You say like that like there are conservatives elsewhere that aren't progressives. I've yet to see a conservative group that aren't ultimately slow-burn progressives.
That doesn't even come close to being a valid analogy.
Nah, you just don't like it because, yet again, it shows that if they didn't want to be filmed, they shouldn't have gone where they have a reasonable chance of being filmed. And yes, it is reasonable. It happens all the time, and it's not limited to the US. You're wringing your hands over a fucking non-troversy.
I'm really retarded if I say that I can hold you accountable for Canadian/British misdeeds because you are YaruslavHunka/British, after you told me that you hold me accountable for European misdeeds because I am?
I never said "as a X". YOU by comparison DID say "as a European". You want to use "European" as a qualifier for your words to try and add credence, and as such are trying to explicitly stand with and speak for Europeans. And I never said anything of the sort. In fact, that's explicitly YOU that is trying to bring anything up to try and disqualify what I said through personal attacks.
You used to be better than this Tony. I don't even care that you disagree with me on this, but this is just embarassing how you're resorting to this kind of shit over a non-troversy like this.
Extend that logic and you blame a rape victim and not the rapist, etc.
That's right. A camera in a public space is equivalent to raping a person. Whew lad, that's some top tier intellectualism and definitely not an appeal to emotion. Tell me, are you weeping for all the men that have been filmed over the many, many years? Or is that different? You're being a fucking loser here. It's a known aspect of sports games. End of. They went knowing this is A Thing, and then bitched because that Thing happened. It wasn't a random act of violence. They're not victims. It's not a tragedy. You're unironically being incredibly sensitive here over the most innocuous shit ever.
Apparently not, cause some jackass filmed them for 20 secs.
This just in: The only reason to film a person for 20 seconds is for sexual reasons.
I swear, you're telling on yourself.
That just makes him all the more endearing. He's a retard, but he's our retard.
Speak for yourself. He might be a resident retard, but I don't think of him as endearing, I think of him as a nuisance to be ignored.
You have no idea whether these people decided to go to an environment 'over and over'. So not inevitable.
I wasn't suggesting they did, but explaining how risk and statistical analysis works for both a group and an individual. Seems I went a little fast for your understanding since you're looking to win an internet slap fight rather than discuss.
If you had thought this true, you'd realize that even you don't believe this.
Interesting that you know my beliefs better than me. But no, I do believe that people are responsible for their own safety and that, yes, that includes some aspect of their privacy, especially in spaces open to the public.
OK, so because total idiots decide to do this, it's the fault of the people to whom it happens, because "they go into [such] environments", and anyone who says that maybe then those total idiots should be restrained is a Bad European.
This started out alright, but you lost coherency about 2/3rds of the way through. Wanna try again, because I legitimately lost what point you're trying to make here and would like to at least try to understand.
you claimed, falsely, that it's the fault of the victims of this because it's "inevitable"
""""""Victims""""""". Fuck that's hilarious. You really think they're victims. Here's the "incident" by the way. Now I know that a fair chunk of Europeans are now Muslims and cannot control themselves, but please Tony, control your raging lust when watching this because it's just too sexual in nature!
Oh wait. No it isn't. It's just two chicks eating ice-cream, having a good time at a sporting event. That's it.
They're not victims. Stop giving weight to the currency of victimhood. Grow the fuck up.
You keep repeating 'personal responsibility' like you're a leftist repeating 'racism', in every conceivable context where it doesn't apply.
Aw, that's cute, trying to craft a guilt by association. The problem is that you still haven't done anything to address it, that's why it's still hanging there.
Tell me, if you walk into a strip club and find a pair of bare tits, who's at fault here? It would be you, right? So why is it that a woman attends a public event that's known to record the audience and suddenly it's everyone else's fault?
I assume I can hold you accountable for all the misdeeds of these countries. Pursonal RESPONSIBILITY!
Wow, you really are retarded if you can't differentiate between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. Then again, that's typical of collectivists that seek to blame the collective for the actions of the individual.
Considering you're using the "as a European" as a defence, you get to stand "as a European". Don't like it, don't bring it up next time. Or wait, is that some personal responsibility.... Gee, maybe I shouldn't even be allowed either. Nah, stand by your words and actions and stop acting like a child.
'Possible' is not the same as 'inevitable'
It is inevitable that it will happen to someone. Just because there's a chance it will happen to someone else doesn't make it merely possible, only that it's possible for you personally to be effected. But also, being exposed to that environment over and over and over only leads to an eventual inevitability. And let's not be delusional, with the increase in mobile phones and other such systems, that possibility is ALWAYS present.
