politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Literally no "free speech absolutist" has ever actually been a "free speech absolutist", it is always about wanting to avoid the consequences to their own hate speech, while they hold anyone who opposes it doubly accountable for their opposition, and try, often successfully, to silence that.
And they always seem to confuse that free speech just protects them from their government, not the rest of the world, and will have consequences.
Yeah, it's always those who shout loudest about free speech that have the least understanding of how it works. 😂
If they understood they wouldn't shout about it. Or maybe they would, they're just banking on other people's ignorance.
"Free speech absolutist" means "you are required to hear everything I have to say and you can't criticize me for it."
Yeah, that's well put.
It's the same with so-called 'anarchists'. Look at lemmy.db0.com, with a list of rules to be obeyed longer than Lemmy.world's (not that I don't agree with the rules, just that it is fundamentally hypocritical)
I don't follow. How is it hypocritical for an anarchist forum to have rules that the community agrees upon? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchists believe.
anarchism - the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together
I'm curious: what do the words 'formal or official organization' mean to you? Try and boil it down to say one word...
It's called understanding the implications of the statement. If an anarchist forum had the doctrine 'no matter what, treat each other with respect' it'd be fine. Anything beyond that is 'obey my opinion on how you should behave'. You know... 'Anarchy'.
Same energy
ETA: It's really funny that you're making this argument in a thread you about how people don't understand how the first amendment has limits, much like the principles of many types of anarchism have limits.
10/10, no notes.
yl sdpjl jfjfj dfasjkf lasdjflk asdjfkl;jsj jkasj fqw iope uroiqwpmv qipo
See I can do it too.
I guess I walked right into that one?
Though telling me you don't understand isn't the brag you apparently think it is.
Live in denial. Be my guest.
You're inviting me to live in denial with you as your guest?
That's very sweet, but I prefer reality.
Oh, hey look. You managed to edit that post and it actually resulted in something semantically intelligible, if still in denial. Congrats, and your welcome for teaching you howum to words good.
Oh, I see.
You think correcting yourself when you make a mistake is stupid.
That makes a whole lot of sense, actually.
ETA: TTYL! I can make you look foolish all day, baby! You give me such good material LMAO!
No, I think correcting yourself when you make a mistake and failing miserably is stupid. And you 'thinking' you're making me look foolish is just icing on the cake.
Let's sum up:
You can't understand a simple sentence explaining that you accept that there are common-sense limitations on the principles of liberal democracy (like freedom of speech), but you don't accept that there are also common-sense limitations on the principles of anarchy (like freedom of association).
Then you tell me that I'm in denial about... something? It isn't clear, really.
Then you tell me that I'm stupid for editing a spelling mistake.
What a hero to dig in your heels and die on the dumbest possible straw-man hill. I have so much to learn from you. I've changed my mind, thank you for correcting me with your angsty-teenager understanding of anarchism. o7
Incorrect summation. You uttered a nonsensical statement full of condescension, edited the post for some reason, but left it nonsense. Then, despite being told twice now haven't figured it out and still think you're the one making ME look the fool.
Way to represent anarchism. Bunch of ignorant self-centred halfwits not truly comprehending the meaning and inevitable futility of the actual belief system, but glomming onto it because it justifies THEM not having to follow rules.
...You realize it's all there, right?
ETA: for everyone to see?
I'm honestly starting to think you cannot see it due to some LD so I'll just leave it for everyone to see until you figureidout. Until then I'll just look like I'm being mean to someone that can't help it, so (and this is how you aktually do it FTR) have a nice day.
Sure buddy.
I'm glad you found a way to disengage without having to think about it. Must be a pretty fragile ego you have there if you go to such hilarious lengths to protect it.
If you really want to learn about anarchism instead of just spouting off an ignorant take, you should do some reading. Assuming you know everything about a whole political philosophy based off of the name and a half-understood definition that you just Googled is not the path forward.
It's nobody else's responsibility to educate you, especially when you're being belligerently hard-headed about learning what others think.
A one-word summation is for people who do not appreciate nuance, and I have no desire to engage with such a request.
There is no nuance here. 'Follow these rules or else' is anathema to Anarchism and trying to ad hominem to deflect from the fact you haven't put up any shred of evidence to the contrary is weak tea.
Well, since you know everything about anarchism that you ever will, I don't see this discussion going anywhere.
Have a good one!