Don't mince words, Meredith, tell us what you really think!

[maradydd]

Ok, so apparently the latest episode of BoingBoing TV is by the guys at monochrom, who are a bunch of Austrians, and it's described as "Web 2.0 meets Marxist economic theory".

I have not actually watched this yet, because the last monochrom puppet show I saw, at last year's CCC, was so pointless and badly executed that enochsmiles and I walked out less than halfway through. (Don't get me wrong, the art was good. But the story made not a lick of sense, the puppeteers had no technical skill -- most of the action involved stick-puppets bouncing up and down randomly -- and it was pretty obvious that they hadn't rehearsed beforehand, given all the missed cues.)

Maybe I'll watch it. Maybe I won't. But the juxtaposition of Austrians doing a puppet show on Marxist economic theory makes me want to put together a puppet show on Austrian School economic theory. Who wants to help? I'm thinking the world needs Lolcat Von Mises.

(digitalusrex, cassandrasimplx, damn do I ever wish I were in Houston right now. And I bet john_j_enright and I could bang together a fun script in Shakespearean blank verse...)

Comments

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Of course, I am a classical liberal, and like Voltaire, I may disagree with what they say but will defend to the death their right to say it. Because that stance embraces my right to call them on their asshattery.

Off topic, really, but I've been wondering about this principle lately. If some guy is standing on a stage, urging people to lynch me, am I ethically justified in infringing his free speech by headshotting him?

If I am ethically justified in that infringement, what if he's simply urging the crowd to bind me in chains and set me on the road gang, rather than stringing me up from a tree? Do I still have a clean go-ahead on squeezing the trigger?

[enochsmiles.livejournal.com]

IANAL, and I'm not sure about the second, but legally the first falls under "inciting violence" as far as the US is concerned, and isn't protected by the first amendment. I suspect the similar is true as well, but I suspect the first gives you better self defense claims (imminent death vs. wrongful imprisonment).

Morally... I'll let you figure that out on your own. ;)

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

If I could figure it out on my own, I wouldn't be asking for help.

[enochsmiles.livejournal.com]

I don't think I can ever really answer the hypothetical case "do I have the clean go-ahead on squeezing the trigger" for things that fall in a grey area (which I think #2 does). But the question I'd be asking myself is a) are they really just going to put me on the chain-gang, or am I actually headed for the tree? b) do I have a chance of getting out of this later, and possibly getting the bastards punished for their ill-deeds, or is this my last shot at freedom? and c) if I defend myself now, do I have a higher chance of being killed than if I try to get out of this imposed bondage later?

(That last one is pragmatic as well as moral.)

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

enochsmiles' remarks are about the finer points of US law, but your question is one of ethics. IMO, let him talk all he wants; the first person to try to lay a hand on me gets plugged.

[ivy]

That's about my line as well. I don't want to be the first one to escalate to violence for something that someone *said*. It's different when it's something physical. I've never seriously hit someone first for their opinion (playful silly punching doesn't count; anyone being a creep isn't someone I like enough to punch playfully), distasteful/offensive/threatening as it may be. I wouldn't throw the first punch (much less shoot) the guy with the rape/death threats. But if he touches me I'm going to flatten him.