HOME | DD
paradigm-shifting β Politically Incorrect Freedom Zone
by
Published: 2013-09-03 13:35:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 10811; Favourites: 241; Downloads: 76
Redirect to original
Description
Debates are voluntary, not mandatory. People reserve the right to not give a flying fuck. Your approval is not needed for someone to think, feel and express themselves authentically; even if they authentically believe that alien space raccoons are trying to take over the world, or if they faithfully insist that you have a small dick. As long as they present their statements in admission that it is THEIR PERSPECTIVE and THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE IT, then they can believe whatever the hell they want and they are not obligated to present you with evidence. Having an opinion, feelings or systems of belief is not "disinfo". Its called individuality. If you don't respect individuality, you're a cock sucking nazi. And, thats our opinion. Not an absolute fact, merely an individuated perspective of reality; equal to all others which existNOTE: do as you wish with this sign. Download it. Re-upload it. Post it on your bedroom door. Wipe your ass with it. Whatever does it for you.
Related content
Comments: 370
Β It's not much of a step from saying -Β as some ideas/beliefs are unacceptable to me, thus they cannot be allowed to be heard, to -
- people who hold such ideas must be compulsorily reeducated
- people who hold unacceptable beliefs must be exterminated for the good of the whole.
Whatever happened to real liberalism?
Time these sanctimonious little Torquemadas were dethroned.
π: 0 β©: 1
Theres an old quote, lets see if I can remember how it goes:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts"
The fools are the minority, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those with confidence are quicker to speak up, those with doubts have a tenancy to remain silent.
This is how prejudice and stereotypes are formed. Because the minority of the fools speak without any challenge from the silent majority, everyone becomes under the impression that this minority is an official representation speaking on behalf of the majority, with the consent of that majority.
These days, that majority is finally starting to grow some balls and speak up for themselves. Its a process over time, but for the first time in all known history -- that process is finally beginning. Until now, it has never begun.
π: 0 β©: 1
Conversations like this wouldn't even be possible if it hasn't begun. In the not too distant past, they weren't possible.
π: 0 β©: 1
The internet has certainly made the opportunities for free speech far greater. But that freedom terrifies those who don't really believe in it. That think free speech somehow means only speech they agree with. Thus, in my country people now go before the courts for "speech crime" - and not the sort we traditionally accepted, for libel and slander - but for being "offensive", allegedly spreading "hate" (a subjective word) of some kind or another. Now they are preparing to implement the most severe assault on free speech in our modern history by creating banning orders which censor those who they say - "undermine democracy", "don't share our values", even "those who oppose free speech" (you could not make it up, banning the free speech of those who object to free speech!) etc. This in a supposed advanced democratic state which values freedom!
π: 0 β©: 1
I think humanity is currently in a phase that in my opinion is best described as "identifying and dealing with dichotomies". The first ones that get identified are external, but in so doing, we are forced to face our own internal hypocrisy. Once we learn to face both, then external change begins to happen. First in the life of the individual, then collectively. Its a fractal of a human going from being a baby onward to eventual adulthood. First you have the totally helpless period where you're full of shit. Mainly right in the diaper. Then you have the pamper pullup years. So on and so on and so on. Everything is a fractal. Science has proven that. Its just that because fractal mirroring is not always a literal "1 to 1 reflection" and people have become so ungodly narrow minded -- it takes them awhile to understand things that are outside the box of absolutist extremest thinking.
π: 0 β©: 0
Β Β Β Β Β Β
"GIT-R-DONE!"
Couldn't agree more!
π: 0 β©: 1
Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Alors lΓ , c'est la mentalitΓ© moderne IMPLICITEΒ mise Γ nu.
π: 0 β©: 1
I said it's the modern mentality but explicitely written
π: 0 β©: 1
If it was a modern mentality, we wouldn't have so many people in this world who are oblivious to what freedom truly is.
