@p why can't I found our instance on the-federation.info
https://the-federation.info/node/freespeechextremist.com
Nothing shows up.
https://the-federation.info/node/freespeechextremist.com
Nothing shows up.
@PonyPanda They blacklisted FSE because they're terrified that someone might post a Hitler joke; no fun. fediverse.network used to have everything, because href was cool. fedilist.com will include FSE.
@p seriously?
They blacklisted FSE because they’re terrified that someone might post a Hitler joke; no fun
Do they admire Hitler so much that they don’t like instances that joke about him? Because these guys still get a listing.
https://the-federation.info/node/pieville.net
@PonyPanda It may or may not surprise you, but censoring fans of Hitler is not their actual priority.
@p seriously though. What makes us so special? We're not worst offender when it comes to controversial stuff.
@PonyPanda I am being serious, I think a lot of them hate the concept of freedom of speech more than they hate Nazism, they've screeched at/about me on this topic, and FSE's pretty shitposty so that sets off people with a certain mindset, the one that makes them way more upset to see some people that they disagree with having fun in a way they disapprove of. If I had to speculate, another factor is that FSE is a popular bogeyman for people that aren't thinking too hard, we've been around long enough to accumulate on people's mental lists.
baitthread.png
fuckedupshit.jpg
baitthread.png
fuckedupshit.jpg
@p @PonyPanda
>I am being serious, I think a lot of them hate the concept of freedom of speech more than they hate Nazism, they've screeched at/about me on this topic, and FSE's pretty shitposty so that sets off people with a certain mindset, the one that makes them way more upset to see some people that they disagree with having fun in a way they disapprove of.
To certain people, human rights is just a tool invented by the state to rule more effectively. They are ignorant of or deny the meaning, origin, and historical effectiveness of human rights.
Of course, no concrete system is suggested to allow people to live together. Just chortling at "checks and balances" and a bunch of platitudes.
"The ruling power is always faced with the question, "In such and such circumstances, what would you *do*?", whreas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions." - Orwell
>I am being serious, I think a lot of them hate the concept of freedom of speech more than they hate Nazism, they've screeched at/about me on this topic, and FSE's pretty shitposty so that sets off people with a certain mindset, the one that makes them way more upset to see some people that they disagree with having fun in a way they disapprove of.
To certain people, human rights is just a tool invented by the state to rule more effectively. They are ignorant of or deny the meaning, origin, and historical effectiveness of human rights.
Of course, no concrete system is suggested to allow people to live together. Just chortling at "checks and balances" and a bunch of platitudes.
"The ruling power is always faced with the question, "In such and such circumstances, what would you *do*?", whreas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions." - Orwell
@petit @p @PonyPanda
If libralism has shown us anything, it's that "human rights" are just a tool invented by the state to rule more effectively, especially when they control the narrative and can push whatever preserves their power to be the human right of the month.
Human rights should only be observed between people who share fundamental beliefs and are unified by a connection deeper than simple being "human". Trying to force their application otherwise will only result in less freedom and an uglier world for every variable group involved.
If libralism has shown us anything, it's that "human rights" are just a tool invented by the state to rule more effectively, especially when they control the narrative and can push whatever preserves their power to be the human right of the month.
Human rights should only be observed between people who share fundamental beliefs and are unified by a connection deeper than simple being "human". Trying to force their application otherwise will only result in less freedom and an uglier world for every variable group involved.
@Tim @PonyPanda @p
Human rights have *at least* contributed to the end of state sanctioned torture, human trafficking, and religious intolerance in France.
The US bill of rights has done an excellent job protecting freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
To me, this seems good.
Human rights have *at least* contributed to the end of state sanctioned torture, human trafficking, and religious intolerance in France.
The US bill of rights has done an excellent job protecting freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
To me, this seems good.
@petit @PonyPanda @p
You'll understand when everything has been taken from you in the name of human rights that perhaps we should never have respected the rights of certain humans, that perhaps tolerance is nothing but cowardice, that by failing to maintain a friend/enemy distinction, the tolerance we should have been free to show our own has been abused to enslave us.
You'll understand when everything has been taken from you in the name of human rights that perhaps we should never have respected the rights of certain humans, that perhaps tolerance is nothing but cowardice, that by failing to maintain a friend/enemy distinction, the tolerance we should have been free to show our own has been abused to enslave us.
@Tim @PonyPanda @p
Anyone who tries to infringe on human rights is an enemy. There's your "friend enemy" distinction.
