> I never once said you were dumb.
I was treating the "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING YOU ARE IGNORANT OF HISTORY" stuff glibly, and treating it as equivalent. Mea culpa.
How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.Good point, Alex Jones, I'll keep that in mind.
Like this stuff:
> Its tiring thatI need to spend most of my time in any discussionw ith you correcting invalid assumption you make
> Yes, that's how conversation works
> My point was that the absolutist thinking that you are promoting when talking about this subject is ultimately harmful
I also said that I would like to hear your proposal and in positive terms, i.e., not defined by opposition to another proposal. Tell me what it is, I'll take it as a given that what it *isn't* is the stuff I said. Your first post was vague and included a lot of phrases like this, from the post I'm replying to:
> My case was that we should stop
Here is my proposed course of action: I would like to be able to say what I want to say and listen to whatever anyone else is saying. I intend to build things that make this easier for me and for everyone else, and that will make it harder for anyone to stop that.
I was able to say this concisely and without reference to what it is not.
> trying to sell the narrative
This, in my view, sounds like you think I am saying things I do not believe. I am not selling anything, and this is not a narrative. I'd be happier if people agreed with my proposed course of action, but I believe that enough people already do that the objectives can be achieved. I am not concerned that people disagree with me; I expect that in life. I have no reason to "sell a narrative" and if that's what you're doing, I'm not buying, try the next house. If you've got a course of action you want to propose, that I'd be interested in.
> we must look past it if we are to have a positive impact
Look past it at what? Please just propose something.
🇳🇱
Another post with more energy into telling me that I'm saying something I didnt say (and now reiterated that I didnt say it) than actually bothering to discuss the topic, mostly.
I never said you didnt understand anything, nor that you were ignorant of history. I have pointed out the assertions you have made that were wrong, but made no sweeping accusations of your ability or knowledge beyond that.
None of the quotes you provided are contrary to that and I think thats rather obvious to the reader so I wont break it down piece by piece.
I have also already told you what my proposal is, multiple time now. It mostly boils down to changing public sentiment and acting as an example.
That means drawing respectful, well spoken, people who tend to draw in others to hear their message under a free speech banner as well as demonstrating the harm such censorship has, again by concrete example.
Usually when we look back at history where some form of censorship runs rampant, when and if that winds up being overturned, is due to societies that promote free speech as a legal principle but themselves mostly foster selective forms of speech, not through censorship, but through a moral consensus that tends to outcase people who are otherwise being harmful.
Generally when free speech is curtailed it tends to be in response to groups like the neo-Nazis, which tend to have deplorable messages that serve as a beacon for what people want to silence. If a person stands up and respectfully disscents at a neo-nazi meeting you will likely be confronted with very childish hatred, attacks, and maybe even violence.
Compare that to organizations that have been free-speech in nature and have pushed for acceptance of a free-speech mentality where it may have been previously lacking. If one reads, for examples, the discussions and notes we have left over from meetings of the Sons of Liberty we often see that as long as respectful discourse is maintained dissenting ideas are allowed. Those of a deplorable nature tend to be outcast by the group, and thus creates a social pressure, but otherwise the rebuttals to them are well thought out, educated, and respectful. In the end this combination caused the people to rally behind the idea of free speech as a good force. This of course carried on into the process of defining those civil liberties and the USA's first congress.
So the solution is simple, promote free speech in the groups (informal or otherwise) you are part of, while being a shining beacon of respect and admiration, and you can convince people, it wouldnt be the first time in history for sure.
What doesnt help is an absolutist approach. Free speech of any kind no matter how deplorable or disrespectful gets a stage, and a voice, and is socially accepted among the peers. Legally one should have such a right, but only when the morality of the group is mature enough to ensure the respectful voices are the ones we hear and survive within the group dynamic.
As with most problems of this nature it is a social problem. It isnt solved so much at the legal level, thats just the final step, it is solved at the social one.
> I never said you didnt understand anything, nor that you were ignorant of history. I have pointed out the assertions you have made that were wrong,
Let's just say that any details about the conversation are not important and I'll just concede every point you care to make about who said what. Not relevant, not interesting.
> It mostly boils down to changing public sentiment and acting as an example.
Changing public sentiment to *what* and *why*? What's your objective and how are you going to get there? What does it have to do with me?
> So the solution is simple, promote free speech in the groups (informal or otherwise) you are part of, while being a shining beacon of respect and admiration, and you can convince people, it wouldnt be the first time in history for sure.
All right. I think this is fine to do. I won't get in your way, and I intend to do similar, but I don't think I'm going to be a beacon of anything, I don't plan to do that.
