Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

[jaysabi]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

Threats are a violation of someone's rights, so it wouldn't be applicable to my scenario where violence is initiated in response to expression, as freedom of expression does not include a threat. As for mental abuse, if someone is mentally abusing you, they are most likely physically abusing you as well, otherwise you would be free to remove yourself from the situation. If you're not free to leave of your own volition, I can see where the initiation of force in your own defense is warranted. If you are free to leave and do not, that does not make it OK to initiate violence, because you have chosen not to take the least destructive path. I cannot think of a situation where the initiation of physical violence is an appropriate response to someone who is being only mentally abused. (Maybe you have a scenario in mind that might change my mind?) Also, what constitutes mental abuse is in the mind of the sufferer. If you called me an idiot on this board for my views, I could be sensitive enough that it would cause me legitimate mental distress. That's hardly any fault of your own, but the fact that the threshold can vary so greatly person-to-person does not place liability on someone who expresses an opinion, even if it's offensive. But we're also not talking about these situations. (I take your point thought about never saying never. I was imprecise.)

The crux of this issue is how people are likely to react to someone else's expression, and really, that is irrelevant to me. If we know jihadi's kill people cuz they're mad at the depiction of their prophet, that never makes it OK when they kill people. The killers are wrong, every time, no matter how likely it is that they react in an unacceptable manner to someone else's expression. Expression can be a liability in a semantic sense only, not a legitimate sense that makes victim-blaming OK. Well, he shouldn't have said that because it was likely to provoke a reaction sounds an awful lot like well, she shouldn't have worn that because it was likely to provoke someone to rape her. No. The person committing the crime is wrong every time.

[broadsword]

freedom of speech and hate speech is different. everything has a cause and effect insulting is not the route to take, a debate is better. plus if people believe this is all just done by a few people look at the previous editorial which did the same thing and see how much they profited from the event.

governments are the real cartels.

That is all opinion though. The way people are now anything could be labeled as "Hate speech"

not when it comes to religion, insulting religion is like someone insulting your family. there should always be freedom of speech but they will be responsible for what comes after. someone may say something that someone else may not like and then it results in consequences. every religion has something sacred and important where there should be respect for. messing with it will lead to what happen. muslims being blamed for alot of thing s just a small fraction of people while the majority are against them too. war is business, taliban/al-qaeda/ISIS waging war is all business. if everyone felt safe we wouldnt need defence companies.

you can't swear at me and not expect nothing in return and just say freedom of speech

one thing is that just how many muslims say no one should insult Islam they should also not insult other religions too. they should not force people to do things on their own people or anyone else's

[Lethn]

you can't swear at me and not expect nothing in return and just say freedom of speech

The point is that you can't go around shooting people up just because they've said mean things about you and that's what all this is about really, to claim that you shouldn't say certain things just because some psychopath might go and bash your brains in is cowardly, especially if what you're saying is completely true.

You're also just basically justifying murder and assault really by claiming "Oh well you shouldn't be saying those kinds of things to me if you didn't want anything to happen" which is hardly any way for anyone sane to fucking act, let alone anybody who is civil minded, also, there's a reason these people recently were targeted, it was because they were unarmed, the people who justify this kind of bullshit and carry it out are all fucking pussies because they of course would barely ever target people who could actually fight back.

What's even more of a piss take, is the way people are going around asking us to respect people who think it's okay to go around shooting up unarmed people just for saying something they find offensive, so fuck off, I will not bow to violent psychopaths, ever.

[broadsword]

you can't swear at me and not expect nothing in return and just say freedom of speech

The point is that you can't go around shooting people up just because they've said mean things about you and that's what all this is about really, to claim that you shouldn't say certain things just because some psychopath might go and bash your brains in is cowardly, especially if what you're saying is completely true.

don't misunderstand it i didn't mean swear and you'l get shot. swearing at me is not a big deal as someone insulting something i believe in. i'm not only saying it for one religion but for all religions. no religion should be insulted. those that don't understand it simply shouldn't say anything.

if what your saying is true of course it shouldn't be reacted on, but if its false and the deed is indeed wrong i wouldn't call them a psycho. cartoonist knew by drawing a cartoon they weren't gonna be insulting one person but 1.5 billion muslims.


looking up on the history of the newspaper its got a history of doing this and was shut down once too for insulting the death of a french president.

[pungopete468]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...

1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.

Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.

Threats are a violation of someone's rights, so it wouldn't be applicable to my scenario where violence is initiated in response to expression, as freedom of expression does not include a threat. As for mental abuse, if someone is mentally abusing you, they are most likely physically abusing you as well, otherwise you would be free to remove yourself from the situation. If you're not free to leave of your own volition, I can see where the initiation of force in your own defense is warranted. If you are free to leave and do not, that does not make it OK to initiate violence, because you have chosen not to take the least destructive path. I cannot think of a situation where the initiation of physical violence is an appropriate response to someone who is being only mentally abused. (Maybe you have a scenario in mind that might change my mind?) Also, what constitutes mental abuse is in the mind of the sufferer. If you called me an idiot on this board for my views, I could be sensitive enough that it would cause me legitimate mental distress. That's hardly any fault of your own, but the fact that the threshold can vary so greatly person-to-person does not place liability on someone who expresses an opinion, even if it's offensive. But we're also not talking about these situations. (I take your point thought about never saying never. I was imprecise.)

The crux of this issue is how people are likely to react to someone else's expression, and really, that is irrelevant to me. If we know jihadi's kill people cuz they're mad at the depiction of their prophet, that never makes it OK when they kill people. The killers are wrong, every time, no matter how likely it is that they react in an unacceptable manner to someone else's expression. Expression can be a liability in a semantic sense only, not a legitimate sense that makes victim-blaming OK. Well, he shouldn't have said that because it was likely to provoke a reaction sounds an awful lot like well, she shouldn't have worn that because it was likely to provoke someone to rape her. No. The person committing the crime is wrong every time.

For the designation of abuse, it requires a recurrence of assaults. Insulting a person doesn't make for an abuse, it's merely an assault. However, repetitively assaulting a person constitutes abuse. Mental distress is not the damage caused by abuse, the damage caused by mental abuse is depression, retardation of social skills, anxiety, depreciation of self-worth, and many more. People can get over mental distress by shifting their concentration, the damage caused by abuse can be permanent...

It may be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant. jihadists kill because they're engaged in a religious war. It's not OK for them to kill because of a picture of their prophet, but it's foolish to ignore the risks associated with painting a target on yourself when dealing with extremists. I'm not blaming the victim, nor have I said they are ever to blame.

People need to accept the reality that risk isn't black and white. "well, she shouldn't have worn that because it was likely to provoke someone to rape her." By choosing to deviate from the standard of society (standing out of the group of normality) she has absolutely increased her risk of being raped, even though that rape is not her fault, she was spotted by a predatory creature. It can be observed all around us in nature, predators will act predatory. My point isn't to place blame it's to assess the risks associated with our actions and see that certain actions increase the risk of adverse reaction.
 
If I choose to walk in a pit of snakes, I should accept the risk that I might be bitten by a snake. It's not my right not to be bitten, and the world doesn't owe it to me that I won't be. Refusing to acknowledge the risks of my actions will increase the probability that I won't experience my desired outcome.

I'm not saying not to express yourself for fear of retaliation either. I'm actually saying the contrary, protecting yourself is fundamental in nature. Even though we may live in civilization, human nature is inescapable, and is equally primal compared with animal nature... Don't walk through a snake pit with nothing but shorts and sandals...

[BLKBITZ]

I cant believe people are actually supporting restricting free speech.

[Lethn]

All you're doing is justifying oppression and murder, it doesn't matter how insulting it was, you don't go around fucking killing people over a word, or in this case, a bloody drawing, the joke is this has had the exact opposite affect the terrorists intended and always will because you turn these people into martyrs.

For some reason people seem to think that this isn't applicable to Islam, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is, the only reason you're saying this is because they're armed and organised. This all falls along the same line I'd say as arresting people for drawing something completely fictional, my favourite example is claiming that hentai is child pornography and arresting anybody who draws it or download it, some people genuinely believe that drawing a pair of fucking boobs should be enough to throw you into jail!

