[icon ] blenderdumbass . org [icon scene] Articles

How They Made Freedom Illegal

May 30, 2024

👁 113

https://blenderdumbass.org/reviews/megalopolis:_the_high-brow_bullshit_i_enjoy : 👁 4
https://blenderdumbass.org/about/making_breakable_cars_in_video_games : 👁 1
https://duckduckgo.com/ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Paternalistic_Laws_Make_Very_Little_Sense : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/did_pewdiepie_just_crack_the_code_for_how_to_present_libre_software_ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/books/Sheiny_The_Hacker : 👁 16
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Is_BeamNG_Drive_a_Free_Software_Game.md? : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/search?text=paradox&fc=on&title=on&post=on&description=on&comments=on&tags=on : 👁 1

[avatar]by Blender Dumbass

Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".


From 2 years ago.
Information or opinions might not be up to date.


8 Minute Read



Freedom is illegal. There is not a single country in the world that is 100% Free. And it is not a mistake. If a country is 100% Free the government has no control. And therefor why bother trying at the elections. Right? We all are somewhat familiar with the tactics of how governments make sure that their countries are not free. They use the same 2 boogiemen every time: ↩ Reply


Sometimes one works better than the other. In the time of tension and cold war Terrorists are those brought into the picture every time the public demands more freedom. But lately this tactic no longer works in civilized counties. At the very least people are realizing that it is just a tactic. And that fighting somebody who threatens the freedom of the people in the country by taking away freedom is in the very least counter-productive. ↩ Reply

It leaves us with the second category and the topic of this article. ↩ Reply

How "Think Of The Children" Ruins Our Freedom?


Have you ever noticed that organizations or people that are fighting for freedom for a long time sound like group of child molesters? You probably head about all kind of ways those who want to collect our personal information claim that it is to stop child pornography from spreading. Various laws are being proposed to scan people's encrypted communications for it. But then freedom activists are often attacked like this as well: ↩ Reply



  • Julian Assange, even though not related to children, was arrested originally based on somebogus sexual harassment allegation. But then it was completely forgotten in favor of focusing on the real reason he was arrested. He had way to much Free Speech. ↩ Reply


  • People even spread rumors that Steven Spielberg, a director who recently made a handful of pro-freedom political movies, is some kind of child molester too. ↩ Reply
All those examples seem like bogus attempts at canceling people that are pro freedom on charges that are obviously against freedom. Rape is often brought up, like in the case of Justin Sane or Julian Assange. Because rape is in essence a violation of freedom of another person. And therefor if you spread rumors that some political pro-freedom person is a rapist, you automatically disqualify this person. But it is not that simple. It's not all lies. ↩ Reply

Richard Stallman actually had a problem with the word "Assault" and had other publication where he argued for borderline pro-pedophilic stances. And EFF is actually claiming that porn is free speech and therefor kids should be able to access it. And that is where the problem lies. ↩ Reply

If you are pro-freedom you are anti-ageism


If you are pro-freedom, you are pro all freedom. There is a distinction to be made between freedom and power, of course. Power being somebody taking away freedom from somebody. So if you are pro-freedom you are anti-power. But as long as something is freedom and not power you pro it. ↩ Reply

But who's freedom? Well everybody's. Right? If you are pro-freedom you are not thinking only about yourself or your group. You are not limiting yourself to who gets freedom and who doesn't. Everybody gets freedom. All freedom. ↩ Reply

Is walking around the street freedom? Yes. Are Asian people part of all people? Yes. So if you are pro-freedom you are pro Asian people walking down the street? Yes. ↩ Reply

But then sex is a freedom, if all participants consent to it. Otherwise it is rape ( power ). So all consensual sex is freedom. And therefor if you are pro-freedom you are pro all consensual sex. What if a man and man wanted to have consensual sex? Well you are not excluding nobody from the freedom and therefor if you are pro-freedom you are pro homosexual rights. ↩ Reply

But then kids are also people. And you see how the logic goes. If you are pro-freedom you pro kids walking down the street. You pro kids having consensual sex. You pro kids accessing whatever information they want to access. And so on and so forth. ↩ Reply

Making you a target for the government. ↩ Reply

To avoid being a target, you should not be pro-freedom. Which makes the government win either way. ↩ Reply

Lies in the law


One way government can undermine your stance on freedom is by using lies written in the law. There was a law proposed in the early 20'st century in the US which was going to define the value of Pi. Making what's called a "Statutory Pi". The funny and ironic thing is that the law in question had a wrong value for Pi ( 3.2 ). Therefor making Pi legally something else than the real thing. The law didn't pass, but the concept stayed. ↩ Reply