I think you'll have a much easier time giving people free speech than convincing them that they'd like it if they had it.
> What doesnt help is an absolutist approach.
Absolutism is forbidden forever! Absolutely no absolutism!
You're free to advocate against absolutism, but I don't give a damn what's helpful. I intend to say the things that I believe to be true.
If you're selling clothes, you can always say either "You're too fat for these pants" or "These pants are too small for you", don't get me wrong. There's a huge difference, though, between exercising tact and crafting a message.
But if I perceive that something is the overwhelmingly likely case, I will say so. I'm not selling anything. If you think I'm wrong, you're free to point it out, but if you think I'm saying something unhelpful to your goals, it's a non-starter. I'm not a salesman, I'm a hacker.
> Legally one should have such a right, but only when the morality of the group is mature enough to ensure the respectful voices are the ones we hear and survive within the group dynamic.
Did I read correctly that you feel the right is contingent on respectful voices being prioritized? (By some standard of respectfulness, which standard I do not know.) I think this is a bad approach, but maybe it was a phrasing artifact, so I'll hold off on that until you confirm.
> As with most problems of this nature it is a social problem.
Great. I'm building a home defense system, not trying to convince people to stop robbing other people. Go solve society if you like.
> Changing public sentiment to *what*
To a sentiment that feels free speech should be an important legal right which is preserved and exercized.
> What does it have to do with me?
I dont recall saying **you** had anything to do with it either way, aside from the mentality you espouse at times sometimes getting in the way of that intended goal perhaps. but the focus has mostly been a general one and not directed at you specifically, you just happened to respond.
> Did I read correctly that you feel the right is contingent on respectful voices being prioritized?
No, to be more clear. The right from a legal sense should be absolute. However a legal right does not imply a moral right on an individual basis. Individuals should shun members of a group who exercize harmful freedom of speech, but the right to make such speech legally speaking should be preserved regardless.
Yea P has seemed to be confrontational and had an issue with me ever since one of the members from his server started threatening to kill me and opening multiple accounts across multiple servers to harass me. It led to us almost silencing his server on QOTO but ultimately even though the other moderators approved the silence I blocked it and choose an alternative approach (a new feature in the works).
He unfollowed me and became antagonistic in all our communications ever since. Usually anytime he is in a thread with me it is, sadly, mostly him accusing me of things I never said and me needing to waste most of my effort correcting him.
I have no issue with him, I think he means well. So my hope is eventually it will die down and he will go back to acting normal, but for now this is usually the response i get anytime he is in a thread where I have a comment, we will see how long he keeps it up I guess.
For the most part I'm just going to try to ignore it, address it when he does it, and hope eventually the maturity he is otherwise capable of comes back to the surface. He may not even mean it that way, ::shrug:: I suspect in time it will die down on his part.
> ever since one of the members from his server started threatening to kill me
No, I got annoyed by the entire 80-post DM tribunal, he deleted the threats and they were a response to you talking about guns and telling him to come to your house. I saw that thread, man. I said what I would do, I did it, I kept getting messages, I kept saying that I was done with the part that required my participation.
> became antagonistic in all our communications ever since.
This is incorrect, and in this thread, I got annoyed rather than "antagonistic". Perhaps you confuse the two, perhaps I don't come across how I think I come across, perhaps our communications styles clash, but I have no interest in dissecting this conversation. If you do, feel free to untag me.
> So my hope is eventually it will die down and he will go back to acting normal
In fact, if you'd like to condescend, feel free to untag me as well.
> eventually the maturity he is otherwise capable of comes back to the surface
I think it is a lack of self-awareness on your part. I ask a question, your reply is obscurantist, I make a joke, your reply misses the joke, I say I'm done and don't care, you reply with a page and a half rebuttal, I reach wits' end.
So, to be clear, I do not give a damn if you think I'm doing it wrong; I'll listen if you care to talk philosophy but if you want to go all "your claim of it 'never' happening is obviously false" and "This all seems rather clueless", you don't need to tag me.
Its cool, I dont think you mean to come across antagonistic at all. It would not surprise me if what I'm reading is just annoyance.
I will respond if i have an opinion. These are public forums and if im responding to a comment by you it doesnt mean you are expected to respond to me. It is more so me addressing your opinions and sharing my own, for anyone to comment on if they wish.
When your done with a conversation, walk away.
> I will respond if i have an opinion.
Feel free, but "You just happened to respond to *me*!" is disingenuous for you to say at best.
Yes I responded to a thread, and your opinions are welcome in that regard. But as a public thread it is intended to be open for anyone to read and reply to is my only point. If you dont wish to engage in a conversation, just dont reply.
