Terrorism

David Cameron Declares War on 'Extremist' Speech

Britain's prime minister warns against "wild conspiracy theories," wants a law to stop "cult leaders" from "peddling their hatred."

|

This week British PM David Cameron outlined his plans to "defeat extremism and at the same time build a stronger, more cohesive society." While parts of his proposals are fine—I can't object to, say, making it easier to come forward with information about forced marriages—a great deal more of his speech is deeply creepy. For example:

Who radicalized Jughead Jones?
Yipster Times

[A] key part of our strategy must be to tackle both parts of the creed—the non-violent and violent.

This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence—but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative.

We've got to show that if you say "yes I condemn terror—but the Kuffar are inferior," or "violence in London isn't justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter"—then you too are part of the problem….We must demand that people also condemn the wild conspiracy theories, the anti-Semitism, and the sectarianism too. Being tough on this is entirely keeping with our values. We should challenge every part of the hateful ideology spread by neo-Nazis—so why shouldn't we here?…

My God—look what they've done to these children.
A&M

We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for. These people aren't just extremists. There are despicable far right groups too. And what links them all is their aim to groom young people and brainwash their minds.

And again let's be clear who benefits most from us being tough on these non-violent extremists—it's Muslim families living in fear that their children could be radicalised and run off to Syria, and communities worried about some poisonous far right extremists who are planning to attack your mosque.

So as part of our Extremism Bill, we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred. And we will also work to strengthen [the Office of Communications]'s role to enable us to take action against foreign channels that broadcast hate preachers and extremist content.

The tools of terror
American Circle Corp.

When Wesley Clark called the other day for interning people who have been "radicalized," it was at least possible to dismiss his remarks as the screwy ramblings of a man no longer in a position of authority. But Cameron is the head of the British government, and here he is frankly talking about clamping down on nonviolent speech, even to the point of damning people who "operate just inside the law." And he's doing it with some pretty intense countersubversive rhetoric: When you throw around phrases like "groom young people and brainwash their minds," you're treating terrorist recruits as though they're robots controlled by a pulp villain, not individuals making decisions of their own. (Cameron gets bonus irony points for doing this almost immediately after he condemned conspiracy theories.)

But when the prime minister proposes such plans, he's just following the logic of an influential school of thought: the belief the government should combat terrorism by trying to put the brakes on "radicalization." Never mind that actual empirical investigations of how people become terrorists undermines this notion of a neat path from ideas to violence. (It turns out, as common sense would suggest, that nonviolent radicalism can pull people away from violence as well as towards it.) The counterradicalization crowd is convinced—in the words of Daryl Johnson, best known for writing Homeland Security's infamous 2009 report on the radical right—that "Extremist ideology can be described as 'a poison' absorbed into a person's mind." And if that's the way you see the world, it's only a matter of time before someone decides it's time to call poison control.

NEXT: Judge Allows Parents to Force Charter Takeover of Poorly Performing Elementary School

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good Lord, Jesse – are you going for the Alt-Text Crown straight away?!

    *applause*

  2. Thank you, UK, for making the U.S. not look like such a totalitarian hellhole.

    1. Yeah, after that Clarke quote the other day I was waiting to see if the other side of the pond would step up and help remind me we aren’t THAT ridiculous.

      Mission accomplished Mistah Cameron!

      1. To be fair- clark doesn’t hold any elected office, let alone the top elected office in the nation…

        1. Oh I know, and Clarke is known for saying things that will keep getting him asked back on cable news. But it became a news story because “IMPORTANT EX-MILITARY GUY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CONCENTRATION CAMPS FOR BAD THINKERS” or whatever.

          1. Important military guy and one time presidential contender.

    2. Thank you, UK, for making the U.S. not look like such a totalitarian hellhole.

      But they ban “bad” speech in GB. /prog

      1. Odd how progressives never mention the draconian parts of European societies, like the cut throat welfare reforms, the strict abortion laws, the fact that churches have huge influence on government, etc.

