[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/ef/ - Everfree

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.
Name?

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email
?

Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Subject
Comment?
Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
Special
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
>>1234
Link to another board
>>>/pony/
Link to a post on another board
>>>/pony/1234
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]
File
Flag
Options
Password?

This field is for editing and deletions.


File: 1541709671051.jpg (38.38 KB, 920x613, 920x920.jpg)

Leftists surround Tucker Carlson's home Anonymous (ID: f66bf2)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid:   195427[Last 50 Posts]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/media/tucker-carlson-protestors/index.html

What did he do to these people?
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 689db4)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195434

File: 1541710312575.jpg (83.47 KB, 841x600, not_sleddin___by_jollyjack-d4j…)

>>195427
Not be a liberal, apparently.

It's anti-fa. They're basically a terrorist group at this point.

Anonymous (ID: 7cc0c1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195435

>>195427
>What did he do to these people?
He works for Fox News. That's enough for some people.

Don't forget that there is a national protest across the US today. Mostly targeted at Congressional home state offices.

https://commons.commondreams.org/t/a-red-line-crossed-nationwide-protests-declared-for-thursday-at-5pm-after-jeff-sessions-fired/57315

Ika (ID: 0c044e)Country code: mx, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195436

File: 1541710561274.jpg (342.35 KB, 975x900, e7746da521f5679d1e6510b774f5b9…)

Literally who?

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195439

File: 1541710750986.png (380.19 KB, 499x741, 65465466546546548.png)

>>195427
it's because he works for fox news and says controversial things

ive only seen a few his shows and its nothing too impressive but its clear he has seemed to get under peoples skin

>>195435
another protest? again?

Ika (ID: 0c044e)Country code: mx, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195443

File: 1541710952285.png (854.77 KB, 809x833, 91a1edd547558810fb0ba5e5492177…)

>>195439
Oh, so is he one of those douchebags that form a career out of shock value? Kind of like shadman? Wouldn't that mean that people doing stuff like this will only bring more attention and money towards him and therefore he shouldn't be considered a victim? I mean, it's even possible he organized all of this as a false flag too.

Anonymous (ID: 7cc0c1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195446

>>195443
Like most show hosts on Fox News, they pretty much act as cheer leaders for Trump's agenda and only interview those who agree with Trump.

Not very creative or really news worthy interviews.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195447

File: 1541711411533.png (260.04 KB, 724x601, 54545435465476756.png)

>>195443
shock value? not entirely

he's just a basic fox news host

nothing really... exciting

Ika (ID: 0c044e)Country code: mx, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195451

File: 1541711498050.png (960.3 KB, 961x881, 26a37ed817231aec411d4e3671618a…)

>>195446
So he's the professional equivalent of someone getting paid to make pepe the frog memes.

(ID: ded9b0)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195455

File: 1541711577065.jpg (108.82 KB, 1083x1006, crackin___coconuts_by_jollyjac…)

>>195443
Yeah, he's just a generic right-wing reporter for a joke of a news corporation.

Literally he is being targeted just for having right-wing views, and not even that extreme of views.

Anti-fa at this point more or less just wants to lynch anybody who isn't a liberal Democrat.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195457

File: 1541711675845.png (220.82 KB, 312x602, 978987090.png)

>>195455
pretty much this

Ika (ID: 0c044e)Country code: mx, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195462

File: 1541711939657.jpg (320.19 KB, 917x906, eb45802c292960cc33912d9c170728…)

>>195455
Eh, antifa is just a false flag organization funded by the right wing to make anything that looks like a leftist idea look bad, can't care much about them.

That shit happens a lot with protests over here so I doubt it's not a thing over there.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195463

File: 1541712106501.png (398.61 KB, 588x616, 676787987987.png)

>>195462
oh, you're trolling

...again.

moving on.

PC (ID: f862ea)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195502

File: 1541714970819.png (173.06 KB, 680x1435, 1541711207271.png)

They're starting to eat Two Scoops™.

(ID: ded9b0)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195507

File: 1541715398203.jpg (122.68 KB, 900x620, Squirrel_Mech_by_jollyjack.jpg)

>>195502
This is why this kind of thinking is dangerous. When people start attacking their own simply because someone says, "Guys, you might be going too far.", they are no longer thinking logically and are simply consumed by rage.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195511

File: 1541715767217.png (522.76 KB, 609x720, 54345455476765.png)

>>195502
i respect him for that tweet

im disappointed by the responses though

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: 5012cd)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195567

>>195455
>Literally he is being targeted just for having right-wing views, and not even that extreme of views.
Maybe they're not extreme at face value, but they are easily read as fuel for more extreme values.
Whether he's the extremist himself or not, that's just guessing at his intentions. But he is helping the extremists.

Mk17 (p-hone) (ID: 47f74f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195569

File: 1541726816301.png (1.05 MB, 1920x1440, 1532987594478.png)

>>195567
You can say that about pundents on the left too.

You could kinda say that about anyone who expresses an opinion.

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: 5012cd)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195570

>>195569
>You can say that about pundents on the left too.
Certainly.

>You could kinda say that about anyone who expresses an opinion.

You could, if you were retarded.

Mk17 (p-hone) (ID: 47f74f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195573

File: 1541727559760.png (347.38 KB, 778x656, 232145454.PNG)

>>195570
I guess but saying
>Whether he's the extremist himself or not, that's just guessing at his intentions. But he is helping the extremists.
After admitting
>they're not extreme at face value
Is doing exactly that.

So i guess by your locic, your retarted.

(ID: 7e4cc3)Country code: tux.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195576

Antifa psychos*

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195577

File: 1541727959264.png (126.92 KB, 372x427, 67765879.png)

>>195570
the dude just talks about basic conservative stuff

he's like the run of the mill conservative

unless conservatism is extremism now then i guess

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195579

>>195577
200 years from now, how many views that are mainstream today will be seen as archaic, uninformed, and morally unjustifiable?

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: 5012cd)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195580

>>195573
>Is doing exactly that.
No, it's not. Are you saying that every opinion is either totally normal or extremism, and there's no such thing as kinda-close-to-extremism?

I'm saying that "diversity isn't good" is not quite extremism but it is fuel for extremists, and "you cannot be civil with etc etc" is not quite extremism but it is fuel for extremists, and that there's a difference between these opinions and "some gun owners are good citizens" or "employers should pay a livable wage".

>>195577
I just said it's not extremism.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195581

File: 1541729035802.png (170.87 KB, 289x599, 86867576.png)

>>195579
i dont know i dont predict the future

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195587

>>195579 This is why we don't apply present day morality to the past.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195588

File: 1541730175539.jpg (148.65 KB, 1920x1080, 1507002169473.jpg)

>>195581
As a society evolves, cultural awareness of what works and what doesn't, what's "good" and what isn't, shifts. The positions and beliefs which are deemed acceptable fall within what is called the Overton window.

Ideally, this shift happens as organically as possible, without exploitation of human nature and group psychology. But to an extent it's always, sometimes by necessity, included a concerted effort by a wide range of philosophical and political groups to resurrect ideas which have fallen outside of the Overton window, to introduce ones that haven't been explored, and to preserve those at risk of being "pushed" out. When one side plays dirty, the other is often forced to as well, in order to stay afloat. What we're seeing now is a culmination of that, fueled by the internet, where information, misinformation, and disinformation flow freely, and mobs can form much more easily around a group or individual declared the enemy.

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195590

File: 1541730262081.png (385.63 KB, 629x590, 154646888.PNG)

>>195580
I think I see what you are saying now.

But it didn't come across that way at first.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195594

File: 1541731002626.png (202.42 KB, 324x533, 6554768768.png)

>>195588
the concept of politically motivated mobs forming isn't anything new, you know

i dont the internet is helping to produce that

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: 5012cd)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195595

>>195590
I'm sorry if it was unclear.

