If you support free speech, you must support people pinging other users. It's completely legal speech. If you won't defend pinging as free speech because you or someone else finds it disgusting, then no speech that you or anyone else views as disgusting is safe.
>if it is in fact on shaky legal ground it's reasonable to not want to be the case that establishes it as illegal.
It's not, The reddit admins are straight up lying to the ignorant (like yourself) to justify their prejudice. Pinging being protected speech has long since been estabilished, as it has undeniable artistic merit. The only time it's been included under any obscenity laws is when someone is being charged with possession of harassment, so the state can slap them with more charges. The courts have been very careful to not charge anyone for pinging, because they'd get their asses fucking annihilated by a higher court due to the firm precedence of pinging being completely legal speech. /r/Drama had nothing to worry about, this guy was just making shit up to fool people into thinking his censoring wasn't entirely personally motivated.
Sure, one can argue that on a pragmatic level, the only viable socialist societies that can exist in the real world are authoritarian. But that does not mean that all socialists are authoritarians: there were and are many socialists that are explicitly anti-authoritarian in ideology, as they (perhaps mistakenly) disagree with your assessment that only authoritarian socialism is viable. Painting them all as secretly being authoritarian just because they have bad economic views is lazy at best, and dishonest at worst.
Ok.
The only appropriate way to deal with essayposting
Because they have no idea what socialism or authoritarianism actually means.
They just think that socialism = free shit, no bad things, cheap houses for them in Santa Monica, low prices because we bash the caps into paying for everything, all of this somehow magically without the state getting more control.
While authoritarianism = kill people, nazi, facism, trump, massive state control.
Both by definition have the same characteristics, both of them need the government to have a strong central power and both need to limiting the freedom of a certain groups to make it work.
They think the only people to suffer will be people that aren't them. Rich people are marched to the gulag and they get a gubermint check and are finally able to move out of their dad's house.
Fun fact: One of the first dystopian novels is written in 1893 and it was about how a socialist revolution became a full-fledged dictatorship because it's in its nature. This is the book I'm talking about
Funny how a guy from the 19th century, who hasn't seen the various revolutions of 20th century, could precisely describe what would happen and in every actual example followed his fictional work step-by-step. As if somehow the consequences of socialism is pretty common sense and predictable if you are not ideologically blind 🤔🤔🤔
Plenty of Karl Marx's contemporaries called him out on his bullshit and accurately predicted what was to come in the event of a socialist revolution. Dictatorship and death.
Just see Mikhail Bakunin's criticisms of Marx and you'll see just how painfully accurate his predictions ended up being. From 'Statism and Anarchy' 1873
What does it mean that the proletariat will be elevated to a ruling class? Is it possible for the whole proletariat to stand at the head of the government? There are nearly forty million Germans. Can all forty million be members of the government? In such a case, there will be no government, no state, but, if there is to be a state there will be those who are ruled and those who are slaves.
The Marxist theory solves this dilemma very simply. By the people’s rule, they mean the rule of a small number of representatives elected by the people. The general, and every man’s, right to elect the representatives of the people and the rulers of the State is the latest word of the Marxists, as well as of the democrats. This is a lie, behind which lurks the despotism of the ruling minority, a lie all the more dangerous in that it appears to express the so-called will of the people.
Ultimately, from whatever point of view we look at this question, we come always to the same sad conclusion, the rule of the great masses of the people by a privileged minority. The Marxists say that this minority will consist of workers. Yes, possibly of former workers, who, as soon as they become the rulers of the representatives of the people, will cease to be workers and will look down at the plain working masses from the governing heights of the State; they will no longer represent the people, but only themselves and their claims to rulership over the people. Those who doubt this know very little about human nature.
These elected representatives, say the Marxists, will be dedicated and learned socialists. The expressions “learned socialist,” “scientific socialism,” etc., which continuously appear in the speeches and writings of the followers of Lassalle and Marx, prove that the pseudo-People’s State will be nothing but a despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy of real and pseudo-scientists. The “uneducated” people will be totally relieved of the cares of administration, and will be treated as a regimented herd. A beautiful liberation, indeed!
The Marxists are aware of this contradiction and realize that a government of scientists will be a real dictatorship regardless of its democratic form. They console themselves with the idea that this rule will be temporary. They say that the only care and objective will be to educate and elevate the people economically and politically to such a degree that such a government will soon become unnecessary, and the State, after losing its political or coercive character, will automatically develop into a completely free organization of economic interests and communes.
There is a flagrant contradiction in this theory. If their state would be really of the people, why eliminate it? And if the State is needed to emancipate the workers, then the workers are not yet free, so why call it a People’s State? By our polemic against them we have brought them to the realization that freedom or anarchism, which means a free organization of the working masses from the bottom up, is the final objective of social development, and that every state, not excepting their People’s State, is a yoke, on the one hand giving rise to despotism and on the other to slavery. They say that such a yoke – dictatorship is a transitional step towards achieving full freedom for the people: anarchism or freedom is the aim, while state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses of people, they have first to be enslaved!
Upon this contradiction our polemic has come to a halt. They insist that only dictatorship (of course their own) can create freedom for the people. We reply that all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation, and that slavery is all it can generate and instill in the people who suffer it. Freedom can be created only by freedom, by a total rebellion of the people, and by a voluntary organization of the people from the bottom up.
Badecon continues to be the only based circlejerk subreddit out there. Always fun to see wingcucks barge in with blatant agendaposts and get confused by FACTS and LOGIC until they leave
Surely next time, it will happen. Because it's failed to reach the non-authoritarian stage 100% of the time, it just means we haven't got it right yet.
