@PussySlayer @matrix07012 @p @sjw it's orange man bad brainlet tier ideological manipulation. it's like if your 2 kids say they want a dog and you don't. one wants a pitbull the other a teacup chihuahua. so you say they're both have mouths and can bite, they're both dangerous dogs.
you're saying to diametrically opposed ideologies are the same based on one metric.
you're saying to diametrically opposed ideologies are the same based on one metric.
@WIR @PussySlayer @matrix07012 @sjw No, man, look: two groups of people want to tell you what to do and they are hitting each other and you're saying "But they're both telling you to do different things! You can't compare them."
The distinguishing feature of an authoritarian leftist to someone on the authoritarian right is that they're a leftist. The distinguishing feature of an authoritarian leftist to an anti-authoritarian is that they're authoritarian.
The distinguishing feature of an authoritarian leftist to someone on the authoritarian right is that they're a leftist. The distinguishing feature of an authoritarian leftist to an anti-authoritarian is that they're authoritarian.
@p @PussySlayer @matrix07012 @sjw
>but but but the dems and reps both wear flag lapel pins they're both the same
you right now. characterizing ideological groups by irrelevant metrics.
>but but but the dems and reps both wear flag lapel pins they're both the same
you right now. characterizing ideological groups by irrelevant metrics.
@WIR @PussySlayer @matrix07012 @sjw They may have different ideologies, but the main dealbreaker for me is that neither group wants to leave people the fuck alone. Any group that doesn't want to leave me the fuck alone is bad in my book. If my entire goal is not to have cops runnin up on me arresting me for saying a gamer word or manspreading or engaging in degeneracy, then the end result of the tankies and the natsocs is I'll get arrested.
They're different, but they share at least one trait, and it's a shit trait.
If I came back from the future and used The Biff Tannen Method and became totalitarian dictator, even though I agree with my future self, I would be opposed to my future self on the grounds that my future self is telling me what to do.
They're different, but they share at least one trait, and it's a shit trait.
If I came back from the future and used The Biff Tannen Method and became totalitarian dictator, even though I agree with my future self, I would be opposed to my future self on the grounds that my future self is telling me what to do.
@WIR @PussySlayer @matrix07012 @sjw Ah, I have heard NatSocs tell me that NatSocs believe in the rights of "a people" over the rights of an individual. So "freedom", I don't know. Hitler banned smoking in restaurants. 
That's enough to disqualify him in my book.
So, the other 24 points I mostly also do not like. Points that are not freedom:
> 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens
Fuck that, man.
> 10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all
Aw, HELL NO. I am not letting the collective decide if I'm doing things that does not benefit them. Fuck the collective.
> 11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
No, no, no, no, commie shit.
> 13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Boshit.
> 16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
Fuck a managed economy.
> 18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber [black marketeers] and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
Black market rights are human rights. Anyone that wants to execute me for doing illegal shit can come try.
> 20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program
Hell no.
> 21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation
NATIONALIZED GYM CLASS
> 24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race
No religious freedom.
> 25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.
And there you go. The end of freedom, literal totalitarianism.
The whole document is about "No Jews, all power to the State". It is not about individual liberty. It is about state control of everything.
That's enough to disqualify him in my book.So, the other 24 points I mostly also do not like. Points that are not freedom:
> 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens
Fuck that, man.
> 10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all
Aw, HELL NO. I am not letting the collective decide if I'm doing things that does not benefit them. Fuck the collective.
> 11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
No, no, no, no, commie shit.
> 13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Boshit.
> 16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
Fuck a managed economy.
> 18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber [black marketeers] and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
Black market rights are human rights. Anyone that wants to execute me for doing illegal shit can come try. > 20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program
Hell no.
> 21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation
NATIONALIZED GYM CLASS
> 24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race
No religious freedom.
> 25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.
And there you go. The end of freedom, literal totalitarianism.
The whole document is about "No Jews, all power to the State". It is not about individual liberty. It is about state control of everything.
