In Germany, a man is being dragged through the courts for criticising the Covid regime — a terrifying example of the the broader crackdown on dissent in Germany and across Europe
Thanks for this superb analysis of CJ’s current predicament - so many excellent points you raise. We in Australia are about to embark on yet another round of legislative ‘hate speech’ laws - both left and right are in total agreement on the apparent urgency of such legislation. I despair.
I wish CJ all the best in his ongoing fight against the lunacy.
I didn't know the case of Mr. Hopkins. However, here in Spain we have the case of "Anonimo Garcia", who make a joke about the mediatic treatment of a judgement of violation that was famous and polemic here in Spain (the case of "La manada"). He didn't make a joke about the violation, if not about the sensationalist and partisan treatment (all men are potential rapist, women are in a constant danger of being rapist...) that was done on media and by politicians. He was condemned to 18 months on prison (I don't know if he went inside the jail, because in Spain, if it is your first crime and it is unless 24 months you don't go inside).
The case of Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Garcia, both people who wanted to signal some social problems with humor (something that we should desire, for the issue signalled and for the laughs), shows the same moralist cancellation, that is oriented to have a single dominant narrative. The only way of doing that with the support of people is to moralize and convince that say some thing it is bad, a crime itself; because, without that, the contradiction it is so obvious. Pf course, cases like the mentioned are extrem, but exists a "social death" if you say some things. You will not appear in public media, and you can lose a job or your group of friends if you say something that is taboo.
Philosophical idealism domains the conception that people has of itself nowadays. Instead of understand that the moral quality of people come for the effects of their actions, nowadays we think that the expression of an opinion it is the issue that defines the moral quality of people (an opinion has no effects; these deserve more development, but in general way). The modern subjectivity of people creates them the need to "exprese" their personality in the public theatre trough opinions, and it is this performance in group dynamics what explains, in a microsocial levels, these condemns. That's why people consider that the people who own an opinion against the one that they had are bad people, and why they say that they couldn't have a friend with this opinions. That's why people think that condemning genocide of Gaza social media make you a better person that the one that didn't, when none of both acts improve or aggravate the world. What improve or aggravate the world it is the treatment given to your mother, your neighbour, your workmate, the cashier... and that it is independent of your political or moral opinions. It is analogous when people say that they like to read when they spent all the day in the sofa: your acts say who you are and what you want, there is not a backdrop or reverse of your "real being".
Nice work Calda, I agree with a lot of what you say. We are in a unique point in our history and things could go VERY wrong. Opinions matter even if they are formed from the comfort of our sofas. That surely is what these media/narrative wars are all about.
Opinion matters, yes, but for the effects of behaviours related. For example: if you convince that Russia is the enemy, people will vote or accept priorize money. If you think that is good to help homeless, maybe that thought drives you to act; but if you don't act, this thought do not have any effect on the world and your are equal to the guy that don't think on helping homeless, or even the one that condemne, in a discrusive way, homeless but don't treat them bad.
However, my point was that if you sustain an opinion (Gaza issue is bad, we should refuse inmigration, or I am a good guy), that do not poruce effectes on the world, and that will be your actions the object of moral analysis (if you engaged on social activism, if you treat well or bad your inmigrant neighbour or if you cause damage or benefits to others). People tend to consider bad or good other people for their opinions and not for their acts: someone who declare itself as racist but treat well people of other races it is not racist; that's my point. Even if you have crazy opinions, but you treat well the poeple around you; you will be a better person that the one with "good" opinions that doesn't treat well people around you.
We have a narrative conception of ourselfs and others, and is preferable, on my way, to have a factical conception based on actions and effects.
Also I’m guessing you’re not writing in your mother tongue-just for your information- I ‘get’ what you are saying although the language is not always correct. If you want, drop me a message in chat and I can share my strategy for correcting this👍🏼
Yes, it is not my mother tongue (I am Spanish). I start to write in English since I use Substack, and I have improved. Now, I am able to read books in English withou using dictionary, because for the context you understand most of the book. I really appreciate your offer, but if you have understood, my goal has been achieved. Usually, we don't read comments or opinions trying to understand what the other wants to say; we tend to put it "out of context" and adapting to our models (that is unavoidable in some way), but you have made a charitable reading. I also appreciate that, that it's why I try to do when I read others.
There is always things thinked more deeply or robust, and this is one in my case. Mainly, my first thoughts about it, weren't about political and social issues, if not for the suffering that conceptions and opinions cause to people (most of our suffering, it is in my view due to that: to what I call "linguistic suffering"). After that, my interest was about how to conceive ontologically the ideas, and I understood that ideas, thoughts, opinions tend to be understand for us for their semantic meaning, but they could be conceived also as processes like any other, causing effects. That's why one idea has importance as a cause: what you think affect what you experiment.
