7 ms·

The left wing is still not wanting to rise up against censorship because they believe it's still benefiting them, since BigTech (+M5M) is their leftist ally...f

The left wing is still not wanting to rise up against censorship because they believe it's still benefiting them, since BigTech (+M5M) is their leftist ally...for now. What they need to realize is that once you give Tyrannical Control over to your leaders (governments, or BigTech censors), because you consider them benevolent today, it's foolish because they won't be benevolent forever. Our founding fathers knew power corrupts, but today's 20-somethings seem quite unaware. They think we can create a system where all forms of "bad" speech are stopped. But the problem with that is you end up having to define "bad". My definition of "patriotic speech" might be your definition of "mean speech", so unless you appoint power-wielding dictators to make the final decision, the only solution is to just say everyone is free. Once you allow dictators they'll always become corrupt and self-interested. The left thinks they're in a war against evil and meanies, but really the only opponent they're fighting is freedom itself.

betterunix2 6y ago
"The left" is for democracy. There was once a time when that sentiment was shared across the political spectrum, but lately it seems that "the right" remains undecided about whether or not it is acceptable to threaten the lives of politicians who refused to overturn the results of an election. I still remember a time when both the left and right celebrated the strength of American democracy and the fact that people in America do not turn to violence when their side loses an election. The fact that right wing activists are crying "censorship" when platforms react to an attempt to use violence to overturn the results of an election by banning the terrorists who organized that attack speaks volumes about how far America has fallen. It was not all that long ago that right wing activists were joining left wing activists in demanding that tech companies stop providing service to ISIS. Where were all these cries of censorship back then? It is only now that the right wing of American politics has aligned itself with terrorists that they have started whining about "free speech" and calling for increased regulation of tech companies that dare to kick terrorists off their platforms.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  The entire summer long while buildings burned, and entire cities looted by violent murdering thugs it was called "peaceful protests". Then when some actual peaceful protesters go to a legitimate politically organized rally in clown outfits in Washington brandishing American flags and are literally ushered into the buildings by security it's portrayed by the lying media as serious military coup attempt. To quote Biden: "Gimme a break man."
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    It took me a while to place the cognitive dissonance, but I found it eventually: you've made stuff up. Buildings weren't burning all summer, “violent murdering thugs” weren't called peaceful, “politically organized rally” doesn't mean anything…
  - farias0 6y ago
    Do you have a source to the "ushered into the buildings" thing? Like, are you saying they didn't intend into storming the Capitol but were guided/leaded there by the security staff? Also I think you're being unfair by ignoring the causes of both of the protests, as (IMO, feel free to disagree) one of them was directly supporting democratic and liberal interests and the other was directly against them. I don't think you can discuss the protests without taking into account what they were protesting.
  - SamBam 6y ago
    > literally ushered into the buildings by security Are you serious? The fact that some cops eventually decided that 20 cops could not stand against 1000 violent protestors smashing through windows and doors, after at least one cop had been dragged out of his position and beaten senseless by the mob, and another cop killed, and so decided that the safest thing to do was open the doors, doesn't mean that all of a sudden they were peaceful protestors. Give me a fucking break.
  - deadbunny 6y ago
    > actual peaceful protestors They killed a Police Officer, chanted "Hang Pence", and tried to stop the democratic process of verifying votes for the new president. Now of course you will likely argue that they were a small minority, but I don't see you making that concession for those on the "other side" so I'm not sure how much weight it'll have.
- mbostleman 6y ago
  >>lately it seems that "the right" remains undecided about whether or not it is acceptable to threaten the lives of politicians who refused to overturn the results of an election>> This isn't even remotely a representative sentiment of the 70+ million people that are not on the "left". >>"The left" is for democracy>> Again, I don't think we would find this accurate if data were collected. Both sides are "for democracy". I think what you would find is something slightly more refined: that one side appreciates that democracy alone is flawed and requires a strong constitution to guard against its propensity to oppress individuals. The other side finds a constitution that limits democracy too constraining.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    The world is not divided into two camps, not should it be. Some people are neither with nor against you; they've got their own things going on.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      Labels can be divisive and tribal when used against individuals, to smear them by saying they're guilty of the bad actions of a few in a group. However language itself is built on "labels", so they're required. It's impossible to criticize bad ideas without some shorthand label for those kinds of thinking and ideologies. The fact that whole entire groups hold those same ideas necessarily is a critique of the entire group, and is necessarily tribal. But labels are nonetheless also necessary for the discussion to take place. Democracies can only thrive when there's an educated population free to discuss all ideas, and allowed to strongly criticize or even ridicule those they disagree with. Yet people like Jack Dorsey think it's their duty to step in as a referee to make sure everyone's polite and behaves according to his personal political views. He needs to be put back in his place, because no one elected him, and he just fell backwards by accident into a power position over millions by pure luck.
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        You implied that “the right” means everyone not on “the left” – but I thought “the right” and “the left” were labels for political ideologies.
majormajor 6y ago
> Our founding fathers knew power corrupts, but today's 20-somethings seem quite unaware. The government has to be able to actively respond to the problems of the moment, and those problems will constantly change. A handcuffed government only benefits the already-powerful. The dirty secrets of the "but the founding fathers!" argument are that (a) they knew they weren't creating a perfect set of rules in the Constitution, and planned for us to be modifying it as we learned new things and the world changes, and (b) it's failed anyway. Abstract principles listed on a page don't "protect freedom," bad actors can find ways to sneak things through (sometimes in plain sight, like that whole slavery thing that took a century to get figured out, or the followup forms of discrimination that are still with us).
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  Our founding fathers and subsequent forefathers fought wars to protect our freedoms, and sadly the current generation don't value or even want to preserve that freedom. Good times create weak men, and weak men will happily surrender to Tyranny.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Some of that "subsequent" group actually even fought a war to prevent some of our freedoms! There's no weakness in challenging the storybook fable-ized versions of history.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      Well as long as you're on the side if freedom, free speech, small government, capitalism, and patriotism, you're one of the good guys. I think the biggest "story-telling" that's going on lately is in our schools by our socialist educators.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

betterunix2 6y ago

"The left" is for democracy. There was once a time when that sentiment was shared across the political spectrum, but lately it seems that "the right" remains undecided about whether or not it is acceptable to threaten the lives of politicians who refused to overturn the results of an election. I still remember a time when both the left and right celebrated the strength of American democracy and the fact that people in America do not turn to violence when their side loses an election. The fact that right wing activists are crying "censorship" when platforms react to an attempt to use violence to overturn the results of an election by banning the terrorists who organized that attack speaks volumes about how far America has fallen. It was not all that long ago that right wing activists were joining left wing activists in demanding that tech companies stop providing service to ISIS. Where were all these cries of censorship back then? It is only now that the right wing of American politics has aligned itself with terrorists that they have started whining about "free speech" and calling for increased regulation of tech companies that dare to kick terrorists off their platforms.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
The entire summer long while buildings burned, and entire cities looted by violent murdering thugs it was called "peaceful protests". Then when some actual peaceful protesters go to a legitimate politically organized rally in clown outfits in Washington brandishing American flags and are literally ushered into the buildings by security it's portrayed by the lying media as serious military coup attempt. To quote Biden: "Gimme a break man."
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  It took me a while to place the cognitive dissonance, but I found it eventually: you've made stuff up. Buildings weren't burning all summer, “violent murdering thugs” weren't called peaceful, “politically organized rally” doesn't mean anything…
- farias0 6y ago
  Do you have a source to the "ushered into the buildings" thing? Like, are you saying they didn't intend into storming the Capitol but were guided/leaded there by the security staff? Also I think you're being unfair by ignoring the causes of both of the protests, as (IMO, feel free to disagree) one of them was directly supporting democratic and liberal interests and the other was directly against them. I don't think you can discuss the protests without taking into account what they were protesting.
- SamBam 6y ago
  > literally ushered into the buildings by security Are you serious? The fact that some cops eventually decided that 20 cops could not stand against 1000 violent protestors smashing through windows and doors, after at least one cop had been dragged out of his position and beaten senseless by the mob, and another cop killed, and so decided that the safest thing to do was open the doors, doesn't mean that all of a sudden they were peaceful protestors. Give me a fucking break.
- deadbunny 6y ago
  > actual peaceful protestors They killed a Police Officer, chanted "Hang Pence", and tried to stop the democratic process of verifying votes for the new president. Now of course you will likely argue that they were a small minority, but I don't see you making that concession for those on the "other side" so I'm not sure how much weight it'll have.
mbostleman 6y ago
>>lately it seems that "the right" remains undecided about whether or not it is acceptable to threaten the lives of politicians who refused to overturn the results of an election>> This isn't even remotely a representative sentiment of the 70+ million people that are not on the "left". >>"The left" is for democracy>> Again, I don't think we would find this accurate if data were collected. Both sides are "for democracy". I think what you would find is something slightly more refined: that one side appreciates that democracy alone is flawed and requires a strong constitution to guard against its propensity to oppress individuals. The other side finds a constitution that limits democracy too constraining.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  The world is not divided into two camps, not should it be. Some people are neither with nor against you; they've got their own things going on.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    Labels can be divisive and tribal when used against individuals, to smear them by saying they're guilty of the bad actions of a few in a group. However language itself is built on "labels", so they're required. It's impossible to criticize bad ideas without some shorthand label for those kinds of thinking and ideologies. The fact that whole entire groups hold those same ideas necessarily is a critique of the entire group, and is necessarily tribal. But labels are nonetheless also necessary for the discussion to take place. Democracies can only thrive when there's an educated population free to discuss all ideas, and allowed to strongly criticize or even ridicule those they disagree with. Yet people like Jack Dorsey think it's their duty to step in as a referee to make sure everyone's polite and behaves according to his personal political views. He needs to be put back in his place, because no one elected him, and he just fell backwards by accident into a power position over millions by pure luck.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      You implied that “the right” means everyone not on “the left” – but I thought “the right” and “the left” were labels for political ideologies.

majormajor 6y ago

> Our founding fathers knew power corrupts, but today's 20-somethings seem quite unaware. The government has to be able to actively respond to the problems of the moment, and those problems will constantly change. A handcuffed government only benefits the already-powerful. The dirty secrets of the "but the founding fathers!" argument are that (a) they knew they weren't creating a perfect set of rules in the Constitution, and planned for us to be modifying it as we learned new things and the world changes, and (b) it's failed anyway. Abstract principles listed on a page don't "protect freedom," bad actors can find ways to sneak things through (sometimes in plain sight, like that whole slavery thing that took a century to get figured out, or the followup forms of discrimination that are still with us).

WClayFerguson 6y ago
Our founding fathers and subsequent forefathers fought wars to protect our freedoms, and sadly the current generation don't value or even want to preserve that freedom. Good times create weak men, and weak men will happily surrender to Tyranny.
- majormajor 6y ago
  Some of that "subsequent" group actually even fought a war to prevent some of our freedoms! There's no weakness in challenging the storybook fable-ized versions of history.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    Well as long as you're on the side if freedom, free speech, small government, capitalism, and patriotism, you're one of the good guys. I think the biggest "story-telling" that's going on lately is in our schools by our socialist educators.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]