Wow, that is a new definition of 'personal responsibility', that people have the right to film and broadcast you to the world, and that you can't even say anything about it.
Fuck off with the disingenuity of this. If you enter a space with a known risk, that's YOUR fault. Plain and simple. THAT is personal responsibility.
I'll go down the path of saying that this, and your 'Kiss Cams' for that matter, are remarkably stupid
That's fine. I think they're stupid too. But they're a normal aspect of those environments. You put yourself in that environment, you're the one running the risk of being on camera. It's legitimately on you. It's weird that you want to avoid personal responsibility. Don't want to be recorded? Don't go into environments that have a high likelihood of being recorded. It's that simple.
and should not even be allowed.
Ah yes, the good ol' "I don't like this so it should be eliminated" plea. Tell me you're a European without telling me you're a European.
People here love to be slaves but also not to have their personal information or image broadcast to the whole world.
So it's cognitive dissonance then? You're fine with privacy being infringed upon at every point, so long as your privacy isn't infringed upon in a very specific way.
Still, the CCTV isn't being broadcast everywhere
But if you walk into a space where it's explicitly a known possibility, whose fault is it when it inevitably happens? Stop trying to erode personal responsibility. Or are we going to continue down the path of infantilization where we insist people, especially women, don't actually have agency?
but it usually not individualized
What the fuck are you talking about? That happens all the time. What do you think shit like Kiss Cams were?
But then again, as a European, I'm more of a stickler for privacy and all that than is common in America.
What the fuck are you talking about? Europe openly has mass public surveillance and mass public compliance. Maybe you as an individual is more of a stickler for privacy, but not as a European.
Remember, pro-abortion has more male supporters than anti-abortion. Remember, most anti-abortionists are women. Remember, women have agency, and pro-abortion arguments rely on the notion that women have less agency than men. Remember, Roe v Wade was based on a lie. Remember, even the most generous reductionism of the abortion discussion comes down to the "battle" of the right to bodily autonomy versus the right to life itself.
Remember, pro-aborts have no argument besides the most nihilistic view of the world possible.
I don't know what's worse: That someone would pay for this shit, or some moron is freely doing this thinking they're "trolling" people by making us think he's a degenerative piece of shit. Like where's the "win" here? What's the "troll"?
Source: Microsoft.
Holds about as much trust as the government saying that Operation Northwoods was ended.
Oh look, completely missing the entire point.
You can support Trump without making him out to be some god-tier master manipulator that simply knows every move possible and is outplaying everyone. He's not. He's just another politician.
Idolatry is never going to benefit you.
How much does Trump have to continually and non-conditionally support before people like you even consider the idea that Trump isn't actually playing some massive 4D chess game and simply does in fact support these things?
I mean really, you people do know that shit like Qanon is, and probably always was, a psyop to encourage the very same passivity that Bloodguard is referring to with the GOP? Just stand by and do nothing, trust that there's actually a Master Plan™ that's all taking place behind the scenes and it's all perfectly orchestrated.
Trump is better than the alternative. That doesn't make Trump perfect, and this pseudo idolatry of him solely because he's stood against some of the bullshit of the left is insane, ESPECIALLY when his politics hasn't actually shifted over the decades, AKA he is and remains to be a 90s Democrat.
Stop worshipping politicians. They are not, and never will be, on your side. The best you can hope for is the enemy of my enemy.
Except it is in line with one another. Language is about linguistic meaning. Science is about natural meaning. Control both of those and you extend more of what can be manipulated regarding the public.
Excuse me? Based on what?
Based on you determining that I, or any other person, needs to provide solutions to your problems, when again, the entire fucking premise is AGAINST a centralised model to force proposed solutions upon people. Shocking, I know. When the whole fucking point is that YOU should solve YOUR problems, turning to literally anyone else and saying "why aren't THEY solving MY problems?!" isn't a critique. It's literally saying it's not mine, or anyone else's place, to solve your problems for you.
If you think you would be able to 'opt out' of taxes before 100 years ago, you have quite another thing coming. The most brutal treatment was always reserved for people who refused to pay taxes. And property taxes are way older than 100 years. E.g. see the taille in France.
And that justifies it how?
Well, it would mean no roads, no police, no army. Although at this point they've taken things to such extremes, that I honestly do prefer anarchy to their misrule
Oh no! Not MUH ROADS argument. What an utterly boring and overdone argument. As to the police and army, yes, that is the idea. And it's funny because you imply that they're ultimately evil and yet you're still advocating that this evil needs to exist for no other reason that that's what's always existed.