What you were saying (when read from my perspective, which it seems you didn't understand yet) came off as "you can't ever say that an opinion is going too far, because then all opinions are going too far". Which would just be bullshit designed to shut down all critical thought, and that annoys the fuck out of me.
This post was edited by its author on .

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 32079b)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195597

File: 1541731190128.gif (747.25 KB, 500x508, 1525282365740.gif)

>>195588
I should also note that this "free" flow of information comes with an asterisk. While on an individual level, we have more power than ever before to seek out information, regardless of the quality or veracity of said information, we also have more power to irrigate our sources of information and create artificial Overton windows.

>>195594
The internet didn't create this phenomenon. But it does accelerate the process significantly. It's never been easier for groups to form that have zero overlap with another group's Overton window.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195602

File: 1541731591259.png (239.56 KB, 493x641, 565465465468399044422274540.pn…)

>>195597
i mean maybe in a sense it has

i get what youre saying

but thats what technology has created

but it also gives a platform for people to have proper discussion

thats if they choose to leave their echo chamber of course

Anonymous (ID: 7cc0c1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195606

>>195439
I've been watching for any signs that the Antifa protests today might turn violent. There are zero news reports on the over 900 planned protests.

In short, it was a nothingburger. Must have been overshadowed by the rest of today's news cycle and the CA. bar shooting.

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195610

File: 1541732557165.png (185.4 KB, 477x480, 654654645.PNG)

>>195595
Yeah thats what it sounded like you were saying to me. That any opinion that leans to the (in this case right) could be construed as promoting extremism.

Obv we both think thats BS, so we are on the same page now.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195612

File: 1541732852221.png (677.24 KB, 940x787, 5453454353475.png)

>>195606
it would make sense

what is there to protest about?

they should be happy they won the house if anything

and sessions stepped down

these people need to celebrate for a change

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: a5518d)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195613

>>195612
>and sessions stepped down
But that means Trump will never get IMPEACHED.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195614

File: 1541733020137.gif (394.86 KB, 380x380, 576660.gif)

>>195612 well, as an example, plenty of people are angry about Sessions being asked to resign, saying it's a breach of... something... I don't know exactly. Moony, for example, said he was wanting to go protest today.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195616

File: 1541733275597.png (202.45 KB, 407x415, 12dfgdf.PNG)

>>195614
I don't understand this, sessions is a threat to the progressive platform in every way, it should be a good thing.

Even Trump thought he was too conservative on some things, like marijuana and LBGT rights.

And for what? To keep a 2 year investigation that has turned up nothing so far going? When it most likely wont even be shut down?
But they were told to protest, so protest they must.

Edit
I cant type for shit today
This post was edited by its author on .

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195617

File: 1541733410644.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>195616 because mah Russian bots. or mah Russian whistleblower. It's pretty absurd in my opinion.

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195619

File: 1541733643970.png (244.66 KB, 503x511, jhg354jh.PNG)

>>195617
I saw the posts on Reddit last night of people blowing the conch for these protests.

It doesn't even seem real that you can just have some organization demand protests, and people just obey.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195620

File: 1541733793289.png (539.63 KB, 1024x1434, 1395200205402.png)

>>195619 That's pretty nuts.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195626

File: 1541734170479.png (535.5 KB, 742x703, 9798987098098.png)

>>195613
he was never going to be anyway

>>195614
what?

i am so confused? this is the same guy that was staunchly against stuff a lot leftists agree with

>>195616
>sessions is a threat to the progressive platform in every way, it should be a good thing.
thats what i am saying? wtf?

even libertarians and classical liberals like me didnt like what he was doing
This post was edited by its author on .

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195629

>>195626
/shrug

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195631

File: 1541734692834.png (281.96 KB, 492x501, 6689956.PNG)

>>195626
Its almost like these faceless "blank demands action now!" type organizations that are demanding people protest, might not have these peoples best interests in mind...

When everyone on all sides of the political spectrum see someone as a threat, you can assume that the ones demanding the protest of said persons resignation might not be working with and for the people.

>classical liberals like me
Ill get you to drop that "classical" part, I swear ;)
We're taking it back!

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195633

File: 1541734812355.jpg (845.11 KB, 750x750, 8942841_p0.jpg)

>>195614
Some people view this move as an attempt by Trump to undermine the investigations against him, and to "punish" Sessions for not cooperating on undermining the investigations.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195635

File: 1541734951547.png (139.28 KB, 931x1024, gsgdggggg.png)

>>195631
>Ill get you to drop that "classical" part, I swear ;)
>We're taking it back!
I'm like right on the line just left of center.
Classical liberal suits me well.
>>195633 That makes sense. I disagree, but it makes sense. What do you think?

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195637

File: 1541735023155.png (231.86 KB, 477x442, 8768679898.png)

>>195631
it just doesnt make sense to me

i was expecting celebrations for a change

>Ill get you to drop that "classical" part, I swear ;)

you can try but it likely wont happen

the word has been hijacked and conservatives gave it to them

the proper name for modern liberals is progressives
This post was edited by its author on .

fleur (ID: 42332e)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195644

>>195455
Sooner or later Antifa is going to piss off the wrong people, when that glorious day happens shit will get real, can't wait.

Seriously, sick of these fuckers, had to live through their shit after Trump won. They fucking shut down Seatac, blocked I5 and acted like entitled shitlords. Fuck em.

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195646

File: 1541735964862.png (241.96 KB, 586x603, 1335408454.PNG)

>>195635
Just say liberal, its more accurate and if messes with peoples heads!

>>195637
>you can try but it likely wont happen
But i can try haha.

>the proper name for modern liberals is progressives

Which is why we need to reclaim it now! Before some other weird group swoops in! :D

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195650

File: 1541736257222.png (474.41 KB, 626x768, 998098897.png)

>>195646
i tell you what

when the public starts comparing liberals to frederic bastiat again ill hear you out

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195656

File: 1541736605235.jpg (147.13 KB, 850x1027, mtr_1537038027742.jpg)

>>195635
Pretty much the same. If Trump won the presidency under illegitimate terms, it makes sense that he would want to be rid of someone who's not committed to the cover-up and is therefore a liability.

At the same time, if there's really nothing to be found, then what? You've compromised the credibility of your party for a red herring, while wasting resources that could have been spent making policy that does far more to mitigate any possible damage Trump's administration can do.

Likewise, if there is something to be found, then what? What's the endgame? What are the winning conditions? Impeachment or arrest at the end of the term, after he's already gotten his way on a ton of shit that you were too busy to put a stop to?

The election was 2 years ago and they're still trying to contest the outcome. They seem pretty sure they'll win eventually, so who knows, maybe they will? But right now, it's not a winning battle. And they're wasting time losing it that could be spent winning other, more urgent battles.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195657

File: 1541736656170.jpg (327.99 KB, 800x600, __kagiyama_hina_touhou_drawn_b…)

>>195637
What if I'm a progressive and a liberal?

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195660

File: 1541736743824.jpg (302.82 KB, 757x1024, 577177.jpg)

>>195646 good point!
>>195656 makes sense

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195661

File: 1541736795974.png (654.18 KB, 885x715, 987978090980980.png)

>>195657
then you're a progressive liberal

meaning you feel progress is important but so is liberty

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195663

File: 1541736801117.png (215.67 KB, 357x445, 654iug.PNG)

>>195650
But mikie... you are the public. haha.

So you can wait and be a follower, or you can do it yourself and be a leader!

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: a5518d)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195664

>>195656
>They seem pretty sure they'll win eventually, so who knows, maybe they will?
Who cares if they win? If they lose it'll just show their voter base that Trump's grip on the system was too tight, and that the republicans are 100% vote manipulators, and that's what people will continue to believe for years to come.

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195665

File: 1541736956806.png (124.97 KB, 336x321, 454545454545.PNG)

>>195657
I would say your a liberal solid.