  3. If Cameron is preaching from the “bully pulpit” then I have no problem with the message he is conveying.
    “We’ve got to show that if you say “yes I condemn terror?but the Kuffar are inferior,” or “violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter”?then you too are part of the problem…” As far as this statement goes, I think he is absolutely spot on.

    I will defend the right of muzzies in my country to say this bullshit things. But I will NOT defend the statements themselves and will call them out any chance I get.

    HOWEVER, I agree with Jessie that as soon government starts creating “narrowly targeted powers” then the people are about to get butt-f*!&ed; in the mouth. (heh)

    1. British people have butt-mouths? Is that why their teeth are like that?

      1. Here we go with the teeth.

        1. That’s what she said.

      2. Either that or he’s trying to say they’re about to get ass to mouth without coming right out and saying it. Probably because the phrase “ass to mouth” is considered hate speech there, or something.

        1. When a Brit says “ass to mouth” they are actually talking about a popular dish consisting of boiled mutton topped with leeks and malt vinegar.

            1. Spotted dick isn’t bad, as long as you don’t mind ingesting 800% of your daily recommended intake of cholesterol in one raisin-y, suet-y sitting. However, when considering British cuisine, it’s important to remember that Worcestershire sauce started as an attempt to make Indian food.

          1. Well, they did invent cream tea, so they can’t be all bad.

            1. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

    2. So the people of England are about to be on the business end of an ATM is what you’re saying.

    3. why do people use the term muzzies? It’s the exact same number of syllables as muslims- and the exact number of letters- so there’s no conservation of effort.

      1. Informality shows a lack of respect without having to tie down the rest of the argument with tangent insults. It’s just a way to show everyone reading your comment you don’t like somebody without getting off topic.

        1. ah, I thought it was showing everyone that you had unfounded prejudice without expecting to have to defend said prejudice.

          1. Depends on who’s reading it, but yeah.

          2. Don’t be silly! All creeds have cutsy nicknames

            Atheists – As
            Christians – ‘Stans
            Buddhists – Buds (pronounced ‘Boodz’)
            Jains – Jays
            Hindus – Doos
            Jews – Lizard People

            1. I are disappoint, HM. I was expecting an analysis of speech production of labio-fricatives.

          3. See also: progs

            ::dons combat helmet::

          4. BS. People here use progtards as an epithet. I use muzzies. That doesn’t mean folks who happen to be Arab, or Pakistani or Iranian. It does mean those who make a CHOICE to follow a murderous ideology. I condemn those just as much as I condemn those who choose to follow the murderous ideology of socialism and communism. Or other forms of statism.
            Islam as it is practiced in the vast majority of the world is a wicked form of statism.

            1. Islam as it is practiced in the vast majority of the world is a wicked form of statism.

              That’s pretty true of all the Abrahamic religions, and not surprising given their theology.

      2. Same goes fro “preggers.” Pregnant has the same number of letters and syllables.

        1. Brits do this for amusement or familiarity. “Champers” and “preggers” for example. Also “rugger” and “soccer”.

      3. Maybe it’s easier to say with a british accent? I don’t know.

      4. Maybe it’s a typo and they meant “mozzies”. Nobody likes mozzies. Except other mozzies.

        1. He was the bear on the Muppets, right? I fucking hate that guy.

          1. You leave Fozzie Bear alone!

            1. wokka wokka wokka!

      5. It’s yokeltarian social signalling.

        1. No, it’s just the way we form diminuitives in English. Thanks for playing.

          1. Sure it is. I’m sure you have lots of expertise in this area.

            1. What is your first language, Cytie?

          2. Why, yes, Cytotoxic, yes I do.

      6. Faster to say — no mouth twitch from “z” to “l”, and no “m” inconveniently placed just before the plural “z”.

  4. What about the radical center?

    1. Martyrs for the compromise?

    2. You get out of here with your extreme moderation!

    3. “What do we want?”