@p @WIR @pussyslayer @matrix07012 @sjw
>the end of freedom, literal totalitarianism
Yep. That comes about because we tend to misunderstand freedom. We feel like we are being limited when we are held back from doing what we want, and thus freedom must be the opposite of limitation. In reality, freedom is the opposite of slavery, not of limitation. And because of this misunderstanding, one might abandon one extreme of totalitarianism for another other extreme of totalitarianism. To be enslaved by your own passions is also slavery.
>the end of freedom, literal totalitarianism
Yep. That comes about because we tend to misunderstand freedom. We feel like we are being limited when we are held back from doing what we want, and thus freedom must be the opposite of limitation. In reality, freedom is the opposite of slavery, not of limitation. And because of this misunderstanding, one might abandon one extreme of totalitarianism for another other extreme of totalitarianism. To be enslaved by your own passions is also slavery.
@tasso @WIR @matrix07012 @PussySlayer @sjw I'm not sure what you mean, so 
please humor me and we'll spell it out. :autismapproved👇
Point 25 is slavery. It is subjugation to the state. Freedom is individual liberty to pursue your own goals, unfettered by involuntary commitments. It is, of course, a sliding scale, but you are free if you cannot be stopped.
please humor me and we'll spell it out. :autismapproved👇Point 25 is slavery. It is subjugation to the state. Freedom is individual liberty to pursue your own goals, unfettered by involuntary commitments. It is, of course, a sliding scale, but you are free if you cannot be stopped.
@p @pussyslayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw remove politics from the equation, and then what does slavery mean? the state is surely not the only thing that can enslave man
@tasso @WIR @matrix07012 @PussySlayer @sjw Sure, okay. I follow. But if you are a slave to your passions, you own yourself.
@p @tasso @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw
If you're a slave to your passions, your passions own you, and so does anyone owning those passions.
If you're a slave to your passions, your passions own you, and so does anyone owning those passions.
@p @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso
Extrapolation:
"If you are a slave to debt and capital, your debt and capital own you, and so does anyone owning that debt and capital."
Amirite?
Extrapolation:
"If you are a slave to debt and capital, your debt and capital own you, and so does anyone owning that debt and capital."
Amirite?
@p @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso
Overindulgence, lack of control, deceit from the owners, and minimization of the problem.
Overindulgence, lack of control, deceit from the owners, and minimization of the problem.
@Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso By choice, you make a time-based tradeoff. It might be a mistake, it might be a bad plan, but no one has forced you to do what you do not want to do. You can even just take the hit to your credit score and blow off the debt.
@p @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso
Debt empowers ownership.
If you default on debt, you lose both reputation and ownership.
If you do not own things, you do not control them.
How can someone be truly free if they don't have full ownership or control over the commodities they need for the lifestyle they live?
Debt empowers ownership.
If you default on debt, you lose both reputation and ownership.
If you do not own things, you do not control them.
How can someone be truly free if they don't have full ownership or control over the commodities they need for the lifestyle they live?
@Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso
> If you default on debt, you lose both reputation and ownership.
Yes; you can make that decision as well. You are in control of the situation.
Bad decisions do not mean that a person has been robbed of their agency. I'm free to walk wherever I want. If I decide to jump down the stairs instead of walking, and one day I twist my ankle doing so, then I have temporarily lost the ability to exercise that right, but I still have the right, and I would not accuse gravity of robbing me of my self-determination.
> How can someone be truly free if they don't have full ownership or control over the commodities they need for the lifestyle they live?
Your lifestyle is an arbitrary restriction you are placing on yourself. You have the right to try to get what you can, but when you tack on something like "and maintain my lifestyle in the process", nothing has enslaved you, you have just identified something that you will not sacrifice for your goals, and you decide what you will sacrifice for your goals. You do not have a right to commodities, you have the right to try to get them.
> If you default on debt, you lose both reputation and ownership.
Yes; you can make that decision as well. You are in control of the situation.
Bad decisions do not mean that a person has been robbed of their agency. I'm free to walk wherever I want. If I decide to jump down the stairs instead of walking, and one day I twist my ankle doing so, then I have temporarily lost the ability to exercise that right, but I still have the right, and I would not accuse gravity of robbing me of my self-determination.