Because, at least as far as i know, you mostly want freedoms for all classes of people.

Thats liberal. Liberal means you have a choice in the destiny of your own life, but also the responsibility that comes with it.

Thats why a "liberal socialist" is an oxymoron.

Trans rights and gun rights are both liberal ideas.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195669

File: 1541737174218.png (261 KB, 447x653, 6546546547876867.png)

>>195663
but i dont want to lumped in with modern progressives...

>>195665
>Thats why a "liberal socialist" is an oxymoron.
this for real lol

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195673

File: 1541737535987.jpg (55.02 KB, 386x463, granddadtoldmetherewouldbedays…)

>>195669
>but i dont want to lumped in with modern progressives...

>I agree with liberal ideals

<You mean you want open borders and "free" things paid for by tax dollars??
>No, liberal ideals, like every person has the right to live their life the way they see fit, own a firearm, and marry who they want, but also, be held accountable for their actions.

>tfw

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195676

File: 1541737707641.png (439.75 KB, 723x658, 543547665876.png)

>>195673
and that my friend is why i have to add "classical" to it

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195692

File: 1541739028419.png (193.95 KB, 349x522, 6649997.PNG)

>>195676
Aw comon! Its fun!

Every time you say your a liberal while fighting for gun rights, Thomas Jefferson gets his wings, and a tear forms in his eye, and a smile on his face on mount Rushmore.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195698

File: 1541739363516.png (288.43 KB, 504x526, 54543767.png)

>>195692
and then the bald eagle screeches

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 1cc080)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195712

File: 1541740275369.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>195698
doesn't sound like you think it does
Bald Eagle Screech

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195717

File: 1541740600091.png (159.37 KB, 252x536, 5465476878.png)

>>195712
well shit...

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195720

File: 1541740723154.png (232.13 KB, 524x515, 487878.PNG)

>>195717
Boat is right.
Another media lie... haha
Falcon screech!

Buuuuuuut the blue angels will fly over you spewing red white and blue smoke every time. So thats pretty cool too.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195722

File: 1541740789386.jpg (2.59 MB, 1433x1633, 35924581_p0.jpg)

>>195661
Progress is impossible without liberty.

>>195664
Okay, so what happens then? A civil war? Does anyone come out on top in that scenario?

>>195665
In a sense, I agree. At the most fundamental level, liberalism is defined by a high value placed on individual freedom, the protection of natural rights, and egalitarianism. Those values are the core of my personal political philosophies.

Yet under the umbrella of liberalism, there is a lot of nuance and disagreement to how those tenets should be applied. What happens when one person's rights come into direct or indirect conflict with another's? Does egalitarianism entail equality of outcome (to me, it doesn't), of opportunity (to me, it does), or simply in application of law? Should a liberal society protect speech and assembly that seeks to undermine and ultimately destroy it? Should a liberal society protect speech and assembly that seeks to undermine and ultimately destroy the speech and assembly of others?

On some of these questions, I have beliefs in one direction or the other. On others, I'm less sure. But I think they're questions every liberal thinker should be asking themselves and others, and I think the existing attempts to answer them make for a far more diverse class of ideologies than most people think of when they think of the word "liberal", whether or not that perception is partially tainted by the incredibly dumbed-down stereotype of the modern American "liberal".

The reason why I consider myself merely liberal, rather than classical liberal, is twofold: firstly, "classical liberal" is arguably just as broad a school of thought as "liberal" itself, and secondly, because much like the term "liberal", it's often used as a label to describe a more specific application of liberal values than it was originally intended to refer to, some of which actually contradict the original meaning, and some of which I disagree with. Many who self-identify as classical liberal subscribe to laissez faire economics, something more accurately placed under the umbrella of neoliberalism, and both of which are themselves broader labels representing a broader set of perspectives than most people recognize.

Ultimately, perhaps "liberal" is better defined by its ends than by its means. In some ways, it probably already is. But that only mitigates, rather than resolving, the underlying challenges in reconciling the means to the ends.

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195723

File: 1541740849080.png (123.9 KB, 305x320, 45df54.PNG)

>>195717
>>195720
Also, i just noticed the vid i linked you was a recording of a youtube vid of what i was looking for turned into a youtube vid itself....

Is that like dividing by zero?

Are we going to be okay?

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195726

File: 1541741014493.png (516.92 KB, 677x768, 655464587867.png)

>>195720
good enough for me

>>195723
hopefully

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: a5518d)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195727

>>195722
>Okay, so what happens then? A civil war? Does anyone come out on top in that scenario?
Dems get to lose fewer loyal voters to silly things like Brenda Snipes. They get to rig elections without their voter base caring to notice.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195730

File: 1541741394699.png (252.82 KB, 800x600, 55593160_p0.png)

>>195727
And that's not a good thing.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195734

File: 1541741769902.png (355.43 KB, 553x622, 8798968678.png)

>>195722
in a classical liberal society there is still the rule of law

people who use violence to suppress speech and other peoples lives are still breaking the law

classical liberalism is a simple concept, really.

it's mostly just a very limited federal government that has very few roles like military, border protection and making sure states dont go war with each other

mostly leaving the major roles to the states

the USA still has that to an extent today but the federal government is out of control

it's mostly equality of outcome

things shouldnt be decided by government but decided by society and we see this today

i know you seem to think trans people are the most hate people in america but you also have to realize people change their minds as the time goes

government doesnt change the minds of the people

monika nemeth comes to mind

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195738

File: 1541742599738.png (211.69 KB, 464x479, 98875465.PNG)

>>195722
These are not solid conclusions, just thoughts iv considered to the questions you posed.
>What happens when one person's rights come into direct or indirect conflict with another's?
This is where agreed upon law comes in. There are still rules, and if what you do, prevents the freedom or safety of another, laws will be placed to limit that. An example i like to use is "can you pour chemicals into a river, if you live on a river" the answer is, no, because what you are doing up river impacts those living down river, and if it effects them negatively, they have to right to petition that it be stopped, and the individual who committed the act be punished in accordance to the law.
>Does egalitarianism entail equality of outcome (to me, it doesn't), of opportunity (to me, it does), or simply in application of law?
I agree with your thoughts, equal opportunity will never equal outcome, and in a liberal society, it shouldn't, as the outcome is for the individual to control. This is why things like "affirmative action" are not liberal ideas. I dont quite understand what you mean by "in application of law"
>Should a liberal society protect speech and assembly that seeks to undermine and ultimately destroy it?
Yes, because it is assumed in a liberal society, you have free access to all information, therefor all sides of the story. Can a Liberal society end itself by choice, yes it can, which is why its a philosophical matter and not a scientific one.
>Should a liberal society protect speech and assembly that seeks to undermine and ultimately destroy the speech and assembly of others?
No, because again, this infringes on other peoples right to pursue their own ideals, as in the case of the river, agreed upon limits can be set when one persons freedom intersects with another.

Its hard to answer the law questions because Liberalism is a philosophy and not a system of government or economic strategy. The philosophy can be applied under any system really, as long as it adheres to the value of individuality rather than collectivism. It just so happens that ideas like free markets and small government tend to fall in line with the philosophy.
I know i joked and said "Liberal Socialism is an oxymoron" but really its not... its charity.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195739

File: 1541742832451.png (308.57 KB, 501x543, 5443543767657.png)

>>195738
>The philosophy can be applied under any system really, as long as it adheres to the value of individuality rather than collectivism. It just so happens that ideas like free markets and small government tend to fall in line with the philosophy.
this pretty much 100%

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195758

File: 1541747543772.jpg (851.39 KB, 1293x1811, __kagiyama_hina_touhou_drawn_b…)

>>195734
I'm speaking in very broad philosophical terms here. Not necessarily in the context of trans rights, nor even the American political framework as a whole. Just musing on how my futa boner throbs for John Locke, while someone else's might too, yet they may advocate for a radically difficult application of his principles than I.

