Message from @TailsFromTheIntellectualDarkWeb
Discord ID: 559273032632238080
You got it👹👍
I did love that vid though... fukkin nimbys
Cleese was always a bit woke on political bullshit, Idle on the other hand believes the Russia narrative 😦
Are we using woke to mean identitarian left or as a synonym for red pilled?
red pilled
but I find red pilled more cringe than woke
Because I see woke and red pilled as antonyms to some degree
woke is used ironically though to essentially mean red pilled
an attempt to turn woke against the left
I find both pretty cringe, but I suppose it's more clear that I'm being ironic if I say woke
Also, can we reclaim the word reclaimed?
didn't realise it was lost
That's what the left says minorities are doing when they use words that no one else can say because they're insulting but they can because they're"reclaiming" them
Like black people calling each other nigga
it's not really used as a synonym it still means what it means
I also need a substitute word for problematic
I've always found that 'troublesome' doesn't sound nearly as douchey.
I just never use problematic, it's kind of a weasel word
Controversial Opinion: Violence isn't evil, or good. It's the context, and the reason it was done that makes it evil, or good.
I think violence does have some natural degree of evil tied to it, since the situations where violence would be considered good are those where others are violent for an evil reason. Therefore it's a lesser of 2 evils situation.
I think the usual libertarian argument is that the _initiation_ of violence is immoral. Is there a situation where being the first to act violently could be considered morally good?
Otherwise, to use violence to protect oneself from an aggressor is considered moral under that logic
@Railingo That's shouldn't be controversial... As most with most things its situational.
and even what I said just reinforces the idea that it's situational
is there a group that considers violence to be an inherently evil act? I'm not sure that Railingo's opinion is so controversial
I don't really like the libertarians view on violence. Because at some point they would have to use force as well (if it ever got big enough, which isn't likely).
@C1PHER Ya, many people do sadly. Lots of fools believe that no violence should ever be committed (even for good reasons).
I suppose you could argue that you can initiate violence in very special circumstances where you know the person you are violent against is about to be violent. Sort of a preemptive strike situation, which could definitely be abused, but I can't totally rule out as possible.
that works for me. the current legal system allows for that
the word imminent harm covers it
Yeah, libertarians are just wrong here
i dont think the libertarians are wrong. the nap can easily include this situation
^
our current legal system operates the same way
it is illegal to initiate force on someone, but it is legal to use force to prevent imminent bodily harm and/or death.
the key part is the word imminent