Actually, the use of force is quite effective in changing people's behaviors. Five minutes of Gettysburg did more for the advancement of the Abolistionist movement than 100 years of civilized debate. The Royal Navy, under Parlimentary decree, ended the Atlantic slave trade, not civilized conversations over tea. Once enough people are recruited into your faction to become influential, words bring ever diminished return for your political cause.
Well... consider that abolitionists were in a sense defending the slaves. I did explain defense. When people speak of force, they are not referring to self defense of others. Any talk of slavery though was not force that stopped it. It was defense used against those that had already engaged in slavery so it also was not preemptive.
Who were those being defended? Slavery is the used of force against another. Thus, the slave is someone that we can defend.
EDIT: I guess I didn't discuss that in detail in my images. I did in comments to people. So now I've discussed it with you.
Aren't those you vilify in your posts also defending the helpless against those who would use force? The Left is defending the racial minorities against systemic racism; the destitute proletariat from the shameless exploitation of the greedy capitalists; and the victims of sexual assault from pervasive rape culture and toxic masculinity. From your principles, the Left's current use of force is justified and moral.
Nope. I do not see how words are force. Those that I vilify have been trained how to identify words they can use as escape hatches to justify to themselves why they should not have to listen and think. They assume they have the answers already, and anything that challenges that world view in the slightest they would silence and destroy.
I don't call for anyone to be silenced, attacked, etc. I call for civil discussion.
You can train a dog to bark on command, if they possessed the proper vocal chords you could likely train them to chant on command as well.
If they think words are force and they are being hurt so bad that they can use force on others then they are living in an imaginary nightmare of their own creations and they have not matured. Life is offensive. A bird can fly over you and drop feces on your head. Or as they say "Shit happens". This is why I say assume the best rather than assuming the worst. Instead of assuming someone was trying to offend or insult you try assuming that they were not. If there can be zero doubt then they will stand out but they will be rare.
The people I vilify seriously would benefit from owning hand mirrors, as most of their claims actually fit them and those they chant with more than those they chant at, and sometimes get physical with, and those they demand be banned and censored...
Yet most of these problems regardless of your ideology could be resolve simply by assuming the best, rather than the current trend to assume the worst.
If you are looking for something to be offended about you'll find it. People can be offended by anything. If you think things should be censored because they might offend someone then in truth there should be no communication or interaction of any kind among humans, because those that seek things to find offensive will not stop. They'll move on. It is a miserable life for them but they also make those they interact with miserable. Simply assume the best instead then most of that disappears in a puff of smoke like the fairy tale it is.
When you get down to it teaching people classes about micro-aggressions for example are truly classes designed to teach people to assume the worst and look for things to be offended about. Ill learned, bad habits.
Left's current use of force is justified and moral.
There is no case where words justify force. You can walk away from words. You can ignore words. In fact, they prove that point anytime an argument is not going there way. :)
So it is not justified. It is not self defense. It is not defense of others. It is evil and amoral. In fact, most of the claims they make, THEY are the ones that are guilty of those claims... not those they target. Fairy Tale.
Will the privileged and the powerful consent to abolish their advantages and luxuries because the unwashed muck ask them politely? Are the shameless and greedy capitalists willing to share their wealth with the destitute proletariat because the workers engage in civil dialogue over tea? Civil discourses and polite demonstrations are extravagance that are not accorded to the unlettered hoi polloi. Words absent force are as worthless as money in the hands of slaves and as meaningless as letters for the illiterate. What the Left want is sociopolitical revolution. Social change does not occur with idealism alone; words are but useless marks on parchment, when matched against bayonets.
Will the privileged and the powerful consent to abolish their advantages and luxuries because the unwashed muck ask them politely? Are the shameless and greedy capitalists willing to share their wealth with the destitute proletariat because the workers engage in civil dialogue over tea?
I don't personally care about how much wealth a person acquires, I am more interested in how they acquire it. I don't need to let envy and the idea of theft from others dictate how I live my life.
Some wealthy, powerful people are also envious and practice theft.
Yet the problem with driving your life based upon treating generalizations as if they are absolute truths is that makes those that do so into people no better than the generalization they drape over groups of people.
Socialism and communism in the end both end up being very evil things. The super powerful are not afraid of these things at all. In fact some of the wealthiest people on the planet cheerlead for anyone that speaks of these failed experiments. Why? They'll still have power, perhaps more. If it is socialism then they just need position themselves well with the government. Then they are likely to get what amounts to government backed monopolies. If it is Communism they simply need to cheer and lead and give support and by human nature they will likely end up calling the majority of the shots anyway. So far every government/state level communism experiment has created an oligarchy. Due to eliminating history, censoring those that speak out against them, etc. as being one of their methods for making their "Revolutions" happen I don't see that changing. If the mass of the population backing you is ignorant/naive by design then it's pretty obvious you'll end up with an oligarchy calling the shots.