People only gripe about "the paradox of tolerance" to justify the darkness in their own hearts. "If we aren't awful today, someone might be twice as awful tomorrow, so let us be as awful as we can be!" Dissonance between values and means will cause any ideology to unravel.
Anyone who tries to infringe on human rights is an enemy. There's your "friend enemy" distinction.
People only gripe about "the paradox of tolerance" to justify the darkness in their own hearts. "If we aren't awful today, someone might be twice as awful tomorrow, so let us be as awful as we can be!" Dissonance between values and means will cause any ideology to unravel.
@petit @PonyPanda @p
It is this exact nativity which has gotten us to where we are today. It is saps who think like you which allow progressives and subversives to continue to operate.
Yes, this sounds like what the left means with their "paradox of tolerance", but unlike them, good people don't believe in the sacredness of tolerance for out groups in the first place. Tolerance is only good insofar as it benefits your group. There is no paradox. Those who regard it as one only do so because they are slaves who let others decide the friend/enemy distinction for them.
You appear to think it is "awful" to show intolerance towards enemies. In reality it is awful to tolerate your enemies more than you have to. The modern doublespeak of "tolerance" is not tolerance but subservience. Again, their mangling of the concept is why their "paradox of tolerance" exists.
This becomes clear when it is recognized there can never exist a world where tolerance is in everyone's best interest. If you aren't free to pursue your best interests, which inevitably will conflict with those of another group, you are not being tolerated.
You might say screw tolerance then. We should still leave everyone else alone. That idea, taken to its extreme would result in a utopia where everyone would be living in their very own pod, eating bugs, entirely disallowed from meaningful interaction with others. No exclusive groups, including families, will be permitted, since they threaten the ability of the system to enforce this ultimate principle. You can see this today with the disillusion of cultures.
Oh, but of course the leaders, who may just happen to be disproportionately of a particular persuasion, based on merit alone I'm sure, will have special privileges, because you know, they're running this benevolent system. But never mind that, the whole of humanity is united. Isn't that grand? Suicide isn't even illegal anymore. No more dads to have daddy problems with. We're so free.
It is this exact nativity which has gotten us to where we are today. It is saps who think like you which allow progressives and subversives to continue to operate.
Yes, this sounds like what the left means with their "paradox of tolerance", but unlike them, good people don't believe in the sacredness of tolerance for out groups in the first place. Tolerance is only good insofar as it benefits your group. There is no paradox. Those who regard it as one only do so because they are slaves who let others decide the friend/enemy distinction for them.
You appear to think it is "awful" to show intolerance towards enemies. In reality it is awful to tolerate your enemies more than you have to. The modern doublespeak of "tolerance" is not tolerance but subservience. Again, their mangling of the concept is why their "paradox of tolerance" exists.
This becomes clear when it is recognized there can never exist a world where tolerance is in everyone's best interest. If you aren't free to pursue your best interests, which inevitably will conflict with those of another group, you are not being tolerated.
You might say screw tolerance then. We should still leave everyone else alone. That idea, taken to its extreme would result in a utopia where everyone would be living in their very own pod, eating bugs, entirely disallowed from meaningful interaction with others. No exclusive groups, including families, will be permitted, since they threaten the ability of the system to enforce this ultimate principle. You can see this today with the disillusion of cultures.
Oh, but of course the leaders, who may just happen to be disproportionately of a particular persuasion, based on merit alone I'm sure, will have special privileges, because you know, they're running this benevolent system. But never mind that, the whole of humanity is united. Isn't that grand? Suicide isn't even illegal anymore. No more dads to have daddy problems with. We're so free.
@Tim @PonyPanda @p
Tolerance is not a goal; it is a means. Classical liberals have explained in excruciating detail why individual rights are better for society and the individuals who belong to it. John Stuart Mill showed how censorship enfeebled the mind and shrouded truth.
Tolerance is the foundation of society. There is no "in and out" or "us and them"; we all belong to countless groups overlapping and intersecting. Tolerance is the glue that allows us to meet our self imposed obligations to different groups. Tolerance is what allows us to make political statements without worrying about whether we can still buy groceries. Tolerance is what allows us to end a relationship without worrying about losing a job. Tolerance is what allows us to practice a religion without fearing murder.
A society without tolerance can never be secure. On the one side, a difference in upbringing and genetics makes us into different people. On the other side, we must interact with each other. Any society that requires a homogeneous citizenry to function will blow up.
Tolerance is not a goal; it is a means. Classical liberals have explained in excruciating detail why individual rights are better for society and the individuals who belong to it. John Stuart Mill showed how censorship enfeebled the mind and shrouded truth.
