pizzapantifa t1_j4s9z1z wrote
Reply to comment by Zenith2017 in LAWSUIT: FIRE sues Pennsylvania county after officials ban talking politics in a public park by NeatPeteYeet
> displaying
solicitation isn't display.
>And I gotta say, this dystopian "human captcha checkpoint" thing seems pretty unlikely.
Seems then that your perception of a dystopia is likely rather cartoonish.
>asking passersby to sign nomination petitions
"Asking passersby" also means engaging with people not asking to be engaged with. "to sign nomination petitions" is solicitation.
>I think a dystopia would probably start with the government censoring political speech, don't you?
I think a dystopia is when the majority of a population consistently fights for others' rights to make life more unpleasant for everyone under the guise of freedom while propping their virtue signals up on a nearly 300 year old document.
Oh no, I can't harass people in a park? I suppose I can only run T.V. and radio ads, e-mail people, pay for adspace on youtube and facebook, put up billboards that block large swaths of beautiful landscape, send mailers, use huge marquees, litter roadsides with stupid little signs, knock on their door, and call their phone. I'm being oppressed.
Zenith2017 t1_j4sc2er wrote
Well then vote for an amendment to the 1A. I don't know what else to tell you dude. What they're doing is legal today, and you haven't made any points to prove otherwise
And honestly it's telling that you're mad at me instead of doing something that would actually change anything. Rant at me all you want, I do not control the first amendment
pizzapantifa t1_j4t1lys wrote
> Well then vote for an amendment to the 1A
lol
>What they're doing is legal today, and you haven't made any points to prove otherwise
I wasn't trying to prove it was illegal. I was criticizing the soft justification of encroaching on others space in public. I don't want it to be required nor do I find it reasonable to expect everyone to accept that they should have to tell people to "piss off" (as someone else put it) simply to gain access to a public space.
I don't really care if people refuse to see the validity in peoples' autonomy in public spaces nor do I care if people dismiss the term "harassment" as hyperbole. There is little difference between a nuisance call and this behavior (mind you many would find it more intimidating to have a stranger approach them in public than a strange number on their phone but you'd be hard pressed to find people who would defend robo callers behind the 1st amendment.)
>And honestly it's telling that you're mad at me
I wouldn't say mad and I wouldn't consider it at you specifically but, in general, my compatriots who hide behind "freedom" and worship the constitution like a cult to shrug away problems and elude to laws that protect negative behaviors do vex me, yes.
>instead of doing something that would actually change anything
I'm currently engaged in a discourse with you, I suppose this is you admitting that you refuse to listen to anything that you don't want to agree with and that's fine. You may believe there's no point in trying to convince others that we should be working towards curbing the constant toxic dumping of ads and subliminal messaging into every facet of our lives but you also have no idea what I do with my time and I find it a bit comedic you fancy yourself the authority on the validity of peoples' actions/activism.
>Rant at me all you want, I do not control the first amendment
Feel free to dismiss this as ranting but that's dishonest. You control your indifference at the first amendment's use to harass people in recreational spaces. You're a problem regardless of whether you choose to accept that or not and I'll continue to advocate for people to hold the well-being of individuals (regardless of their sensitivities) above the ability of organizations and corporations to co-opt what should be havens from their already gargantuan onslaught of rather obvious and intrusive psy-ops. (Yes, psy-ops. These groups employ psychologists expressly for the purpose of finding the most efficient manner to manipulate you and this has been going on for decades.)
Also continue to feel free to shrug your shoulders and say "Welp that's free speech!" But since my single vote means essentially nothing, I'll continue to use my voice, the one tool I do have, to bring others attention towards their lazy acceptance of this garbage and how it is what enabled the slow creep of constant time-vacuuming and devaluation of peoples' time and autonomy in the first place.
Sure my communications are likely fruitless here (as this exchange has exemplified) but if I can convince even a handful of others to spread awareness of how abused we are and how this is not how life has to be, maybe slowly I can convince my friends, neighbors and acquaintances to work towards piling our pathetically devalued votes together to affect change in this matter.
