josef k
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa argument by tag seems like an odd hobby at least we can spell clever you bellend autistic foreplay autoflatular narcosis barty's entertainment bell end pantomime cancelled concerned parent craner's aggressive gargling lounge act den of despair disgusting old men erectile dysfunction finger wagging i blame twitter i've got mates intervention john's mates josef and his technicoloured meme coat josef k's sick burns kanye without the talent meritless thread no wonder brits sneeked into ira centcom north london house mafia not angry just disappointed not what john was hoping for orange penguin bars paying dress up piety as surrogate sexual dominance sebastian semantic apocalypse now she's not going to fuck you!!! sid viscous vs robocock such bloody awful poetry the evola virus trying to shag a lecturer half my age turd reich vanquishing the goblin nonce vim's sensual meringue hostility group vimothy killed jungle vimothy's hectoring wait till dad gets home we're not going to shag her joe what are you trying to achieve? what is the end goal? what is the point of this thread? who cares? world's worst dinner party you lot aren't as cleaver as you think z haterzzzzzzz
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
it all rests on droid's shoulders now. john has buckled. surrendered.
help us droid, you're our only hope.
help us droid, you're our only hope.
"He's free to do that, yeah" is a fairly vacuous observation in itself. If what you mean is "he should be free to do that without consequences", then I think you're claiming a prerogative to which no-one is entitled: the prerogative to express oneself publicly without being subject to public retort, censure or alteration in one's social standing, including things like the recognition granted one as an artist, and the welcome into public spaces which is extended on that basis.
There's no point or purpose to debating Josef. He's always been slippery, even at the best of times, just look at how loaded and disingenuous his last post was.
Poetix is doing just fine anyway.
But this is "why free speech absolutism is a risibly adolescent position 101". Most people who are not adolescents understand that public expression is a social act, that one can win friends and influence people, or lose friends and alienate people thereby; that these and other consequences are ineluctibly to be reckoned with when choosing what to say and where. Sometimes the right thing to do is indeed to say unpopular things that need to be said, to risk one's neck, to be impolite and untimely and egregious. But poncing around like Daniel going "no-one can judge me, my opponents are all envious liars who merely betray their own intellectual weakness in standing against me" is a fucking poor show, it just makes you look like a self-aggrandising and entitled fantasist, which is what he is and has always been.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I'll bite.
"Over the summer the gallery coordinated talks by and for members of the extreme right, including (in order of appearance) a Danish anti-feminist known for her argument that school shootings in the US are the result of abortion rights; the founder of web journal VDARE, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as ‘an anti-immigration hate website’ which ‘regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites’; a member of the alt-right notorious for his public statements of support for the mass killings carried out by Anders Breivik; an author associated with Return of the Kings, the ‘manosphere’ website owned by Roosh V, mainly known for his argument that rape should be legalised on private property; and a speculative philosopher who, among other things, endorses as ‘race realist’ the idea that there exist human ‘sub-species’."
Is this the type of freedom of discussion you were so invested in defending at the LD50 gallery? Just so we don't mischaracterise you, as a symptomatic consequence of our ethical and intellectual weaknesses
"Over the summer the gallery coordinated talks by and for members of the extreme right, including (in order of appearance) a Danish anti-feminist known for her argument that school shootings in the US are the result of abortion rights; the founder of web journal VDARE, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as ‘an anti-immigration hate website’ which ‘regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites’; a member of the alt-right notorious for his public statements of support for the mass killings carried out by Anders Breivik; an author associated with Return of the Kings, the ‘manosphere’ website owned by Roosh V, mainly known for his argument that rape should be legalised on private property; and a speculative philosopher who, among other things, endorses as ‘race realist’ the idea that there exist human ‘sub-species’."
Is this the type of freedom of discussion you were so invested in defending at the LD50 gallery? Just so we don't mischaracterise you, as a symptomatic consequence of our ethical and intellectual weaknesses
before someone tries to get me involved in this I'd just like to say that free speech has never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. whenever someone says that the working class has free speech in this country all they are admitting is that we have been rendered totally impotent and neutral by the bourgeois dictatorship - we are not a threat, hence the non-freedom of speech. total spectacle.
