes. For leftists “freedom” means expanding and protecting the rights of the people, while for them it literally just means “freedom to oppress others”.
In his deposition, Owen Shroyer (Idiot who works for Alex Jones, calls himself “the cuck destroyer”, and also admitted under oath in same depo that he is a puppet) stated that he believes the first ammendment gives him the right to say whatever he wants “without consequences.”
This shows a lack of understanding (or deliberate will to understand) that no action is without consequence. It could be a good consequence, or a bad one, but by simply taking an action you affect the world, large or small. They just want to be able to do what they want no matter what it does to others and suffer no backlash whatsoever, which screams rules for thee not for me.
Add comment