Message from @JadenFrostwolf
Discord ID: 406602940066037770
Some of the left wants to tear down statues of the founding fathers because they owned slaves.
đ it was too funny for me to ignore
My tablet likes to make dumb corrections all the time
and well, these days it doesn't matter who you are, what you say or think
Its the public opinion of you that defines you in the eyes of the people
Very few people are 100% good or 100% evil. Even the best people have terrible ideas, even the worst people have some good ones.
well the thing is, we're all human, any person is capable of great heroics and great horrors
and as such it is our actions that should define us, not what we claim to want to be
Guess the left takes going to a party with some people as actions that define manning. Which I find funny but am not surprised by.
well in their eyes, thats fraternising with the enemy
Ffs stop referring to left wing media and far left activists as "the left"
what should they be refered to as?
Anti liberal clowns
Regressive left.
It's just for convenience.
Fair enough
Yeah pretty much.
We all know whoâs being referred to.
Even if they're not what the left is suppose to be, they are the current face of it in it's current form, unfortunately.
I think using the term 'liberal' is even more of a misnomer.
I mean, the Antifa crowd ainât liberal
With their whole âliberals get the bullet tooâ slogan
depends by what political template you go by,
If you go by purely left-right, then its acceptable
if you go by left-right with a Y-axis of Authoritarian/Liberal
then saying "the left" is wrong because its the "authoritarian" branch that imposes this, not the liberal left (and right-wing respectively)
its just corrupted definitions
like how "Liberal" is now just the term for Authoritarian Leftist
Newspeak
whilst the word Liberal means freedom
Leftist?
Too many leftists consider themselves liberal.
yes
I mean like Antifa becoming fascists even though their name implies opposing them
but thats like saying freedom of speech in Europe
its only free if you say what the people in charge agrees with
More like âthe right to not be offendedâ.
Yeah.
I mean, one thing I noticed was how European laws seem to be written with the naive idea that people will not exploit laws with vague or subjective descriptions.
something people forget is that somehow these people who have the right to not be offended, can still offend others
Making use of hate speech laws to make something illegal to criticise
well the naivety comes from this illusion that the west is the epicenter of "the good guys"
and since the governments in europe are "the good guys" they'll be good and wise enough to supposedly "not" exploit these vague definitions of laws
and since they're the good guys that care for everyone good, the only people that can disagree (or criticise) are bad people, since good people would love that they care for everyone, hence only people who criticise are bad, hence should be punished cuz they're bad
I mean, Id like to know how long these laws were in place.
And which countries dont have these laws.