As to capitalism. It depends upon what you are talking about. If you are talking about crony capitalism like we have today then yeah it is messed up, as it just turns into a plutocracy which is simply another form of oligarchy. If you are talking about a free market, it does not do that. Yet as soon as some group or government can dictate the rights/laws to others such that one person/entity is given favor or disfavor that soon leads to crony capitalism. The truth is in a truly free market a monopoly can only exist if the person doing it is doing such a good job that no one bothers challenging them, or people simply haven't thought of a way to do it better. Monopolies persist with government backing. The ultimate forms of monopolies can actually exist in Socialist and Communist lead countries. You see all of these ideologies have factors people like to ignore human nature.
Justifying theft due to envy of what someone else has achieved is NEVER a good thing.
Which part? All governments consist of people. Yes, by laws they apply force. Yet I also know we can't just abolish that and fix the problems. The people need to be ready for that. Now they are not. In fact, as more of them say "The government should do X" the further they get from being ready. We need to shrink it, and return self reliance and responsibility to the people. When they can handle that then perhaps we'll be at a point where we could go 100% voluntary and not need a government. We certainly have the tools to support something like that via crowd sourcing and many other voluntary avenues. Sadly, the people need to reverse the current trend to demand the government take on more of the responsibilities before we can get there.
Yes, I totally agree with you. Any form of society organization must happen on a voluntary bases without force or violence included to persuade people to participate.
I think governments are good instituition to handle big social projects like building roads or the energy grid, that everybody uses. They should only take care of these things and make sure that roads are maintained and the workers get their pay check.
For all other issues, please we can do it by ourselfs and don't need no Nany! Yeah, you are right when you say that folks are not ready yet!
I know we've talked a lot about this so I have an idea of what you're referring to. There is the joke "if you're using force doesn't work, then you're not using enough". It makes me cringe because people use that approach to win and I do think it has benefited them in some way, so they continue using it.
Either way, I agree with the principle that a good idea does not need force. It needs promotion, conversation, and open discussion. What are people afraid of? That needs to be addressed for any idea.
Sure it is. If it is civil. You and I can disagree completely with each other and still have a civil discussion. That is how it should be. What is not right is forcing other people to think the way you or I do. Convincing them to change their mind, and perhaps having yours changed as well is a good thing. We should always be willing to change our mind. If we are not wrong or ignorant then there is no opportunity to learn.
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation, and Liberty. We have 5,000 SP + 15,000 SP from people following our curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord to chat with 350+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our reddit! and share your Steemit posts directly to The_IW.
Actually, the use of force is quite effective in changing people's behaviors. Five minutes of Gettysburg did more for the advancement of the Abolistionist movement than 100 years of civilized debate. The Royal Navy, under Parlimentary decree, ended the Atlantic slave trade, not civilized conversations over tea. Once enough people are recruited into your faction to become influential, words bring ever diminished return for your political cause.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well... consider that abolitionists were in a sense defending the slaves. I did explain defense. When people speak of force, they are not referring to self defense of others. Any talk of slavery though was not force that stopped it. It was defense used against those that had already engaged in slavery so it also was not preemptive.
Who were those being defended? Slavery is the used of force against another. Thus, the slave is someone that we can defend.
EDIT: I guess I didn't discuss that in detail in my images. I did in comments to people. So now I've discussed it with you.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Aren't those you vilify in your posts also defending the helpless against those who would use force? The Left is defending the racial minorities against systemic racism; the destitute proletariat from the shameless exploitation of the greedy capitalists; and the victims of sexual assault from pervasive rape culture and toxic masculinity. From your principles, the Left's current use of force is justified and moral.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nope. I do not see how words are force. Those that I vilify have been trained how to identify words they can use as escape hatches to justify to themselves why they should not have to listen and think. They assume they have the answers already, and anything that challenges that world view in the slightest they would silence and destroy.
I don't call for anyone to be silenced, attacked, etc. I call for civil discussion.
You can train a dog to bark on command, if they possessed the proper vocal chords you could likely train them to chant on command as well.
If they think words are force and they are being hurt so bad that they can use force on others then they are living in an imaginary nightmare of their own creations and they have not matured. Life is offensive. A bird can fly over you and drop feces on your head. Or as they say "Shit happens". This is why I say assume the best rather than assuming the worst. Instead of assuming someone was trying to offend or insult you try assuming that they were not. If there can be zero doubt then they will stand out but they will be rare.
The people I vilify seriously would benefit from owning hand mirrors, as most of their claims actually fit them and those they chant with more than those they chant at, and sometimes get physical with, and those they demand be banned and censored...
Yet most of these problems regardless of your ideology could be resolve simply by assuming the best, rather than the current trend to assume the worst.
