Your dodging the actuality of what he said Carleas. It is easy to hide behind abstractions, then call it negative, when they go unnamed.
Actually quote what he said, and tell me the founding fathers didn’t specifically protect that form of political expression. He vehemently rejected Satyr and his group on ideological grounds. This is the primary speech they were protecting… the most important aspect, no form of speech is more important than this as far as America is concerned.
If there is any structural incompatibility that can possibly flow as suggested by your position, it is the actions of your moderator, and the foolishness he engaged in. That Carleas, is incompatible with free speech, that Carleas, is incompatible with Democracy, that Carleas, has fundamentally gone against every good and just tradition we’ve preserved in philosophy. We have had tyrants bite out their own tongues and spit it in the face of tyrants. They had lead just rebellions, have stood up in senates denouncing the obscene vice of tyrants and autocrats.
Joker has a point to make, and made it. He is partisan, opposed to Satyr’s world view, and he participated fairly in philosophy by stating this emphatically, in dialogue… but he used dialogue. He wasn’t the twisted son of a bitch that turned his back on dialogue, and therefore philosophy, by banning Satyr.
Joker isn’t the one who shoukd of been banned, the offendibg moderator should of been, he committed the crime against out true institutions, which do not flow from your insight and reasonings, but the ancient institutions of philosophy and conscious. Institutes we were so very careful in this proudest of republics to emulate and preserve. You have turned this poor boy and fool into the very image of Martyrdom of conscious and free speech. In your stupid brutality of thought control and contortion of free expression, what is the difference between your actions and that of the persecution and execution of Sir Thomas More for his? Do we not hang his portrait in the Supreme Court to remind ourselves of this patron saint of lawyers, to remind ourselves not to repeat that heart wrenching injustice against free speech and rights of individuals to affiliation?
What we have at root here is just that. If you dared to quote what he said you would instantly see that, it could be nothing more, nothing less than that… there is no fucking around around and side winding on lawyeresqe sophistry to try to distract everyone. What he said was conceptually reasonable, and in magnitude and character of daily speech seen on this forum, not unusual.
I submit therefore it was a persecution, against him, not for any element at play on his part, which is fully protected but the traditions of philosophy and free speech, but by the shitheaded and dimwitted outlook of a moderator hopelessly over his head, upset nobody ever discussed things in ways he desired, and had to crush the personalities that most offended him and his own personal outlook. He confuses being a justice of the peace with justice of peace of mind… we do not elect and justify coercive force for the latter, but the former. We expect those frictuve elements, and reserve our force for more serious mortal matters, of the physical and not of the spirit. We should look back to Marsilius of Padua on this, and observe such frictions are not unnatural or even undesirable, but evidence of the need to balance coercive force in ordering the loose ends of society by making a society that can encompass all loose ends justly, where there is a place for everyone, and everyone has a place.
Currently in the structure of your pan-philosophical website, too many people stand out as loise ends,andare repeatedly hammered for no reason. People are tolerated till a vreaking point us reached, then arbitarily banned without just reasoning or furtherance of discourse or insight of reasoning, where rules are put up in mockery of due justice. These breaking points are purely based on oersonality and afflicted histories, not the substance of arguments. Anything can be found and hammered, and thereafter hidden behind as objective action. “Oh… we have a methodology, we only followed the rules, look at the rukes for why you were banned”. Such arguments are why mobs chase tyrants out if cities, why escape tunnels have to be built out of white houses and presidential palaces. A rwasonable society has no need for such recourse, yet we find you here in your arguments mining ad hoc in unison underground digging your escape. There is no place to run to, there is no place to hide within the realm of ideas, to ehich you perpetually offend against. We will see you anywgere, grab you by your collars and yell to the crowds “we got you now you scrondrel”.
Tolerance and breadth of categorization matterrs in philosophy. It is our city, the foundation of our every great building, what our streets are paved in. We expect qualitatively like to back like, similar ideas to form together into areas of dedicated philosophy overtime, so we can refer to types of philosophy, and have a good idea of the ideas within it, but we shouldn’t hold too cloosekly to the logical rigors we derive from this phenomena. Philosophy is still very much the construct of the individual mind, and not all mind see the pattern as others do, some stick out as awkward thornes and refuse to accept the layout as others see it. So be it… the mind is a mix of feedback loops, every aspect worthy at least of consideration. When men cone along who simply cannot fit, let them be. Some of our greatest minds have been like them, and we should fear their seismic character. They aren’t capable of doing any great harm to our city, to the architecture and forms we have developed, but rather strengthen every stone, smooth the way of our rough streets, by adfing to the strength and insights of anything and everything they touch.