>>195738
Hoo boy, I hope you're ready for the mother of all textwalls.

>This is where agreed upon law comes in. There are still rules, and if what you do, prevents the freedom or safety of another, laws will be placed to limit that.

I agree completely. That is, of course, the purpose of law. You'll be hard pressed to find a liberal who advocates for "just do whatever the fuck you want whenever the fuck you want duuude". Even if they self-identify as liberal, they're clearly an anarchist.

>An example i like to use is "can you pour chemicals into a river, if you live on a river" the answer is, no, because what you are doing up river impacts those living down river, and if it effects them negatively, they have to right to petition that it be stopped, and the individual who committed the act be punished in accordance to the law.

And I agree completely with this answer as well. But here's where the rollercoaster really begins. What if someone, with enough power and money, and a business along that river, were to buy the river. Does he now have carte blanche to pour whatever the fuck he wants into it? Under the strictest definitions, that river is his property, after all. Yet, even if no one else lives along that river, his actions can still have negative short-term and long-term consequences for others.

Now suppose that's not a possibility under existing law. Nobody can just "own" a river, and even if they could, there exists legislation banning them from dumping chemical waste, due to the negative consequences exercise of their right to property can have on the right to property of others. But they can buy out politicians to support legislation that overturns that legislation and allows them to dump chemical waste into that river. They can buy out media sources to endorse those politicians. They can even indirectly buy out voters. with promise of expanding their business and creating jobs for people if their politician wins.

If they win, are they in the clear now? Are they no longer accountable for the damage to the ecosystem, to the property of those who had no say in it, to the overall health of everyone in the vicinity of the river, whether they voted for it or not? Maybe not all of the people who voted for that politician even did so for the river bill. Maybe some of them just didn't want to have to hire gays in their family bookstore, maybe some of them wanted less property tax, maybe some of them voted for whoever their parents were voting for. But that Dangerous Chemicals Inc. bro came out on top, in part because he had influence and power and knew how to use it.

Let's say this guy's not just evil and uncaring, either. Disposing of those chemicals safely comes at a great cost to his business, on which many in the area rely. He's constantly forced to overwork, underpay, and even lay off his workers because of it.

On the other hand, suppose there was a tech company in the area, whose CEO was gay. He felt very strongly about LGBT rights, and donates much of his wealth to a politician campaigning in part on a platform of anti-discrimination, while also opposing the river bill. He also donates to media platforms with pro-LGBT stances, and encourages their endorsement of his candidate. His area has a small but significant LGBT population, so they and their friends support this candidate.

Is one of these entrepreneurs more morally right than the other? Why or why not? Their tactics are the same, they're both motivated by their own personal views, they're both using their freedom and power to effect change in their community. One could argue that the river chemicals guy is driven more by personal gain than by personal values, and that his outcome has more objective harm to it, while the techie CEO is driven by a desire for justice and an equal playing field, whether gay, straight, trans, or anything in between. On the other hand, one could argue that the river chemicals guy is driven by economic pragmatism that everyone can reap the benefits of, while the CEO is driven by a desire to shove his values down everyone else's throats, at the expense of the religious freedom of Christian business owners who might not want to hire an openly gay person in their family bookstore. Which side is right? Which side is wrong? Are either of them objectively more or less liberal than the other? Should the system prefer one over the other?

That's something I really can't give a purely liberal answer to. No matter which way you shake it, to me, it requires a compromise of some people's rights over others'. And this scenario doesn't even take into account that one side of this issue may have more power and influence than the other.

>I agree with your thoughts, equal opportunity will never equal outcome, and in a liberal society, it shouldn't, as the outcome is for the individual to control. This is why things like "affirmative action" are not liberal ideas.

I agree, in a context where "affirmative action" refers to things like diversity quotas, differences in pay, group-specific tax benefits, etc.

>I dont quite understand what you mean by "in application of law"

That all groups should have the same protection under the law. A superficially simple statement which, in itself, is open to an unbelievably vast array of different nuances, interpretations, and implementations.

>Yes, because it is assumed in a liberal society, you have free access to all information, therefor all sides of the story. Can a Liberal society end itself by choice, yes it can, which is why its a philosophical matter and not a scientific one.

If a liberal society is on track to end itself by choice, how should those who wish to preserve said society respond? Is it their responsibility as liberals to uphold liberal values by doing anything in their power to prevent that from coming to pass, or is it their responsibility as liberals to follow their liberal values by allowing it?

>No, because again, this infringes on other peoples right to pursue their own ideals, as in the case of the river, agreed upon limits can be set when one persons freedom intersects with another.

I agree in principle. In practice, however, the issue of whose speech is silencing whose seems blurrier and blurrier the closer you look at it.

>Its hard to answer the law questions because Liberalism is a philosophy and not a system of government or economic strategy. The philosophy can be applied under any system really, as long as it adheres to the value of individuality rather than collectivism. It just so happens that ideas like free markets and small government tend to fall in line with the philosophy. I know i joked and said "Liberal Socialism is an oxymoron" but really its not... its charity.

Indeed. These basic principles can be applied in a huge amount of different ways, and the possibilities don't really end when you narrow down to a more specific form of liberalism. It's like a fractal. The fact that liberalism isn't the only philosophical core out there, and that all of these vastly different ideals and belief systems have to coexist somehow to generate a functional society at all, is staggering.

Perhaps the one objective truth of this crazy world is that the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.

(ID: d8194a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195760

File: 1541747741377.png (332.18 KB, 645x723, 78769876978.png)

>>195758
sure, i get that. but the main principles to that is simply leaving you alone

you live your life and i live mine

so if someone wants to snort a line of coke who cares? they arent harming you

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195775

File: 1541749800553.png (295.52 KB, 593x475, 1254963.PNG)

>>195758
>What if someone, with enough power and money, and a business along that river, were to buy the river. Does he now have carte blanche to pour whatever the fuck he wants into it? Under the strictest definitions, that river is his property, after all. Yet, even if no one else lives along that river, his actions can still have negative short-term and long-term consequences for others.
I'm glad you asked this! This is why i use the river as an example! Okay, so suppose they did buy the river, suppose the laws allowed them to do so... well.. the river feeds the ocean, and they didnt buy the ocean. And if you go further than that, what if they buy the ocean... then you are going to deep, and you could eventually say, what if they buy the world..
>But they can buy out politicians to support legislation that overturns that legislation and allows them to dump chemical waste into that river. They can buy out media sources to endorse those politicians. They can even indirectly buy out voters. with promise of expanding their business and creating jobs for people if their politician wins.
YES! This is why in a free, liberal society there is no guarantee of safety!
They are at liberty to buy out those people, those people are at liberty to accept the bribe (assuming there is no law against it, but even then, they are still at liberty to break the law) BUT YOU are at liberty to run for office, you are at liberty to expose the bribe, you are at liberty, which means you are responsible to do it, which means you have work to do. You are also at liberty to sit back, do nothing, and complain.

>If a liberal society is on track to end itself by choice, how should those who wish to preserve said society respond? Is it their responsibility as liberals to uphold liberal values by doing anything in their power to prevent that from coming to pass, or is it their responsibility as liberals to follow their liberal values by allowing it?

Im skipping straight to this question, because i think it will answer the others too. But ill take it step by step.
>If a liberal society is on track to end itself by choice, how should those who wish to preserve said society respond?
They should respond, firstly, by making a better case. They should be trying to persuade people to their way of thinking, they should be running for office, they should be voting, they should make their thoughts known. This is why ALL speech is important, because the idea, if its a good one, wont die.
>Is it their responsibility as liberals to uphold liberal values by doing anything in their power to prevent that from coming to pass, or is it their responsibility as liberals to follow their liberal values by allowing it?
They wouldnt be upholding their liberal values by letting it come to pass. They are individuals, they only way it could "come to pass" is if they change their mind about it... if they do that, then it was never a good idea in the first place.