π: 0 β©: 1
Modern in a temporal way, not in a revolutionary way
π: 0 β©: 0
Good thing you have it thenΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh noes, my deviation has made you suicidal! just kidding, i know what you meant. lol
π: 0 β©: 0
May I use this in my about me part in my profile? This is amazing and awesome^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Sure, do as you wish. Its fine
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you so much ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome
π: 0 β©: 0
Long live freedom of speech and fuck all the whiners who only support it when it's politically correct ! lol
π: 0 β©: 1
Nazis always advocate freedom and claim to be all about freedom fighting and freedom for the people. Even Hitler did this. Its just that with a Nazi, their view of freedom is "freedom to agree" with their way of thinking; and their view of tyranny is "anyone who says anything they don't like, is a nasty dangerous terrorist".
So if one understands this and then asks the question "Does the way the American Government conducts itself more resemble the myth of the American Dream, or does it more resemble Nazi Occupied Germany circa 1940s?" the truthful answer is damned inconvenient to the American ego.
π: 0 β©: 0
I did NOT see this coming. XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Cool. So can I call private military contactors fucking mercenaries? C: Or for that matter, say that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are just some cute-spin bullshitting of torture?
Correctness cuts both ways. c:
π: 0 β©: 0
This gives you the right to be an asshole then... because most people i meet who claim the first amendment complain when it is used against them...
π: 0 β©: 2
People will be assholes regardless. Β No matter if 1st Amendment is there or not.
π: 0 β©: 0
Truth being colored by perspective, there is little difference between being completely honest about how one feels, and being an asshole. Especially in today's pseudo-moral where kissing ass to avoid offending egos is more important than honesty, integrity and empathy. It has become virtually impossible to avoid being seen as an asshole by someone, regardless of what we might say, how we might say it or even if our intentions are good.
If someone sees ones right to be themselves as "being used against them" simply because they became butt hurt over what the other person said, then they have zero discernment between the concepts of "being assaulted" and "merely their own right to feel butt hurt" (which is also an equal right which should be valued equally, i might add).
There are always consequences for all actions. This is invariable.
But consequence is not a dirty word and life is an adventure of learning and a journey of experience. Some of us appreciate it, others of us not so much. Either way, regardless of the perils of this planet at the moment, I'm just glad that things aren't boring.
I've been both praised and condemned for the words I speak, depending upon who you ask. But in either case, when any of those people are thinking for themselves and making their own choices, then I've no judgements against either perspective. It is when people do not think for themselves and are ruled by their insecurities, which is unfortunate. And we've all been there and we all still sometimes do go there. Its the world we've been raised in.
I think authenticity, more-so than unrealistic utopian dreams, is in my opinion of of the best ways to make this world better. Truth being colored by perspective, then in my opinion, genuine honesty and integrity about how we each truly feel about things, is the most important precedent to set as an example of freedom. And of course, respecting others rights to do the same. Even when someone has a negative view of us, and I think most especially when someone does.
If we can't respect another persons right to hate us, then we shouldn't be talking about freedom.
π: 0 β©: 1
"If we can't respect another persons right to hate us, then we shouldn't be talking about freedom." I am also worried how people don't show respect for others people's opinions even when they are asking for the same. For example, I know some people who claim to be open-minded but love mocking the other side in an arguementΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
If we really want to be fair, would an open-minded person think that mocking the other side of the argument is wrong, or would they respect the other persons right to hold that perspective? Besides, humor is often used to make points. One persons "closed minded mocking" is another persons "light hearted humor". So who should we nominate as the thought police and which person should those thought police bring down consequences upon?
I think everyone has the right to feel however it is they feel. If someone truly is hateful and ignorant, let them genuinely be that, then. For if they do not act authentically to who they really are, then that would be a deception. A wolf in sheeps clothing. Nothing urks me more than people pretending to be something other than what they truly are. If someone is genuinely hateful, then for them to act as if they are loving, would be a deception. So what is truly the "wrong doing" in this case? Is a hateful person acting hateful lacking in genuine authenticity? Or would a hateful person pretending to be loving be the true scam?
And to add in a wild card -- what if a loving person is merely having a brave and bold moment expressing an opinion someone else does not like, the intention is misunderstood and then the loving person is mistakenly perceived as being hateful by an egocentric person who is feeling butt hurt? Furthermore, doesn't that egocentric person have the right to feel butt hurt if they want to? If they don't, then what is freedom and by whose rules? Since when is thought policing of any sort, "freedom"?
People have the right to be who they are, they just do not have the right to force their will on others. Let those who offend people, continue to offend. Let those who do not like being offended, have enough balls and maturity to choose for themselves to simply not deal with those other people, instead of blaming those other people. Dog shit exists, its my own choice if I actively choose to continue rolling around in it.
The words I speak seem extremely inspiring to some, and appear insufferably horrible to others. Who is right? Which group has the truth about me? And furthermore, what about the people who find me insufferable horrible who occasionally like what I have to say, and those whom I inspire who occasionally feel that I crossed the line and said something inappropriate? Who is right? Who is wrong? Or do they all reserve the right to feel how they feel?
π: 0 β©: 1
...I really don't know... I admit it is best to be honsest about one's self... at the same time the lack of respect I see is infruating and simply serves as a barrier and inflates egos...Β
Also this sounds like freedom taken to a logical extreme... and I am not sure if that is a good thing.
π: 0 β©: 2
I understand. Some people should try to be more respectful. They don't necessarily have to be, but they should really try.
π: 0 β©: 0
Its not really extreme at all. We all view reality through own own perspectives and humans are unique and diverse. There is nothing you can say, no matter how hard you might try to be polite, that *someone* won't at some point interpret as lacking respect and being rude and belligerent. And they will view any attempts at using respectful sounding language as you being patronizing and insulting their intelligence.
The hard facts to swallow is that society encourages an extended state of adolescence. The more we "grow up" the more we become like toddlers. What we practice, we get better at. So the more we practice being easily offended, insecure, closed minded, narrow minded, paranoid, defensive, etc... the better we will get at it. That is a simple matter of neurology. Look around and ask yourself what kind of a world we live in and what people have been practising. Have people been practising attitudes of open mindedness? Or have we been practising becoming increasingly immature and insecure, grabbing at any excuse we can grab onto to feel justified and self righteous as we strike out at others for the crime of simply being who they are?
And with all due respect, you keep avoiding my question.
I asked you who is right. Those who would see my words as inspirational, or those who would see them as insufferable and intolerable belligerence? Who is right? Or are both views simply valid perspectives that individuals are capable of choosing? So answer me please, who is right?
Some people say that the way I speak is nothing more than an ideological excuse. That I'm not really being an individual, that I am attempting to pull some sort of deception. Others feel that I am merely being honest about how I feel and the blunt truth has a tenancy to bruise the egos of those living in the totalitarian insecure society that we live in. Who is right?
This leads me to a quote I saw not too long ago that I am tempted to make a deviation out of:
"Conceal nothing, and watch the fools search forever."
I think if there was ever a one-liner to describe how many people react to me, that would be an efficient and accurate one to use. The more you are aligned with who you truly are and express it outwardly and bravely, the more people will think you're "up to something". Because they have a belief system that claims other people must be who their egos have defined them to be. That everyone in the world must conform to their view of reality. Because they don't understand that what they have is "their own view of reality". They believe there is only ONE view and no other view, period. So the idea of there being other points of view sounds delusional to people. So you'll be classified as being pretty much insane in this crazy world, if you have the audacity to be who you are. You will be classified as being patronizing and insulting if you respect another persons right to condemn you in such a way, because from their belief systems -- condemnation can only be responded to defensively and with counter attack. So they interperet a lack of attack, as a cloaked deception.
So when you feel insulted, who forced you to feel like that? Do you choose your own interpretation of reality? Do you realize that how you decide to feel about something is your own right to your own free will choice as to how you want to decide to feel about it? Or do you feel victimized and forced into feeling how you feel, against your own will, by others? And when a toddler decides to become upset over what an adult perceives as nothing, and the toddler claims that YOU MADE THEM feel that way, and the toddler tantrums a blame storm at you, and you laugh as you understand that the small child is immature and simply has not learned a different perception yet -- then why would we restrict this phenomenon to only just toddlers when we live in a world built upon people determined to misunderstand us and try to force us into viewing the world as they view it? If its immature when a small child plays the blame game, is it somehow mature when so-called adults play the same game?
We do not grow up out of the habit of being a toddler, we grow into the habit a thousand fold and we become very efficient toddlers with decades of experience with which to wield our immaturity, and we have the weapons of war and genocide to take the place of merely breaking our toys.
If you put a 3 year old in charge of weapons of mass destruction, what do you imagine would happen? It would be the same thing that already is happening. Grown-ass 3 year olds whose age and experience trick us into thinking that they must be mature simply because they exist in an older body. The passage of time does not guarantee wisdom and we are not s society that encourages wisdom. Not at all.
So, you tell me. Who is right? Who is wrong? And who will enforce this rightness? And how should it be enforced? Or is this all merely the same old thought policing and brutality trying to disguise itself as morality like it always does? Even the Nazis made claims of being moral and righteous and on the side of freedom.
π: 0 β©: 1
Who is right? I don't know how to answer... and I thought you were being rhetorical...Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, isn't the answer simple?
Either we all have the right to our points of view and that points of view are all they are -- or -- we don't. So, which is it?
The means of processing all of this without it giving you a headache requires a willingness to step out of ones comfort zone. Because the reality of this is very uncomfortable. The reality that in this day and age, we have all fallen for the age old nazi strategy of divide and conquer.
Do you know how Hitler conquered Germany and deceived the German people? The same way they're trying to pull it on America and the rest of the world. But we are waking up, otherwise topics like this wouldn't even come up for discussion.
Research into how Hitler used the German Main Stream Media, in combination with the educational system, to narrow down the minds of the people making them easy to confuse. Compare the strategies and their effects to the world we live in today and you will discover a perfect match.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Well, isn't the answer simple?
Either we all have the right to our points of view and that points of view are all they are -- or -- we don't. So, which is it?"
You are asking me for an answer... yet you aren't comming up with it...
π: 0 β©: 1
How so?Β I have explained my perspective on this. My perspective is MY answer. I am asking you for YOUR answer. YOUR perspective. Why do you seek a single ingredient to blame for the existence of the cake, metaphorically speaking. Why must there be only one perspective? Will you not allow yourself to have your own perspective? Or do you really need someone else to hand it to you?
I've been giving you my perspective. As per my right as an individual to have my perspective. So my answer is my answer. You're not obligated to any particular view of my answer. You can think of it whatever you want to think. So I am asking you for your perspective. Do you not have one? Can you not form one? And if you feel you can not form one, then you might want to ask yourself why you hold a belief that you can not. For a belief is all it would be.
I know we are not taught critical thinking or discernment in school. And society tries to force us into complacent obedience and discourages critical thinking and discernment. But I am asking you to use it anyways. Its a function within every human brain. All you need do is shut down what you have been taught. What we've all been taught. And we have been taught to put up walls around our natural and fully automatic abilities to think critically and discern our reality. We all have this, it is automatic within human neurology. We have merely been taught to put up walls.
The idea of shutting down those walls is scary, because we have been taught to fear doing so -- like small children afraid of the dark. But aren't such fears illusions?
π: 0 β©: 1
What makes you think I don't? Simply becasue I can't answer something?... Look I admit that people are entitled to their own opinions but, and this is important, they must show respect for the other side and must explain why they disagree with their opinions without accusations, or appeals to emotion or other types of childishness...
π: 0 β©: 1
I was clarifying my question by breaking it down into many questions, because it seemed you required it. What makes me think you don't? If I thought you didn't, it would negate asking you anything.
All any of us have as individual human beings, is our own perspective of reality. This seems to be your hang up, as it is the hang up of all of us. By this I mean, that we do not realize that this is all we have. You are still speaking as if your view absolutely must be the only real reality. In fact you used the word "must" more than once. I completely disagree with you because you are insisting that the words respect and disrespect must be defined by your own personal view of reality and that no other views are acceptable. This to me, is a contradiction. It is demanding respect while issuing contempt, which is not respectful and thus completely negates your argument. By your own standards, your own point negates itself.
