"Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin

Ayespy

@Eggcorn Every government is formed around a structure which anticipates the continuity of that government. No government ratifies conditions for its own extinguishment. None. So there is not a rational argument for the Constitution supporting the violent overthrow of the same government which the Constitution erected.

ingolftopf

@Ayespy
I can only agree with you from the bottom of my heart and hope that many people as possible in the USA see it that way.

ingolftopf

@Ayespy
I am very glad to see this attitude in our very good presenter from the USA here.
Thank you for your, tireless, volunteer work.

Just fits very well with Vivaldi.

Thank you

Eggcorn

@Ayespy If the same Founding Fathers who ratified the Constitution, who used violence against the British government, could not conceive of any situation where they'd approve of violence against the United States government: That makes them hypocrites!

But if they were hypocrites, why would they have passed the Second Amendment? Why would they have written in the Decoration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Declaration, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The next part of the Declaration of Independence is not:

Unless it is the United States government which we establish by this Declaration, in which case, no violence against it can ever be justified. Not even if the United States is ruled by a dictator who does far worse to our descendants, then King Gorge III ever did to us.

If the Declaration of Independence did say that, that would be both absurd and monstrous. But it doesn't say that, it makes no exception for the United States government.

Not that trigger-happy nuts follow the Declaration of Independence; the Declaration also says:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

Ayespy

@Eggcorn To be fair, I don't recall that anyone tried to shoot Hitler. They tried to blow him up. Oops.

The colonies did not succeed, but did secede, but that's merely a spelling issue.

The US Declaration of Independence says: "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." and that's kind of the key thing. The consent of the governed.

There are those who feel that if they, a minority, do not consent to be governed, they have a right to take up arms to depose the government of the majority, who do consent to be governed.

That said, the Constitution and the United State Code of federal laws do not in any way recognize that rebellion against federal law is in any way legal or permissible. In fact, 18USC makes it pretty clear, "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I mean, what sane governing body would say "well, we like this government, but if you don't like it, take up arms against it and rebel. Kewl." There is no such principle.

ingolftopf

@Eggcorn said in ["Snowflake
"could not conceive of any situation where they'd approve of violence against the United States government: That makes them hypocrites!"

I consider this to be a misinterpretation.

I have the impression that you want to provoke something at the moment.

Eggcorn

@Ayespy said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

I mean, what sane governing body would say "well, we like this government, but if you don't like it, take up arms against it and rebel. Kewl." There is no such principle.

No sane governing body would approve taking up arms against it for light and transient causes. Of course, even Hitler's government banned rebellion against it. So governments will ban rebellion, regardless of if rebellion is justified.

Regardless: I do believe that the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment, as a safeguard against a future George III (or worse, a future Hitler). I see nothing unreasonable about that position.

Eggcorn

@ingolftopf said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

I consider this to be a misinterpretation.

I'm not implying that Aspy believes the Founders were hypocrites in this matter. I'm merely implying that Ayespy's position would lead to that conclusion, hence, Ayespy's position is wrong. If I have misinterpreted Ayespy's position, he's free to correct me.

I have the impression that you want to provoke something at the moment.

I'm having this debate with a mod! If I wanted to "provoke something", that'd be a foolish thing for me to do.

Edit: Not only is Ayespy a mod, he's someone who's very insightful. We don't always see eye-to-eye, but when it comes to serious matters like this, he's worth listening to.

ingolftopf

@Eggcorn said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

Of course, even Hitler's government banned rebellion against it.
as a safeguard against a future George III (or worse, a future Hitler).

These Hitler comparisons are always wrong and misplaced.
This always only relativizes the Nazi dictatorship in Germany from that time.

ingolftopf

@Eggcorn said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

I'm not implying that Aspy believes the Founders were hypocrites in this matter.

No, how also, these were also your words.

ingolftopf

@Eggcorn said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

I'm having this debate with a mod! If I wanted to "provoke something", that'd be a foolish thing for me to do.

What are you trying to imply?
Sounds strange.

ingolftopf

@Eggcorn said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

Edit: Not only is Ayespy a mod, he's someone who's very insightful. We don't always see eye-to-eye, but when it comes to serious matters like this, he's worth listening to.

Good thought

Eggcorn

@ingolftopf said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

These Hitler comparisons are always wrong and misplaced.
This always only relativizes the Nazi dictatorship in Germany from that time.

Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Zedong, take your pick. Hitler's just the most famous example. Mass-murdering genocidal dictators have existed before, they can and will exist again! No country is immune to that risk.

ingolftopf

@Eggcorn
Please let me ask you something, this question has been bothering me for a while.

Do you think the Democrats in the USA are Nazis, "enemies of the people"?

ingolftopf

@Eggcorn
If you want to answer.

Eggcorn

@ingolftopf I'm sure there are politicians in both major political parties who would stamp out democracy, and become a dictator, if they could get away with it. There have always been power-hungry people in government, and there always will be!

Beyond that, I have no comment on the political parties of the United States.

ingolftopf

Thank you for your reply.

Eggcorn

@Ayespy At this point, I don't think we disagree on much regarding the law and anti-government violence. We both agree that it's illegal, and foolish, to threaten elected officials and the like! Neither of us are with folks who riot and claim to be on the side of justice. Perhaps you don't quite agree with me as to why the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment.

As for your previous point about de-platforming and all, as I said previously:

@Eggcorn said in "Snowflake Makes It Easy For Anyone to Fight Censorship" by Cooper Quintin:

The price of free speech is that people are free to spew verbal diarrhea. That's why this forum is not a free speech zone: We don't want to deal with the verbal diarrhea that comes with free speech. There's nothing wrong with that: We're not a government, we're not taking away someone's right to free speech! We're just telling them that this forum is private property, and they can speak freely somewhere else.

In principle: I recognize the right of big tech to censor. If it's your website, your property, you get to set whatever rules you want. I also see the wisdom of censoring verbal diarrhea, if you want a website people will want to visit. Now, here's why I say "in principle":

#1: There's a strong anti-trust argument to be made, an argument that big tech goes well out of its way to shut down competitors who don't share their biases.

#2: Big tech is biased; they censor more than just verbal diarrhea.

#3: There's a strong argument that big tech is now the de-facto public square. That if we want a healthy democracy, people must be able to express political opinions on social media without fear of biased mods punishing them for it.

Some US states have passed laws restricting Big Tech from censoring content. I don't like that, I don't want it to come to that. Such laws open up a can of worms, they endanger property rights and even free speech rights: If I'm forced to have content on my website, I'm being forced to say something I don't want to say. That is not free speech!

Fortunately, Elon Musk (the new owner of Twitter) may have found a less problematic solution to big tech bias. Someone suggested that Twitter have two modes, a censored and uncensored mode. When the mods censor something, you could still see that censored content if you switch to uncensored mode. Musk seemed to like that idea, and I like it too. I hope it works out!