Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

[PsychedelicRabbit]

Why does everything have to deal with the Nazis? They were fucked up, they were vile murderous bugs and thankfully are now gone. I didn't say "don't use the word freedom for freedom", I just meant that if you're going to use it, use it carefully and make sure you're using it correctly, but that's not to limit freedom of speech either. "Work makes you free" is very (extremely) obviously the wrong way to use it.

And if a fascist wants to believe that freedom is working a person to death, fine, whatever, be a sick individual. It's going to bite you in the ass one day anyway, WW2 is an example of that. There are evils in this world that are just going to happen, so it takes somebody to do something about it to stop those evils. Whether freedom is involved or not doesn't matter, what matters is if you're doing the right thing. That's why freedom should be left out of question.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I love how you all (except you, ER) are talking about the definition of freedom, and at the same time are putting restrictions on it's meaning.

Freedom, as I said in another topic, has become a selling point. It's obvious the Nazi's used the selling point as a form of brainwashing. That has NOTHING to do with freedom, or it's definition, at all. It's about fucked up assholes who wanted a scapegoat for all the problems that had been going on in Germany during and after WW1 (yes, I do my research, especially as someone who owns & wears a Star of David necklace all the time).

Freedom is a very versatile word. It has many meanings, both good and bad, that can be changed depending on the person you're talking about. Freedom is a word meaning "the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints". It's funny that people are giving it a definition or restraints in the first place. Freedom should be free - variable definition going from person to person.

[oldblue]

i have no idea what any of you are talking about and i haven't received an answer to my question yet.

if we have no mutually agreed upon definition of freedom — or any other word for that matter — how can we discuss it intelligently. everyone will be talking about something else or constantly defining what they are saying.

you know i saw a picture in a newspaper once of a march against hate and the marchers' faces were all full of hate. i thought how strange. shouldn't we be surrounding hate with love?

[PsychedelicRabbit]

Since you keep asking about it and you keep misunderstanding me, I'll spell it out in big, bold letters for you...

I have been thinking about the phrase “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” and I see a major problem with it. If you have “nothing left to lose,” haven’t you lost everything, including your freedom? Or put another way, freedom describes a condition in which freedom does not exist. So how can it be that freedom is not having freedom or the absence of freedom? It would seem to be a major paradox.

Perhaps Bob Dylan was closer to the truth when he wrote "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

Or the great McKinley Morganfield who said "You can't spend what you ain't got, can't lose what you never had."

Maybe Kris Kristofferson was stoned when he wrote it or thinking about when he was working as a janitor at Columbia Music Row Studio in Nashville and emptying the ashtrays in the studio where Bob Dylan was recording Blonde on Blonde. I dunno.

- No, freedom does not exist.
- The definition of freedom has a different meaning for everyone (as I've apparently so daringly stated)
- I agree with what Bob Dylan said as well
- I can't tell you what Kris meant because I am not Kris. I am Patricia. And I can only interpret that song lyric to how I think it fits in my life and what I have experienced.

Except for the definition of freedom part, I've pretty much agreed with you. And I have no idea what the lyric means.

There. Said it.

Oh, and I also agree with this:

you know i saw a picture in a newspaper once of a march against hate and the marchers' faces were all full of hate. i thought how strange. shouldn't we be surrounding hate with love?

[redrabid]

Politicians and religious people have a very well defined idea what "doing the right thing" is and they will force you to live and act according to those ideas, because they think, just as you are doing, that "freedom should be left out of the question".

[PsychedelicRabbit]

I don't think that at all. When did I say I did?

I don't agree with most politicians or religious figures out there.

I'm saying that freedom means many things. I think it is something we have here in America, but that not all are free (gays and lesbians, for instance)...

Edit:

Listen, redrabid and oldblue, I didn't mean to cause this big argument. It's obvious my intentions were greatly misunderstood, because I'm being compared to political and religious oppressors. I didn't mean anything in the way you're taking them. I think my definition of freedom is a very open one, but apparently it's 'dangerous'. I'm sorry about all this. I hope we can all move on from this now.

[SuperSlick66]

Maybe the lyrics mean that you just don't care what anyone else thinks about you. You're going to be yourself since you have nothing to lose and do what you want which would be become free.

[PsychedelicRabbit]

^ I agree with you, actually. I never really thought about what the lyric meant until today. But that makes a lot of sense.

[EmbryonicRabbit68]

I said the "freedom should be left out of the question" thing, I understand what redrabid believes, but that's not what I at all meant. At all. This is a very difficult and sensitive issue, and I don't like that it's being turned into this thing that involves oppressors and fascists, I don't think PR's opinions are at all dangerous. Actually, I agree with them. And what SuperSlick said about that lyric, I always believed it was something along the lines of that too.

We're not politicians or religious people, so that of all things, should be left out of the question. I never said my opinion should be pushed on others, or what the right thing to do was, and I don't know how that got tied into what redrabid said.

[redrabid]

Furthermore what I have against the view that "freedom has a different meaning for everyone" is that it seems to imply that freedom is only personal, private. It gives us no mutually agreed upon definition (as OB wrote), that provides us the basic elements of how to deal with the conflicts of interests between individuals or organisations. Such a concept of freedom has no social value and is worthless.

[usedtobebabson]

I think only people who are oppressed know what freedom is. You can only know freedom in it's absence. Most governments like to keep it's minions oppressed, simply because they are easier to control and squeeze a dime out of...and don't threaten those in power...