No one owes anyone, anything. Much less owes anyone any compliance to any demands.
So if someone sees your demands as being rude and disrespectful, then what respect do they owe you at all? None.
And if they see your demands as being rude and disrespectful, then do they not have the right to do so? Why would your perspective on what is or is not disrespectful be superior to someone else's?
I do not think anything you just said is rude or disrespectful, but I can see how it contradicts itself. And I know that most people take contradictions as an attack, because most people are trained to be insecure and react like pissed animals. I know that prior to my own processes of maturing a bit more, I would have been someone who would have taken your statements as disrespectful and hypocritical. I would have laughed and said that you were being totalitarian and barking orders at me, arrogantly trying to force your will upon me, while simultaneously condemning others for being rude and making demands upon them with your hypocrisy.
This is not a view I hold currently, but it is a view I would have held in the past, and a view that some others might hold currently. You see, I could also spin what you said to the utmost positive as well. I could glorify it and make you appear saintly, or demonize it and make you appear completely evil. This is because truth is colored by perspective. There are no absolutes. Thats what you are having trouble wrapping your mind around. This is why being an individual is the quickest way to piss people off. Because you can't control how other people are going to view you so it actually does not matter what your real intentions are. It does not matter what you truly mean by what you have expressed. None of it matters because, you can not change the fact that someone can take your compliments as insults. You can not change the fact that someone can misunderstand your kind acts and contemptful deeds. You can not change someone else's view of reality, you can only respect their right to their own views, or you can revoke their rights and hold them in contempt. But you can't even do either of these if you don't realize that there is a lot more than just one view. We are all brain washed to think there is one view and one view only. This is not true. But for as long as we believe it is, then humans will fight and be butt hurt over nothing, and destroy themselves in their own self righteous arrogance.
Genuine respect will be viewed as patronizing insult by a person who insists that there is no way that you are capable of respecting them. The eyes are useless when the mind is blind. We do not see the world as it is, we see it as we are. Believing is seeing, not the other way around.
I am incapable of convincing anyone, of anything, what so ever. All I can do, is be true to myself, and respect other peoples rights to make of that whatever they want to make of that. People will perceive each other according to their own beliefs about reality. They can not perceive each other as they truly are, unless they can step far enough out of the trap of the lie of so-called universal truth. There ain't no such thing.
We would not have so many different systems of belief on this planet, if this dichotomy were not true. Though it does not have to be a dichotomy, we as a human race have certainly turned it into one.
I will not make much sense to you, if you predecide that I don't make much sense. My words will run through your belief system filters. This is a fact of neurology so don't believe me, look it up.
Its the blessing and curse in equal measure, of free will.
π: 0 β©: 1
"All any of us have as individual human beings, is our own perspective of reality....This is because truth is colored by perspective. There are no absolutes.Β "Realtivism I know... I acutally believe in this to an extent that people see reallity based on a number of different factors unique to them... and that there are people out there who just don't see that...
"I do not think anything you just said is rude or disrespectful, but I can see how it contradicts itself. And I know that most people take contradictions as an attack, because most people are trained to be insecure and react like pissed animals. I know that prior to my own processes of maturing a bit more, I would have been someone who would have taken your statements as disrespectful and hypocritical. I would have laughed and said that you were being totalitarian and barking orders at me, arrogantly trying to force your will upon me, while simultaneously condemning others for being rude and making demands upon them with your hypocrisy.Β " Thank you. I have had that problem with a few people already...Β
"I am incapable of convincing anyone, of anything, what so ever. All I can do, is be true to myself, and respect other peoples rights to make of that whatever they want to make of that. People will perceive each other according to their own beliefs about reality. They can not perceive each other as they truly are, unless they can step far enough out of the trap of the lie of so-called universal truth. There ain't no such thing. " Finally! I am glad I had met you... some of the people I argue with say that there is good and evil... that is true, but they have a hard time understanding that the distincition is hard to make due to context and awareness of the available facts, not to mention that they want to believe what they want...