      “A reasonable accommodation of the legitimate interests of all sides!”

      “When do we want it?”

      “As soon as practicable!”

  5. Why would it matter if it actually stops violence or not? More violence would just justify expanding the reach of these tools against more of the current government’s enemies. Even if it fails this law has no downsides for those proposing it.

    1. Even if it fails this law has no downsides for those proposing it.

      Which is why they’re proposing it.

    1. Good. Too bad the fuckers who actually executed the raid weren’t charged though.

    2. “No one was charged by the grand jury, which still criticized the raid, calling it “hurried and sloppy.”

      Sure sounds like a broken record that.

    3. “Autry was forced to resign. What motivated her to allegedly lie remains unclear.”
      Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick. She was lazy? Saw an easy way to try to get kudos?
      Why the hell do any of these pricks do this shit?

  6. By the vast majority of brits he will be applauded for this.

    I was back in the UK a few weeks ago and had the free speech argument with others there who still think freedom of expression exists in the UK and will see no cognitive dissonance at all with Cameron’s proposals.

    His efforts to accomplish the above will receive widespread support from the left as well.

    1. they have no freedom of expression. To quote Billy Bragg, “as long as we’re comfortable it feels like freedom.”

      THAT is the true motto of the UK citizenry.

      1. You can apply that to most of the US citizenry as well.

      2. No FA.

        I doubt anyone on the MSM has made or will make the case for true freedom of expression in the way that I sometimes see it made here.

        (I was there for the election and it was fun to see labor get a trouncing though…only one labor UK left in Scotland, unfortunately they all went to the SNP)

        1. in the way that I sometimes see it made here

          Only sometimes? I would say that absolute freedom of expression is one of the most universally shared values here.

          1. I think he means in the US, not HyR.

            1. Ah, that would make more sense.

              1. Correct meant here in the US.

    2. Well yeah, freedom of any stripe is freedom to do the things I approve of. If you don’t agree you obviously think freedom means freedom to murder children and rape puppies.

      This was extreme enough not to need a sarc tag right?

      1. not these days. wait ’til Palin’s Buttplug reads it and explodes.

        1. And Botard will repeatedly reference it in order to say you equate freedom to murder or something just as stupid.

          1. Poe’s Law is a harsh mistress.

    3. Given that people have been investigated and arrested over statements similar to Cameron’s, yes, applying the law evenly will probably get approval.

      Particularly parts where he wants to remove government payment from assholes who do nothing but preach inferiority of kaffir while getting tens of thousands in benefits, including state-provided housing.

    4. We only have 1A freedoms here in the USA in theory. In practice, a state/local prosecutor or federal agency can run anybody who is not politically connected through a financial ringer.

      1. The process is the punishment.

        1. Precisely. And there is no check on a prosecutor’s abuse of the grand jury subpoena process. None.

      2. Wringers, too, Chippy?

        1. I thought he meant a sugar/saline solution?

          1. +1 Emergency Dialysis

  7. Always the left that wants to ban speech and expression….
    *waits patiently for obvious fucktard to reference Republicans from the 90s talking about banning flag-burning*….

    No?

    *waits for obvious reference that Cameron is “conservative” which is as laughable as calling David Brooks “conservative”….*

    1. There are no friends of liberty left in the UK, I’m afraid.

  8. Just a few years ago the idea that the government was monitoring the communications of Americans was widely regarded as a conspiracy theory.
    Once again, thanks Edward Snowden, for reducing the number of people we will eventually have to send to Conspiracy Camp.

  9. The best way to defeat an idea is to stifle one side of the discussion of it.

    1. I don’t know, imprisoning people who support one side of it might work better.

    2. Well, at least now he’s promising to stifle both sides of the discussion.

  10. Here’s the thing: Even if you have no principled belief in free speech and you’re just some pragmatic utilitarian, you probably want to know if people in your society are saying things like ‘the kuffar are inferior’. Having those voices go underground tends to do nothing but radicalize them further in the echo chambers they form. I’d rather have Anjem Choudary proclaiming his idiocy constantly than have him suppressed and hidden, and possibly planning something. It’s almost helping cover up radicalism.

