- Oct 17, 2011
- 33,316
- 36,634
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Glad people are keeping track of pop culture nonsense so I dont have to.Bronies absolutely destroyed and Russia being based and red pilled.
Hands up who wouldn't be surprised if this happened in Arkansas or Texas.
Texas isn't based enough to even try it.Hands up who wouldn't be surprised if this happened in Arkansas or Texas.
Hey hey, watch it there Kiwi, or I'll start talking about how New Zealand mis-handled covid.Texas isn't based enough to even try it.
You mean terribly? By allowing for the conditions for my company to fire me unless i got rhe stupid thing? Dont let me stop you from criticizing my rainbow flag country.Hey hey, watch it there Kiwi, or I'll start talking about how New Zealand handled covid.
I know, you're right. But we're in a nation where free speech is embedded in law, and a Court which is Supreme has ruled that women taking off their clothes in strip clubs is "speech", and burning flags is speech, so basically everything is speech (unless you're a Trump supporter). It's the dilemma of well-intentioned classical liberalism, and we all know the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.When I say Texas won't do it I literally mean it. Texas is no where near close enough to banning MLP conventions.
If this is where freespeech leads why should Christians defend it? Since we all believe the original conception of freedom of speech did not include the obscene or the degenerate it would appear the concept itself is fundamentally flawed and can only benefit those who wish to pursue such avenues.I know, you're right. But we're in a nation where free speech is embedded in law, and a Court which is Supreme has ruled that women taking off their clothes in strip clubs is "speech", and burning flags is speech, so basically everything is speech (unless you're a Trump supporter). It's the dilemma of well-intentioned classical liberalism, and we all know the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Free speech is related to freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion. You know when the Deacon holds up his orarion during the liturgy? This is done in part to commemorate the early days when Christianity was illegal, and no New Testament canon had been complied, so they would hide bits of the gospels and epistles in the sash so they wouldn't be found in possession of them.If this is where freespeech leads why should Christians defend it? Since we all believe the original conception of freedom of speech did not include the obscene or the degenerate it would appear the concept itself is fundamentally flawed and can only benefit those who wish to pursue such avenues.
It means that you don't care what others think and that you do "your own thing"."based"
Kids, help me out with this hip new terminology!
No, not exactly. It's more specific than that. There are two aspects to being based. 1) You are wise enough to see through the lies and absurdity and danger of wokeness, and 2) you're courageous enough to openly stand against it. For example, you realize that when people make a big deal out of claiming to be anti-fascist, they are in fact fascist, and when people claim to be anti-racist they are in fact racist. And you're willing to fight against evils such as these.It means that you don't care what others think and that you do "your own thing".
As far as I'm aware, in Russia "doing your own thing" is punishable by up to twenty years in a prison camp.
It is a dilemma. Who decides what kind of speech is harmful?I know, you're right. But we're in a nation where free speech is embedded in law, and a Court which is Supreme has ruled that women taking off their clothes in strip clubs is "speech", and burning flags is speech, so basically everything is speech (unless you're a Trump supporter). It's the dilemma of well-intentioned classical liberalism, and we all know the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
So if Texas was "based" - did see the evils of wokeness - then they would ban MPL conventions, as Ig says.No, not exactly. It's more specific than that. There are two aspects to being based. 1) You are wise enough to see through the lies and absurdity and danger of wokeness, and 2) you're courageous enough to openly stand against it. For example, you realize that when people make a big deal out of claiming to be anti-fascist, they are in fact fascist, and when people claim to be anti-racist they are in fact racist. And you're willing to fight against evils such as these.
I'll link this WAPO article and you can decide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cupying-capitols-before-they-were-against-it/It is a dilemma. Who decides what kind of speech is harmful?
Not necessarily. The article says Russian police were merely called to investigate if any Russian laws were being broken, and the organizers voluntarily shut down the event.So if Texas was "based" - did see the evils of wokeness - then they would ban MPL conventions, as Ig says.
I think I'm getting this but not sure.
So Russia is only partially based. Quasi-based? Not sure what the right word would be. "Half-based." Thats my candidate. As in: "Dont do anything half-based, the revered Ayatollah used to say."Not necessarily. The article says Russian police were merely called to investigate if any Russian laws were being broken, and the organizers voluntarily shut down the event.