If you are looking for something to be offended about you'll find it. People can be offended by anything. If you think things should be censored because they might offend someone then in truth there should be no communication or interaction of any kind among humans, because those that seek things to find offensive will not stop. They'll move on. It is a miserable life for them but they also make those they interact with miserable. Simply assume the best instead then most of that disappears in a puff of smoke like the fairy tale it is.
When you get down to it teaching people classes about micro-aggressions for example are truly classes designed to teach people to assume the worst and look for things to be offended about. Ill learned, bad habits.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is no case where words justify force. You can walk away from words. You can ignore words. In fact, they prove that point anytime an argument is not going there way. :)
So it is not justified. It is not self defense. It is not defense of others. It is evil and amoral. In fact, most of the claims they make, THEY are the ones that are guilty of those claims... not those they target. Fairy Tale.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Will the privileged and the powerful consent to abolish their advantages and luxuries because the unwashed muck ask them politely? Are the shameless and greedy capitalists willing to share their wealth with the destitute proletariat because the workers engage in civil dialogue over tea? Civil discourses and polite demonstrations are extravagance that are not accorded to the unlettered hoi polloi. Words absent force are as worthless as money in the hands of slaves and as meaningless as letters for the illiterate. What the Left want is sociopolitical revolution. Social change does not occur with idealism alone; words are but useless marks on parchment, when matched against bayonets.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't personally care about how much wealth a person acquires, I am more interested in how they acquire it. I don't need to let envy and the idea of theft from others dictate how I live my life.
Some wealthy, powerful people are also envious and practice theft.
Yet the problem with driving your life based upon treating generalizations as if they are absolute truths is that makes those that do so into people no better than the generalization they drape over groups of people.
Socialism and communism in the end both end up being very evil things. The super powerful are not afraid of these things at all. In fact some of the wealthiest people on the planet cheerlead for anyone that speaks of these failed experiments. Why? They'll still have power, perhaps more. If it is socialism then they just need position themselves well with the government. Then they are likely to get what amounts to government backed monopolies. If it is Communism they simply need to cheer and lead and give support and by human nature they will likely end up calling the majority of the shots anyway. So far every government/state level communism experiment has created an oligarchy. Due to eliminating history, censoring those that speak out against them, etc. as being one of their methods for making their "Revolutions" happen I don't see that changing. If the mass of the population backing you is ignorant/naive by design then it's pretty obvious you'll end up with an oligarchy calling the shots.
As to capitalism. It depends upon what you are talking about. If you are talking about crony capitalism like we have today then yeah it is messed up, as it just turns into a plutocracy which is simply another form of oligarchy. If you are talking about a free market, it does not do that. Yet as soon as some group or government can dictate the rights/laws to others such that one person/entity is given favor or disfavor that soon leads to crony capitalism. The truth is in a truly free market a monopoly can only exist if the person doing it is doing such a good job that no one bothers challenging them, or people simply haven't thought of a way to do it better. Monopolies persist with government backing. The ultimate forms of monopolies can actually exist in Socialist and Communist lead countries. You see all of these ideologies have factors people like to ignore human nature.
Justifying theft due to envy of what someone else has achieved is NEVER a good thing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, tell that our government and you will see how much they respect you as a human.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Which part? All governments consist of people. Yes, by laws they apply force. Yet I also know we can't just abolish that and fix the problems. The people need to be ready for that. Now they are not. In fact, as more of them say "The government should do X" the further they get from being ready. We need to shrink it, and return self reliance and responsibility to the people. When they can handle that then perhaps we'll be at a point where we could go 100% voluntary and not need a government. We certainly have the tools to support something like that via crowd sourcing and many other voluntary avenues. Sadly, the people need to reverse the current trend to demand the government take on more of the responsibilities before we can get there.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, I totally agree with you. Any form of society organization must happen on a voluntary bases without force or violence included to persuade people to participate.
I think governments are good instituition to handle big social projects like building roads or the energy grid, that everybody uses. They should only take care of these things and make sure that roads are maintained and the workers get their pay check.
For all other issues, please we can do it by ourselfs and don't need no Nany! Yeah, you are right when you say that folks are not ready yet!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I know we've talked a lot about this so I have an idea of what you're referring to. There is the joke "if you're using force doesn't work, then you're not using enough". It makes me cringe because people use that approach to win and I do think it has benefited them in some way, so they continue using it.
Either way, I agree with the principle that a good idea does not need force. It needs promotion, conversation, and open discussion. What are people afraid of? That needs to be addressed for any idea.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not right to go against anybody's mind.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure it is. If it is civil. You and I can disagree completely with each other and still have a civil discussion. That is how it should be. What is not right is forcing other people to think the way you or I do. Convincing them to change their mind, and perhaps having yours changed as well is a good thing. We should always be willing to change our mind. If we are not wrong or ignorant then there is no opportunity to learn.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit