Recent content by Antoli

It isn’t a philosophy, it’s a factual description. No other species causes global habitat destruction, mass extinctions, climate alteration, and pollution on this scale, then labels the remaining wildlife as “pests” for surviving the damage. That’s not opinion, it’s biology.

If an objective, non-human observer were tasked with identifying the planet’s greatest pest species, humans would win by a landslide. No other species destroys habitats globally, exterminates competitors deliberately, alters the climate, poisons land and oceans, and then labels the surviving...

Would their names be Huginn and Muninn by any chance? :D

I used to feed crows chopped liver, leaving it on top of a large, flat fence post. Then one day I discovered a shiny piece of chromed metal with a red reflector on it placed on their feeding post. Apparently, it was a gift from the crows. I hope they have forgiven me for moving away.

True. Once someone pretends not to understand a knight’s move, the game is already over.

That’s a fair observation, and it confirms my suspicions. I initially assumed he was struggling to grasp the point and that further explanation might help. In hindsight, it looks more like deliberate non-engagement.

You’re arguing against something I didn’t say. I didn’t deny that people can feel afraid, or that the state has a role in preventing violence. The issue is how that prevention is justified and constrained. Fear by itself is not evidence. Feeling threatened is not the same thing as an imminent...

That’s a fair summary. Once “anticipation” gets detached from actual evidence and imminent threat, the leash comes off the state. And at that point you don’t get real security, you get after-the-fact justification and people self-censoring out of fear.

You’re not identifying a missing principle, you’re restating the very danger I’m warning about. “Anticipation” already exists in law, but it has strict limits such as, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, conspiracy statutes, and imminent threat standards. The state may intervene when concrete...

You’re asking important questions, but you’re also conflating speech with violence, and that’s where the confusion starts. Direct incitement is already well defined in law. It is speech intended to produce imminent unlawful action and likely to do so. Examples: “Go get him now,” “Burn that...

You’re describing a sociological problem, not a legal one and that distinction matters. Yes, social media influences people. So did pamphlets, newspapers, radio, film, and television. Each was once described as uniquely “brain-washing,” and each prompted the same anxiety that “this time is...

You’re asking a question that’s already been answered in law for decades, which is why this feels circular. The line is not “when words turn into violence.” The line is direct incitement, credible threats, and coordination of criminal acts. Those are not subjective concepts, and they don’t...

You’re actually reinforcing my point, not refuting it. You ask “where do you draw the line?”. The answer is straightforward because the line has already been drawn. It’s drawn at direct incitement to violence or criminal acts, which is why those forms of speech are already illegal and...

This really isn’t vague, there’s a long record of this happening in modern democracies. France went after Brigitte Bardot multiple times for things she wrote in books and open letters. Mind you, whatever one thinks of her views, she wasn’t calling for violence, she was prosecuted because the...

The problem is that you’re framing this as a choice we don’t actually face in the United States. We already have laws against speech that directly incites violence or criminal acts. Those limits have existed for a long time and are well-established. So the idea that “hate speech must be...