    Of course, you do something like, I don’t know, actively lambast and shame people with horrible views, but apparently that’s only applicable to Christian pizza places.

    1. Exactly. Eventually Choudary-types do their cause more harm than good with their idiotic rantings and exposed hypocrisy.

      http://www.memes.com/img/396279

    2. I think there is a god given right for people to let others know how stupid and misinformed they are. It is a right I utilize every day.

  11. it’s Muslim families living in fear that their children could be radicalised and run off to Syria

    Parents, we will stop your children from disagreeing with you politically and choosing a life path you disapprove of!

    1. Yes. And no more dancing. I’m looking at YOU Kevin Bacon!

    2. “My daughter is running off with her non-Muslim boyfriend to Syria to become Red Cross members!”

      *Government immediately declares both radicals, prepares Room 101*

    3. In UK, parents are blaming the police and the government for this. No shit, they were supposed to take away their “children’s” passports because they were supposed to know “children” were running off to join ISIS.

      Why “children” in quotes? If you’re old enough to consent to sex and to join the army, you’re not a child.

      1. Why “children” in quotes? If you’re old enough to consent to sex and to join the army, you’re not a child.

        Ok, but from the ISIS point of view, that’s 9.

        1. Yes, but we ain’t talking ISIS. For Brits it’s 16.
          Which led to hilarity last election. George Gallloway’s opponent was a Muslim woman who got married off at 15 in Pakistan. He called her a liar because her certificate says 16, even though he’s aware that, if it said 15, she’d never have been allowed into the country. So her mother forged the certificate.

  12. “We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for.”

    You mean like the ones who want arbitrary government in Britain? Those people?

  13. Look, I don’t like the idea of some guy thinking I’m a lesser person for not being Muslim, but if they’re willing to leave me alone in my inferiority and not bomb me, then no harm no foul. I mean, maybe I don’t like *him* either.

    1. As long as they don’t post comments anywhere yours in space or time, amirite?

      1. anywhere near

        1. Look, if you’re going to stalk someone, why not her?

          http://tiviseries.mobi/wp-cont…..ers-7.jpeg

          (note to Ms. Glau’s attorneys: This is strictly a joke, ha ha)

  14. Britain’s prime minister warns against “wild conspiracy theories”

    To be fair, this kind of totalitarian overreach does make an awful lot of conspiracy theories not seem so wild anymore.

  15. This was inevitable. Clash of cultures and all that. It will get worse.

    1. This has nothing to do with a ‘class of cultures’ and everything to do with the British people being militantly sheep-like.

      1. “militantly sheep-like”

        I nominate this as phrase of the day.

  16. Oh, and let’s not forget the influence of the moral-equivalence brigade:

    “You’re picking on Muslim radicals, but look, here’s a Christian pastor who said modern music is too suggestive.”

    “Fair enough, we’ll arrest that guy, too.”

  17. Cameron’s speech is a reflection of the palpable fear many Brits have about what’s going on over there. The multiculturalism that allowed tolerance of Sharia and looked the other way when Muslim men were grooming and raping young girls is a cancer that’s damaged a whole generation. But instead of refocusing on individual rights and equality under the law he focuses on carving out another exception. This time an exception to free speech instead of an exception to free association. These dumb-shits will always be fighting the last war because they aren’t capable of recognizing a core principle and applying it universally.

    Also, he compares “right wing hate groups” with radical Muslims sympathetic to ISIS. This is a false equivalency, and he knows it.

    What right wing hate group in Britain has successfully carried out a terrorist act? How many people have they maimed and/or murdered? Right. None. There is no threat of any right wing hate group. But, go ahead and gin up that false controversy. The left wing eats that shit up.

