Freedom is obviously when I can be an asshole without repercussion.
For certain values of I
In his deposition, Owen Shroyer (Idiot who works for Alex Jones, calls himself “the cuck destroyer”, and also admitted under oath in same depo that he is a puppet) stated that he believes the first ammendment gives him the right to say whatever he wants “without consequences.”
This shows a lack of understanding (or deliberate will to understand) that no action is without consequence. It could be a good consequence, or a bad one, but by simply taking an action you affect the world, large or small. They just want to be able to do what they want no matter what it does to others and suffer no backlash whatsoever, which screams rules for thee not for me.
Or the freedom to choose whether to have expensive Healthcare or bankrupt yourself whenever you have a health emergency.
It’s obviously not the freedom from health expenses.
I once had a Republican tell me he was, “black woke, not trans woke.”
I told him I didn’t know what that meant, and he said, “I don’t hate people for who they are, but people can’t just be whatever they want to be.”
Cue the Nathan Fielder meme of him just saying, “oh… Okay.”
I read something once that made a lot of sense. For the left, freedom means “freedom from”. For the right, freedom means “freedom to”.
well, all the examples in the image are “freedom to”, and are leftist viewpoints, so I’m not sure about that that statement.
I mean, for me, it means both. I’m a big believer in FDR’s concept of four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
I’ve heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. But also you could have libertarian leftists or anarchists that lean more towards negative liberty, as well as fiscal conservatives that lean more towards positive liberty on social issues, so it’s not fully a left/right thing.
Basically the difference is enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference by government or any other entity even if it limits options and social mobility for anyone but yourself due to their life circumstances.
Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia article on positive liberty that backs up this interpretation of the to/from distinction. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty):
"Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types of freedom emerging alongside humanity’s evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, “is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of ‘freedom from’, namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions.”
I don’t know that I agree with that premise but it’s an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in relation to positive/negative freedom just so you know I’m not making anything up.
Strange take.
In Europe, most want “freedom from”. As in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from Nazis, freedom from gun owning cowards, freedom from bullying, freedom from corruption
Free speech is as outdated as handguns, if you want a peaceful life and happiness
Guess that’s where all your problems are coming from 🤷
I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻
I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures that enable freedoms and try to balance out everyone’s rights, like the right to exist, in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures and cutting out any middle man that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.
originally came from European philosophers,
Yep, hundreds of years out of date
Times change, as do philosophies
Free speech (& freedom of association) are super important to a lot (most?) of us.
Unfortunately some people abuse this right, making the argument that they should be free to remove others freedom.
The paradox of tolerance is a highly recommended read written by the same guy who made falsifiabilty the cornerstone of the scientific method.
When I was taught it it was not pure left/right. Rather a method to differentiate levels of Libertarianism form other branches of liberalism focused on social justice (rising tide and all that). Any idea where you read it? Poli sci wonk phrasing being included into more popular literature is always fun to see.
What Republicans forget is freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the natural consequences.
That pizza comic is so cringe