In the end, in a liberal society, YOU are responsible. You are an individual navigating the world. Who is benevolent and who is evil... thats for YOU to decide, and for you to spread the idea of.
The funny thing is, liberalism is the closest thing we have to reality. It lets US make up our own minds about things.
Its why freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, are liberal ideals.

You are responsible for your own safety as well, a liberal society is not safe, its why the freedom to bear arms, the freedom of privacy the freedom of assembly are also liberal concepts.

And thats the part that scares people. Some people hate that, they hate that freedom isnt safe, they hate that they need to do work to preserve it, they hate that if they end up in the gutter its their own fault. They want someone else to be responsible.

In other words, they want to pass the buck.

But its nature, you will never be safe, so giving up freedom for perceived safety is a mistake in my opinion.

And because i have the freedom, i can share that opinion with you.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195798

File: 1541757744115.png (902.16 KB, 1000x1411, __kagiyama_hina_touhou_drawn_b…)

>>195775
>Okay, so suppose they did buy the river, suppose the laws allowed them to do so... well.. the river feeds the ocean, and they didnt buy the ocean. And if you go further than that, what if they buy the ocean... then you are going to deep, and you could eventually say, what if they buy the world..
So it's fair to say that, under your paradigm of liberalism, the river, ocean, and world are exceptions to the right to property.

How would you respond to someone who called you illiberal or, dare I say, "communist", for it?

>those people are at liberty to accept the bribe (assuming there is no law against it, but even then, they are still at liberty to break the law)

Do you believe that a free, liberal society can justify having such a law? Would this make the society, by definition, illiberal?

>BUT YOU are at liberty to run for office, you are at liberty to expose the bribe, you are at liberty, which means you are responsible to do it, which means you have work to do

The techie CEO knows that. And he knows that he has the power to make use of that liberty.

But here's where it gets reeeal ugly. What if that techie CEO doesn't exist? What if no one has the power, money, and influence, to adequately compete with chembro? Then, the system is stacked in his favor, isn't it? Not only is there no guarantee of safety, there's also a functional inequality of opportunity.

How could that be mitigated? Take the money out of politics? Well, that brings its own disadvantages. And is it really wrong to financially support a cause you believe in? In a vacuum, having that option seems like it should be an objectively good thing, and indeed, powerful individuals and groups often use that power for righteous causes. Yet there's also no shortage of crooks who game the system for their own enrichment, engaging in dishonesty with the public, while also being well within both their legal and natural rights to do so. And sometimes, the crooks win, purely by virtue of having been there first, having amassed more wealth and power than their adversaries, and having better opportunities available to them.

And that's deeply disturbing to those who highly value equal opportunity, whose values manifest as a "fair" playing field where competing ideas and groups come out on top not because they had more power from the get-go, but on their merits and the value they create for society. But how can they address this? It's not right to just take away someone's money, even if they're using it to buy their way to the top. Is it right to limit what they can spend that money on? Maybe? Should prohibiting dumping chemical waste into that river just be a dogma that is never changed or questioned? No, that'd be authoritarian...but that river needs to be protected, dammit, because if it's not, people's rights will be infringed on...

It creates a cognitive dissonance, because with all bias stripped away, it is a question of whose rights are more important than whose. And when you believe all rights are important and must be protected, that question is impossible to give a truly good-faith answer to. In the real world, these decisions of whose rights hold higher value are routinely made -- and the ones on the losing end often have to just suck it up and deal with it, whether it's fair or not.

>They should respond, firstly, by making a better case. They should be trying to persuade people to their way of thinking, they should be running for office, they should be voting, they should make their thoughts known. This is why ALL speech is important, because the idea, if its a good one, wont die.

Do you think this always holds true? Are the "good guys" always the ones who win in the end, even if they may suffer heavy losses at times? Even if the "bad guys" have more power, can deny the "good guys" a platform, or can simply scream louder or outright lie about their opposition?

>They wouldnt be upholding their liberal values by letting it come to pass. They are individuals, they only way it could "come to pass" is if they change their mind about it... if they do that, then it was never a good idea in the first place.

Will one liberal in a sea of communists be able to change their minds? Will one liberal in a sea of nazis be able to change their minds?

Many on the right have claimed that the left uses the term "racist" to silence them, regardless of whether something they're saying actually is or isn't racist. That's a valid complaint, isn't it?

And yet, calling someone racist doesn't actually force them to stop talking. It'll surely make some people less willing to listen, but probably not all; maybe some people agree that they're tired of "racist" just being an instant "shut the fuck up" card, and want that person to finish making their point. Maybe their point really isn't racist. But the person called racist sure does feel silenced, don't they? They're in a position where they face social consequences for what they're saying, regardless of whether what they have to say has actual value or not. They're not really free to say what's on their mind. So, they keep it to themselves.

Now flip that around. Suppose they were actually saying something racist. "You can't take anything niggers say seriously, they have literally retarded IQs!" Extreme example obviously, because that's very far from something socially acceptable to say now...and between you and me, I'm kind of glad there's social pressure on those types to keep it to themselves. But suppose that statement were perfectly socially acceptable. Do you think a black person in that group would have a platform? Would they not be in the same position as the previous example, essentially forced silent, by that person's speech? Are they just as free to speak as them? Maybe they really want to call the speaker a racist. Maybe they have insightful things to say on top of that. Maybe a handful of people would secretly agree, because shit, that guy really is racist. But if they speak up, they risk ridicule, or worse. So, they keep it to themselves.

This is sort of a tangent, but in both the former and the latter example, speech is used as a tool to silence. What are your thoughts on these scenarios? Is it good that the word "racist" has the power to prevent the second scenario from happening? Is it bad that it has the power to cause the first scenario to happen? How would you approach this in a way that protects everyone's speech from the silencing power of everyone else's speech?

The short answer is, you can't. Because preventing someone from saying something that will silence someone else is silencing them. By doing so, you've already made the choice to prioritize one person's speech over another's. At the same time, you can't have a productive discussion if some dumbass has free reign to unrelentingly shit it up and "win" arguments with ad hominems. So in some contexts, you're going to have to have some sort of standard on what can be said and how it can be said.

Alternatively, you could leave it at no standards, and leave it up to the social atmosphere to self-enforce. But that's where you run the risk of being silenced by being called racist, or a shill, or a cuck, or an SJW, or a Fucking White Male, as people are often wont to do in contexts with no standard of conduct -- or, more accurately, the standard of conduct that has already developed in that context.

I often see people complain of free speech being violated by the mere existence of conduct standards intended to prevent one person's speech from inhibiting another's, in places meant for intelligent, constructive discussion, rather than by the effectiveness of these standards in achieving their stated goal. Sometimes they complain of their free speech being violated by someone else's free speech. That one in particular goes both ways. And I don't think there's a person alive today who sincerely believes it should be acceptable to say whatever you want, whenever and wherever you want, and nobody should be allowed to do anything to shut you up.

Now, all that said, none of that is to say I think any sort of speech should be, on its own, penalized by the government, barring the already existing exceptions (imminent lawless action, security-sensitive information, etc). The institution of free speech is much too important to tear down like that for the sake of the mores and standards of our own small slice of human history, opening the door for authoritarian abuse for years to come. The Civil Rights Movement would not have been possible without that institution. Women's suffrage would not have been possible without that institution. On a national scale, it's the single most important and basic liberty there is. Conduct standards serve an important role on a smaller scale, and indeed, they'll form on their own whether you want them or not in most social environments, but as far as the government is concerned, protect free speech like the lives and liberty of every single person depends on it, because someday, it just might.