    1. Exactly – the moral equivalence brigade can be relied on the demand the arrest of “right wing extremists,” to balance out all this picking on Muslims.

    2. Yeah, but as Peter Hitchens has pointed out, the fear of being called racist actually means the predominantly leftist British bureaucrats tasked with carrying this out would primarily be going after right-wing groups rather than after extremist Muslims. And I’d argue this heavy handed idiocy actually helps cultivate extremism among the groups targeted by turning them into martyrs. No better way to get pissed off 23 year old Muslim extremists than to close down all their Mosques and throw their Imams in prison.

      Nazis were arrested frequently during the years of Weimar Germany, often times under actual hate speech laws that outlawed the spreading of ‘class hatred,’ and all it did was turn them into martyrs for a poor, working class base that was sympathetic to anti-Semitism and fascism.

      1. Remember that Anjem Choudary is free to do whatever but Pam Geller isn’t allowed in the UK.

  18. So extremism in defense of liberty is now a vice? How about moderation in the pursuit of justice, is that now a virtue?

  19. Not news.

    Britain’s Home Secretary Theresa May has been pushing this bullshit for months.

    May’s arguments have an extra dollop of fascist speech policing:

    “Authorities should be allowed to issue banning orders on extremist groups to stop them spreading “messages of hate” even if they fall short of being defined as terrorists, Mrs May said.

    “We will introduce extremism disruption orders, which are civil powers to be used against individual extremists who incite hatred. And we will introduce closure orders, for premises that are owned or occupied by extremists or are used to host extremist meetings or speakers,” she added.

    Unfortunately I can’t find her original speech she made back in February, but there were quotes in there about how it was extremist to ‘deny women can do what men can do’ and ‘attempt to discredit Democracy.’

    So per Theresa May, every neo-reactionary bozo on the internet should be jailed for their support of Monarchy, even though they have no power and never will have any power to enact those desires.

    Brilliant!

    1. May simply wants to out-fascist the fascists.

      It’s fascists all the way down.

    2. ‘attempt to discredit Democracy.’

      This technically makes Plato a radical extremist. Not to mention literally thousands of other political theorists, philosophers, etc. Brilliant indeed.

      1. Here’s the quote:

        “The difference is spelled out in the detail of the policy, where it says that it is intended to catch not just those who “spread or incite hatred” on grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake “harmful activities” for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.”

        Harmful activities for the purpose of overthrowing democracy.

        I’m glad neither of those two phrases are nebulous, or else this could mean whatever you want it to mean.

        Hell, the EU is an undemocratic institution, so joining it is a ‘harmful activity’ that ‘overthrows democracy,’ so let’s jail the whole British political class!

        This idea isn’t so bad after all.

        1. Somehow I don’t expect that would be applied consistently.

  20. Poochie: [hands out his hand to Scratchy for a high-five] Catch you on the flip side, dudemeisters. [Scratchy extends his arm — Poochie withdraws his] NOT! Hey, kids, always recycle. . .to the extreme! Bust it! [he drives away in the sunset, past the fireworks factory]

    1. I’ve never seen such a non-sequitur before. Bravo!

      1. To the extreme, Kristen. To the extreme.

  21. Libertarians defend free speech of racists. Racists defend free speech of racists.

    1. This is a brilliant and valuable point and I’m glad you contributed.

    2. THEN WHO IS DEFENDING FREE SPEECH OF LIBERTARIANS? Seems like a gyp.

      1. Seems like a gyp.

        The word gyp is racist slag for those of Romanian gypsy background.

        The British government would like a word with you.

        1. The Limeys always seem to want to have a word.

        2. Um, that’s the Roma or Romany people, who are marginally connected with Romania, but whose genetic origins are in the Indian subcontinent. They really don’t like the term Gypsy.