In the case of, say, Justin Sane from Anti-Flag a big part of it are allegations of so called "Statutory Rape" against him. Those are not allegations of Rape. Those are allegations of "Statutory Rape" a different kind of rape. One that is defined in the law but actually didn't take place in the real world. ↩ Reply

When you hear that something is "Statutory Rape" it means that two people had normal consensual sex. Something that a pro-freedom person would fight for. But that the law claims that this particular consensual sex was rape. Turning pro-freedom into pro-power by utilizing lies in the law. ↩ Reply

Paternalism and emotional manipulation


It is hard to argue with "Think of the children" because children are so cute. And of course you want them to be safe. War crimes reports, for example, bring special attention to harm caused to children. Because it works. People are more emotionally resonant with children. It is like this for evolutionary reasons. Children are actually weaker and stupider than most adults. And the smallest ones are borderline helpless. And therefor we developed into child-caring machines. ↩ Reply

Therefor whenever somebody uses words that sound like harm is being done to a child, people's automatic reaction is hate toward whoever is claimed to be doing that harm. ↩ Reply

But there are two types of people: ↩ Reply

  • Those who react without much thinking.- Those who actually think of the children. ↩ Reply


Who in their right mind wants harm? So a pro-freedom person is anti-harm. But not necessarily. Sometimes people are not in their right mind and will consent to harm. Which puts a pro-freedom person into a weird state of paradox. ↩ Reply

Should freedom be beyond safety? Or should safety be beyond freedom? Governments and people who want to take the freedom away side with the safety. And making all those people who are pro-freedom sound like savages that only want to harm people. But we are not. ↩ Reply

Being anti-paternalism is hard because it is so paradoxical. But it is important if we want to have freedom. If you are actually thinking of the children, you should make sure that if they want, and only if they want, they could harm themselves. Because that is what freedom is. There are plenty of ways to argue with them out of wanting it. There is free speech to do so. But restricting them against their will is even more harm. ↩ Reply

Happy Hacking!!! ↩ Reply


[icon unlike] 0
[icon left]
[icon right]
[icon terminal]
[icon markdown]

Find this post on Mastodon

[icon question]











[icon reviews]Blue Steel 1990 is the seed that grew into the reason Avatar didn't win best picture

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 10 ❤ 3 🔄 1 💬 2



So it's 1990 and Kathryn Bigelow writes and directs an action thriller about a police officer. The police officer is female and the movie almost refuses to sexualize her. Bigelow casts a nice half-Jewish girl Jamie Lee Curtis. And pretty much the whole movie, not a single shot of her emphasizes or admires her body ( apart from one sex scene where we see a very erotic closeup of her stomach ). Making that movie technically feminist. Few years later, in 1994, as James Cameron ( who was married to Bigelow between 1989 and 1991 ) is trying to find the actor to play the wife in his film True Lies. He is reminded of Blue Steel by Bigelow. And decides to cast Jamie Lee Curtis in his film. Giving us that very strange, almost pornographic scene where she does a very erotic strip-tease scene with Arnold Schwarzenegger. More than a decade later, in 2009, both Bigelow and Cameron make a movie. And both of those movies are nominated for the best picture. Yet Bigelow takes home the price. Did Cameron lose due to his pussy curse?


#bluesteel #KathrynBigelow #JamieLeeCurtis #film #review #movies #cinemastodon #michaelbay


[icon reviews]One Battle After Another 2025 is PTA doing a Machete remake

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 39 ❤ 1 💬 6



In my review of Robert Rodriguez's film Machete Kills I speculated that Quentin Tarantino introduced a small reference to Grindhouse movies in Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood to fulfill a rather outlandish promise from the fake trailer of Machete 3 in the beginning of Machete Kills. That there would be a Grindhouse movie with Leonardo DiCaprio. I think Paul Thomas Anderson just beat Tarantino in this regard. His 2025 film One Battle After Another ( starring DiCaprio ) is a straight up remake of the first Machete.


#OneBattleAfterAnother #PaulThomasAnderson #LeonardoDiCaprio #film #review #movies #cinemastodon


[icon about]Who Is Blender Dumbass?

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 200



Who the hell am I?


#blenderdumbass #jyamihud #whoami #about #bio #biography


[icon reviews]Mission: Christmas is a fusion of joy

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Troler

🔐 2 👁 13 💬 2

[<3] 1



Christmas is all about spreading joy and happiness to all. Sometimes the festivities pierce your heart, other times you feel as about die from loneliness. The 3 movies reviewed here feature a wide spectrum of emotions. At the end, all end on a happy note.


#IgnasMeilūnas #AaronBlaise #KęstutisDrazdauskas #film #review #movies #cinemastodon


[icon codeberg] Powered with BDServer [icon python] Plugins [icon theme] Themes [icon analytics] Analytics [icon email] Contact [icon mastodon] Mastodon
[icon unlock]