> How can someone be truly free if they don't have full ownership or control over the commodities they need for the lifestyle they live?
Your lifestyle is an arbitrary restriction you are placing on yourself. You have the right to try to get what you can, but when you tack on something like "and maintain my lifestyle in the process", nothing has enslaved you, you have just identified something that you will not sacrifice for your goals, and you decide what you will sacrifice for your goals. You do not have a right to commodities, you have the right to try to get them.
@Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso
"Agency" is the ability to make conscious decisions and act.
"Rights" depends on context. There are natural rights, the things that every human is due. There are legal rights, the things a person is due under the law. It's usually easier to determine the latter, the former is a moral/philosophical question.
At least, that is the meaning I have been using for those words.
"Agency" is the ability to make conscious decisions and act.
"Rights" depends on context. There are natural rights, the things that every human is due. There are legal rights, the things a person is due under the law. It's usually easier to determine the latter, the former is a moral/philosophical question.
At least, that is the meaning I have been using for those words.
@p @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso
Thanks.
Do you agree that agency in itself is not freedom?
For instance, you have the ability to make a choice, even a stupid one.
But you may constrain your choices based on logic.
Further, the threat of force or imprisonment itself is a constraint, in that some entity's will is imposed upon us because we rationally try to survive and avoid ill effects by said entity, should we resist obedience.
This is why I believe freedom is based on ultimately ownership.
Individuals, corporations and governments alike have the tendency to allow you a "shareholder privilege" and back down when you own enough of something they want to have, or something they don't want you to have.
As an example, Recoil Arms (http://www.recoilarms.com) in New Orleans is a gun manufacturer. Do you think that they had their guns confiscated during Katrina? I'd be shocked if they did.
Yet many law abiding individuals had their firearms confiscated, contrary to the 2nd amendment.
Laws, then, don't give rights.
People don't give rights.
Feels don't give rights.
Power and ownership do give rights. In and out of court.
And if your agency is constrained by the threat of force or detention, your agency is NOT freedom, of any kind.
Being able to exercise your agency as you see fit - and deterring authority figures from impeding you doing so -that is the beginning of freedom.
As a silly illustrative and final example, Dave Chappelle can light up a splif anywhere in the USA, on stage, and not even get fined.
You think any up-and-coming joe blow can do that? Nope.
He (Dave) has more marijuana freedom than the average American.
Thanks.
Do you agree that agency in itself is not freedom?
For instance, you have the ability to make a choice, even a stupid one.
But you may constrain your choices based on logic.
Further, the threat of force or imprisonment itself is a constraint, in that some entity's will is imposed upon us because we rationally try to survive and avoid ill effects by said entity, should we resist obedience.
This is why I believe freedom is based on ultimately ownership.
Individuals, corporations and governments alike have the tendency to allow you a "shareholder privilege" and back down when you own enough of something they want to have, or something they don't want you to have.
As an example, Recoil Arms (http://www.recoilarms.com) in New Orleans is a gun manufacturer. Do you think that they had their guns confiscated during Katrina? I'd be shocked if they did.
Yet many law abiding individuals had their firearms confiscated, contrary to the 2nd amendment.
Laws, then, don't give rights.
People don't give rights.
Feels don't give rights.
Power and ownership do give rights. In and out of court.
And if your agency is constrained by the threat of force or detention, your agency is NOT freedom, of any kind.
Being able to exercise your agency as you see fit - and deterring authority figures from impeding you doing so -that is the beginning of freedom.
As a silly illustrative and final example, Dave Chappelle can light up a splif anywhere in the USA, on stage, and not even get fined.
You think any up-and-coming joe blow can do that? Nope.
He (Dave) has more marijuana freedom than the average American.
@Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @sjw @tasso
> Do you agree that agency in itself is not freedom?
They are related but not the same thing, yes.
> This is why I believe freedom is based on ultimately ownership.
Rights and freedoms are not necessarily synonymous, though.
> Yet many law abiding individuals had their firearms confiscated, contrary to the 2nd amendment.
I do not think that should have occurred. Explains why there was so much looting, though.
> Laws, then, don't give rights.
The Bill of Rights exists not to grant the rights, but to safeguard them against infringement by the government. In the end, it is just words and the government may infringe regardless, but the intent was to safeguard rights. The philosophy behind it was that these are part of the natural rights of man. They spelled out this philosophy in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [⋯]"
The view (a pretty good one, in my opinion) was that the rights cannot be taken away, that they are part of being human, and everyone has these rights. Law does not grant rights, but attempts to secure them. If the law did grant rights, the human rights in the sense of the rights of man, then it would be a bit ridiculous to say that it is the "right of the people to alter or abolish" the government.
> Power and ownership do give rights. In and out of court.
No, that's not what rights are. The fact that you have the ability to do something does not necessarily mean that it is within your rights, legally or ethically. You may be free to do something in that nothing will prevent you, but that does not necessarily mean that you have the right to do it.
> Being able to exercise your agency as you see fit - and deterring authority figures from impeding you doing so -that is the beginning of freedom.
I like this, yes, but there are several senses of the word "freedom", the same as there are with "rights".
> He (Dave) has more marijuana freedom than the average American.
Yes, depending on which sense you mean. Under the law, no, he does not. In practical terms, he does. In terms of a person's rights, philosophically he has as much right to do it as anyone else, as well as legally.
> Do you agree that agency in itself is not freedom?
They are related but not the same thing, yes.
> This is why I believe freedom is based on ultimately ownership.
Rights and freedoms are not necessarily synonymous, though.
> Yet many law abiding individuals had their firearms confiscated, contrary to the 2nd amendment.
I do not think that should have occurred. Explains why there was so much looting, though.
> Laws, then, don't give rights.
The Bill of Rights exists not to grant the rights, but to safeguard them against infringement by the government. In the end, it is just words and the government may infringe regardless, but the intent was to safeguard rights. The philosophy behind it was that these are part of the natural rights of man. They spelled out this philosophy in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [⋯]"
The view (a pretty good one, in my opinion) was that the rights cannot be taken away, that they are part of being human, and everyone has these rights. Law does not grant rights, but attempts to secure them. If the law did grant rights, the human rights in the sense of the rights of man, then it would be a bit ridiculous to say that it is the "right of the people to alter or abolish" the government.
> Power and ownership do give rights. In and out of court.
No, that's not what rights are. The fact that you have the ability to do something does not necessarily mean that it is within your rights, legally or ethically. You may be free to do something in that nothing will prevent you, but that does not necessarily mean that you have the right to do it.
> Being able to exercise your agency as you see fit - and deterring authority figures from impeding you doing so -that is the beginning of freedom.
I like this, yes, but there are several senses of the word "freedom", the same as there are with "rights".
> He (Dave) has more marijuana freedom than the average American.
Yes, depending on which sense you mean. Under the law, no, he does not. In practical terms, he does. In terms of a person's rights, philosophically he has as much right to do it as anyone else, as well as legally.
@terryenglish @matrix07012 @Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @sjw @tasso Man, it's not my fault you're on Masto.
@p @terryenglish @Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @tasso GLC has a higher character limit than both of us combined
cc @matrix
cc @matrix
@sjw
Yeah. You can post an entire movie script with characters to spare. It's 2^16
@matrix07012 @p @Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @tasso @terryenglish
@matrix @sjw @matrix07012 @p @Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @tasso @terryenglish The character limit isn't enough if you can't post the entire script of Xenoblade Chronicles in one go.
@ArdanianRight
I haven't really tested what is the max, but at some point it starts timing out when you try to post something too long. I tried Mein Kampf and the Bible.
@matrix07012 @Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @p @sjw @tasso @terryenglish
@ArdanianRight @matrix @Prodigal @PussySlayer @WIR @matrix07012 @p @tasso @terryenglish Pleroma doesn't like it when the character limit is too high 
git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/issues/889
git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/issues/889