            1. Damn you, Switzy, you just ear-wormed me. And I’m the only gay guy on the planet who hates Cher. *&^%$#@!

    3. I’m sorry Peaceboner, for some reason we placed you in the grown-ups political discussion table. We’ll get you reassigned to the kiddie table shortly.

      1. This is why we need regulations. Your sarc detector was made by capitalist pigs.

    4. Racists defend free speech of racists.

      Bzzt. Racists defend their own right to speak. They generally don’t defend the right of other racists to speak.

      Show me the KKK defending the free speech rights of Malcom X or the Black Panthers, and we can talk.

  22. You know what?

    Fuck all you motherfuckers. I’m going out to my garden to pick some mint and drink mojitos until dinner and/or unconsciousness.

    Smell you later.

    1. That raises a question: Is a cuba libre still a cuba libre, or have we agreed to ban the drink in our new found love for Castro and his people?

    2. “mojitos” *snicker, snicker, rolls eyes*

      I can sit by my pool and drink mimosas at the same time *multi-tasking*

      1. I rather like mojitos. Mimosas are okay at brunch, I guess, if they’re made with bourbon.

        1. Mojitos are too sweet. I like my mimosa hold the fruit juice.

          1. Only if you make them that way.

            1. Typically, they’re made with cane sugar, so, yeah, I guess you can leave out the sugar.

              1. You know who else…

                1. Hitler did not drink mojitos. Stop with your anti-rum propaganda.

                  1. I meant – Do you know who else left out the sugar? Was name-checking a beloved commenter and author on here.

    3. Mrs. Candy makes the Best Mojitos Ever. We have a huge mint patch in our back yard, and use fresh limes, of course. She doesn’t sweeten it much.

      Fuck, now I’m thirsty. Later…

  23. Free countries have the right to annex unfree lands on the condition that they are freer after annexation than before. At the rate Britain is going, the IRA will in a couple decades time have every right to to seize Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. If Argentina becomes a free place then it will concurrently have the right to invade and annex the Falklands.

    1. Wait, what?

      1. Nothing says non-aggression quite like endless aggression.

        1. You keep using that word in a manner that suggests you don’t know what it means.

          1. Here’s another word for you then: Chickenhawk.

            1. You’ve gone from misusing words to using meaningless buzzwords. Winner: Cytotoxic

              1. Being too boring to argue with doesn’t make you a winner.

            2. And here’s another word: Canadian

        2. As Gandhi said in one of his letters to his good friend, Adolf Hitler: “By utterly breaking the spirit of the people you refer to as enemies, they will crave your loving embrace. Also, you should lay with young women to test your resolve. Do not enjoy the sexual act!”

          1. Wait, what?

            1. It’s true, Gandhi wrote letters to Hitler. I’m not making that up.

      2. What what?

        1. WHAT PART OF ‘AGNOTOLOGY’ DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?

      3. Cytotoxic is a veteran of the notorious Armchair Wars. If you ever need an example of vapid self-righteous justification of massacres and self-admitted military incompetence he’s your man. He’s a dumber, more vicious McNamara.

        1. I make a great point, butthurt peacenazis rush in with typically retarded remarks and ad hom. This thread is quickly turning into yet another monument to my intellectual dominance.

          1. This is so funny/sad the Germans should have a word for it.

          2. You make no points. You get no monuments. You are the undisputed dominator of your mom’s basement, but only until she gets home from work.

          3. Cytotoxic, I get that you have a problem with arrogance and narcissism, but even you have to be self-aware enough to realize how utterly sad it is that you feel the need to ignore any actual criticism of your positions and just declare your own superiority. Seriously, this is some pathetic chest-puffing. The fact that you’ve declared yourself ‘too smart to fight wars but smart enough to plan them’ really only highlights the fact that you’re utterly ignorant of military operations, logistics, ROEs and suppression actions. You’re literally one of the most ignorant people here on the matters of war outside of folks like Bo and Tony, but apparently you’ve got all the answers.

