Exactly. Compromise is nessacry

you can hold all the principles you want, but if you cant incrementally bring ppl over to your side, then what is the point?

Also hard to expand if the gubmint comes breaking down your door for cp

radical change will always be rejected

akin to the boiling a frog analogy

Its a good thing no one here is talking about CP then...

bro we're being hyperbolic when we say that

@Big T The frog analogy is a false, frogs wouldn't die like that.

....

its a valid analogy.

no one is focusing on conducting a study to see if a frog will actually stay in a pot

its commentary on social change is useful

there's all kinds of silly phrases that have odd origins, but are very useful in describing things

btw they just arrested the berkeley assault suspect. campus wide email just went out

Zachary Greenberg is his name

Yes, i understand all of that.
But its not a useful analogy if its not (somewhat) accurate, but to be clear i understand your point.
This still hasn't changed what i said. So many people foolishly say, "Oh, so this is the hill you want to die on".
All they are saying is "Oh, so being free is a hill you want to die on", and yes, that's a principle, any backing away from that means its no longer a principle.
Which by the way i'm only arguing other people about, because our supreme court sides with my argument.

we will just have to agree to disagree then.

@Big T shadows the type not concerned with winning others over. Like the naked LP guy lol

This is false.

I just don't do it with you.

He likes me <3

That is common in any arena i suppose. There is merit to it, but we do need ppl willing to compomise.

Compromising is a very useful thing, but also a damaging thing if you are standing up for a principle.

i would argue that it is only damaging if you are compromising in the wrong direction

like with 2A rights

I won't compromise when it comes to our constitution, no matter how many people "feel" its a good thing.

And i'm talking about the 1A right now.

its just an example. like wanting to repeal the NFA, but compromising on legalizing suppressors. its the direction of compromising that is key

a more 1A example in the wrong direction would be rejecting hate speech legislation, but allowing for blasphemy legislation

And as censoring freedom of expression goes against our constitution (and human rights), its asking for blasphemy legislation.

i think you missed my point. both are bad, and one is a subset of the other, so compromising in that direction is harmful

No, i got that.

Go do your project so you can watch what i linked you later heh.

building a compiler, assembler, and linker

For school or work.

school

Cool.

i go to UC Berkeley

I'm sorry to hear that.

Ahh, so that's why you knew about that assault.

yup