We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
An interesting exchange of fire in the culture war I found this interesting, just a mere twitter exchange relating to the Day of Freedom rally that you will never see the BBC say much (or indeed anything I suspect) about.
I am increasingly willing to accept almost anyone on the correct side of this as an ally, and if the Guardian wants to tar anyone who supports free speech as ‘far right’, well who cares? It turns out that support for free speech is in fact ‘multicultural as fuck’.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Awesome.
That was pure Gold.
Two rules which seem to work:
Assume all journalists are the most profoundly stupid people who have ever been.
Assume all words will be used to denote their direct opposites.
The convenient thing about
is that it makes it easy to
It reserves in advance your right to disagree with any such ally (and theirs with you) and your refusal ever to seek the power to arrest them for not agreeing with you (or they to arrest you likewise).
By contrast, it is an old saying (I have it from Kipling but he may just have been quoting) that “you can always achieve whatever you want provided you don’t mind who gets the credit”. In the intersectionality game, it is rather, “provided you don’t mind who gets the power to silence you“. Where will each group end up in the pecking order that lets them silence those below and be silent in the presence of those above? Will feminists end at the bottom, only able to arrest straight white males for speaking dissent, while islamics at the top can silence anyone. One quite sees that, to a muslim playing this game, it is a matter of desperate importance that it should not end with the reverse outcome. Would a trans dare reconsider their identity when it means returning to a category that dares not speak its thoughts? Would a muslim, when it is ‘hate speech’ to offend islamic feelings about apostasy?
(That said, we should always remember that Hitler and Stalin managed to hang together for long enough to do a lot of damage to the west. Don’t expect the intersectionality wars to start soon enough to save us much effort.)
The GQ article is an hilarious “things and people we don’t like” checklist. I’m shocked he did not work Trump in there-
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/day-for-freedom-tommy-robinson
No comments invited for that Guardian article, a sure sign that they know they’d get too many politically incorrect ones.
Freedom to speak? Sure, it helps me know who to target.
Freedom to speak, without consequence or criticism? Um, no.
Now, let’s move on to the “authority in penalties” phase for “hatred, denial, opposition, criticism, micro aggression, and oppressive fees for tear tissues” for failure to adore the wake of garbage littering the path of behavior judged to ultimately be “bad” by 4000-5000 years (or so) of multicultural historic experimentation.
On the correct side of this?
“But…it’s DIFFERENT this time!”
No, I think you’re just selfish, egotistical, and stupid.
I knew somebody who practiced that: Otto Schmitt (the inventor of the Schmitt Trigger, among other things). He had more ideas than he had time to develop, so he’d put them out in public for other people to steal.
It works even better, of course, if you don’t mind who gets the blame.
ap: A bit harsh if thought of as hard laws of nature, but good rules of thumb, yes. It reminds me a bit of what my uncle used to say about driving: assume everyone else on the road is a psychopath, hell-bent on slaughter. It’s obviously not the case, but if you do you won’t go far wrong.
These idiots simply do not realise what freedom of speech means for minorities.
If you ask whether they have a right to organize, to assemble, to free speech, those people we hate have such a right, and we just can’t get around that. Because if you take away their rights, you take away my rights also.”
Anthony P Griffin, a black ACLU and NAACP lawyer, who defended the KKK.
The US NRA* started concentrating on campaigns to defend the 2nd Amendment against firearm restrictions which were originally established to stop black militia groups from arming themselves.
Throughout history, restrictions on freedom of speech and rights was used against minorities, standing up for it is the best way to empower everyone, regardless of race or creed.
* because I found out from my gun-toting buddy at work there is a UK NRA as well.
And you know fuck is pretty multicultural. At least that’s what me Mum tells me.
“Puns” is exposed as a LIAR.
Of course the basic line that “Puns” (and most of the left, although not all of the left, now) pushes is a lie, “hate speech is not free speech” really means “speech I disagree with SHOULD BE BANNED”.
Hate Speech is a subset of Free Speech.
“Hate speech” is pretty much imaginary. Few people actually “hate” anyone. Most racists believe their views are based on facts of reality, ditto for the sexists, etc. Hate Speech as a crime is an attack on freedom of thought and expression and I dare say that anyone that can’t figure this out for themselves has an IQ hovering around 80.