This is your worst argument. Slavery doesn't just mean that your labor is confiscated, it's human ownership. Taxes aren't just 'more steps' towards your owner raping you, whipping you and selling your wife and children away from you.
A benevolent ruler is no less a ruler, slave. And what's more is that under actual freedom, you'd still be entirely free to band together and pay whatever levies and fees you wish. That's entirely your prerogative. You just can't force people to. And ultimately, that is what you're objecting it. It's not voluntary co-operation, you're outright advocating for INvoluntary "co-operation".
Do you mean to suggest that we would be equally safe with no police, no army, no roads, no law, just pure chaos?
Do you truly believe yourself safe right now? Because if you do, then perhaps you, personally, deserve the servitude you so eagerly seek. Also I see you there MUH ROADS. Fuck, statists really look at the failing infrastructure and say "yeah, THIS is my defence", all while ignoring that in any other discussion you would eagerly and rightfully condemn the shameful state of infrastructure in nearly every society out there, with MAYBE exception to Japan (and then ignore every other failure of Japan's government, like their rampant corruption).
It's far better to seize control of the government apparatus, as fanciful as that seems, and use it for our ends.
Not once in your life have you even voted for a member of government that you whole-heartedly and truly supported. You can lie to me any way you like about that, but ultimately you know that every single vote you have ever cast has been a lesser of, ultimately, two choices. You imply me delusional and utopian, yet here you are dreaming up the most fanciable tale imaginable all to justify utilising force against innocent people who disagree with you on how they should run their own lives.
Government may be indistinguishable from piracy, as Augustine pointed out, but my argument is that the necessity for it lessens its evil.
Again, there is no such thing as a "necessary" evil. It's a lie you tell yourself to ignore your own support of evil measures that you otherwise couldn't reconcile, by pretending that you never had any choice in the matter as you wilfully and ultimately gleefully comply.
And what if my problem is armed gangs of 30 men coming in, stealing everything I have and doing worse? How exactly am I to solve that? Now, I'm sure you'll come with some 'brilliant' suggestions like, well recruit the rest of your city and fight a pitched battle.
You balk and mock, but you pretend like that it's a viable solution. Why do you need to achieve this de facto militia via force? Why do you need to maintain what is ultimately a protection racket. Seriously, it's "pay up, or we'll wreck your shit". And you're unironically defending that.
Do you think the average person is remotely equipped to do something like that?
As an individual? Nope. But this is the problem with you fucking statists. You're so fucking broken that you don't even see how your arguments so often mirror unironic rape apologists. Seriously, is there any difference between the people who use arguments like "I'll only have to get violent if you don't comply" and "You complied so the threat of violence is irrelevant and it was consensual"? You're both ultimately abusing people for your own benefit.
Had I gone back and approached this as "voluntarism" rather than the anarchy angle (a distinction that holds virtually no difference between the two, mind you), and presented it as a flowery utopia of people helping people because most people are inclined to help one another in mutual benefit, you'd have been far more receptive to the idea. But because I pegged the reality of the state being one that operates upon the very real, ever present "do what I say or else" model, you've gotten defensive of "necessary" evil. You didn't have to. You don't even want to. But you did. You went to bat for evil of what little free will you ultimately have. And you don't see anything wrong with it either. You don't even want to second guess yourself. Because it's so uncomfortable having to come to the reality that for all your life you went along with it all because it benefitted you. You were fine with every single negative your collectivist methodology brought about, because you got yours.
Have fun Tony. Make whatever comment you want. I know anarchy isn't palatable to everyone, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that it should be palatable is ultimately just to appease delicate sensibilities that don't want to think about just how unsafe the world actually is. And I've spent my days arguing about anarchism in the past. So make unfair comparisons, turn to shitholes that have been explicitly fucked by government and tyrants, and then pretend like it's because there actually wasn't enough government. You embrace that "necessary" evil. Whatever it takes so you can have "MUH ROADS". Because remember, for every Somalia you bring up, we can just as easily point to the fucked courts of Japan, the drug lords of Mexico, the tyranny of China. Each and every single one is an explicit failure of government that, supposedly, took on the duty to protect its citizens and either failed or abused them themselves. That's the team you're going to bat for. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say "well, I only support abusing people when there are benefits". You get it all. Anarchists acknowledge the truth of anarchy. And you refuse to rightfully credit government for all of their eternal failures.
Hard disagree. YouTube should simply be gone and someone else should make such a platform. You're under this idea that a company that hates you can arbitrarily be reformed. Won't ever happen.
I'd go one step further and de-incentivise watching any uploads on YouTube by providing uncensored versions on other platforms. Creators should stop tripping over their words or trying to get around them by saying childish shit like "unaliving" or "sewer slide" or some other inane bullshit, and just start including obnoxious censors with a little annotation reminding people that they can freely get the uncensored version on any other site they upload to.
You want to stop YouTube being the defacto? Help them continue to provide an ever expanding worse experience than any other platform.
It's a double edged sword. The issue is that these people don't really spend enough energy to push those other platforms while staying on YouTube. They should absolutely diversify where they upload and what would be best is if they started releasing as uncensored as possible videos on other platforms, with YouTube getting the inferior, sub-par censored version.
Until other platforms are given the attention they need to grow to rival YouTube, or god forbid, we actually get a proper competitive space again with multiple rivals, this is the only way forward. Start playing dirty and kneecap any reason to watch on YouTube without stopping the use of their platform.
Perhaps. But do you think this is even remotely realistic, to either argue for no taxation
Yes.
or to argue that it's theft even though it is justified?
It's not justified. That's what I mean when I outright said that the ends do not justify the means. It's literally within the statement. Just because YOU are fine with taking the fruits of labour by threat of lethal force does not mean others are, no matter how many benefits you might use to entice someone to say such a thing is ever justified.
OK, but what is your proposal?
Figure it out yourself. And no, this isn't a sassy "I'm not telling you", that's literally the solution. You're so ingrained with the idea that Someone Else™ should solve your problems for you that you forget that for most of humanity, that's exactly what we did. Sure, there were always tyrants and rulers and leaders and the such that were those Someone Elses™, but it's only in truly recent times (past 100 or so years) where it's become as over-reaching as it has to the point that opting out isn't nearly as viable as it once was. And in fact, it's outright not viable thanks to things like Property Tax, which explicitly makes it impossible to live outside of the establishment.
Even now, most of your choices you make are outside the jurisdiction of the State, and yet you balk, scoff and mock at the very idea that other say "why stop there? Why allow the state to force you into slavery with more steps?" I mean seriously, what is money but a representation of labour, value and wealth? For any state to take that is nothing more than slavery. And you blindly defend it, solely because......
Somalia-like anarchy
"Muh SoMaLiA"
Ah yes, the cowardly statist recoils in fear at the concept of taking care of themselves, and turns to nations that have been shitholes far before a lack of established government. You fear the idea of standing on your own, so you choose a comfortable jail cell over a potentially dangerous freedom.
Your arguments hold no meaningful difference between gun grabbers and censors that utilise fear to convince you to relinquish freedoms, and to that I suggest why stop there? If you're so intent on giving up freedom for a false sense of safety, why stop there? Why not go all the way?
You think that is a winner?
It's better than slowly, surely, unendingly losing. Because at least that is something different. It's not just the status quo of compromise after compromise after compromise.
What's more is that your entire "argument" isn't even trying to take on my points. You know that ultimately they're not wrong. But because an ideology that is fundamentally against centralised systems doesn't offer a centralised solution to be applied to every single person, you're going to imply it's anarchists that are the utopians with these kinds of dismissals? It really is a case where anarchists say "you have your own problems and should be able to solve them how you see fit, so long as you don't harm others", and then dismissing them because they didn't provide you a solution to your problems.
Considering my stance is that all taxation is theft under threat of lethal force, you can take your pick on that one. Even the "good" uses of taxation is supplied through immoral means. And I don't believe in mentalities like "for the greater good", "the lesser evil" or "the ends justify the means".
But hey, a 2% income tax solely applied to land owners was enough to go to war over. I guess we really should maintain the status quo, right?
I swear, it seems more and more like far too many people ARE in fact reactionaries, not actually standing for any meaningful principles, but merely against change. And then when change does happen, you do nothing to even suggest the course be reversed!
We keep losing because you have nothing to win. When all you're looking to gain is the current status quo, in a world of compromise you will always lose. Every. Single. Time.
Well yeah, the Libertarian Party has been pozzed for years now. Just take a look at Gary Johnson and his shillery for things like licenses and """reasonable""" taxation.
Entryists are a thing, and the sooner people understand that and therefore the very VERY real need for stringent gatekeeping, the better. Ambiguity helps nobody but those that wish to abuse said ambiguity. So why let them?
When are you going to provide something that isn't infantilisation of adults? You haven't got a valid argument other than "I don't like it". Grow up Tony. You used to have actual ability to argument. Now you're just being a contrarian and actually admitting to it even with that "just to see" crap. That's not healthy, it's just fucking weird.