They aren't diametrically opposed and every time this is explained you ignore it and provide no counterargument. Instead, you do this:
That's fine and valid but it wasn't your original argument against it
okay well address my argument now
Orwell's point was about creating an external enemy that requires the surrender of freedom to defeat. Internally deconstructing systems of oppression is not the same and doesn't imply any loss of freedom. It's the opposite: it's a constant struggle to gain back freedoms that have eroded
1 Like
I think it's fine to say -
He isn't actually advocating for peace of any sort and therefore saying we have to have continuous violent conflict in order to achieve his perfect society is fine, in that it is not a contradiction, he is just advocating for a violent society
On a more instinctual level I think it doesn't hold up, as we're all necessarily advocating for a maximally "fair" and "good" society and to me (and I think most normal people) the idea of having to constantly enforce, with violence, your fair and good society is the exact sort of diametric conflict symbolized in the phrase "War is Peace"
But in that regard you can make some sort of superficial argument that I am stretching it too far
kind of strange how your "normal" society is enforcing "peace" with violence, right now.
1 Like
I didn't say it wasn't but thanks for arriving here to argue with me
the idea that you have to give up some rights to keep some rights or paradox of tolerance or whatever is true to a reasonable degree.
like i think u have to give up ur right to shoot people lest you get shot and lose ur right to shoot people because you are dead (though ewiz may disagree)
as for tolerance and speech i think u should mostly police people's actions (that is, minimize the fallout of their intolerance). speech is also an action and may have some fallout so may be worth policing under some circumstances. and private platforms do agree to police speech. its kind of questionable for the central government to police speech because this sets a bad precedent. also-- how do you police speech without a monopoly on violence? 
Where did I say anything about continuous violence?
Where did I ever advocate this? Isn't this what capitalism requires with the oppression of developing nations to achieve maximal profits? Isn't this what capitalism requires with the use of policing to maintain the institutions of private property? Isn't this what the State requires to shut out those who try to deconstruct it?
what is the alternative to "oppressing developing nations"? serious question. does any american actually care about the welfare of developing nations?
They already do. There are numerous types of speech that aren't permitted
the idea of ideal capitalism is that the developing nation wins even though the developed nation cares nothing about its welfare. arguably true in the case of modern outsourcing of labor. arguably false under colonialism.
There is none under globalized capitalism. The pursuit of maximizing surplus value entails utilizing cheap/slave labor away from where you sell the products of that labor. The products are made for almost nothing, and the people you sell to have enough money to pay more for them
is it an argument to point out that you see nothing wrong with the violence that's being enforced right now? but you're explicitly against violence?
I see something wrong with all violence.
What? What does this even mean? It's very unlikely under capitalism because the accumulation of wealth begets more wealth and poverty forms a huge barrier to attaining wealth
These have the exact same outcome. One is just less visible than the other
and what do you believe about failure to act?
they win compared to the default alternative, which is no interaction.
e.g. sweatshops are fundamentally good things because the people who work in them are choosing to work there, meaning its the best job they can get. if there was no sweatshop, they would simply be working a worse job, or dead.
not true if you point a gun to their head and force them to work when theyd rather be somewhere else they could be if you hadnt shown up. slavery, colonialism.
cheap labor good slave labor bad
What? You literally point out right after this that the labor is coerced under the threat of death otherwise, so how is working in a sweatshop voluntary?
That's exactly the problem. Capitalism forces a choice between the awful and the worse. It precludes the option of anything equitable
well thats the capitalist spirit really. supposing that people will pick the best alternative they can get. so under the capitalist model you have to offer up a preferable alternative to whatever is happening now, so people are willing to pick it. which apparently takes a whole book to do.