8 ms·
Being liberal in the 90’s meant defending controversial or disruptive speech on the premises of the mantra, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend
by pugets 4y ago
Being liberal in the 90’s meant defending controversial or disruptive speech on the premises of the mantra, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.” This principle operated as a liberal self-preservation tactic. The Church had more influence in society than it does today, and if anyone was going to challenge the status quo, it had to be liberals. Hip hop music, feminist art, raunchy daytime television, and that nasty George Carlin all played a role in challenging the modesty that the Church wanted to preserve.
Decades passed. The church lost most of its mainstream power. Raytheon began marketing itself as a diverse workplace. Goldman Sachs marched in parades with rainbow flags. The question of gay marriage was settled. As society liberalized, liberals found themselves usurping the role of cultural hall monitor. It became disadvantageous for liberals to defend controversial speech, so new rationales had to be created to prevent the spread of anti-liberal ideas.
- Joeboy 4y agoMaybe there's something to that, but I think the main thing that happened was that we developed incredible new technology that allowed all of humanity to communicate openly in real time on an equal footing without gatekeepers or censorship. Then we looked at it and decided we didn't like it.
- XorNot 4y agoYou're posting this on a heavily moderated forum with multiple censoring methods.
- Joeboy 4y agoWhich you're telling me because....?
- pugets 4y agoYes, but HN “works” because it is a small-ish community with principled moderators and generally well-educated people. The community guidelines request that commenters assume the best intentions in others. I’ve been in enough heavily-censored forums, groups, and websites to say that too much moderation can be worse than too little.
- realjhol 4y agoWho exactly is "we"?
- Joeboy 4y ago"People".
- s1artibartfast 4y ago>Then we looked at it and decided we didn't like it. People were given the ability to seek out an unlimited reservoir of offensive content and decided they like it. They like being outraged, They like feeling the martyr, They like to hate. The overwhelming majority of offensive content is sought out and distributed by the offended. Im sure there are detailed biological and social descriptions of why, but at the end of day, it is because people want to be offended. It is quite a sad state of affairs.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoI really liked it. I think people have already forgotten how it was without these things. It was also predicted for years that small mindedness will become an enemy to such advancements.
- realjhol 4y agoIndeed. Every single sacred universalist principle liberals claimed to hold sacred is simply a cudgel to get you to do what they want. Appeals to democracy, rule of law, freedom of association, freedom of speech, equal rights, human rights, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bodily autonomy etc. - all of these things vanish like a mist if the left decide that they hate you, and you deserve it.
- anon7725 4y agoLiberals and “the left” are two different things.