Chaptor!Ep8pui8Vw2 (ID: 93c07b)Country code: cascadia.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195800

File: 1541758263007.webm (310.18 KB, 560x316, Eric.webm)

>bolitigs :DD
lol fucking nerds

Noonim (ID: 01826b)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195807

>>195798
I think it's less "exceptions to the right to property", more, "You cannot violate the rights of others".

(ID: ded9b0)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195833

File: 1541786901028.png (47.9 KB, 392x265, Thank+you+for+pointing+that+ou…)

>>195580
>you cannot be civil with etc etc

Basically the moto of Antifa. They believe you cannot be civil with anyone with a different viewpoint and anyone that has one needs to he threatened with bodily harm until they agree.

This is literally fascism.

Mk17 (ID: 524b70)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195900

File: 1541796210862.png (151.78 KB, 349x423, 98754312312.PNG)

>>195798
I'm not ignoring this, i just have been doing chores and your post constitutes sitting down with a nice cup of coffee and taking a minute to think.

I dont want to just give a quick reply between doing the dishes and getting ready for work haha.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195931

File: 1541801799341.jpg (290.88 KB, 723x787, 30309162_p0.jpg)

>>195900
No worries, take your time. I'm hella sleep deprived and kind of busy myself, so it'll be some time before I can respond as well.

(ID: bce36d)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195990

File: 1541809722045.png (230.73 KB, 1600x1200, chekki brikki iv damkie.png)

>>195833

Literally, fascism is where everyone swears total loyalty to one single glorious leader, who is the ultimate authority on all aspects of society. So uh... who's the leader of antifa?

Ika (ID: 0c044e)Country code: mx, country type: geoip, valid: 1  195991

File: 1541809832153.png (416.52 KB, 564x576, d954793245357de974bfda8cdaa761…)

>>195990
The republican politicians that pay them.

(ID: b9bd01)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  195996

>>195833
This is incorrect; anti-fascists do not believe you cannot be civil with anyone with a different viewpoint; they believe you cannot be civil with western and white nationalists. They believe treating western and white nationalists with civility puts them on an equal playing field to them -- demonstrates that their viewpoints are to be considered.

Anti-fascists's goal is to make a world that white and western nationalists cannot spread their ideas and hence cannot pervert democracy to achieve their goals.

Of course there are other issues they're opposed to, too, like publicly shaming transgender students for using changing rooms.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 301d06)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196001

File: 1541811544241.png (47.9 KB, 392x265, Thank+you+for+pointing+that+ou…)

>>195990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

You're thinking of dictatorship. Completely different thing.

>>195996
This is bullshit and it's apparent to anybody. They are a terrorist organization that will oppress anybody and everyone they do not agree with through threat of violence.

Nice job trying to play the pity card though.

(ID: bce36d)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196007

File: 1541813442005.png (2.13 MB, 3750x1800, Pre_and_Post_Glim_Glams.png)

>>196001

It's true that the result of fascism is forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, but that's fascism from a historian's perspective, not fascism as a fascist would have defined it. Fascism refers to the fasces, a bundle of wooden rods with an axe sticking out in the middle. A single rod is easily broken, but the bundle is difficult to break. So by everyone rallying around their great leader in unity, they can have a healthy, robust society that cannot be easily broken.

That's the idea, though it... rarely ends well.

>>195833
"Believing you cannot be civil with anyone with a different viewpoint" isn't fascism. It's bigotry. Of course most fascists are total bigots, so I'm just saying it's not literally fascism, even if it is strongly characteristic of it.

(ID: 301d06)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196008

File: 1541813574080.jpg (13.39 KB, 237x200, scarlet_vs_glados_by_jollyjack…)

>>196007
>"Believing you cannot be civil with anyone with a different viewpoint" isn't fascism. It's bigotry.

Okay, so Antifa are bigots.

(ID: bce36d)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196013

File: 1541814140660.gif (782.56 KB, 600x338, we_cant_outrock_him_his_beats_…)

>>196008

Yeah, antifa, fascists, Republicans, Democrats, Baptists, USA citizens, basically any group that demonizes the outsiders in order to get the insiders more under control and sympathetic to the cause.

(ID: 301d06)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196014

File: 1541814243710.jpg (111.84 KB, 844x765, Bunny_Girl_on_Triangle_by_joll…)

>>196013
Pretty much.

Mk17 (ID: 6b4d65)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  196034

File: 1541827345692.png (185.4 KB, 477x480, 654654645.PNG)

>>195798
>So it's fair to say that, under your paradigm of liberalism, the river, ocean, and world are exceptions to the right to property.
No.
In fact, i said "Okay, so suppose they did buy the river" haha, so its fair to assume privet ownership in this hypothetical is allowed.
But you ask "what if no one lives on the river, then no one will complain" my point with the river is, at some point it WILL impact someone else, so it WILL end up infringing on another persons rights, so laws CAN be made to curb it.
>How would you respond to someone who called you illiberal or, dare I say, "communist", for it?
N/A
>Do you believe that a free, liberal society can justify having such a law? Would this make the society, by definition, illiberal?
Yes, there is room for honesty in a liberal society. Laws against defamation, perjury, plagiarism and bribery would be fine.
It also depends on the kind of liberalism you are talking about, most people are talking about social liberalism. It sounds like you are talking about anarchy.
>But here's where it gets reeeal ugly. What if that techie CEO doesn't exist? What if no one has the power, money, and influence, to adequately compete with chembro? Then, the system is stacked in his favor, isn't it? Not only is there no guarantee of safety, there's also a functional inequality of opportunity.
Again, you're going outside the realm of reasonable ideas.
If no one in society has enough money to run for office besides one person, you have bigger issues than just personal freedom, and i suppose if that guy is the ONLY one who has the money, he is already king.
You might as well ask "what if he buys all the oxygen on earth and says no one can have any!?"
It unreasonable to think that only one person would have the ability to run for office so its a waste of time to consider it.
>Do you think this always holds true? Are the "good guys" always the ones who win in the end, even if they may suffer heavy losses at times? Even if the "bad guys" have more power, can deny the "good guys" a platform, or can simply scream louder or outright lie about their opposition?
"You" are always the good guy, "they" are always the bad, so it is a matter of perspective.
>Will one liberal in a sea of communists be able to change their minds? Will one liberal in a sea of nazis be able to change their minds?
How much time ya got?
Seems to me a few Christians in a world of pagans and jews did alright.
>Many on the right have claimed that the left uses the term "racist" to silence them, regardless of whether something they're saying actually is or isn't racist. That's a valid complaint, isn't it?
It a valid complaint, but if that "silences" them its only in the minds of others, not physically.
People who storm the stage and scream and chant, that is silencing because it physically prevents people from sharing their ideas.
>And yet, calling someone racist doesn't actually force them to stop talking. It'll surely make some people less willing to listen, but probably not all
Aye
> But the person called racist sure does feel silenced, don't they? They're in a position where they face social consequences for what they're saying, regardless of whether what they have to say has actual value or not. They're not really free to say what's on their mind. So, they keep it to themselves.
If they feel that way, that is on them as an individual. No outside source is stopping them from doing or saying what they think is right in the face of adversity. It might be a shame, but its too bad, they need stronger convictions.
I mean, look at Trump, he is called everything in the book, and he just shrugs it off and keeps going. He is successful, if he just shut up and kept to himself, he wouldnt be. But, he and you have the same opportunity just as everyone else.
can we please not make this about trump now? It was just an example haha. I only ask because im use to people here changing the whole subject if i use and example like that. Im not saying he is good, im not saying he is bad, im just using him as an example of a person who is called racist and isnt silenced
>Now flip that around. Suppose they were actually saying something racist. "You can't take anything niggers say seriously, they have literally retarded IQs!" Extreme example obviously, because that's very far from something socially acceptable to say now...and between you and me, I'm kind of glad there's social pressure on those types to keep it to themselves.
As am I, but i wouldn't advocate there be a law against it, and its a good example of how a free society can self correct without the need of laws that limit personal freedom.
>But suppose that statement were perfectly socially acceptable. Do you think a black person in that group would have a platform? Would they not be in the same position as the previous example, essentially forced silent, by that person's speech? Are they just as free to speak as them? Maybe they really want to call the speaker a racist. Maybe they have insightful things to say on top of that. Maybe a handful of people would secretly agree, because shit, that guy really is racist. But if they speak up, they risk ridicule, or worse. So, they keep it to themselves.
Again, nothing physical or legal is stopping them. This question isnt a question of liberal philosophy, its a question of psychology. Maybe there will be a strong person in the crowd that tells that asshole to shut up. To ask that question is to assume Martin Luther King and John Brown did not, and could not exist.
>But if they speak up, they risk ridicule, or worse. So, they keep it to themselves.
Then they are weak, but the world isn't full of huddling cowards. To assume so is to disregard history.
>What are your thoughts on these scenarios?
See above.