            And of course, your hand-waving behaviour doesn’t show at all that it’s not something you’ve actually reasoned out, it’s something that you’re parroting from whatever Objectivist shrill you read.

    2. “Free countries have the right to annex unfree lands on the condition that they are freer after annexation than before.”

      So you have the right to annex unfree lands on the condition you’re clairvoyant and can determine the exact consequences of your actions years from now.

      Sounds legit.

      1. So you have the right to annex unfree lands on the condition you’re clairvoyant and can determine the exact consequences of your actions years from now.

        Where the fuck does this shit even come from? I know you can’t lay a finger on my arguments and don’t like it, but you don’t have to make it so obvious.

        1. Or you’re an idiot who fails to understand the historical basics of how culture develops and changes, especially in regards to constant use of military force.

          1. His intentions are good, John Titor. Isn’t that all that matters?

        2. “Where the fuck does this shit even come from? I know you can’t lay a finger on my arguments and don’t like it, but you don’t have to make it so obvious.”

          It comes from this:

          “Free countries have the right to annex unfree lands on the condition that they are freer after annexation than before.”

          You’re saying ‘on the condition they are freer afterwards.’ How can you know a country you invade will be freer afterwards? What if there’s a violent insurgency and you have to clamp down on it to avoid massive war deaths? What if parts of the country are untamable and actually become more brutal after you’ve overthrown the central authority?

          The only way to know for a fact that the lands you annex will be freer after annexation is if you somehow can see the future. Otherwise it’s guesswork.

          Any moral code that requires you to know that land you invade will be freer in the future is an untenable moral code because you suddenly become moral or immoral based on future actions over which you will have no control. Does that clear up the confusion?

          1. That, and Cytotoxic seems to be utterly ignorant of the fact that the act of war itself is an antithesis to his supposed goal. A war is the removal of the state’s threat of violence with the far more certain possibility of state violence if they don’t comply, or even if they do. That’s not an environment that cultivates his vague idea of ‘freedom’ without a lot of other factors.

            1. Let alone the fact that he’s claiming he has a right to slaughter people for their own good.

      2. “I see a land I can make more free.” *Eyes Canada surreptitiously*

        1. “My fellow Americans – I ask for this Declaration of War on ____________. This is because they are less free than us. Once we have killed their soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines – shot anyone who stands in opposition to our invasion and imprisoned those that continue to disagree….then, and only then, will __________ be free!”

        2. Hey, fuck off, Cytotoxic does not speak for all of us. We are willing to tie him up and throw him over the border as tribute.

          1. If we do that, border wall to make Donald Trump go “hey, guys, too much” is going up on Canadian border faster than Russians made Berlin Wall.

          2. No thanks! Can’t you just put him on an ice floe, push him towards Greenland, and let the Danes worry about him?

    3. You know who else liked to annex lands?

      1. Andrew Jackson?

      2. Cytotoxic?

      3. Me in EU4?

        1. Me in Caesar III?

          1. Basically every strategy game ever proves humans are megalomaniacs.

            1. I dunno about that.

              I’d build a fair size city in Sim City just to watch planes crash into city blocks when I stopped worrying about tax revenue.

              I’m not sure ‘megalomaniac’ is the right word.

    4. Is this a reductio-at-absurdum aimed at utilitarians? Because it sure sounds like it.

      “We intended to turn XYZ into a freer nation, not fuck it up even further, oops. We’ll get it right eventually.”

      1. Utilitarians are generally disliked around here, Chris. As are claims that good intentions trump foreseeable consequences.

    5. No, they don’t.

    6. “Muscular Non-Aggression”

  24. Years ago, on a skeptics site (with an international range of commenters) a well-educated Kraut launched on a defense of the anti-nazi speech laws in Germany.
    I was amazed at the support he got.

  25. Cameron should change seats at The Beefsteak Club: he’s evidently been sitting next to the Terrorism Bore.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.