Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "How Technology Destroyed The Truth | Answers With Joe" video.
-
4
-
3
-
1
-
Mike Bready
Yep. I have to say though, as someone who's heavily versed in American political discourse, there are some differences between the American 'right' and 'left.'
(For sake of posterity, I'm using the two best-known channels here):
-Fox News tends to be better organized as far as its segments go, but the segments themselves are packed to the brim with falsities and appeals to emotion (usually fear).
-CNN, on the other hand, still makes an attempt to report on dry, factual events (i.e. no conclusions drawn, just events listed), but their segments are filled with panels full of arguing people who spend hours talking about nothing. It's actually more annoying than Fox sometimes.
Both stink, and their grubby little fingers are starting to reach the Internet (if you haven't noticed, a lot of TV shows have cluttered YouTube's Recommended page within the last few years. I guess we'll have to find a new safe space- the irony is not lost on me- before Google buys it and turns it into one big advertisement again.)
1
-
@MCsCreations
Capitalism, as the name suggests, is an economic system in which the acquisition of capital is allowed, encouraged, and considered the 'goal' of the system. That's purely economic. Sounds to me like you're a libertarian.
They have a moral 'do whatever the fuck you want' component to them, although that idea (and sorry, but yours too) is self-defeating- if, say, my rights to swing my fist, end at the tip of someone else's nose, then the freedom isn't total and unrestricted.
If it isn't, then I don't have freedom from harm. It's really just the paradox of absolutes, and the reason why nothing like that will ever work (because of the inherent contradiction, unless you interpret 'freedom' as a specific set of freedoms, at which point you've stopped supporting the "total and unrestricted" type.) Not to mention the distinction between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. Very sticky issues, not solvable with a simple ideology.
1
-
@MCsCreations
I agree, and thank you for framing it that way.
That being said, I still think that the philosophical underpinnings of absolute freedom are flawed.
While punishing somebody for committing a crime (which, I remind you, is a subjective term) is considered by most people to be 'fair' and 'just,' it is still a restriction of a certain freedom, albeit an immoral one.
This is why most libertarians do, in fact, make an exception to their 'absolute freedom' rule, instead of jumping straight into anarchism: freedoms (or rather, rights) are justified so long as they are not mutually exclusive to another person holding identical rights.
In other words, police are there to punish you, dissuade you, from continuing to punch people in the face. It's been made illegal because it restricts other people's rights to freedom from (in this case) harm.
And while you can do anything you want initially, you're not free from persecution should you choose to do those- I just wanted to point out that absolutes are never a sound ideology to stand on, because they clash with the complexity of the real world.
1