π: 0 β©: 1
[... "All any of us have as individual human beings, is our own perspective of reality....This is because truth is colored by perspective. There are no absolutes.Β "
.. "Realtivism I know... I acutally believe in this to an extent that people see reallity based on a number of different factors unique to them... and that there are people out there who just don't see that..."]
Well, its not an ism and nor is it to an extent. Everything is completely diverse and carries with it multiple simultaneous similarities and differences that it shares with everything else in existence. The more similarities something shares to something else, the more alike the two things are, and vice versa. However, similarities and differences are more perceptual than tangible.
At our deepest core, all of space-time exists at once and we are all made up of the same energy, literally. 5 sense reality is pure holographic perception interpreted by the brain. I'm not saying its not real, but I am saying that humans know little about what reality actually consists of. We're like a blind man feeling the trunk of an elephant, quite positively sure that we've discovered a water hose.
There is no way to even 100% conclusively prove that any of us see color even close to anywhere near similar. I can not prove that the way I see the color green, is the way you see it, for example. We can both agree that the grass is green, but how do you know that my version of how I see green, isn't how you perceive blue or red?
I can't prove nor disprove it, neither can anyone else. So, its perfectly fine to have an opinion that we probably see it the same, and its perfectly fine to have an opinion that we probably don't. Its fine to agree, disagree and whatever else. But as soon as anyone makes claim that any of these are absolute truths and must be blindly accepted, thats when science turns into a religion. This is why false dogmas use ad homonyms to support themselves, because they have nothing else to enforce anything with, other than fear mongering tactics.
[..."I do not think anything you just said is rude or disrespectful, but I can see how it contradicts itself. And I know that most people take contradictions as an attack, because most people are trained to be insecure and react like pissed animals. I know that prior to my own processes of maturing a bit more, I would have been someone who would have taken your statements as disrespectful and hypocritical. I would have laughed and said that you were being totalitarian and barking orders at me, arrogantly trying to force your will upon me, while simultaneously condemning others for being rude and making demands upon them with your hypocrisy.Β "
.. "Thank you. I have had that problem with a few people already... "]
And you're going to keep having it, until or unless you are willing to redefine the experience as not being a problem, but rather just someone else's right to view the world (which includes their view of you) as they see fit to. When you can do that, then it is merely just an experience, but no longer a problem.
[... "I am incapable of convincing anyone, of anything, what so ever. All I can do, is be true to myself, and respect other peoples rights to make of that whatever they want to make of that. People will perceive each other according to their own beliefs about reality. They can not perceive each other as they truly are, unless they can step far enough out of the trap of the lie of so-called universal truth. There ain't no such thing. "
.. "Finally! I am glad I had met you... some of the people I argue with say that there is good and evil... that is true, but they have a hard time understanding that the distincition is hard to make due to context and awareness of the available facts, not to mention that they want to believe what they want..."Β ]
The first book of the bible explains how good and evil are man made perceptual constructs, but few people understand what they are actually reading.
It explains that the first sin is arrogance. That from which all others are formed. That arrogance being the assignment of good onto some things and evil onto others. What humans do not realize that they are wanting to avoid, is conflict. When we do not make assignments of good and evil, there can not be conflict. But when we do make those assignments, then it breeds sin and death.
People say "well, if there were not assignments of good and evil, then that would be saying its good to murder and we'd live in total chaos!" .... but, not really. If there were not any assignments of good or evil, then the concept of murder would seem as silly as a tom and jerry cartoon and no one would be compelled to do it. Whatever humans feel they must do, they do so based on their systems of belief. Murder happens because of the belief in it as needing to be an aspect of reality. It doesn't need to anymore than having your dick chopped off needs to.
But we are taught to not take response ability for our actions and to cast outward blame. So, for as long as we do that, then we will continue to reap our own destruction. Its very simple. What we put out, we get back.
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>