And later, with all this new tribalism culture based on moral opinions and censorship, and also the polarization and partisanship, I applied the same reasoning. That's why I called "moral idealism", because, like philosphical idealism, gives "reality" to ideas or concepts. It also allowed me to understand what was the function and the use of religious myths or national symbols,That's why an idea that can look to our eyes as false or stupid, could be very important linking together social actions, like some taboos shows.One example is the voodo: ¿why it works if it is false? Because the belief on voodo produce effects on the person (stress, cortisol, fear, self-fulfilling profecy...). The material cause of this it is sociological, group dynamics, the modern subjectivity, non-rigid rols and diversity of identities, the mass media and technologies of comunication, the language, and so on...
Even, in the Western politics, we can see some kind of this, because an important part of their actions consists in statements or speeches, instead of real put in practice of political decisions. And a lot of their speeches deal about non-tangible things, abstract and vague concepts, and moral issues: "limiting poverty", "fight for equality", "defense of valours and democracy"...
It is a pleasure to have this talks. That is what internet allows, and we should do it more frequently. We keep in touch.
Ánimo con el español. Es más difícil gramaticalmente que el inglés, pero no hace falta tanta exactitud. El propósito de una lengua es permitirnos recibir información y emitirla, con la comprensión en medio.
"You have that power. I get it. Everyone gets it. The German authorities have the power to punish those who criticize them, who expose their hypocrisy, their lies. We all get the message. But that is not how things work in democratic societies. That is how things work in totalitarian systems. I will not cooperate with that. I refuse to live that way."
It's sad to see that fellow modern moron slave still babbling about "democratic societies"!
The time for not cooperate has long past. He failed to do it then, no point in crying about it now.
Unfortunately for CJH and me and a few others... The large majority of MMS/3i's are like this
Here's a post about Germany's political application of hate speech laws which covers CJ's case and also another twitterer whose criticism of pandemic discourse fell foul of the state prosecutor:
Many thanks, Thomas and Ciaran!
Thanks for accepting the interview! Very happy to help shine more light on your absurd situation.
With all my support to CJ Hopkins...
Also in Germany : any news about Reiner Fuellmich ???
Thanks for this superb analysis of CJ’s current predicament - so many excellent points you raise. We in Australia are about to embark on yet another round of legislative ‘hate speech’ laws - both left and right are in total agreement on the apparent urgency of such legislation. I despair.
I wish CJ all the best in his ongoing fight against the lunacy.
I wish Clare Daly would run for Prime Minister of Ireland
I didn't know the case of Mr. Hopkins. However, here in Spain we have the case of "Anonimo Garcia", who make a joke about the mediatic treatment of a judgement of violation that was famous and polemic here in Spain (the case of "La manada"). He didn't make a joke about the violation, if not about the sensationalist and partisan treatment (all men are potential rapist, women are in a constant danger of being rapist...) that was done on media and by politicians. He was condemned to 18 months on prison (I don't know if he went inside the jail, because in Spain, if it is your first crime and it is unless 24 months you don't go inside).
The case of Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Garcia, both people who wanted to signal some social problems with humor (something that we should desire, for the issue signalled and for the laughs), shows the same moralist cancellation, that is oriented to have a single dominant narrative. The only way of doing that with the support of people is to moralize and convince that say some thing it is bad, a crime itself; because, without that, the contradiction it is so obvious. Pf course, cases like the mentioned are extrem, but exists a "social death" if you say some things. You will not appear in public media, and you can lose a job or your group of friends if you say something that is taboo.
Philosophical idealism domains the conception that people has of itself nowadays. Instead of understand that the moral quality of people come for the effects of their actions, nowadays we think that the expression of an opinion it is the issue that defines the moral quality of people (an opinion has no effects; these deserve more development, but in general way). The modern subjectivity of people creates them the need to "exprese" their personality in the public theatre trough opinions, and it is this performance in group dynamics what explains, in a microsocial levels, these condemns. That's why people consider that the people who own an opinion against the one that they had are bad people, and why they say that they couldn't have a friend with this opinions. That's why people think that condemning genocide of Gaza social media make you a better person that the one that didn't, when none of both acts improve or aggravate the world. What improve or aggravate the world it is the treatment given to your mother, your neighbour, your workmate, the cashier... and that it is independent of your political or moral opinions. It is analogous when people say that they like to read when they spent all the day in the sofa: your acts say who you are and what you want, there is not a backdrop or reverse of your "real being".
Nice work Calda, I agree with a lot of what you say. We are in a unique point in our history and things could go VERY wrong. Opinions matter even if they are formed from the comfort of our sofas. That surely is what these media/narrative wars are all about.
