Hate speech

[Prisoner37]

The Scottish Constabulary will have to start arresting themselves for wasting police time.

[JoeDenver]

It's an absolute mess, for sure... rapid social change at a time when social institutions, as well as our means of evaluating truth and meaning, have lost their credibility and authority.

I don't think 'progressivism' or liberalism is harmless; not because it seeks to give equal rights to fringe groups, but because it's built on the Enlightenment myth of progress as ever increasing human control over the environment, and the 'perfecting' of society through ever increasing levels of state intervention and micromanagement.

Conservatism isn't harmless either - seeking to return to what feels like safe ground through nationalism, and rigid and outdated social roles and systems, can never be the answer, except in the minds of the unimaginative and the insecure. We aren't going back to an idealised myth of 1950s England where Britain ruled the world, and everyone was white, straight, and knew their place in society and purpose in life.

The culture war is nonsense because it pits two 'sides' against each other that are both wrong, in different ways. Nobody wins... there is no possible outcome where one side triumphs at the expense of the other, it just feeds deeper and deeper division focused on issues that really are peripheral at best. It's a proxy for something else; the attempt of a dying order to cling onto power through manipulation and division.

To me it seems obvious that the compassionate and just thing is to support, protect and include marginalised people. It is better for everyone that we are no longer as racist, homophobic, sexist etc. It also seems obvious that the wrong way to do that is through increased state control and policing; that is never the answer either.

If what you oppose is increasing authoritarianism, then oppose that directly; don't do it in a proxy where, yet again, it's the most vulnerable people who get caught in the crossfire.

Well said, Sara. Are you by chance a libertarian/classical liberal? Can’t help but make that connection by your response.

Re: the two “sides”, I’ve used the analogy many times that one side builds the scaffolding and the other lays the brickwork…all in the name of a tower of totalitarianism (as both sides seemingly work to advance the stature of state at the expense of the people).

[Sara]

Are you by chance a libertarian/classical liberal? Can’t help but make that connection by your response.

Nooo, I'm a cynic, in the Greek sense, and something of a Luddite... I reject the technological imperative. Anarcho-primitivism is probably the closest modern descriptor.

[billysboots]

How will they define what is hate speech?
I’ve read some insulting and abusive comments on here that I considered unnecessary but it wouldn’t be classed as hate speech.

[CUSSIE01]

Nooo, I'm a cynic, in the Greek sense, and something of a Luddite... I reject the technological imperative. Anarcho-primitivism is probably the closest modern descriptor.

Wouldn’t get many of those on a football forum.

[Sara]

Wouldn’t get many of those on a football forum.

I suspect that not many people actually enjoy being controlled by their government, or their employer, or the position they find themselves in in the 'market'.

[JoeDenver]

Nooo, I'm a cynic, in the Greek sense, and something of a Luddite... I reject the technological imperative. Anarcho-primitivism is probably the closest modern descriptor.

Gotcha. I’m more of an agorist, which is in that libertarian/classical liberal vein. Don’t mind technology, but always find the broader societal issue to be the state and state-connected businesses imposing the harm on free individuals and non-connected businesses. And as technology is so often the tool to carry out that harm, I suppose I can empathize with your school of thought to some degree.

I guess I just find myself being an optimist over technology being a help to humanity, but my ideal societal construct requires there being no state-connected businesses (and no state ), which would inherently reduce their size and scale (and thereby minimize any potential harm from the technology a business or individual might come to use or possess). I hope that last part makes sense (allergy season has begun here stateside). Nonetheless, I’d encourage you to check out agorism as I think there’s a lot there for you to like. Cheers!

[Sara]

Gotcha. I’m more of an agorist, which is in that libertarian/classical liberal vein. Don’t mind technology, but always find the broader societal issue to be the state and state-connected businesses imposing the harm on free individuals and non-connected businesses. And as technology is so often the tool to carry out that harm, I suppose I can empathize with your school of thought to some degree.

I guess I just find myself being an optimist over technology being a help to humanity, but my ideal societal construct requires there being no state-connected businesses (and no state ), which would inherently reduce their size and scale (and thereby minimize any potential harm from the technology a business or individual might come to use or possess). I hope that last part makes sense (allergy season has begun here stateside). Nonetheless, I’d encourage you to check out agorism as I think there’s a lot there for you to like. Cheers!

I've read Konkin, and there's a lot of common ground. I'm happy with the idea of a free market defined as mutually beneficial exchange, and even his advocacy of the black market as an alternative to state rigged markets. The issue there is currency, and the translation of wealth accumulation into coercive power over others.

I also reject the liberal basis in materialism, positivism and capital, as I would wish to extend the principle of right relation to the natural world. The process of objectification and commodification of everything can only lead to destruction. The technological imperative is caught up in this ideology. It's a philosophical problem at root; the subject/ object, mind/ matter dualism which is ultimately inherited from Christianity.

[Aussieleeds]

Democratically elected governments historically spent their time and our money trying to improve the lot of the majority, while looking after the weakest.
In the past, most people had a thing called “personal pride”. This characteristic meant that seeking assistance from the government was a last resort, and something you’d want to avoid if possible. During the depression people would do the most menial work rather than take handouts.
But we’ve now been lulled into a state where there’s almost no personal responsibility, and victim hood is a virtue. The government now spends a lot of time and money trying to do things that the ‘easily offended’ perpetual victims demand. But it’s never enough.
What chance would Britain or Australia have today if attacked for more than a week? Half the country would be hiding under their beds crying because someone raised their voice to them.
Our soft societies think that other governments/races/cultures appreciate our ‘diversity’ policies. Instead, they simply laugh at them and take advantage of them. You reckon any country in the Middle East or Asia or Africa or South America gives a toss about pronouns or hate speech?

[BobHirst]

Democratically elected governments historically spent their time and our money trying to improve the lot of the majority, while looking after the weakest.
In the past, most people had a thing called “personal pride”. This characteristic meant that seeking assistance from the government was a last resort, and something you’d want to avoid if possible. During the depression people would do the most menial work rather than take handouts.
But we’ve now been lulled into a state where there’s almost no personal responsibility, and victim hood is a virtue. The government now spends a lot of time and money trying to do things that the ‘easily offended’ perpetual victims demand. But it’s never enough.
What chance would Britain or Australia have today if attacked for more than a week? Half the country would be hiding under their beds crying because someone raised their voice to them.
Our soft societies think that other governments/races/cultures appreciate our ‘diversity’ policies. Instead, they simply laugh at them and take advantage of them. You reckon any country in the Middle East or Asia or Africa or South America gives a toss about pronouns or hate speech?

In todays World I am supposed to accept and "go along" with a man stating that he is a woman. If I don't I am regarded by some as a horrible human being and should be "cancelled" if I have any kind of social standing.
I believe that my view of the world is just as valid as the next man/woman. From my point of view that man/woman should respect my opinion and accept that I don't agree with him.
Call your self whatever you want but don't demand that other people have to agree with you.