"I just strongly believe in a divide between thoughts, speech and action If someone tells you 'I'm seriously doing research that might lead me to the conclusion I have to punch you, but I'm not convinced yet,' that's not a reason to punch them You can still have a discussion"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @cowtung and
And I'm just like What the fuck No, that statement so clearly disproves your point If someone tells you "I'm thinking of punching you, I think that might be justified," THAT IS A THREAT You don't fucking wait to respond to a threat, you take immediate action
3 replies 6 retweets 132 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @cowtung and
There's definitely a divide between thought and action. Speech IS an action.
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @sophienotemily @cowtung and
Yeah Scott's stupid Kolmogorov thing about how we're all living in 1984 seems to equate thought with speech Like I have an absolute right to "think out loud" no matter how repugnant my thoughts are or else you're controlling my brain itself
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @sophienotemily and
Yeah, which is ridiculous. The point of thoughts is that NO ONE ELSE CAN SEE THEM. They are utterly, uniquely your own property; basically the only thing that is, inalienably, yours. As soon as you express them, they are reified, in the world, & other people get to have opinions!
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect and
"How dare you judge me for the things i say?" Um, that's how it's SUPPOSED TO WORK, Scott, i don't know how to break that to you?
1 reply 2 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect and
The demand isn't even just to be heard, it's to be agreed with. If you don't agree, the demand is that you allow them to harangue you until you do, even though their argument will be in 100% bad faith, and will never at any point assume that your point of view might be valid.
1 reply 6 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @SusieusMaximus @arthur_affect and
Yup. My partner, the inestimable
@Doc_Destructo, frequently shorthands this tendency/demand on the part of fascists as "It's illegal not to like us!"1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @SusieusMaximus and
That's the ridiculous thing about this whole conversation Assuming they can't actually convince the horrible SJW mobs to stop with the Power of Reason, the *only way they can get what they want is by using institutional power to limit freedom*
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne and
They want to make it *illegal* to "ruin lives" by talking shit about them online -- a restriction on free speech -- or to make it *illegal* to fire someone from a job because of people talking shit about them -- a restriction on freedom of association
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likes
Which is fine, if we want to go there let's fucking go, but understand we're not having a conversation about "civil liberties" anymore, we're actively using institutional power to pick winners and losers in social warfare
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne and
And I don't see any fucking reason to go along with rigging the game so that the game always presents closely matched, exciting fights where either side could win That's not a moral principle
1 reply 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @SusieusMaximus and
Facial neutrality as a principle is occasionally important, but mostly ridiculous, yeah.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.