I think you may be the only commenter who actually read the post.

I understand and sympathize with your point, but unfortunately the law will never be that simple.

To use your example, you walking up to me and saying “hand over your money or I’ll kill you” is not justification to respond with lethal force per se. The missing element here is assault - in other words, I have to believe you both are able and intending to do me harm before I can respond with force. If no reasonable person would believe that what you said was actually a threat (like, for instance, if you were a five year old) then I’m still not justified in harming you in self defense.

Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.

Yes. They are. And that was your first example, the one meant to be unequivocally black and white.

The problem here is fundamentally an epistemic one. The law is not a thinking, reasoning being. It is merely a system of procedures. The law does not know - it cannot know - the difference between right and wrong. It only knows what the rules are, and those rules may be wrong.

You might think that there is absolutely no reason to advocate for the mass murder of an entire group of people. And under 99.9% of circumstances, I would agree. But if the zombie apocalypse broke out, I might find myself in favor of killing all of the zombies - and legally, there’s no reason that wouldn’t be genocide.

The law doesn’t know whether zombies are people. It doesn’t know whether or not we are. Therefore, there must be some way to have discussions about the law that are above (or outside the scope of) the law. That’s what politics is, fundamentally: the discussion of the law that’s untouchable by the law. Even if we tried to make certain political stances illegal, we wouldn’t succeed, because that is one area in which the law is necessarily blind.

So we can’t curtail the first amendment.

We can’t execute Nazis.

But we could lynch them, as that would be a political act and not a legal one.

Hard to be the breaking point when it’s already broken. But if it weren’t broken already… then I think it actually might.

What we could do is make “journalist” a protected profession. So just like you can’t call yourself a fiduciary unless you hold to a certain set of ethical guidelines, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself a journalist unless you agree not to lie (among other things). So if you forgo the title of journalist, you can say whatever you want (obviously the other laws still apply, so you still can’t slander or libel, and if spreading misinformation causes harm you can still be liable). But if you are calling yourself a journalist, you voluntarily assume a higher standard for what you are allowed to say.

I think that would avoid any first amendment issues. But I’m not a lawyer, so please don’t take my word for it 🤣

No, it’s actually pretty popular. Although nothing today is as mainstream as things used to be.

If you liked Worm, you might enjoy Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (if you haven’t read it already). It has some real similarities to Worm, including an unreliable narrator who is very intelligent, but can also be arrogant and impulsive. I’d also classify them both as “hard fantasy.”

You can find it at hpmor.com if you’re interested.

Everyone dies eventually

Yes, that’s technically true, but maybe not in the way you think.

Everyone dies from something. While yes, as you get older it’s harder to overcome things that seemed trivial when you were younger, in theory you could continue living indefinitely until something kills you. It’s just statistically very unlikely.

That is exactly what was on my mind when I wrote the comment.

While I’m tempted to agree, the big problem here is that if the government can decide that some speech is illegal, they can use that to silence people they don’t like.

Obviously the system we’ve got now in the US isn’t working, but we need to tread carefully when giving the government power to decide what is or isn’t the “right beliefs”.

What about people with terminal, genuinely incurable diseases? I understand not letting people kill themselves just because they want to (since mental illness can compromise your objectivity there) but sometimes it’s less about someone deciding if they’re going to die, and more about how.

Well obviously if you’re fully antinatalist you’re basically working towards human extinction.

But I think that a healthy society includes a few child-free people. In fact, as someone without kids, I’d happily pay a much higher tax rate so that parents can stay home with their kids. I doubt I’d be a good parent anyways, and so I’d prefer to contribute to society in ways people with families can’t.

It really did! I would absolutely read a whole book of that! (Or dozens of them, if the length of Worm is any indication)

Micro dosing t for that big bean energy

But they aren’t sweet, and they’re softer than scones are.

Are they also my opposite in how they are good or evil, or just opposite in quantity?

For example, if I’m an antisocial asshole with positive ideals, does this mean my opposite is an extremely friendly and polite business major?

If you didn’t see the other comment, you really should check out the fanfic “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.” It’s almost 2,000 pages, extremely well written, and (to give you an idea of how the story feels) one of the first things Harry does when he visits Gringotts for the first time is realize that since the wizarding world uses a precious-metals-based currency, a competent hedge fund manager could be the richest person in the wizarding world in about a week.

https://hpmor.com/

Thank you for posting this! I spent a whole day off reading it and even forgot to go to bed on time 😅

(Those kinds of) protests aren’t for convincing the average person. The point of a protest is to tell the people in power “there are a lot of us, and you can’t afford to ignore us.”

Honestly you kinda just sound racist.

Like any other seasoning, MSG has its uses. I wouldn’t stock a spice cabinet without it.

Infixes are present in many languages, although English tends to use them mainly for expletives. Another example would be: “Leave me a-fucking-lone!”

Under different circumstances, I think it could be really great. Canada is more liberal than the US, so more blue states would be nice.

Lenin was not wealthy. Stalin was not wealthy. Despite the many failings of the USSR, let us not forget that compared to life under the Tzars it was a smashing success.

And it did put power in the hands of people who weren’t born to privilege.