Tolerance is the foundation of society. There is no "in and out" or "us and them"; we all belong to countless groups overlapping and intersecting. Tolerance is the glue that allows us to meet our self imposed obligations to different groups. Tolerance is what allows us to make political statements without worrying about whether we can still buy groceries. Tolerance is what allows us to end a relationship without worrying about losing a job. Tolerance is what allows us to practice a religion without fearing murder.
A society without tolerance can never be secure. On the one side, a difference in upbringing and genetics makes us into different people. On the other side, we must interact with each other. Any society that requires a homogeneous citizenry to function will blow up.
@petit @Tim @PonyPanda @p
Mill and those other fags don't know what they're talking about. Friend and enemy distinction is what every problem boils down to, even liberalism, where you get the paradox of intolerance.
Mill and those other fags don't know what they're talking about. Friend and enemy distinction is what every problem boils down to, even liberalism, where you get the paradox of intolerance.
@BobRoss @PonyPanda @Tim @p
>Friend and enemy distinction is what every problem boils down to.
There is no friend and enemy distinction and can never be one. Any attempt at reductionism will fail because political problems are complex and people are multifaceted.
This inability to reduce political complexities to two groups is why all "us vs. them" labels are misnomers: conservatives are not conservative; liberals are not liberal; progressives are not progressive; etc. The fact that colors are used to represent the groups (red vs. blue) should be a big hint that the distinction is arbitrary.
This inability to reduce political complexities is why all groups are potpourris of unrelated views. The right to bear firearms is unrelated to family planning is unrelated to austerity policies is unrelated to minimum wage. Individuals are able to have views on all these things because they have values that interpret every question, but their set of values is unique to them and will have limited overlap with peers. Political movements are compromises by their very nature.
Political groups change. What once was core to one party disappears. More shockingly, this process is gradual. American Democrats used to be the party of the war torn post-war south.
Finally, the two main groups, "us and them" agree on far too much. If it wasn't really "us vs. them" how could they be in agreement on anything?
The friend and enemy distinction does not hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. It is a fantasy.
>Friend and enemy distinction is what every problem boils down to.
There is no friend and enemy distinction and can never be one. Any attempt at reductionism will fail because political problems are complex and people are multifaceted.
This inability to reduce political complexities to two groups is why all "us vs. them" labels are misnomers: conservatives are not conservative; liberals are not liberal; progressives are not progressive; etc. The fact that colors are used to represent the groups (red vs. blue) should be a big hint that the distinction is arbitrary.
This inability to reduce political complexities is why all groups are potpourris of unrelated views. The right to bear firearms is unrelated to family planning is unrelated to austerity policies is unrelated to minimum wage. Individuals are able to have views on all these things because they have values that interpret every question, but their set of values is unique to them and will have limited overlap with peers. Political movements are compromises by their very nature.
Political groups change. What once was core to one party disappears. More shockingly, this process is gradual. American Democrats used to be the party of the war torn post-war south.
Finally, the two main groups, "us and them" agree on far too much. If it wasn't really "us vs. them" how could they be in agreement on anything?
The friend and enemy distinction does not hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. It is a fantasy.
@petit @PonyPanda @Tim @p
Jews understand the friend enemy distinction and use it to great effect by trapping people in those false dichotomies you mentioned. They are able to hijack the sentiment because it exists.
Jews understand the friend enemy distinction and use it to great effect by trapping people in those false dichotomies you mentioned. They are able to hijack the sentiment because it exists.
@petit @PonyPanda @Tim @p
No clue who he is or what he's about. Nothing about him would change the fact that every problem is reducible to friend-enemy, or center-margin if you want to be bigger brained.
No clue who he is or what he's about. Nothing about him would change the fact that every problem is reducible to friend-enemy, or center-margin if you want to be bigger brained.
@BobRoss @PonyPanda @Tim @p
Every problem is not reducible to friend-enemy. For every friend-enemy distinction: the friend and enemy group agree on too much to be opposites; their names have nothing to do with what they believe; each group's shared beliefs are unrelated; the friend and enemy groups slowly exchange opinions over time; the friend and enemy groups slowly exchange demographics over time. Every friend-enemy distinction is blurry and in flux.
The friend and enemy distinction does not hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. It is a fantasy.
