I wouldn’t know how to contradict you, he talked about freedom a lot and that’s why i called him a libertarian, but contrary to Ron Paul, he was against the freedom of : aborting, using drugs, free immigration, being gay or trans(, or at least with the same rights), searching/teaching “woke” subjects(, gender studies, critical race theory, …).
He favored wars, and security-state arguments, so wouldn’t have opposed mass surveillance.
You’re right, he was only a partial libertarian, that is to say, i think, that he wasn’t a real libertarian, thanks for your correction.
He was only 31. Of course many more people died an avoidable&unjust death in the last 24h, and there are still so much hate from everywhere, imperfections give us a purpose i guess.
Even if the rules are rigged since the rich are buying mass medias, i won’t ever support killing ideological opponents, obviously, there’s not enough ideological diversity i.m.h.o., and i don’t like having the same set of rules/ideas on a national or even continental level :
-
I don’t believe that abortions are murders, foetuses never met anyone nor have any memories, if any consciousness at all. At the risk of shocking i believe that killing an insect is worse because at least i have no doubts on their consciousness, ideally we should refrain from abortion, although having an unwanted baby can ruin both the parents/mother’s life and her child’s childhood, births should be desired. If abortions “only” murder a potential, then preventing it “murders” the potential of the other child that’d be born in replacement(, and ok, i’ll agree with the Church that it’s not an easy topic, it’s just that no-one has in-utero memories). But i want some cities to ban abortions, while others allow them. I also understand why people thinking that it’s a murder would consider themselves libertarian despite being against it.
-
I believe that some illegal drugs make you develop an addiction without giving you much in return, and are taken by people already lost in their lives, while other drugs are wonderful and transform you into hippies, and yet other drugs enhances your performances, and there are still a lot of research to find the most useful drugs. But i want cities banning all of them, and others allowing even the worst ones, and understand why people thinking that all drugs will lead you to a criminal life as a homeless addict desperate for h.er.is next fix would consider themselves libertarian while wanting to preserve their citizens from such poison.
-
I could see a problem with immigration in the sense that if more than 90% of french citizens is replaced by, e.g., algerian people, then the policy of our country would most likely change, and we’d feel closer to arab history. Just like polish/italian/spanish/portuguese/… immigrants weren’t a problem since we’re all european now, perhaps that an alliance with our glorious islamic sisters&brothers is the european future, and the same goes for the u.s. with hispanic people, or not, in any case we can’t continue to offer ten times the minimum salary from one country to the other, it’s clearly selfish&unjust. But i want cities to have free borders while other closes them, and understand that some people look at the fertility rates of white people and feel that if the u.s. is mostly black and hispanic then it’d be as if North America’s colonization had been for naught, so they’re libertarian but can’t allow immigration because of its threatening scale.
-
I don’t see a problem with other people be(com)ing gay or trans, and even if it was a problem then it’s their problem, not mine. But i want cities banning straight and cis people, and others banning gays and trans, and understand why some people look at the statistics and fear that, i.d.k., that the percentage will climb to 50%, or even 80% and more ? And even so then what would be the problem ? I don’t really understand t.b.h.
-
I don’t see a problem with teaching critical race theory or gender studies, how would that destroy our country ? I’m ashamed not to have listened to Charlie Kirk more, i live in a bubble.
-
Mass surveillance and censorship will come, despite D.Trump and E.Musk honest efforts. The problem is that the bourgeoisie will want to protect itself from socialist ideology(, or even without it they’d still desire to prevent internal revolts), and will hence resort to more censorship/control against China’s rise, that’s a bipartisan policy.
Perhaps that androids will make capitalist-owned states believe in some kind of utopia for all(, preventing the cause of revolts in a post-scarcity society for the whole world, without any more wars or desires of hegemony), it’s never lost in advance i suppose.
Still awful that the only country who didn’t listen to our advice is the one with the best economic growth(, Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela are under sanctions), i sincerely hope that we’re not knowingly keeping most countries poorer/exploited by advices/‘economic theories’ allowing us to maintain an advantage.
What a lame edit, i don’t see D.Trump as worse than J.Biden, they’re both anti-communists, but at least D.Trump favors free speech.
I’d be curious to hear their explanation as to why the Tiktok “addictive” system of switching from one video to the other is more addictive than YT shorts who does the same(, or Instagram reels, switching videos on 𝕏 or Facebook, Vine back then, …).
For now, their arguments are : infinite scroll and push notifications(, present on every social media), autoplay, recommandations, …
Tiktok is being accused of using the same system as other social platforms, sure we believe that our arguments are more coherent, or everyone knows that they’re just lazy excuses, and nobody cares.
Yeah, it’s probably that we gave up on democracy, and nobody with power cares about Tiktok.
Also, our french president keeps repeating over and over the lie that using Tiktok leads you to salafist content after 3-4 videos, and no-one stops him.
I know for a fact that it’s false since almost half of my use of Tiktok was for islamist content(, ~50-100h over ~3 years), and i never once met salafist content(, there was Shahid Bolsen that was fiercely anti-imperialist, and he was pro-Sahel countries, that’s the worst i found, but i suppose that the trick is that extremism is relative ; i believe that the Quran should be interpreted in its historical context and show(ed) a path, but most literalists will be frowned upon by ‘most atheists’/‘any islamophobes’).
I do recognize that anti-imperialist[1], communist, and islamist content appears more often on Tiktok than YT Shorts, but i.m.o. it’s because Tiktok doesn’t censor as much as YT Shorts, and not because it promotes such content.
They probably already interfered in Google results, and intend to interfere in l.l.m. results as well, masks off right ?
He also said a few times that the chinese Tiktok is mostly focused on educative content while our Tiktok is focused on entertainment, but just hope that nobody will verify to see that there is everything on both platforms and it depends on the user choices.
It’s just like when they’re claiming that social media use will modify the shape of our brain. Now, they claim that violent games may make people violent(, despite the experiment of the last 30 years, it’s violent people that choose violent games, boomers). That’s quite certainly a throwaway issue put forward in order to make a concession later though.
I spent a lot of time as a teenager on loup.org and it helped in improving my writing&social skills, most americans had so many great experiences with Club Penguin that it still exists today, even if some pedophiles were indeed there, but let’s not throw the baby with the bathwater. Anyway, we just use this pretext as an excuse to regulate our internet.
They can just say what they want unchallenged, i’d like to see once a debate with someone knowledgeable really disagreeing with him.
And when they do have a contradictory debate, then they’ll just end up disagreeing after exchanging arguments for an hour(, sometimes less). Lock them together in a room for 1-2 days until they agree with each other. I’d like to see a debate ending with “can i invite you to discuss it further this evening at a table ?”, they have five years between each election and won’t spend most of their time talking with each other.
Or, if they’re truly so busy, then force them to exchange public letters(, with the help of assistants), so that they can have the time to think more deeply about ‘their own’&‘the opposite’ arguments.
It seems that they’ll instead decide something, advance a few valid arguments(, without any counter-arguments), and we just roll with it. At least, i don’t see a contradictory debate(, deputies aren’t really debating, and i don’t see how they could, so each one is just making a speech, and often have voting instructions by their party), which would be useless since we’re not deciding anyway, so continue like that…
[1] : I never said that it doesn’t mean being anti-France : one could have been against royalism when France was a kingdom, or slavery when it was allowed, would it have been being anti-France ? Now, some people are against imperialism/hegemony. There are (+) and (-) to most things, and that includes France who has, e.g., an interesting past.
By definition, you can’t evolve without diversity, both external as a species and internal as a (commune/)country(/federation).