Hi, Baz.
Opinion matters, yes, but for the effects of behaviours related. For example: if you convince that Russia is the enemy, people will vote or accept priorize money. If you think that is good to help homeless, maybe that thought drives you to act; but if you don't act, this thought do not have any effect on the world and your are equal to the guy that don't think on helping homeless, or even the one that condemne, in a discrusive way, homeless but don't treat them bad.
However, my point was that if you sustain an opinion (Gaza issue is bad, we should refuse inmigration, or I am a good guy), that do not poruce effectes on the world, and that will be your actions the object of moral analysis (if you engaged on social activism, if you treat well or bad your inmigrant neighbour or if you cause damage or benefits to others). People tend to consider bad or good other people for their opinions and not for their acts: someone who declare itself as racist but treat well people of other races it is not racist; that's my point. Even if you have crazy opinions, but you treat well the poeple around you; you will be a better person that the one with "good" opinions that doesn't treat well people around you.
We have a narrative conception of ourselfs and others, and is preferable, on my way, to have a factical conception based on actions and effects.
Also I’m guessing you’re not writing in your mother tongue-just for your information- I ‘get’ what you are saying although the language is not always correct. If you want, drop me a message in chat and I can share my strategy for correcting this👍🏼
Calda you’ve done some robust thinking on this = good 😊
Hi again, Baz.
Yes, it is not my mother tongue (I am Spanish). I start to write in English since I use Substack, and I have improved. Now, I am able to read books in English withou using dictionary, because for the context you understand most of the book. I really appreciate your offer, but if you have understood, my goal has been achieved. Usually, we don't read comments or opinions trying to understand what the other wants to say; we tend to put it "out of context" and adapting to our models (that is unavoidable in some way), but you have made a charitable reading. I also appreciate that, that it's why I try to do when I read others.
There is always things thinked more deeply or robust, and this is one in my case. Mainly, my first thoughts about it, weren't about political and social issues, if not for the suffering that conceptions and opinions cause to people (most of our suffering, it is in my view due to that: to what I call "linguistic suffering"). After that, my interest was about how to conceive ontologically the ideas, and I understood that ideas, thoughts, opinions tend to be understand for us for their semantic meaning, but they could be conceived also as processes like any other, causing effects. That's why one idea has importance as a cause: what you think affect what you experiment.
And later, with all this new tribalism culture based on moral opinions and censorship, and also the polarization and partisanship, I applied the same reasoning. That's why I called "moral idealism", because, like philosphical idealism, gives "reality" to ideas or concepts. It also allowed me to understand what was the function and the use of religious myths or national symbols,That's why an idea that can look to our eyes as false or stupid, could be very important linking together social actions, like some taboos shows.One example is the voodo: ¿why it works if it is false? Because the belief on voodo produce effects on the person (stress, cortisol, fear, self-fulfilling profecy...). The material cause of this it is sociological, group dynamics, the modern subjectivity, non-rigid rols and diversity of identities, the mass media and technologies of comunication, the language, and so on...
Even, in the Western politics, we can see some kind of this, because an important part of their actions consists in statements or speeches, instead of real put in practice of political decisions. And a lot of their speeches deal about non-tangible things, abstract and vague concepts, and moral issues: "limiting poverty", "fight for equality", "defense of valours and democracy"...
It is a pleasure to have this talks. That is what internet allows, and we should do it more frequently. We keep in touch.
¡Claro que si hombre!
Yo tengo un poco de español, vivo aquí, pero seguramente no llego a tu nivel de inglés.🥴
Ánimo con el español. Es más difícil gramaticalmente que el inglés, pero no hace falta tanta exactitud. El propósito de una lengua es permitirnos recibir información y emitirla, con la comprensión en medio.
Saludos, y buena suerte ;)
"You have that power. I get it. Everyone gets it. The German authorities have the power to punish those who criticize them, who expose their hypocrisy, their lies. We all get the message. But that is not how things work in democratic societies. That is how things work in totalitarian systems. I will not cooperate with that. I refuse to live that way."
It's sad to see that fellow modern moron slave still babbling about "democratic societies"!
The time for not cooperate has long past. He failed to do it then, no point in crying about it now.
Unfortunately for CJH and me and a few others... The large majority of MMS/3i's are like this
https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-d3c
So for them what happens to CJK is at the same level to what happens to children in Gaza.
Goop piece, Ciaran!
Here's a post about Germany's political application of hate speech laws which covers CJ's case and also another twitterer whose criticism of pandemic discourse fell foul of the state prosecutor:
https://anirishmansdiary.substack.com/p/an-irishmans-diary-crime-and-punishment