Every problem is not reducible to friend-enemy. For every friend-enemy distinction: the friend and enemy group agree on too much to be opposites; their names have nothing to do with what they believe; each group's shared beliefs are unrelated; the friend and enemy groups slowly exchange opinions over time; the friend and enemy groups slowly exchange demographics over time. Every friend-enemy distinction is blurry and in flux.
The friend and enemy distinction does not hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. It is a fantasy.
@petit @PonyPanda @Tim @p
Difference existing within a particular group doesn't invalidate that groups particular nature. You're just spouting nihilistic nonsense.
Difference existing within a particular group doesn't invalidate that groups particular nature. You're just spouting nihilistic nonsense.
@BobRoss @petit @PonyPanda @Tim
> Difference existing within a particular group doesn't invalidate that groups particular nature.
The issue is that you cannot use aggregate group behavior to predict individual behavior (even if you were right about aggregate group behavior), no one is a member of only one group, and no one's loyalty is fixed.
> Difference existing within a particular group doesn't invalidate that groups particular nature.
The issue is that you cannot use aggregate group behavior to predict individual behavior (even if you were right about aggregate group behavior), no one is a member of only one group, and no one's loyalty is fixed.
@p @PonyPanda @Tim @petit
What's that have to do with anything? A shit tier white person isn't black, and model minorities aren't white.
What's that have to do with anything? A shit tier white person isn't black, and model minorities aren't white.
@BobRoss @p @PonyPanda @Tim Your pure racial group is just last century's gene pool contamination. Are irelanders and poles white?
I'm curious. Do online NatSocs actually have a hierarchy for this shit?
I'm curious. Do online NatSocs actually have a hierarchy for this shit?
@petit I'm sorry. I'm not that invested in this conversation but I'd been meaning to go through it.
The bit about the Irish not being white is a red herring. Even leftists don't use it.
https://archive.is/9h72a
You can do a similar thing for the Poles and other Slavs. Poles may have been consider an "other" by various countries like Germany but nobody would debate them being anything but white. And we did see that recent bit about Slavs being considered "POC" but I'd love to see a Pole qualify for any sort of gibs for protected minorities.
We all know what a white person is without getting into some haplogroup autism. And I don't think there are any white identitarians that are bothered by minor exceptions.
@BobRoss @Tim @p
The bit about the Irish not being white is a red herring. Even leftists don't use it.
https://archive.is/9h72a
You can do a similar thing for the Poles and other Slavs. Poles may have been consider an "other" by various countries like Germany but nobody would debate them being anything but white. And we did see that recent bit about Slavs being considered "POC" but I'd love to see a Pole qualify for any sort of gibs for protected minorities.
We all know what a white person is without getting into some haplogroup autism. And I don't think there are any white identitarians that are bothered by minor exceptions.
@BobRoss @Tim @p
@PonyPanda @BobRoss @Tim @p Yes, we can all agree "white" means something in the context of US history since segregation. (We can go back farther than that.)
However, when we pick concrete tests like "which side of segregation were you grouped into" we lose the universal historical relevance required for historicism: the anchors.
(I'll recap, since you're busy.) Earlier I said that we can't reduce everything into the "us vs. them" dichotomy because the groups are transient and ill defined. With a concrete example, US segregation, we have a test, but this won't generalize beyond its context. It is not a universal historical truth. How do we translate something like US racial segregation into the context of Spartan helots? This doesn't match the mysticism of historicism at all. Worse, for the racists, there's no common racial trend.
(Thank you for the article. It's interesting.)
However, when we pick concrete tests like "which side of segregation were you grouped into" we lose the universal historical relevance required for historicism: the anchors.
(I'll recap, since you're busy.) Earlier I said that we can't reduce everything into the "us vs. them" dichotomy because the groups are transient and ill defined. With a concrete example, US segregation, we have a test, but this won't generalize beyond its context. It is not a universal historical truth. How do we translate something like US racial segregation into the context of Spartan helots? This doesn't match the mysticism of historicism at all. Worse, for the racists, there's no common racial trend.
(Thank you for the article. It's interesting.)
@petit @PonyPanda @BobRoss @Tim
> (We can go back farther than that.)
If you go back about 2200 years, you'll find Romans debating whether those pale islanders in the north can actually join civilization or if they're just to primitive to be integrated and they cant' understand anything beyond eating bugs in their mud huts.
> (We can go back farther than that.)
If you go back about 2200 years, you'll find Romans debating whether those pale islanders in the north can actually join civilization or if they're just to primitive to be integrated and they cant' understand anything beyond eating bugs in their mud huts.
@skells @PonyPanda @Tim @BobRoss @petit 