It's not that I'm fore or against I don't recognise the construct. so Daniel just comes across as a snotty nosed art twat so high on his own farts that he believes the inane ramblings of classical liberals
It's not that I'm fore or against I don't recognise the construct. so Daniel just comes across as a snotty nosed art twat so high on his own farts that he believes the inane ramblings of classical liberals
Last edited:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
you've just involved yourself, with a very good point.
Oh, sure. I just have no interest in getting involved in taking sides here. Daniel's construct is risible at the best. it's a sign of total intellectual laziness not willing to look reality in the guts. Like, not that I'm saying the revolution is coming...
Unrelatedly this is why most arty people can't commit to grime, rap or dancehall in the longterm, because it is a populist deconstruction of all liberalist delusions. also why the far right hate it, because they are ultimately loyal to a form of revised 19th century liberalism.
Last edited:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Also emotional laziness, like most academics (I'm presuming he is an academic, anyways, from the style of writing) - generally unable to ask *why* they might be so interested in a particular principle or theory. Why is he turning up only to defend the right of arseholes to associate, and not the rest of us? We could help to properly diarise his defence of freedom of association so it covers all other sectors of society.
Last edited:
And to extend that, considering the multiple crises we face today, environmental collapse, the breakdown of capitalism, accelerating private capture of government, public services and housing by capital, the rise of a multifaceted ubiquitous surveillance state, and of course the looming threat of multinational fascism...
In this context the question of motivation is valid, what kind of person decides to die on the hill of freedom of expression for conservatives, the far-right and neo fascists?
In this context the question of motivation is valid, what kind of person decides to die on the hill of freedom of expression for conservatives, the far-right and neo fascists?
I'll bite.
"Over the summer the gallery coordinated talks by and for members of the extreme right, including (in order of appearance) a Danish anti-feminist known for her argument that school shootings in the US are the result of abortion rights; the founder of web journal VDARE, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration hate website which regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites; a member of the alt-right notorious for his public statements of support for the mass killings carried out by Anders Breivik; an author associated with Return of the Kings, the manosphere website owned by Roosh V, mainly known for his argument that rape should be legalised on private property; and a speculative philosopher who, among other things, endorses as race realist the idea that there exist human sub-species."
Is this the type of freedom of discussion you were so invested in defending at the LD50 gallery? Just so we don't mischaracterise you, as a symptomatic consequence of our ethical and intellectual weaknesses
I think this is a highly tendentious, and therefore not very credible description. What you observe is a series of assertions and associations, for which no evidence is given. The SPLC is certainly not a credible source. I'm not interested in any of these topics personally; if this conference was happening tomorrow, I probably would not go, but if an art gallery wants to discuss them, my question is this: who has the right to stop them? On what basis?
Be specific. What is your criterion for determining if an art gallery or a bookshop or a speaker may be legitimately targeted for political repression, and who, in your opinion, has the right to forcibly repress examples of expression they oppose? And who doesn't have that right?
If you want to know what happened at LD50 my text is here:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Ah,we're getting somewhere here.
SPLC - why not credible? No assertions please, evidence needed. Are the other assertions in that quoted paragraph factually incorrect - you didn't specifically say that they were?
If you are not interested in these topics personally - and many observers will suspect for good reason that you are - can you explain where else you have turned up to defend freedom of association/speech?
To throw the question back at you - what actual value do you see in the discussions at LD-50 that were quoted, and what harm to others do you imagine that these discussions might potentially produce. Be specific, not vague, please.
Not really interested in reading your account sorry - I'm interested in what you have to say for yourself here.
SPLC - why not credible? No assertions please, evidence needed. Are the other assertions in that quoted paragraph factually incorrect - you didn't specifically say that they were?
If you are not interested in these topics personally - and many observers will suspect for good reason that you are - can you explain where else you have turned up to defend freedom of association/speech?
To throw the question back at you - what actual value do you see in the discussions at LD-50 that were quoted, and what harm to others do you imagine that these discussions might potentially produce. Be specific, not vague, please.
Not really interested in reading your account sorry - I'm interested in what you have to say for yourself here.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
there's a difference between power and authority or right -- are you saying that the state (or some other body) has the power to (for example) arbitrarily curtail your freedom of association, determine what books you should read, etc, or are you saying that the state has the legitimate right to do so?
Well the state clearly does have the power as it has done this for pretty much as long as the state has existed.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
He asked for it :crylarf: