Just recently someone was made an example of by saying “Deny, Delay, Depose” on a phone call. However, you’ll know that revolution is inherintly violent as those with the means won’t give them up without violence. Calls for violence are not covered under free speech, no matter the context.
But regardless what people are imprisoned for, the US disproportionately imprisons far more people per capita than any other developed nation. 4% of the world’s people, 25% of the world’s prison population is in the United States. We do it to perpetuate slavery through a loophole in the constitution. We do gulag shit man.
It’s more to hammer home the point that “even assuming that isn’t true”, which you could possibly nitpick minutia and hand-wring about the point made. I followed it up to assume your framing and explain why it’s still fucked regardless.
I would’ve expected the discussion to argue over whether it is true or not. Now it just seemed like stepping to other topic, but with a funny self-aware phrase.
Well I thought it was funny at least. Nothing really to add to your debate though.
And revolutionary talk will get you sent to prison to be slave labor for a private prison industry.
The Cheka will send you to the gulag for any talk they please.
Can you tell me an example of someone in the USA being imprisoned for revolutionary talk alone?
Just recently someone was made an example of by saying “Deny, Delay, Depose” on a phone call. However, you’ll know that revolution is inherintly violent as those with the means won’t give them up without violence. Calls for violence are not covered under free speech, no matter the context.
But regardless what people are imprisoned for, the US disproportionately imprisons far more people per capita than any other developed nation. 4% of the world’s people, 25% of the world’s prison population is in the United States. We do it to perpetuate slavery through a loophole in the constitution. We do gulag shit man.
That was sorta the specific topic here
I already addressed it in the first paragraph
It just seems funny to say “regardless of the topic at hand”, is all I’m saying
It’s more to hammer home the point that “even assuming that isn’t true”, which you could possibly nitpick minutia and hand-wring about the point made. I followed it up to assume your framing and explain why it’s still fucked regardless.
I would’ve expected the discussion to argue over whether it is true or not. Now it just seemed like stepping to other topic, but with a funny self-aware phrase.
Well I thought it was funny at least. Nothing really to add to your debate though.