(1/2) heh, you thought you had a text wall

Mk17 (ID: 6b4d65)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  196035

File: 1541827427064.png (178.98 KB, 475x481, 1110254.PNG)

>>195798
>>196034
(2/2)
>At the same time, you can't have a productive discussion if some dumbass has free reign to unrelentingly shit it up and "win" arguments with ad hominems. So in some contexts, you're going to have to have some sort of standard on what can be said and how it can be said.
Correct, this is honor of the institution. We have systems for debate, and systems for discourse set in the institution where those things take place. When someone breaks those rules, they can be asked, or if necessary, forced to leave. Whether its a law or a policy, disturbing the piece can be a punishable offence in a liberal society, because as you mentioned, it conflicts with the rights of others. So, that being the case, calling someone a racist when they are done talking is fine, screaming racist at the top of your lungs while they are talking is not.
>So in some contexts, you're going to have to have some sort of standard on what can be said and how it can be said.
Aye.
>I often see people complain of free speech being violated by the mere existence of conduct standards intended to prevent one person's speech from inhibiting another's, in places meant for intelligent, constructive discussion, rather than by the effectiveness of these standards in achieving their stated goal.
I also hear people say stupid things all the time haha.
>And I don't think there's a person alive today who sincerely believes it should be acceptable to say whatever you want, whenever and wherever you want, and nobody should be allowed to do anything to shut you up.
You cant yell "fire" in an opera house, as that could cause people to be hurt in the panic. But you can say "damn, there sure are a lot of niggers and kikes at this opera house, i hope there is a fire" because that is just your opinion. It doesn't cause anyone to be physically hurt, except maybe you, and everyone has the same platform as you to disagree, or agree, depending on the opera house haha.
>Conduct standards serve an important role on a smaller scale, and indeed, they'll form on their own whether you want them or not in most social environments
Aye.
> but as far as the government is concerned, protect free speech like the lives and liberty of every single person depends on it, because someday, it just might.
I completely agree. But when they refuse to protect that right, the responsibility lies on you.
This is the the 1st amendment is 1st and the 2nd is 2nd. Because black folks would not have been able to vote in the south after emancipation if it were not for citizens guarding the polling places with muskets, and Dr Martin Luther King Jr would have had his house burned down and his family killed if it were not for round the clock civilian protection.
The government did not provide these things, and even if they did, they may not always.

https://etherzone.com/black-history-and-the-second-amendment/
If you read that link, please take not that it was the police, or in other words, the government, backing the ku klux klan as they went to murder.

I'm not saying you are not pro 2a, i honestly don't know/cant remember, but its why you cant talk about freedom of speech without talking about freedom of defense, and it furthers my point that in a liberal and free society, sometimes you have to be willing to fight for what you believe in.

(2/2)
This post was edited by its author on .

Noonim (ID: 01826b)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196084

There's a lot of heavy stuff in this thread.
I think most of it depends on how you think about rights.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: b883f9)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196086

File: 1541857397837.jpg (254.88 KB, 736x1000, __kagiyama_hina_mystia_lorelei…)

>>196034
>my point with the river is, at some point it WILL impact someone else, so it WILL end up infringing on another persons rights, so laws CAN be made to curb it.
Wouldn't such a law be, in effect, a limitation on the right to private property, though? I guess exception wasn't quite the correct word; limitation is more accurate. In the context of liberalism, the acceptability of such limitations is grounded on the prevention of one person's rights from infringing on the rights of others -- the harm principle. Where exactly those lines should be drawn is subjective to a certain degree, but the existence of said limitations at all is what separates liberalism from anarchism, wherein no such limitations exist, and rights are not protected -- merely exercised -- to the advantage of those with the most power to do so.

>It also depends on the kind of liberalism you are talking about, most people are talking about social liberalism. It sounds like you are talking about anarchy.

I'm talking in a very broad sense about the applications of liberal philosophy in a variety of contexts and aspects of a society. The one most applicable to this example would be a particular form of economic liberalism, albeit taken to an extreme most people would likely find objectionable, and in the context of the United States, unconstitutional. Some forms of bribery also don't have any prohibitions on them, though; there's no federal law prohibiting commercial bribery, and only 36 states prohibit it (though it is a felony in those states).

>If no one in society has enough money to run for office besides one person, you have bigger issues than just personal freedom, and i suppose if that guy is the ONLY one who has the money, he is already king.

>It unreasonable to think that only one person would have the ability to run for office so its a waste of time to consider it.
Well, plenty of people can run for office. But it does take a certain amount of resources to have a shot at actually winning, doesn't it? Isn't this part of why the US is a de facto two party system, the other part being that it's become somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy? The odds are certainly stacked for the democrats or republicans, with rare exceptions at state or municipal level.

>"You" are always the good guy, "they" are always the bad, so it is a matter of perspective.

I'm not sure I'd agree it's quite that cut and dry. It's definitely a matter of perspective, but I actually don't think I'm always the good guy. Or, at least, I try not to. I think that's the duty of every morally responsible person. "The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their instincts and of the purity of their intentions."

Actually, I guess you already answered this question in the part of your post that I meant to address but ended up forgetting to -- that a liberal society isn't safe. There is no guarantee that the pure and righteous will win. There's no guarantee that they won't get blackmail letters from the FBI urging them to commit suicide, and eventually be assassinated. In fact, realistically, that's not limited to a liberal society -- no society is truly safe.

>How much time ya got?

Time? Maybe another 60 years or so, give or take. Replaceable bones, limbs, and organs, well...I think that's my limiting factor.

>It a valid complaint, but if that "silences" them its only in the minds of others, not physically.

>If they feel that way, that is on them as an individual. No outside source is stopping them from doing or saying what they think is right in the face of adversity. It might be a shame, but its too bad, they need stronger convictions.
Exactly. It can inhibit, but not take away, their freedom of speech. They may naturally seek out spaces where they don't have to worry about this form of "silencing", but that can actually do more harm than good, holing them up in an echo chamber where they can feed a victim complex and become radicalized by less-then-benevolent collectives.

>But, he and you have the same opportunity just as everyone else.

Wellll, he's a bit older than me, and has a lot more money and fame than I do. I'm not really sure I'd want to be quite as famous and influential as him anyway, though. Being president's not for me, nor is spending quite so much time on national television or tangled up in a lawsuit involving Rosie O'Donnell.

No worries. He's an example that illustrates your point perfectly, anyway.

>As am I, but i wouldn't advocate there be a law against it, and its a good example of how a free society can self correct without the need of laws that limit personal freedom.

Agreed.

>To ask that question is to assume Martin Luther King and John Brown did not, and could not exist.

And sadly, one of those was assassinated and the other hanged. But not before changing the course of history with their words and actions. Not everyone who's permanently silenced by those who don't like what they stand for make it that far. Some people's deaths don't leave behind a legacy. But no one ever said it was safe, nor that truth and justice will inevitably prevail.

>When someone breaks those rules, they can be asked, or if necessary, forced to leave. Whether its a law or a policy, disturbing the piece can be a punishable offence in a liberal society, because as you mentioned, it conflicts with the rights of others.

Exactly. But there's always going to be some idiot who--
>I also hear people say stupid things all the time haha.
Yes. Exactly.

>But you can say "damn, there sure are a lot of niggers and kikes at this opera house, i hope there is a fire" because that is just your opinion. It doesn't cause anyone to be physically hurt, except maybe you, and everyone has the same platform as you to disagree, or agree, depending on the opera house haha.

The owner of the opera house can certainly tell you to fuck off, or the person sitting next to you can tell you to shut up because your verbal shitposts are drowning out the soprano's aria.

>I'm not saying you are not pro 2a, i honestly don't know/cant remember, but its why you cant talk about freedom of speech without talking about freedom of defense, and it furthers my point that in a liberal and free society, sometimes you have to be willing to fight for what you believe in.

I am pro 2A, although I wasn't familiar with that KKK event. That's really something.

Noonim (ID: 01826b)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196087

>>196086
Would a law saying you can't fire a 20mm cannon at your next door neighbor be a limitation on your property rights, or would it be preventing you from violating the rights of others?
See, that's the thing.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 6719fa)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196090

File: 1541858661416.jpg (106.13 KB, 640x775, b366a3a8710d0cac203b26200cf82b…)

>>196087
Well, I can't use that cannon to hurt my neighbor or damage their property. But I can destroy the cannon if I feel like it. Can I still destroy my river? I can shoot that cannon at my own garage door all I like. If I've somehow irrigated my river such that it flows into a lake I also own...can I still destroy that river and lake?

Noonim (ID: 01826b)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196091

>>196090
If destroying your river wouldn't have any effect that'd violate the rights of others who own property such an event'd damage, sure.
To do so, you'd probably need to own most the local area, as well, though.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 6719fa)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196092

File: 1541860246301.gif (747.25 KB, 500x508, 1525282365740.gif)

>>196091
The long-term effects of destroying a river or lake, as well as the geographic area that would be affected, aren't always easy to quantify or predict. This is where environmentalism, property rights, and economic liberalism often come into conflict.

Noonim (ID: 01826b)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  196093

>>196092
Well, so long as you can quantify some to a decent standard, you can make such laws not around violating people's property, but as prevention of the violation of other people's property.

Environmental stuff is a bit weird, though. And, it isn't like we've got that much laws, as is, in place to protect stuff. I believe that's probably why most the time rivers and such are considered 'public property'.

Mikie(phone)!GlimDubEqI (ID: de08f1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  196105

>>196086
Just separate liberalism from anarchism and think with a level head.

It still allows government to take a role.

Actually that's what separates it from libertarianism.

We just want government to do the right thing but stay the fuck out our lives.

Pretty much go to the NAP. People with the IQ of a goldfish like to make fun of but it's a good principle.

Mk17 (ID: 53615d)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  196366

File: 1541919863272.png (267.74 KB, 453x507, 54454554.PNG)

>>196086
>Wouldn't such a law be, in effect, a limitation on the right to private property, though?
I think the question is, where do you consider privet property to end?
>In the context of liberalism, the acceptability of such limitations is grounded on the prevention of one person's rights from infringing on the rights of others -- the harm principle.
I'm honestly not formally educated in this enough to know that had a name haha.
>Where exactly those lines should be drawn is subjective to a certain degree, but the existence of said limitations at all is what separates liberalism from anarchism, wherein no such limitations exist, and rights are not protected -- merely exercised -- to the advantage of those with the most power to do so.
Exactly! This is why I love the river as an anaolgy so much. (i thought of it because I own property on a river haha) Unlike a lake or a pond, the river is a part of a system (i know you could argue that a lake and a pond could also be a part of a system, but then you are missing the point of the analogy and getting into "what if they bought the sun!?" territory haha)
You could own the entire river, from the spring to the delta, but what you do with it will still impact the parts of the system that you don't control, such as the ocean. And thats when limits can be placed, when what you do effects more than just you, when it effects the system of society at large.
>I'm talking in a very broad sense about the applications of liberal philosophy in a variety of contexts and aspects of a society.
Gotcha!
> Some forms of bribery also don't have any prohibitions on them, though; there's no federal law prohibiting commercial bribery, and only 36 states prohibit it (though it is a felony in those states).
And in the context of both the US, and the philosophy, i think those states have a right to do so, and i think its right the federal government takes no stance.
>I'm not sure I'd agree it's quite that cut and dry. It's definitely a matter of perspective, but I actually don't think I'm always the good guy. Or, at least, I try not to. I think that's the duty of every morally responsible person. "The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their instincts and of the purity of their intentions."
Fair enough, I admit i was kind of short minded with that comment. I think I was looking at it from a "history is written by the victors" standpoint. You are right though, the lines between good an evil are so blurry that you could question whether ether truly exist.
>In fact, realistically, that's not limited to a liberal society -- no society is truly safe.
Precisely! Which is why when they suggest putting a limit on freedom in the name of "safety"... it should be looked at quite critically.
>Time? Maybe another 60 years or so, give or take.
Haha, i mean in the context of infinity. If one person still has the idea, it isn't truly dead, and can still spread like wild fire given the correct conditions. 60 years is a blink of an eye in the context of human history, and human history less than a blink in the context of time.
>Replaceable bones, limbs, and organs, well...I think that's my limiting factor.
We will see where medical science is at, when in a few years, we begin to truly need it :P
>It can inhibit, but not take away, their freedom of speech.
Yes! we are on the same page here!
>They may naturally seek out spaces where they don't have to worry about this form of "silencing", but that can actually do more harm than good, holing them up in an echo chamber where they can feed a victim complex and become radicalized by less-then-benevolent collectives.
This is where the viral idea can turn cancerous. They have the right to do so, of course, but it again speaks back to the safety of a free society, or rather, the lack there of haha.
>Wellll, he's a bit older than me, and has a lot more money and fame than I do. I'm not really sure I'd want to be quite as famous and influential as him anyway, though. Being president's not for me, nor is spending quite so much time on national television or tangled up in a lawsuit involving Rosie O'Donnell.
Same here! I wouldn't want to be in his position, or at least, i think i would handle it vastly differently. But we both have the opportunity to be there, if its a goal that we work to achieve.
No one wants to have to speak to Rosie O'Donald, never mind her lawyers... yesh haha.
Though, i personally think there is more to the things like that than meets the eye. We are talking about people that perfected the illusion of "reality TV" here haha.
>And sadly, one of those was assassinated and the other hanged. But not before changing the course of history with their words and actions.
Sometimes its more important to be a martyr. Their silencing may have spoke more than their words ever did.
Which, again, is an example of the self correcting nature of a free society. A sad truth.
>The owner of the opera house can certainly tell you to fuck off, or the person sitting next to you can tell you to shut up
Indeed they can, and probably would. Will that lead to the embarrassed retreat of OP, or will it lead to fisticuffs? You wont know until you are there.
>because your verbal shitposts are drowning out the soprano's aria.
I loved reading this.
>I wasn't familiar with that KKK event. That's really something.
Isnt it? But, its not surprising. It breaks the illusion that the government is some benevolent entity that some how has more knowledge and experience than any other citizen. In other words you get to see the king without his clothes, luckily, we don't ignore it.
A government for the people by the people is a double edged sword, and carries with it the faults and extremes, of people.


Edits:
Spelling and punctuation.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (p-hone) (ID: 9d5757)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  196697

File: 1542030881742.png (189.89 KB, 290x385, jr78.PNG)

>>196366
Reading back through this, i want to clarify that when i said
>Gotcha!
I meant "I understand"

Things seem so clear as you are typing haha.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]