No, fuck it, there is absolutely no middle ground when it comes to freedom of speech and expression, there is stuff that can genuinely anger me out there and I'm pretty hard to offend, but I do not go around shooting people for it niether do I want them thrown into jail.

[alani123]

That's not an unexpected comment if you think that it's coming from the pope. One could even say that Francis is rather liberal when compared to previous popes.

[broadsword]

All you're doing is justifying oppression and murder, it doesn't matter how insulting it was, you don't go around fucking killing people over a word, or in this case, a bloody drawing, the joke is this has had the exact opposite affect the terrorists intended and always will because you turn these people into martyrs.

For some reason people seem to think that this isn't applicable to Islam, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is, the only reason you're saying this is because they're armed and organised.

well i ain't going to say if you insult someone beliefs there will be no reaction. i would prefer dialogue and show them that they were wrong rather than killing it's always the best thing but if they repeating it again and again what can someone do. of course a word or drawing to someone who is not Muslim could mean small but its a big deal to them. just how if someone insults Sikhism, Hinduism or any other religion your bound to get a nasty reaction. religions should simply not be insulted have debate talk about it simple don't go round drawing things when you know its forbidden in that religion for anyone to do. 1.5 billion Muslim's haven't drawn a picture of the prophet they shouldn't have either.

all i am saying is don't insult anyone's faith discuss it. Religion is considered much higher than any law like freedom of speech.

[BLKBITZ]

That's not an unexpected comment if you think that it's coming from the pope. One could even say that Francis is rather liberal when compared to previous popes.

Most Catholics are fairly liberal.

[pungopete468]

All you're doing is justifying oppression and murder, it doesn't matter how insulting it was, you don't go around fucking killing people over a word, or in this case, a bloody drawing, the joke is this has had the exact opposite affect the terrorists intended and always will because you turn these people into martyrs.

For some reason people seem to think that this isn't applicable to Islam, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is, the only reason you're saying this is because they're armed and organised.

well i ain't going to say if you insult someone beliefs there will be no reaction. i would prefer dialogue and show them that they were wrong rather than killing it's always the best thing but if they repeating it again and again what can someone do. of course a word or drawing to someone who is not Muslim could mean small but its a big deal to them. just how if someone insults Sikhism, Hinduism or any other religion your bound to get a nasty reaction. religions should simply not be insulted have debate talk about it simple don't go round drawing things when you know its forbidden in that religion for anyone to do. 1.5 billion Muslim's haven't drawn a picture of the prophet they shouldn't have either.

all i am saying is don't insult anyone's faith discuss it. Religion is considered much higher than any law like freedom of speech.

I disagree, if your religion mandates that women be veiled in public, it's not OK to use force when another religion doesn't have the same standard. It may be bad for a Muslim to draw Mohammed, but it's not bad for a non-Muslim to draw Mohammed...

[broadsword]

All you're doing is justifying oppression and murder, it doesn't matter how insulting it was, you don't go around fucking killing people over a word, or in this case, a bloody drawing, the joke is this has had the exact opposite affect the terrorists intended and always will because you turn these people into martyrs.

For some reason people seem to think that this isn't applicable to Islam, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is, the only reason you're saying this is because they're armed and organised.

well i ain't going to say if you insult someone beliefs there will be no reaction. i would prefer dialogue and show them that they were wrong rather than killing it's always the best thing but if they repeating it again and again what can someone do. of course a word or drawing to someone who is not Muslim could mean small but its a big deal to them. just how if someone insults Sikhism, Hinduism or any other religion your bound to get a nasty reaction. religions should simply not be insulted have debate talk about it simple don't go round drawing things when you know its forbidden in that religion for anyone to do. 1.5 billion Muslim's haven't drawn a picture of the prophet they shouldn't have either.

all i am saying is don't insult anyone's faith discuss it. Religion is considered much higher than any law like freedom of speech.

I disagree, if your religion mandates that women be veiled in public, it's not OK to use force when another religion doesn't have the same standard. It may be bad for a Muslim to draw Mohammed, but it's not bad for a non-Muslim to draw Mohammed...

of course it wrong to force any one to do anything. they shouldn't even force a Muslim to wear a veil. it's the individual choice whether they want to or not. (Islam does not say its compulsory to do so). i am sure it was not only about drawing the insult was how it was drawn and the message from it. of course a non-muslim may not consider it to be wrong but that drawing is hurtful to Muslims.

if someone swears at your mother the one who swore has no feelings because it wasn't his mother but the son would feel hurt as its his mother. since the war has begun so many things has been said about the religion but it was debated. there are things in every religion that should not be insulted as they are sensitive.

