'Free speech' edition of the Daily Patriot...

This has been a very interesting few days for me. I am learning a lot..
Thanks to the commies, yet again - for getting me off my lazy arse.
A state of fugue can be a creeping sickness..

Channeled anger is, indeed, a great source of energy, and it certainly gives the 'mental pipes' a good clearing out!

Lucy has been in touch with a couple of her textile mates for the screen printing, and that seems to be going well.
(She's very fired up about this! It scares the hell outta me though! lmao).

The websites for the T-shirts have not gone anywhere - yet - I'm finishing the other ones off, so I can concentrate on these 2 properly. (2? It's four now, which will all become clear..)
Tomorrow will be the star of those, hopefully so all is good on that front.
Oh, my commissions are up to $3.11 wooohoo! lol. - on the other sites that I did last week. (last week? I dunno)
While this seems like very small potatoes - I have it on good authority that this is much better than to be expected, and is bordering on fantastic, apparently...mmm (considering the time I haven't put into them.)
So that's cool.

Today's post is covering posts I looked at yesterday, philosophy on down voting, and thoughts about informationwar and organization.

All these things that are very close to my heart, right now!

1/ informationwar and organization against the enemy. Yes, enemy.

2/ @Kafkanarchy84, being civil within incivility, and my philosophical take on down voting.

3/ My response to a very interesting post by @tarazkp

1/ On @informationwar...Let's get organized - because the enemy are...

Tactics and strategy...

At the moment I am being attacked pretty aggressively from bloomy. This means my earning on posts (including informationwar posts) are down - drastically.
This is not good.
Due to this, I've been looking around and noticed that @caladium has also been flagged into oblivion for _ the last 3 weeks_ ! by the same user.
This user has threatened to downvote any posts that include basically any of things information war participants often talk about - from vaccines to climate change to .....any lefty subject this user disagrees with.
I noticed @caladium said she might withdraw her support from @informationwars, and while I haven't asked her motives, I can imagine the lack of support might play a part in it...
The feeling of being targeted is much easier when you know people have your back, I think.

I think @informationwars offers a great forum for the free thinkers to present their work. An excellent one, in fact.
I also think bloomy is playing the classic left game of bullying.

This will affect the information warriors, make no mistake. ALL of oyu

"..first they came for, then they came for, ..."

I'm sure I don't need to finish that sentence off for any warriors to understand the meaning...

It is affecting me at the moment - but just say I am totally quieted because it's not worth my time?
(while not essential, steemit does help me, and my life, in small ways)
If I could earn from my other accounts, not be controversial and maintain my income, it seems an illogical step not to do so, if my real life was not affected.
We all need to fill our own bowl of rice, first.

The result of this change of strategy?
The information war is one warrior down, and then another, and then another..and so it continues.
It will not let up.
To think differently is naive beyond belief..
Anyone thinking it will, just needs to look as you tube, Alex Jones, and the attack onthe libert mindied content producers, to see... It's happening right now.
This is ideological.

IT... WILL... NOT... STOP.

Bloomy will move onto another..and another...and another.
What then?
People will stop writing content that is controversial, and honest, eventually.

THE COMMIES WIN?

I PROPOSE A STRATEGY TO COMBAT THIS ATTACK.

let @informationwars contact bloomy - and let thim know that downvoting informationwar posts will not be tolerated. Full stop.
Informationwar account size is close to bloomy's, and could nullify every single downvote he does, on information warriors posts.
It would be easy to check and track - I'll do it daily, no problem, and I'm sure there are enough of us to make it easy...

While this would mean less in the way of upvotes in the short run for current infowarriors content producers- it would totally NULLIFY the negative influence of bloomy.
And better for the information warriors in the medium/ long term..

It would be a victory for the information warriors, for free speech, and for the truth getting pushed out there, ( as far as I can see..).

I, for one, would be more than happy to forgo my informationwar upvotes, if it meant another content provider(s) that were being attacked, were protected in this way.
WWG1WGA !, kinda thing...
As i see it, we need to look after the structure while it is still strong, for it may not be , if this commie sniping continues.

What do other content producers who are part of the informationwar, think..?

What does @informationwar think?

It seems to me that strategy of some kind is needed, or we will picked off one, by one, by one.

We need to be organized to fight this typical leftist strategy of suppression through intimidation.

Let's, by cutting 'the bloom' off at the source, put a line in the sand.
It is by far the best way for everyone to prosper, as far as I see....

This really isn't a game...
(oh, did I mention that they were spinless pieces of shit?)

2/ ....On Kafkananrchy84 and downvoting...

I have had many a 'run in' with @kafkanarchy84 over the months, and is a very good example of how disagreement and opposing views can be handled...
We have had highly charged exchanges, both emotionally charged , and full of intellectual jousting- with neither of us giving ground, and mostly agreeing to disagree.

A quick time out...Re the current events with him and kokesh...
With the evidence as I see it, I'm in support of him and the attacks that he has been under.
I have not been given any information to the contrary, so my position is the same.

...is a tried and tested perspective, to adopt when working out what is happening, and I see no benefit by @kafkanarchy pretending this hoax story. None at all.
Does anyone see how he would benefit, from this..?

..Back to the game...

My disagreements with @kafkanarchy84, and the emotionally charged exchanges and resolutions (or non resolution, mostly, lol), is the way intercourse on here SHOULD be conducted.
The 'verbal violence' is just that - and has no consequences in the real world.
Any actual violence perpetrated because of these words, is fully on the shoulders of the weak individual who justifies such a act from words spoken...
There is no gray area.
To use this an any excuse is a self attempt at 'absolution of action', and this does not reside in the minds of the mature adults.

Due to my flagging attacks at the moment, this issue of downvoting has come starkly into focus for myself, and brings me back to the philosophical question of down voting that I've had with kafkanarchy84 .

This has been one of the main disagreements between @kafkanarchy84 and myself - and one that he cannot defend without at some point resorting to 'this is the system we use on steemit.' As though that is validation enough, as though it's a 'set in stone fact' to finish the argument.
That's a bullshit argument , imo. (especially coming from a voluntarist).
An appeal to authority to justify anything, is indicative of a very weak position.

Which leads me to blockchain... (like I understand any of that stuff..)

The system is a man made one. (and @ned is not a fuckerberg clone, I will presume?)

The systems created are man made.
They can be changed.

Nothing written in code, is written in stone.

Philosophically speaking , I see down voting as an intellectually and morally, untenable position.

Let's break it down a little...

An action is doing something.

An upvote is an action.
A down vote is an action.

One of these actions is a positive action, that builds people up.
One of these is an action, and one that negatively affects other people.

I'm all for positive action and not negative ones.

Taking from someone , - unasked- is an act of aggression.

And if you think about it, it' s not just taking from the post writer...

It is also taking the choice away from from the decision of upvoter user who promoted by upvoting...

Downvoting as an action is saying...

'I do not agree with you using your upvoting power in a way that you choose to. I will choose to take it away from you .

(This is pointedly against the wishes of the upvoter, and how they chooses to use their up vote.)

There is no philosophical argument that I can see, that does not contravene the non aggression principle.
The down voter is being aggressive against two steemit users.
(.'..rewards going back to pool, blah blah doesn't cut it, and if you are being intellectually honest with yourself, it's seems glaringly self evident).

This is NOT a coding issue, this is a philosophical one.
If coding trumps the philosophical principles of the non aggression principle, then I think we have problem ~~ houston~~..steemit.
Who knows to what degree this dynamic contributes to the low retention rate here. ..?

Will Steemit die.?
Not just because of down voting, I don't think - but it might do - from the corruption that down voting punitive actions cause.

This is not about freedom of speech (but it is, also) - this is about the non aggression principle.

Ridding down voting will not solve ALL the problems, and it may well raise many more..

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR ANY FUCKIN' FORM.

If a coder can't code without compromising basic principles, maybe we need different coders?

If witnesses can't see the fucking tree standing right in front of you - because of the very profitable woods surrounding it, well, maybe we need witnesses with a different perspective...

I'm not expecting any change soon, and realistically not at all, to be honest - but if (WHEN) a social platform copies steemit, but without the down voting feature, and concentrate the structure through positive actions - then ...many people will head there...
.... quicker than you can say 'shit, steemit is down to 5 cents...', in fact....

FOR THOSE WHO INITIATE DOWNVOTING....
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen, you little boys and girls!

And of the men and women present on steemit?
You, my friends, are always most welcome at my table... Let the fight commence if that's your point of view.. No problem whatsoever.
Fight verbally as hard as you wish, and go for it, express your truth, and fuck it.

I don't see any kids blown to pieces because of our words, and I don't see anyone going hungry through verbally violent discourse.

My down voting attack for the last 3/4 days means me reducing my food rations.
These are through angry actions of the flagging down voting war.
This does cause real world issues.
(My lack of beer this next week, for example).

3/ This is my response to a post by @tarazp and it concerns the same philosophical issue in the rest of my post.

I've included it in this daily patriot post as it raises many interesting points.
@tarazp does indeed raise my game with his posts, and I love the gentle sparring.

(There is a short intro isn't relevant to the post, imo, so haven't included it..)

...in there or in the comments I mentioned that freedom of speech is impossible if someone feels they have something to lose.
This doesn't matter if it is financial or reputation based, the experience of others or even one's own life; whenever there is a sense of potential loss, there is going to be a curbing of speech, a softening of terms and a little thought to limit costs paid.
True freedom of Speech is for the enlightened and the insane.
The other thing that many seem to believe is that freedom of speech is a right. This is senseless.

It is only senseless if you do not believe that moral codes, and civility and ethics, are not items of value for a society...
Morality gives rise to the very principles of freedom of speech...

Rights are granted and as far as God, Nature or whatever else you believe or don't believe in, there is what is possible and what is not.

Rights of free speech, framed in the context of 'human granted rights', is oppression and tyranny, waiting to happen.
That's the beauty of always having a 'higher power' (whether you are religious or not).
Morality can be viewed as one such higher power, (if you are not religious) even though it's been derived from man.
It becomes bigger than man. It makes everyone accountable.

Rights are human concepts that the universe literally cares nothing about.

Agreed. There is no logical reason to think otherwise, just as there is no logical reason not to codify free speech as a right, within a society, and above any human interference.

If you think that your government can grant you freedom of speech, you are not free to speak without their permission.

Agreed. Absolutely.
If you think that the government can dictate to you, and your 'right' to speak freely, then you are your own prisoner, just without any bars..

...Freedom of speech is being able to say whatever one wants and NOT CARE about any of the potential costs, no matter how cruel or painful they may be.

Absolutely.

If your words stir up another to action, that is their responsibility.
If you hurt other with your words, it's not your words that are causing the pain, it is the individuals inner self ( for whatever reasons relevant to them) reacting to your words.
The words may have caused a spark to already explosive materials hiding within themselves...but to accept responsibility for another actions, is masochistic in it's nature.
Ones spoken words cannot be held accountable - responsible for another's feelings.
That's down to the individual to process these feelings themselves.
It's mathematically retarded, if anyone thinks that every word can be self policed, to cover all outcomes of everyone's interpretation.
The worlds population is over 6 billion, and that's 6 billion individual perspectives...

It could be argued that freedom of speech is the ultimate caring.
Putting your own personal thoughts out into the open arena of discussion.
Words can be cruel and hurt.
So what?
They are just word, not actions.
Attempting to assign responsibility of ones actions , from another's words - is a dangerous mind control tactic.
To apply pressure to people - to not say their truth , is the thin end of the wedge of mind control.
It all starts with restricting your speech for the sake of 'civility'.

If civility tries to supersede an existing higher moral law, it then becomes an attempted usurpation of power.

It's a marxist/Alinsky leftist strategy, to silence people's opposing views..

If one holds zero attachment to anything in this world whether past or future, they are always able to speak freely as there is zero to lose.

You - as an individual, have you , as your own property.
If you have any value on yourself, you have an asset.

