It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress.
why does this have 32k notes? it’s just a picture of a knife in a ranch bottle, is there some unspoken joke that 32 thousand people share? what is going on here, i dont get it. it’s just a fucking picture of a knife in a ranch bottle. is there some spiritual connection people have to this picture? is there some ominous and mystical reasoning that this has 32 thousand notes? do people reblog this because it makes them look like some indie blogger? or is there just something funny to this? someone please explain
I'd love to know more about your opinions on the XKCD free speech comic. What about it is bad and what harm has it caused? (genuine question)
It’s this comic:
I’ve got a rant forming. tl;dr This overly simplistic view hides outright corruption and political power that is often at the center of “free speech debates.”
First, it thinks free speech rights are derived from the government, as though if we didn’t have the First Amendment, we wouldn’t have any right to speak at all. A classic brain-rot explanation of human rights, which are ... actually inalienable. If I were alone on a deserted island with someone pushing me out to sea for mere words, it would still be a violation of my personhood, even if we were governed by no human laws. (They would have a right not to listen to me, but not to expel me or prevent me from speaking whatever thoughts enter my head.) There is functionally little difference between a global corporation telling you that you do not have the right to be heard and a government doing it at the point of a gun. Modern liberalism has just made a “nicer” way of enforcing the status quo, and explainers like this comic give cover for all kinds of bad actors.
The latest reasoning is “We cannot let disinformation spread.” Disinformation creates false narratives that could lead to real-life violence, the logic goes. And given the meme of election fraud claims directly leading to the Capitol riot, it seems “just so.” Suppressing disinformation must be a worthy goal. And yet, literally today, China banned the BBC. What was their reasoning? That the BBC had propagated “false reporting” and “fake news” about the Uighurs and China’s role in not releasing timely information about the coronavirus. To protect its people from disinformation, China got rid of it, using liberal-y wishy-washy alarm about making sure “disinformation” isn’t allowed to spread. It’s the flipside of Trump’s “fake news,” of course, but rather than presenting arguments that establish facts in a neutral, accountable way that everyone can participate in, the first instinct of China and New York Times reporters alike is, “Um, get rid of that, please.” It is a problem.
Now, another example: Materially, what is the difference between China banning, say, Google, and Google agreeing, in order to do business in China, to eliminate search functionality for stories that criticize the Chinese government? What is the material difference between the government saying, “Our system of thought is correct; all dissidents are wrong and dangerous,” and a blend of financial and tech corporations deciding “our system of thought is correct; all dissidents are wrong and dangerous -- and yes, this happens to align with the government’s view” unilaterally? When they are the ones funding the bloat of Washington and Wall Street and billionaires’ interests? It’s almost as though ... free speech is not about protecting us from government coercion but a human right that we each have to defend on an individual basis, especially (maybe more so!) against systems that are not accountable to the public, that can claim their censorship algorithms are proprietary and cannot be shared, and who are willing to adjust their algorithms somewhat depending on which government they are doing business with.
The XKCD comic wants to hide this byzantine, cozy relationship between large corporations with money to throw around and politicians who want to maintain their power. It wants to simplify it down into “we’re all just friends here” without examining the actual shit that happens when you forcibly shut people up, people who are often at the end of their rope in trying to have their concerns heard. The comic is absolutely willing, eager, to put up with the erosion of the principle of free speech in the public square if it means Big Daddy Zuckerberg will come in and delete whoever’s offending their sensibilities. It’s a worldview that fundamentally lacks confidence in the strength of its ideas, so we have a bunch of people who, rather than learning how to think and debate, can just slap a warning label on it and make sure the people they disagree with are considered “Bad,” short-circuiting the whole underlying logic of liberal democracy, of hashing it out with each other. And they are always shocked that thinking along fascistic lines to “beat” fascism actually enables it, that nondemocratic governments glom onto the idea that their citizenry has to be “protected” from ill-considered speech, as if it’s their job to determine what is true, what is just, what is safe. And we’ve eroded our own ability to speak out against them because we put up with it in the supposed cradle of democracy; we invest people we have never elected with the ability to make these decisions. It’s foul. It’s why free speech should be defended regardless of who wants to shut it down. It’s obviously an authoritarian impulse; let go of it. Or it will swing back on you.
For the secret santa in the discord server. I got Liz (i don't know your sites?) who wanted either AUs or fluff...I suppose my pick was predictable :') Happy holidays everyone!
From kindergarten to elementary school, to middle school, and high school… The two of us have been together for as long as I can remember. And yet, we’ve never exposed our true feelings and talked things out… Not even once.
a lil comic i started about if Malak lived after the end of KOTOR.
i feel all shy posting stuff like this sometimes… ahahaha i dunno why ♥
and if you enjoy this, then I super-recommend you check out @janankarrus fic Ivy and Twine and the still ongoing Green and Gold cuz they are MAGNIFICENT and is another story where Malak lives and will give you hours of delightful reading. ♥
romaincrisis
tangentwithtanner
ellievsbear
discoholicmusic
andulkaphoto
prguitarman
pixelskylines
kianamaiart
theartofmadeline
