BristholD

BristholD wrote

No, you are just trying to equate speech you don't like with physical violence. Again, a false and ignorant equivalence. Also, throwing milkshakes is assault, end of the story.

Illegal threatening speech is not about misinterpretations of controversial art, radical political opinions, and bad jokes. Free speech protects the provocative from being hemmed in by the prudish. Your attempt to squash free speech with assaults based on a false equivalence is disgusting.

−3

BristholD wrote

It is straight up white supremacy

Only if you assume that whites and Europeans can't behave like chimpanzees. (Hint: they can). And, you can only assume that if you have a racist mindset. That is, the same underlying racist mindset that the white supremacist has. It doesn't matter if you are white, this kind of assault is nothing more than chimpanzee-like manifest behavior.

your destructive exploitative culturally-bankrupt lifestyle.

Your alternative, that barbaric society of chimpanzees, is not my cup of tea. You shall not prevail.

−2

BristholD wrote

useless debate

That's because you lack real arguments, hence you would result in the mindless assault.

Legally free speech is the government won't throw you in prison for saying whatever you want.

Legally, the government will throw you in prison for assault. Reaffirming that way free speech rights for people.

What you want is for people to be able to say all kind of bigotry in public like it was something that should be defended.

Yes, I do want my free speech right to respond and debate them whenever I want. Censoring, assaulting, intimidating others will infringe MY free speech right to debate them. So, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

If someone in your home want to murder you

Don't confuse speech with murder because that's an ignorant and dangerous false equivalence. The kind that leads a step further towards fascism and other oppressive hells.

−2

BristholD wrote

The state can't imprison you but I'll sure throw a milkshake at you.

Oh really? so you claim to have the right to assault people. Why don't test your theory and assault the next policeman you see with your milkshake? Let's see how it goes.

That's assault and the state won't protect you for that. That's because the state, in a civilized society anyway, will protect free speech, not your chimpanzee assault.

And yes, people will face the consequences of their free speech, but only within the context of freedom of association. Intimidation by any kind of physical assault has nothing to do with freedom of association and everything to do with oppression, yet another step towards fascism.

−5

BristholD wrote

Yes, because throwing milkshakes is "love" speech. A demonstration of "love" for a fascist. The idea that you may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of free speech. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate"

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.

That's why this kind of assault is illegal and shall remain as such in a civilized society.

−5

BristholD wrote

their ideas are fucked up

Then show it with real, logical, substantiated, real arguments. What's the problem? Unable to? Does a milkshake have more brains than you? Hard to believe.

suppressing every other speeches that they disagree with

Are you talking about yourself or do you actually understand why free speech is important?

−4

BristholD wrote

Because you're using your free speech to try and oppress everyone else around you.

You will have a very hard time trying to argue that free speech tantamounts to fascism. Free speech is anathema to oppression. That's the whole point of free speech. Censorship and assault of ideological basis are by definition oppression. Failure to comprehend that is the failure to be civilized, so there's no real distinction between you and fascists in this regard.

−4

BristholD wrote

Oh, If you can't handle free speech at all, because you think that assault is better than real arguments, then you don't belong to a civilized society, to begin with.

Some might say, If only the Jews had milkshakes, rather than actual rights, they could have stopped the Nazis... Of course, whoever claims to fight against fascism that way can't be taken seriously.

−5

BristholD wrote

Actually, the average income and standards of living grew significantly during and after the industrial revolution. This is fact, not debatable. That's why peasants migrated to the cities. The same thing could be seen more recently in China where peasants migrated from rural areas to big industrial zones. The only real policies that forced migration could be seen in places like Camboya under the communist rule of Pol Pot, but it was in reverse, forcing people to abandon the cities to work under miserable conditions in collective farms. Causing mass death and genocide. The Soviet Union also forced mass migration of people to work as slaves, in the 20th century. More massive massive misery and death. History is pretty clear.

After the industrial revolution and evolution into free-market capitalism, wealth was not just accumulated by some, but also by most people. Lots of wealth was created for most people, not just redistributed. Thanks mostly to technological innovations, progress in science, entrepreneurship and the establishment of liberal societies economically and politically.

−7

BristholD wrote

The milkshake throwers aren't the government oppressing you

That's assault, end of the story. Which is not the same as "making fun". And they do it because they don't like free speech. Neither fascists. If you result in an assault to make a point then you lack the argument against fascism or whatever, to begin with. Free speech means that people can't legally assault others just because they don't like what you think and say, that's what antifascist governments are supposed to enforce.

−8

BristholD wrote

You are invited to go back to the 5th century, when generalized poverty, starvation, diseases, low life expectancy and so on were the norm for the overwhelming majority of people. Good luck. That would be called collapse and hell by our modern standards as of living. The truth is that poverty has been decreasing everywhere, in fact, world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970.

There's a reason why during the industrial revolution mass immigration from rural areas to urban centers happened: Better opportunities to escape from misery and poverty.

−11

BristholD wrote

For philanthropy, you need money, that is to create wealth out of useful goods and services for others. Bill Gates contributed with far more money to philanthropic causes than Mary Theresa ever did. For that, he had to first create an enormous source of wealth in the free market with useful and valuable goods and services that helped to lift many people out of poverty directly and indirectly.

Community organizers and not even politicians are not the ones who make a big difference. Those who make a big difference are scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and meritocrats within the framework of freedom.

−11

BristholD wrote

Hierarchy of authority can be based on merits or not. Cronyism would be an example of a meritless hierarchy of authority. A competitive hierarchy could be powerless, where there's no authority assigned. I would say in sport competitions people can be assigned to ranks by objective merits yet there's no authority associated with the ranks.

Then you have that hierarchies can be based on merits. The general who wins more battles, the surgeon who saves more lives, the software engineer who solve problems faster and better, they can be assigned to the ranks of power based on their merits.

There's a distinction yet they are not mutually exclusive.

−6