Even though Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot etc couldn't figure it out, they didn't have the benefit of 4 years of critical race and queer theory like me. It's time to try again...
Which dramatard alt was it? Step forward, don't be shy
I dunno something about that sub makes it always come off as really gay, like they're trying to explain the relevant literature to me but for some reason their thumb is up their ass the entire time
32 comments
1 AutoModerator 2020-02-26
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 ItsSugar 2020-02-26
Context-less drama is lava!
...and bannable.
1 SnapshillBot 2020-02-26
If you support free speech, you must support people pinging other users. It's completely legal speech. If you won't defend pinging as free speech because you or someone else finds it disgusting, then no speech that you or anyone else views as disgusting is safe.
>if it is in fact on shaky legal ground it's reasonable to not want to be the case that establishes it as illegal.
It's not, The reddit admins are straight up lying to the ignorant (like yourself) to justify their prejudice. Pinging being protected speech has long since been estabilished, as it has undeniable artistic merit. The only time it's been included under any obscenity laws is when someone is being charged with possession of harassment, so the state can slap them with more charges. The courts have been very careful to not charge anyone for pinging, because they'd get their asses fucking annihilated by a higher court due to the firm precedence of pinging being completely legal speech. /r/Drama had nothing to worry about, this guy was just making shit up to fool people into thinking his censoring wasn't entirely personally motivated.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 Corporal-Hicks 2020-02-26
lmao
2 Tzar-Romulus-Dos 2020-02-26
Do they consider Cathbols and Nazbols socialist then?
1 Kaiser-romulus 2020-02-26
What about trad cath shemale nazi socialist trad wives?
1 Tzar-Romulus-Dos 2020-02-26
Perhaps. 🤔
1 EasySchmitty 2020-02-26
The only appropriate way to deal with essayposting
1 MikeStoklasa-cel 2020-02-26
Not enough people are taking the corporatisn-pill. It's over for Lee Kuan-Yew-cels
1 HerosEnd 2020-02-26
LKYceldom doesn't work without a
mangod like LKY at the helm.1 MikeStoklasa-cel 2020-02-26
Paul Kagame world presidency when?
1 HerosEnd 2020-02-26
Omg a fellow kagamecel, I thought I was the only one
1 MikeStoklasa-cel 2020-02-26
♥️
1 Kaiser-romulus 2020-02-26
How can you be socialist and not be a boot licker to the government. Makes zero sense.
1 Erotism 2020-02-26
Because they have no idea what socialism or authoritarianism actually means.
They just think that socialism = free shit, no bad things, cheap houses for them in Santa Monica, low prices because we bash the caps into paying for everything, all of this somehow magically without the state getting more control.
While authoritarianism = kill people, nazi, facism, trump, massive state control.
Both by definition have the same characteristics, both of them need the government to have a strong central power and both need to limiting the freedom of a certain groups to make it work.
1 southy1995 2020-02-26
They think the only people to suffer will be people that aren't them. Rich people are marched to the gulag and they get a gubermint check and are finally able to move out of their dad's house.
1 betazoom78 2020-02-26
"The bigger the government the more socialister a government is" Karl Marx 1849
1 The_Reason_Pete_Wins 2020-02-26
Oh shit, that's good
1 newcomer_ts 2020-02-26
Sincerity is only appreciated if you're not a weirdo.
On a serious note, Sanders just want to make Burgeristan livable for people but he's going about it the wrong way.
Instead of turning back the wheels of history, invent your won wheels and grease them well.
3 Babinx 2020-02-26
This is just abstract enough for you to not get called on your bullshit because nobody can really say for sure what you're talking about.
1 newcomer_ts 2020-02-26
Example 1
Example 2
Taking guns away and destroying healthcare that works for majority of people is a way to lose election.
1 heretobefriends 2020-02-26
Yang/Williamson was our final chance and we blew it. All that's left is the fire.
1 aduketsavar 2020-02-26
Fun fact: One of the first dystopian novels is written in 1893 and it was about how a socialist revolution became a full-fledged dictatorship because it's in its nature. This is the book I'm talking about
Funny how a guy from the 19th century, who hasn't seen the various revolutions of 20th century, could precisely describe what would happen and in every actual example followed his fictional work step-by-step. As if somehow the consequences of socialism is pretty common sense and predictable if you are not ideologically blind 🤔🤔🤔
1 FoidBlaster 2020-02-26
Plenty of Karl Marx's contemporaries called him out on his bullshit and accurately predicted what was to come in the event of a socialist revolution. Dictatorship and death.
Just see Mikhail Bakunin's criticisms of Marx and you'll see just how painfully accurate his predictions ended up being. From 'Statism and Anarchy' 1873
3 LongPostBot 2020-02-26
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
3 black_panther_sucks 2020-02-26
Pizza? 😃
3 FoidBlaster 2020-02-26
Nah pizza is on a whole different tier of unhinged and based that I can only dream of.
1 Common_Item 2020-02-26
Ok
1 diggity_md 2020-02-26
Badecon continues to be the only based circlejerk subreddit out there. Always fun to see wingcucks barge in with blatant agendaposts and get confused by FACTS and LOGIC until they leave
1 MoistLanguage 2020-02-26
Which dramatard alt was it? Step forward, don't be shy
1 companyfry 2020-02-26
Why do I see ThouShaltHearLight in every single drama post?
1 HerosEnd 2020-02-26
I dunno something about that sub makes it always come off as really gay, like they're trying to explain the relevant literature to me but for some reason their thumb is up their ass the entire time