I don't think you sincerely value voting and if you meant what you said then your perception of the democratic process is tremendously naive.
Why is trying to convince others to work with me not valid? It's valid to interrupt peoples' daily rituals in a public recreational space with a clipboard because it's protected by the first amendment but it's invalid to communicate on a forum where I'm not intruding on anyone's physical being? Why is it invalid to discuss how problematic it is to consider ancient documents unquestionable authority when they were written by teenagers who wiped their asses with corncobs and legally considered other humans property?
Zenith2017 t1_j4tkwet wrote
Wow, that's a lotta words. Too bad I'm not reading em 😎😎😎😎😎
Super_C_Complex t1_j4tskpb wrote
Same. It's like someone opened a thesaurus while mad at the door for not being a window.
Zenith2017 t1_j4v6mc3 wrote
Right? I told them three times I'm only saying that it is legal (most likely anyway), and not that I want it to be legal. Literal plugging ears and screaming lalalala
pizzapantifa t1_j4ttsmx wrote
How would you know if you didn't read it?
Super_C_Complex t1_j4tu3yv wrote
> You're a problem regardless of whether you choose to accept that or not and I'll continue to advocate for people to hold the well-being of individuals (regardless of their sensitivities) above the ability of organizations and corporations to co-opt what should be havens from their already gargantuan onslaught of rather obvious and intrusive psy-ops. (Yes, psy-ops. These groups employ psychologists expressly for the purpose of finding the most efficient manner to manipulate you and this has been going on for decades.)
I read that
pizzapantifa t1_j4tu7vg wrote
>Too bad I'm not reading em
🤔
>Same
Let me put down the thesaurus to find you a dictionary.
NotNowDamo t1_j4ul04e wrote
This guy is trying to be morally superior to you while defending an immoral position (limiting freedom of expression is immoral, even when we disagree with the message being expressed).
Zenith2017 t1_j4v4saz wrote
They brought up a ton of stuff I never said or implied that they're just assuming about me because I disagreed lol. Like "why is it invalid to try to convince others to work with me", the worshipping the constitution bit, implying that I even want people to do this canvassing in parks thing.
I didn't bother to do more than skim because it became obvious they didn't listen to what I said
pizzapantifa t1_j4ttbso wrote
I expected nothing more.
Zenith2017 t1_j4v587e wrote
Well, you said a bunch of shit that I didn't say. I never said it's invalid to discuss the constitution for example, you just assumed I think that. So I'm not really feeling like your thesaurus rant deserves a real reply
How old are you
pizzapantifa t1_j4v7mki wrote
I suppose it is much easier to dodge this and resort to insulting me than it is to support what you did say and address my criticisms.
I'm old enough to laugh at your repeated deflections.
Shouldn't you be doing something that would actually change anything instead of engaging with "thesaurus rants"? (Sorry, I'll avoid trisylla- words that make more than 2 sounds.)
Zenith2017 t1_j4v95un wrote
Engaging with thesaurus rants makes me giggle
pizzapantifa t1_j4x500o wrote
"I'm not gonna read that!"
"engaging with thesaurus rants makes me giggle."
🥱 thread muted. Learn to read and focus on peoples' communications instead of bIg WoRd MAkE Me MaD
[deleted] t1_j4sfrdc wrote
[deleted]
BluCurry8 t1_j4tapjo wrote
Yes it is when it is unwanted.
[deleted] t1_j4ticgr wrote
[deleted]
NotNowDamo t1_j4ul525 wrote
So posters, billboards, music from a passing car?
BluCurry8 t1_j4uzf5h wrote
Approaching people to solicit their private data is an unwanted activity. I guess you are referring to advertising on devices that you choose to give your attention. Billboards are a blight on society.
NotNowDamo t1_j4v62sh wrote
>I guess you are referring to advertising on devices that you choose to give your attention.
I am not sure how you think that since that wasn't mentioned.
But at this point, further dialog with you is obviously just a means for you to burn down strawmen.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments