Literally no “free speech absolutist” has ever actually been a “free speech absolutist”, it is always about wanting to avoid the consequences to their own hate speech, while they hold anyone who opposes it doubly accountable for their opposition, and try, often successfully, to silence that.
It’s the same with so-called ‘anarchists’. Look at lemmy.db0.com, with a list of rules to be obeyed longer than Lemmy.world’s (not that I don’t agree with the rules, just that it is fundamentally hypocritical)
Anarchism: a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
I don’t follow. How is it hypocritical for an anarchist forum to have rules that the community agrees upon? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchists believe.
anarchism - the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together
I’m curious: what do the words ‘formal or official organization’ mean to you? Try and boil it down to say one word…
It’s called understanding the implications of the statement. If an anarchist forum had the doctrine ‘no matter what, treat each other with respect’ it’d be fine. Anything beyond that is ‘obey my opinion on how you should behave’. You know… ‘Anarchy’.
ETA: It’s really funny that you’re making this argument in a thread you about how people don’t understand how the first amendment has limits, much like the principles of many types of anarchism have limits.
If you really want to learn about anarchism instead of just spouting off an ignorant take, you should do some reading. Assuming you know everything about a whole political philosophy based off of the name and a half-understood definition that you just Googled is not the path forward.
It’s nobody else’s responsibility to educate you, especially when you’re being belligerently hard-headed about learning what others think.
A one-word summation is for people who do not appreciate nuance, and I have no desire to engage with such a request.
There is no nuance here. ‘Follow these rules or else’ is anathema to Anarchism and trying to ad hominem to deflect from the fact you haven’t put up any shred of evidence to the contrary is weak tea.
Literally no “free speech absolutist” has ever actually been a “free speech absolutist”, it is always about wanting to avoid the consequences to their own hate speech, while they hold anyone who opposes it doubly accountable for their opposition, and try, often successfully, to silence that.
And they always seem to confuse that free speech just protects them from their government, not the rest of the world, and will have consequences.
Yeah, it’s always those who shout loudest about free speech that have the least understanding of how it works. 😂
If they understood they wouldn’t shout about it. Or maybe they would, they’re just banking on other people’s ignorance.
“Free speech absolutist” means “you are required to hear everything I have to say and you can’t criticize me for it.”
Yeah, that’s well put.
It’s the same with so-called ‘anarchists’. Look at lemmy.db0.com, with a list of rules to be obeyed longer than Lemmy.world’s (not that I don’t agree with the rules, just that it is fundamentally hypocritical)
I don’t follow. How is it hypocritical for an anarchist forum to have rules that the community agrees upon? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchists believe.
anarchism - the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together
I’m curious: what do the words ‘formal or official organization’ mean to you? Try and boil it down to say one word…
It’s called understanding the implications of the statement. If an anarchist forum had the doctrine ‘no matter what, treat each other with respect’ it’d be fine. Anything beyond that is ‘obey my opinion on how you should behave’. You know… ‘Anarchy’.
Same energy
ETA: It’s really funny that you’re making this argument in a thread you about how people don’t understand how the first amendment has limits, much like the principles of many types of anarchism have limits.
10/10, no notes.
yl sdpjl jfjfj dfasjkf lasdjflk asdjfkl;jsj jkasj fqw iope uroiqwpmv qipo
See I can do it too.
I guess I walked right into that one?
Though telling me you don’t understand isn’t the brag you apparently think it is.
Live in denial. Be my guest.
You’re inviting me to live in denial with you as your guest?
That’s very sweet, but I prefer reality.
If you really want to learn about anarchism instead of just spouting off an ignorant take, you should do some reading. Assuming you know everything about a whole political philosophy based off of the name and a half-understood definition that you just Googled is not the path forward.
It’s nobody else’s responsibility to educate you, especially when you’re being belligerently hard-headed about learning what others think.
A one-word summation is for people who do not appreciate nuance, and I have no desire to engage with such a request.
There is no nuance here. ‘Follow these rules or else’ is anathema to Anarchism and trying to ad hominem to deflect from the fact you haven’t put up any shred of evidence to the contrary is weak tea.
Well, since you know everything about anarchism that you ever will, I don’t see this discussion going anywhere.
Have a good one!