It’s interesting how many men yearn for the right to speak freely–at the hate speech trial of their enemies. The fact illustrates how useful an agreement of terms would be for contemporary discourse. For instance, when I’m talking it’s free speech. And when you’re arguing, it’s Hate speech. This solipcentric model of morality might have been contested by Copernicus, who thought neither Earth nor the men who walk upon it occupied the center of the universe. But I’ve already explained what opposition to me represents, so keep it up Nicolaus and see where it gets you.
Though speech is far from the only area where man’s principles extend very little beyond his own nose. By historical observation, it seems the only human impulse more powerful than forming oppressive multi-racial empires is the desire to not live under one. This friction is no where more vividly displayed than in the mutual hostility between EU technocrats and the mere citizens being pulverized by their Eurafrican ambitions. Of course it is the hoi polloi who are guilty of Hate which, as we know, is defined as opposition to the state’s agenda. It’s almost if as you can guess who’s benevolent and who’s the bigot by whether their head is wearing a crown or a boot heel.
No comments:
Post a Comment