Every religion is taught to respect each other's religion.

[Lethn]

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

No, they aren't.

[pungopete468]

All you're doing is justifying oppression and murder, it doesn't matter how insulting it was, you don't go around fucking killing people over a word, or in this case, a bloody drawing, the joke is this has had the exact opposite affect the terrorists intended and always will because you turn these people into martyrs.

For some reason people seem to think that this isn't applicable to Islam, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is, the only reason you're saying this is because they're armed and organised.

well i ain't going to say if you insult someone beliefs there will be no reaction. i would prefer dialogue and show them that they were wrong rather than killing it's always the best thing but if they repeating it again and again what can someone do. of course a word or drawing to someone who is not Muslim could mean small but its a big deal to them. just how if someone insults Sikhism, Hinduism or any other religion your bound to get a nasty reaction. religions should simply not be insulted have debate talk about it simple don't go round drawing things when you know its forbidden in that religion for anyone to do. 1.5 billion Muslim's haven't drawn a picture of the prophet they shouldn't have either.

all i am saying is don't insult anyone's faith discuss it. Religion is considered much higher than any law like freedom of speech.

I disagree, if your religion mandates that women be veiled in public, it's not OK to use force when another religion doesn't have the same standard. It may be bad for a Muslim to draw Mohammed, but it's not bad for a non-Muslim to draw Mohammed...

of course it wrong to force any one to do anything. they shouldn't even force a Muslim to wear a veil. it's the individual choice whether they want to or not. (Islam does not say its compulsory to do so). i am sure it was not only about drawing the insult was how it was drawn and the message from it. of course a non-muslim may not consider it to be wrong but that drawing is hurtful to Muslims.

if someone swears at your mother the one who swore has no feelings because it wasn't his mother but the son would feel hurt as its his mother. since the war has begun so many things has been said about the religion but it was debated. there are things in every religion that should not be insulted as they are sensitive.

Sensitive, yes. But there is no greater level of force than lethal force, and that's what was used in retaliation for this drawing. I'm not going to say the drawings weren't hurtful, but I'm also not going to advocate killing every person who draws a hurtful picture...

It's lunacy to justify lethal force for hurt feelings...

[username18333]

It would seem, therefore, that the hubris termed "Homo sapiens sapiens" is yet to receive correction sufficient for wisdom (namely, "rogue" asteroids).

That's not in question, it's obvious that wisdom within humanity exists as a few diamonds in a trash dump, and "rogue asteroids" will certainly cause havoc eventually (statistically speaking.) Part of the human condition is the ability to act out of control, and that's a fundamental consequence of self awareness...  

You don't seem to have understood why there are scare quotes around "rogue." Who, looking upon your obstinateness from without it, would not, by its might, crush you unto nothing?

Perhaps I don't understand your meaning, this is what I believe you meant; if I'm mistaken then please enlighten me. By rogue asteroids I thought you meant the inevitable isolated case of extreme havoc as a result of great potential energy within the grasp of an overwhelmingly fallible species where wisdom exists as an extreme minority.

By your next point, I'm extremely obstinate when I consider a motion in any direction inspired by fear, and without a clear path, especially when that motion limits my ability to stand my ground...

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the [extraterrestrial] mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a[n] [extraterrestrial] and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the [extraterrestrial] with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.

(Red colorization mine.)

An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.

[Wilikon]

https://twitter.com/scrowder

[username18333]

https://twitter.com/scrowder

Caption: “When popular culture meets popular religion.”

[pungopete468]

It would seem, therefore, that the hubris termed "Homo sapiens sapiens" is yet to receive correction sufficient for wisdom (namely, "rogue" asteroids).

That's not in question, it's obvious that wisdom within humanity exists as a few diamonds in a trash dump, and "rogue asteroids" will certainly cause havoc eventually (statistically speaking.) Part of the human condition is the ability to act out of control, and that's a fundamental consequence of self awareness...  

You don't seem to have understood why there are scare quotes around "rogue." Who, looking upon your obstinateness from without it, would not, by its might, crush you unto nothing?

Perhaps I don't understand your meaning, this is what I believe you meant; if I'm mistaken then please enlighten me. By rogue asteroids I thought you meant the inevitable isolated case of extreme havoc as a result of great potential energy within the grasp of an overwhelmingly fallible species where wisdom exists as an extreme minority.

By your next point, I'm extremely obstinate when I consider a motion in any direction inspired by fear, and without a clear path, especially when that motion limits my ability to stand my ground...

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the [extraterrestrial] mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a[n] [extraterrestrial] and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the [extraterrestrial] with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.

(Red colorization mine.)

An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.

I have no refutation, your interpretations belong to you, and if you consider my arguments a product of arrogance, that's outside of my control. Never have I considered myself anywhere close to perfect, nor have I dodged the pressure of acknowledging my poor judgments once made, which I openly admit when realized, and reform once refuted with a better supported opinion.

I'm 27 years old and married with 2 children. I'm humble, and I work for myself. I'm highly opinionated, and when I don't have enough information to make a wise move with regard to freedoms, I'm obstinate because I would rather sacrifice a potential net gain while holding ground than risk taking a path towards a net loss. What freedoms we have came at the cost of many lives to gain in the first place and I don't want to risk the toll coming due once again, especially when my children may be the ones to suffer it. I interject my opinion when I have one, and I care nothing for the judgments placed on me by others, because I'm not comparing myself to anybody else. I'm happy with who I am, and my conscience is clear for the views I hold are benevolent. I'm too young to consider myself wise...

There's nothing to be gained once a prejudice has evolved in the mind of a contestant when discussing/debating ideology, or anything else for that matter. To follow up within the context of your quote from Plato, Socrates' Defense, Apology: Then bask infinitely in your wisdom, and may the satisfaction of your advantage over me suffice to supplement all of the beauty and good that you may never know. While I too may not know anything really beautiful and good, neither do I judge others against myself, and for that lack of vice I require no trophies to supplement my happiness or elevate myself among others.

It has been a pleasure, but this seems to be the end of our dialogue.

[username18333]

. . .

I have no refutation, your interpretations belong to you, and if you consider my arguments a product of arrogance, that's outside of my control. Never have I considered myself anywhere close to perfect, nor have I dodged the pressure of acknowledging my poor judgments once made, which I openly admit when realized, and reform once refuted with a better supported opinion.

I'm 27 years old and married with 2 children. I'm humble, and I work for myself. I'm highly opinionated, and when I don't have enough information to make a wise move with regard to freedoms, I'm obstinate because I would rather sacrifice a potential net gain while holding ground than risk taking a path towards a net loss. What freedoms we have came at the cost of many lives to gain in the first place and I don't want to risk the toll coming due once again, especially when my children may be the ones to suffer it. I interject my opinion when I have one, and I care nothing for the judgments placed on me by others, because I'm not comparing myself to anybody else. I'm happy with who I am, and my conscience is clear for the views I hold are benevolent. I'm too young to consider myself wise...

There's nothing to be gained once a prejudice has evolved in the mind of a contestant when discussing/debating ideology, or anything else for that matter. To follow up within the context of your quote from Plato, Socrates' Defense, Apology: Then bask infinitely in your wisdom, and may the satisfaction of your advantage over me suffice to supplement all of the beauty and good that you may never know. While I too may not know anything really beautiful and good, neither do I judge others against myself, and for that lack of vice I require no trophies to supplement my happiness or elevate myself among others.

It has been a pleasure, but this seems to be the end of our dialogue.

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

In the real, freedom comprises an indeliberate expression of being. In a hyperreality, “freedoms” comprise notions of freedom.

[pungopete468]

In the real, freedom comprises an indeliberate expression of being. In a hyperreality, “freedoms” comprise notions of freedom.

I agree. It took me a while openly carrying before the awkward feeling subsided. Now I have no inhibition to it...

The same might be said for a person who chooses to protest, or exercise any other right. People are conditioned to merely imagine freedoms rather than exercising them...