It is impossible, therefor, to never have nothing , to lose.

Are the people with relatively less to use, not then invaluable? Their very freedom - not constrained by as many fears as other's 'in the system' gives them a clarity many cannot - or are unwilling to - even comprehend.
Are they not the very oxygen of free thinking and therefor - ultimately - progress?

Are you willing to take that kind of responsibility for yourself?

Only fear would stop you, and negative motivations rarely end with positive outcomes...

The kind that is able to release every string that binds, every possession, every relationship, every person to an ultimate fate?

'You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.'
Winston Churchill
If you never stood up for something bigger than a mortgage or a pay rise, then this makes (in my opinion) for a slave living in fear, and hoping his master doesn't turn his attention onto him.

And if it's the Eye of Sauron, does that then make you an unwitting Orc...?

In my life, I have walked away from several millions of dollars, on principle .
A breach of contract.
The breach meant being lied to, and my personal cost to standing up for what is right, was millions of dollars.
So what? It's only money.

Nothing is free. Nothing.

And silence is one of the the highest costs to your spirit.

Silence corrodes from the inside, eventually morphing you into a different person than you thought you ever were.

Are you able to watch immeasurable pain inflicted onto those around you, watch them tortured, beaten, torn apart and condemned to death due to the words you have spoken?

So you are saying that the words are responsible for the action you just described?
...And not the people doing the actual beating, torturing?
?????
You are putting the responsibility on the words, and not the violent psychopaths doing the action?

No? Then how are you free to speak your mind? How are you free to say what you want when you fear losing something you feel you possess or, feel connected to?

Fear of speaking through implied or real threat is total crap.
That's why we legislated against it...
To speak your truth, is a morale 'right' that 'should' transcends any human advocacy - in a libertarian orientated world.

Of course, this isn't the reality in certain countries right now - Many countries in fact. But that isn't the point.
It's the principal of free speech we are talking about, which is why it makes it all the more important to speak out against repression where you can.
Whenever you can.

Freely spoken words beget freedom.

...And the opposite is also true...

Ever met anyone who truly speaks their mind fearlessly? I have not.

I have traveled lots, and met many, many people that do. Hundreds over the years.
It might be more of a reflection of your own social circles, and the people you meet, rather than a truth....(maybe?).

Meeting people that express fearlessly are a fantastic experience, and one to be actively looked for.
It widens the internal mental horizons in ways you never thought ever possible.

For most that make this claim, the first line of resistance that inflicts a personal price is met with complaint and calls for justice.

Of course it does!!!

If a personal price of free speech is at a cost of something material - then the system allowing that action -, is - by any definition - wrong.
Supporting that dynamic is supporting the material cost of free speech.
Stalin loved that philosophy.

Justice is redressing a wrong.

If a wrong is done, isn't that the whole point of a justice system?

....Just like my self right now - with a very aggressive action against myself.
The only material damage that can be done to me on steemit, is downvoting, and taking value off my posts.

In three days, I have nearly $12 or 13$ of value taken off me. I never asked for this action, it was initiated against me in response to my words.

They hurt someone - Does this mean that you think that the action (not the words) taken against me, is a morally acceptable behavior ?

( Are you hoping the eye of Sauron isn't looking in your direction? lol)

Are you saying that appealing to people with same the moral code, for support, is an incorrect action?
The first line of civility is to ask those who support civility also - to come to your aid.
It's what keeps society civil.
It's what allows for the freedom speech, in the face of those that support authoritarianism.

Justice is not a universal law, it is a granted law based on concepts of authority and it is bound to conformity of group values and behaviors.

Theft, the non aggression principle , and property laws - while not literally universal - DO appear to be universally adopted laws through pretty much every civilization that I know of since, say, Sumerian times. (3,500 years ago ish )..
Within their own societies, of course.

The same process of justice that sees a criminal imprisoned for rape in one area, will stone a girl to death for falling in love in another. Fair?

Conflating 'fair' to 'justice' is a non equivalence argument.
Justice is confined within boundaries of each society.
Using 'fair' as a way of comparing two different, separate social systems, is intellectually dishonest.

