Giedrius Cikanavičius

@MagnusWDHH @NotGovernor @Rothmus Treating others as subhumans for no reason, and treating others as subhumans because they demonstrated to be so, is categorically different.

Well, if you do maths for any length of time you'll find that there are competing axiomatic systems of maths too. I could just dismiss your comment at face value on those grounds because its wrong on it's own terms. But to take what I think the spirit of your comment was seriously, it's preciesly because the truth of a statement doesn't change based on who said it that renders your "estopple" type argument circular. You can ignore what people say whenever you like, treat them as non-human, and make up any rules you like to justify violence against them as defensive. Collectivists do that all the time, but you can't change what it *actually* means when you do that.

Unpopular opinion: this is the morally correct position

People who accept aggression against non-aggressors and people who don't are literally in different categories--one category consists of people who accept aggression against non-aggressors, and another consists of people who don't. One is civil humans, another -- technical problems. If I accept violence when interacting with others and someone uses violence when interacting with me, there's no rights violations.

@giedriusci @NotGovernor @Rothmus They literally aren't though. They are still human beings, just as you are. You want to make an exception that lets you mirror their violence back at them. You can do that, but don't pretend you don't become the same thing as they are when you do that. The crime is then yours.

It's like saying that if I say that adding 2 apples next to 2 we have 4 apples and not 7, I force my framing [of reality] on you. No, by engaging in a rational discourse we both share necessarily presupposed principles / assumptions. You can't try to convince me of anything while rejecting the necessary requirements of a rational discourse--if you attempt to do that, I can and should dismiss you as insane and treat accordingly. For the same reason I dismiss your complaints when I use the same mode of interaction with you that you demonstrated is acceptable to you.

I don't personally believe that, but in the hypothetical I would mean nothing because I would honestly think that words have no meaning. You would then be free to understand those words in the way that you do. It's just one example of course, there are many. The point is that performative contradictions rely on you forcing your framing onto someone else and then claiming its a contradiction for them on your terms, when it's not on theirs. Why can't you initiate violence and then claim that initiating violence is immoral? It is immoral to initiate violence. That's a true fact, irrespective of who says it.

@NotGovernor @MagnusWDHH @Rothmus Thanks, I might watch it some time. In short, you believe that if I hit you and you hit me back, and then I complain, my complaint is justified and you owe me damages?

@giedriusci @MagnusWDHH @Rothmus Yes. anarchast.com/content/disent…

@MagnusWDHH @NotGovernor @Rothmus Anyone and murderers are in different categories, like humans and cows are in different categories.

@giedriusci @NotGovernor @Rothmus The same thing that's wrong with killing anyone in cold blood.

If words have no meaning, what do you mean by saying words that have no meaning? If you demonstrate that violence is an acceptable mode of interaction, you can't object when I accept your own mode of interaction. And if you reject reason and hit people while spewing mental gymnastics when I hit you back, you're no different from a wild animal or any other technical problem that has to be dealt with accordingly.

Performative contradiction is also a circular argument. If I truly believed that words had no meaning, then me saying words have no meaning is not a contradiction. It's only a contradiction is you first believe that they do have meaning and therefore must also have meaning to me when I say them. If you kill someone you can of course mind getting killed. What is the argument that you can't make? That being killed is evil? Can certainly can make that argument, and you would be right.

@NotGovernor @MagnusWDHH @Rothmus What do you mean? You disagree with legal estoppel?

@giedriusci @MagnusWDHH @Rothmus There are no normative facts so Hoppe's PC argument fails. It's just good ole hypocrisy.

@MagnusWDHH @NotGovernor @Rothmus What's wrong with killing murderers in cold blood?

Well that's a pretty fucking glib response. Maybe you should mind the rights of everyone. Because rights which depend on whim aren't rights at all, especially if I can make up standards and opt you out of them. Rights only meaningfully exist in states of conflict after all, and I don't think you have any good standard for "reciprocation" when the stakes aren't murder. This isn't a case of retrieving stolen property, of making restitution, or even enforcing an agreed contract. The guy is harming no one, may never again, and poses no immediate risk. You're advocating killing them in cold blood.

@MagnusWDHH @NotGovernor @Rothmus If you kill people who haven't harmed you or anyone, you, of course, can mind getting killed, but you can't defend your objection argumentatively without performative contradiction. So you can be estopped from complaining.

@giedriusci @NotGovernor @Rothmus You can absolutely kill someone and mind killings. Least the same be applied to you when you kill them. The reciprocating argument is circular, and just reframes your own whim as the standard for reciprocation.

@MagnusWDHH @NotGovernor @Rothmus You haven't articulated what's the complaint? The killed person demonstrated previously that he doesn't mind killings, so there's nothing to complain about when someone else acted based on his own demonstrated principles.

@giedriusci @NotGovernor @Rothmus His family and friends might. His clients might. Maybe they shouldn't, maybe they should, that's a different thing case-by-case. But if you advocate for agression against a currently peaceful person as a form of returbutive justice, you are violating property rights.

@KennethRWebster You might be right. In the US and A the courts often go by feelz, not by justice or, at least, by the law.

ChudTheBuilder will be convicted. You can’t provoke someone to attack you and then claim self defense for shooting them when the inevitable happens. Bookmark this tweet

You're inserting your conclusion where there's no evidence for it. I haven't seen a single video where he tried to provoke anyone to attack him -- saying a word or accurately describing the behavior (chimping out) is only a provocation to attack if you're a rabid animal, not a normal person.

@grok @stopmovingtx What if you’re constantly on video provoking people to attack you? Like it’s your social media brand. Will that make it harder to make a legal argument of self defense?

@CaneColvin @jeremykauffman Why not?

@jeremykauffman I don’t think a word justifies assaulting someone. At the same time, though, I also don’t think someone can make a career out of intentionally provoking “chimp outs” in order to claim “self-defense,” and then expect that defense to succeed in court.

We will never have a decent society if there is a magic word that allows one group of people to commit violence.

@MagnusWDHH @NotGovernor @Rothmus Assuming the killed one was a murderer (or equivalent criminal that demonstrated he doesn't value human life), what's the complaint after he's killed?

@NotGovernor @Rothmus No, premeditated killing when someone is defenceless, is just murder, it's not defensive.

@planefag Prediction is not the same as premeditation.

That Chud guy handled the prosecutors office an awful lot of evidence for premeditation. If you're doing everything in your power to instigate a fistfight so you can end it with a gun, have said as much outright, and have documented your repeated history of doing so, you're hosed

I'm afraid there might be many that in a state of real or imaginary crisis resort back to the rabid animals that they were trying to pretend that they're not when this benefited them. In the Soviet Union we had a joke that reflects their attitude well: "In the Soviet Union, a man is standing in a very long line for vodka. It's freezing cold, the line snakes around the block, and everyone's been waiting for hours. Finally, the store clerk comes out and announces: "Sorry, comrades! We're all out of vodka for today." The man at the front of the line suddenly turns around, swings wide and punches the guy behind him right in the face. The punched man staggers back, shocked, and yells: "What the hell was that for?! What did I do?!" The first guy shrugs and says: "What for, what for... Something had to be done."

Yeah, it's hard to tell online for sure. When I tried to make that point to other freestaters a month or two ago, I got really obnoxious pushback. All I was trying to do was point out how loud the entryist subversives that they have are. I still think they're the minority there. Could be wrong. Don't know. Not many people there seem to have taken the responsibility upon themselves to counter them publicly on social media that I can see though. So I guess if they don't care, then we shouldn't? lol 😂

A peaceful person getting attacked and abducted by state agents is wrong now? Look at the "leftist theater kid" bleating about his nonsense rights to the cops. You have no defense that couldn't be reflected back at you for your anti-libertarian border takes.

It's hard to tell what percentage of the FSP movement consists of Jeremy and co.'s supporters, but all of them are a bunch of somewhat right-leaning, unprincipled statists who have nothing to do with libertarianism and who happily and explicitly condone state aggression when it benefits them. They're literally no different in principle from Democrats or Republicans--they just happen to like some of the same things libertarians like. It looks like they're unfortunately on the way to destroying the FSP movement altogether, which is unfortunate but common in any activism, especially activism that requires intellectual and moral rigor.

@giedriusci Exactly. He thinks it's ok to have enforcers attack and abduct people with a culture he doesn't like that enter the country. And it seems people in NH want to protect their culture from people moving there and calling people ni**ers, so their enforcers attacked and abducted him.

Of course thuggocrats, pests, and other technical problems don't care about such trivial things as violation of rights. What's especially ironic though, is that they're whining non-stop, like you do, about their own rights violations, while advocating for the rights violations of others.

@giedriusci I don't care what distinction you draw, I'm advocating for my own best interest within the system as it exists, your moralizing be damned

This is the standard excuse of the growth of the government and of more and more violations of property rights. The rationale is always the same--you see, they say, the government already violates my rights which benefits certain groups, therefore I'm begging the government to violate the rights of others to benefit me.

@flywheel2020 How are different from other thuggocrats that you're complaining about?

@giedriusci Yes, that's exactly right, we don't live in your libertarian fantasyland. I'm already being fucked, please don't fuck me more.