“Yeah, the reason the speaker can’t come here is because he promotes violence – by us, his enemies.”
Quoted by David Thompson.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayMay 8th, 2020 |
 4 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The wife-beaters lament: “Don’t make me hit you”
If violence is all they understand….
The speaker’s speech is violence; the PC violence against it is speech.
This reminds me of the old socialist mantra: ‘property is theft’. If property is theft then theft is not wrong – so then property is not wrong. (As a P.G.Wodehouse character put it, “Socialism; it’s a grand scheme. You work for the equitable distribution of property and you start by collaring all you can and sitting on it.”)
It also of course reminds me of Orwell’s 1984: ‘Freedom is Slavery’ and etc.
I suppose that people who have decided to shut down debate through violence can consistently say that it matters not to them if anyone offers to debate an inconsistency in that; it’s just another remark to shut down. But they do seem to be telling us that any violence used to shut down their ‘violence that is speech’, and so their speech, would not be actually wrong in their terms, just needing to be as well organised as theirs.
Exactly.
“If this person is allowed to speak there will be violence and destruction”.
How do you know that?
“Because we are going to organise violence and destruction if this person is allowed to speak”.