[PsychedelicRabbit]

I think only people who are oppressed know what freedom is. You can only know freedom in it's absence. Most governments like to keep it's minions oppressed, simply because they are easier to control and squeeze a dime out of...and don't threaten those in power...

I agree with you 100%. I have a friend who has lived in many countries before and she says that you really have no idea how good it is in America until that freedom is taken away.

[oldblue]

http://bcwillia.wordpress.com/category/ ... m-america/

[EmbryonicRabbit68]

Thank you for posting that, oldblue. It opened up this whole "conversation" here, I guess it's a little strong to say that freedom could mean absolutely anything.

I just don't think freedom shouldn't necessarily have a social value, because then it becomes a law, and laws can be twisted so easily. That has happened in America to some extent, except it's been divided into a bunch of laws, chosen by a select number of men in power, to generate "freedom", and we are more free than most countries, but not as much as we pretend we are. We let these people in power decide what freedom is, that's why I felt it shouldn't have an exact definition, because then it can be limited and turned into something to suit someone elses needs. One of the things that disgusts me the most is how so many politicians push (or try to push) their religious beliefs into a law, such as the laws against gay marriage. It leaves total disregard to those who aren't catholic, or christian, or islamic, or jewish, or don't have any religious orientation whatsoever. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?? Or did it just slip out of the constitution somehow?

[PsychedelicRabbit]

Thank you for posting that, oldblue. It opened up this whole "conversation" here, I guess it's a little strong to say that freedom could mean absolutely anything.

I just don't think freedom shouldn't necessarily have a social value, because then it becomes a law, and laws can be twisted so easily. That has happened in America to some extent, except it's been divided into a bunch of laws, chosen by a select number of men in power, to generate "freedom", and we are more free than most countries, but not as much as we pretend we are. We let these people in power decide what freedom is, that's why I felt it shouldn't have an exact definition, because then it can be limited and turned into something to suit someone elses needs. One of the things that disgusts me the most is how so many politicians push (or try to push) their religious beliefs into a law, such as the laws against gay marriage. It leaves total disregard to those who aren't catholic, or christian, or islamic, or jewish, or don't have any religious orientation whatsoever. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?? Or did it just slip out of the constitution somehow?

That's what I mean. In my life, as a lesbian woman, I've been told what freedom is and I've seen politicians trying to take my own freedom away. I've had friends yell at me, people deny me, have had countless others telling me to keep myself closeted, have lost friends, have had rough times with my parents (and still do), and have also had many people tell me I should live my life as a heterosexual woman.

I know what the definition of freedom is, and I follow it and believe in it totally. But I think there should be some room left for interpretation. Some politicians think I should have none of the rights that heterosexuals enjoy, and that really hurts me and my personal freedom. Of course I want a family, a wife, children, grandchildren. I want what most people want, too. I'm just as human as the rest.

But compared to a woman in Saudi Arabia who can get hung if she's even accused of lesbianism, I have it a bit better than she does. Does that mean my life is perfect? No. Not at all. I still can't get married, and the more I learn about Prop 8 in California and the people who supported it, the more I get scared that I will never see the day when I can wear a wedding dress. And yes, I dream of one day marrying.

I do believe there is a certain line that the definition of "freedom" can not, and should not, cross.

I hope this cleared it up for you. I do not, by any means, wish to have people think it's wrong of me to believe what I do. I did not mean to cause this huge debate. Frankly, this is getting out of hand and I'm tired of people telling me what I believe is wrong. If you don't like it, that's tough.

[SuperSlick66]

That's what I mean. In my life, as a lesbian woman, I've been told what freedom is and I've seen politicians trying to take my own freedom away. I've had friends yell at me, people deny me, have had countless others telling me to keep myself closeted, have lost friends, have had rough times with my parents (and still do), and have also had many people tell me I should live my life as a heterosexual woman.

I know what the definition of freedom is, and I follow it and believe in it totally. But I think there should be some room left for interpretation. Some politicians think I should have none of the rights that heterosexuals enjoy, and that really hurts me and my personal freedom. Of course I want a family, a wife, children, grandchildren. I want what most people want, too. I'm just as human as the rest.

But compared to a woman in Saudi Arabia who can get hung if she's even accused of lesbianism, I have it a bit better than she does. Does that mean my life is perfect? No. Not at all. I still can't get married, and the more I learn about Prop 8 in California and the people who supported it, the more I get scared that I will never see the day when I can wear a wedding dress. And yes, I dream of one day marrying.

I do believe there is a certain line that the definition of "freedom" can not, and should not, cross.

I hope this cleared it up for you. I do not, by any means, wish to have people think it's wrong of me to believe what I do. I did not mean to cause this huge debate. Frankly, this is getting out of hand and I'm tired of people telling me what I believe is wrong. If you don't like it, that's tough.

Just be who you are and believe in all the things you want in life. Don't ever give up. Sadly there's always going to be hate in the world. Especially having people like the pope who cause cults that brainwash. But them aside I think this world (maybe America in advance) can change and that we will hopefully understand that not having gay marriage today is just another stupid law, like when women or african american's couldn't vote. It was silly. It just sucks that people have to go through this world scared, ashamed or depressed for the type of person they are, when people should hold their heads high and feel proud to be who they are and happy they aren't someone elses idea of proud. But their own.