The universe doesn't do this, it doesn't force us to behave one way or another, it just gives us options.
It is we as humans who take these options, fashion them to suit our personalised desires...

..and that's what makes a society.

...and if possible, impose them upon others to deliver for us, even if it costs them.

Whaaaaaaaaaat!!? 'If possible, impose them upon...'

Does this mean that you support aggression? 'Imposition' is leading towards a forceful action..

...to 'get what you want' ?

(Are you a closet authoritarian marxist!... lmao)

Do you think that you are of a higher moral fibre? Are you sure?

Compared to what?
People who advocate and support the initiation of force?, (for example?)
Yes.
I am absolutely sure.

Do you truly speak your mind, would you give up all that you love if it would improve the world for others?
Would you suffer the most painful death so another may live - or is your life worth more than other's? How can you possibly evaluate and validate your decisions and choose one over another when free?

This is making an assumption of altruism being real.
I don think altruism exists in it's literal sense. Even self sacrifice can be a selfish act. (depending on the circumstances and perspective).
...and this has little to do with just being able to speaking freely.

The only true freedom we have in this world is the opportunity to understand ourselves given what we have available and become our best.

Freedom can be realized in many different ways , by each individual.
Freedom for some can be staying at home, and looking after their kid's, with no conscious ambition to 'be their best'.
Freedom for some can be sitting on a hill, and doing absolutely nothing.

For you, 'being your best' is a constant motivation and appears to be the 'freedom discovery road', for yourself.
Striving to be your best is an admirable quality for some, but can also a prison for some - and only escapable by death.
(check out youth suicide rates in south Korea where 'being your best' is a mantra pushed onto the young).

True freedom is speaking freely.
Speaking freely without material consequences for your words.
Only the fearful, fear words.

This is a freedom that very few want to take and will find any excuse to avoid.

Free of speech is an objective principle.
This is your route to a subjective freedom, and not an objective principle.

It is always someone else's fault we can't be our best, isn't it?

No.

But it is someone else's fault, if that someone else uses actions, (and not words) _ to attempt to quash your freedom of speech, with implied -or actual- threat of material cost being taken away.

The government, the family we were born into, the economy, the community, our skin, their skin or the coding of a platform.

If any man made structures (we'll leave skin color out of it, it's not relevant.) are structures that promote the suppression of free speech , then they, and that, needs to be addressed.
Let's not forget - that those expressing themselves freely in spite of threats to themselves, materially , also give courage to those that don't possess the same fortitude to stand up first - but happy to support, once recognized and verbalized.

THAT'S why all authoritarian governments do not want free speech..

I am a victim of the world but if I was free, I could do my best.

Any actions against free speech, creates a victim .

We all always have freedom of speech. I am yet to meet anyone who is willing to take the responsibility to pay every cost imaginable.

That's why we have laws and non aggression principles...?

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you advocate using 'absolutes' to illustrate principles of free speech.

These are the very extremes that civility and moral codes, are meant to prevent. If these extremes are real issues, it tells you just how far we have strayed from the path of logic and reason..

It seems a little paradoxical (to me) that in everything else in your posts are very much perspectives of life 'being the best,' 'striving', 'higher purpose', a 'bigger view'....'all encompassing perspectives of society'..

This view of free speech does not seem to be sympathetic to your other perspectives. But like I say , please tell me where I'm misunderstanding things, I find it quite fascinating..

We are limited beings and by definition of the universe can never know it all. We can all do better though.
You are free to decide what better means for you. Someone else is free to disagree.

Some one else is indeed free to disagree, that's the beauty of free speech.
When action transgresses on that free speech, we are then no longer talking about speech, but advocacy of aggression.
If what is 'better for you' means taking forcefully from others, that is not OK.

If the rules reflect the condoning of aggression, isn't it up to those who value freedom, free speech, and liberty of thought- to stand up and say something?
Because if we don't, tyranny and silence follows.

What are your political views, @tarazkp, btw? I'm intrigued...
... don't be a a politician, matey! Straight talking.. lol lol