maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 907 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 ... 91  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 10:05 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19728
Reputation points: 19776
Anthropoid wrote:
I'm gonna call this a watershed: Bitchute is "on the rise" IMHO.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/OdaUDeAGIck/


Yeah, at the current rate of censorship.


People have also been mirroring it on YT:


_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 10:09 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19728
Reputation points: 19776
nero wrote:
Freedom of speech is for the people who think like you, who don't are criminal traitors. ;)

A slippery slope. :roll:


Sorry, I didn't understand your gobbledygook.

Aren't you an old white man? You're a prime target, Gomer. Nuts like that Buzzfeed propagandist think you should be dead, no matter how much you suck his dick in supplication.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 10:41 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15267
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18687
I now prefer to lump all of the insane cultist under the label "New Totalitarian Tribalists" (so-called liberalism, progressivism, Cultural Marxism, The Frankfurt School, globalism, identity politics, political correctness, etc.). While the question of whether this diverse mix of things should legitimately be lumped under a single term is valid, I nonetheless believe there is ample commonality among them--and perhaps more importantly shared purpose and action--that a common term to identify the relatively loose-knit cluster is warranted.

"Leftist" is a term that I find being used to refer to this broad group of people, groups, beliefs, movements and ideas and "left vs. right" dichotomy is at least 200 years old at this stage. The original meanings of the dichotomy had already been adapted to refer to new things by as early as the mid 19th century, so some degree of "over-generalization" which is based on real historical continuity is reasonable. However, I think at this stage it is long past due for a transformation in our terminology and in fact likely has been for at least 100 years. In my view, a true divergence between new applications of the terms "left/right" and the original meanings of the terms seems to have occurred when Totalitarians under the guise of "Communism" were lumped into the category "leftist" when in fact they shared much more in common with the original, i.e., ACTUAL "right."

The left vs. right terminology is generally traced to the French Revolution with, anti-royalist "reform-minded" delegates seating to the left in the National Assembly and "conservative" and generally more aristocratic and pro-royalist delegates seated to the right. Despite the "left vs. right" dichotomy being coined at this stage, the underlying philosophical divisions in Western European political theory must be traced back further though to at least the late 1600s /early 1700s and are well-exemplified in the opposing philosophies of John Locke (a leftist according to the latter terminology of the French Revolution) and Thomas Hobbes (a rightest).

The fundamental difference in the two philosophies rests on different models of human nature and the rightful degree of authority of the state over the individual. Hobbes, who was the earlier scholar--and who worked during the bloody English Civil War--held a view of human nature that was pessimistic or even cynical. To put it simply: bereft of government, people resort to savagery in Hobbes view and thus an absolute Monarch with total power was necessary to protect the People from themselves. The connection to the "pro-royalists" "Right" in the French Revolution is I think obvious, but clearly there is much less similarity if we compare these true "Right wing" views from history with the sorts of things which are labeled as "rightist" or right-wing today.

This is to say that, my reluctance to continue using the term "Leftist" is not strictly limited to applying leftist to the various tribes within the New Totalitarian Tribe, but also a reluctance to apply "rightist" to pragmatic realists who are perhaps properly deemed "constitutionalists" or "libertarians" as being "right."

From a strictly historical standpoint, a "right winger" is one who calls for a state with absolute authority over the People because the people cannot be trusted and the state of society when this absolute authority is relaxed is one of disorder, war, and suffering. Putin, Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet, and similar autocratic rulers/regimes are legitimately "right wing," but I can hardly reconcile any similarity between the characteristics these autocrats demonstrated in common with the ideals espoused by Hobbes and (for example) the modern Republican party, Trump, or ANY American regime which has ever existed, whether Republican, Federalists, Whig, Democratic-Republican, or just plain old Democratic . . . well . . . that latter "party" does in fact seem to be verging toward true RIGHT WING orientations with each passing year, and perhaps notably since the time of Clinton if not LBJ . . . thus, my supposition that the larger "movement" to which the Democratic party is legitimately identified with at this stage is this hypothetical "New TOTALITARIAN Tribalists" spectrum.

According to Locke, the reason for government is not to protect people from themselves but to protect people's natural rights to life, liberty and property and here perhaps the full paradox between the origins and rightful meanings of the terms "left/right" and how they are currently applied will become more obvious. From an 18th century standpoint, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were "leftists" through-and-through in that they denounced the absolute authority of the English crown and argued from Locke's philosophical stance that there is a natural right to revolution when and if a government fails to protect the natural rights of its citizens or subjects more broadly. There is really NO DEBATING the point: the Founding Fathers were, despite all of their differences, solidary in their absolute commitment to Leftist political philosophy as it had emerged in the 100 some odd years of preceding history, and more broadly since the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Thus, the absolute perversity of calling people who wish to engage in brazen revisionism, reinterpretation or even devaluation of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution as being "Leftist."

From a strictly technical and coherent standpoint, most modern day "conservatives" (and certainly a pragmatic opportunist realist player like President Trump [labels I apply as appellations not as denunciations]) are more like the "Leftist" Founding Fathers and the preceding Lockian political philosophy that inspired them than the myriad rabble of ideologues, zealots and provocateurs on the "other side" of the conflict.

The actual roots of the "New Totalitarian Tribalists" are diverse, but for the most part the Marxist split with the rest of the West is the most notable common theme. However, there is a great deal of incoherent, irrational, autocratic and downright evil craziness mixed in there so lumping a set of actors as diverse as: The Democratic National Committee; Remainers in the U.K.; E.U. loyalists; Identity Politics "social justice warriors," etc., all under the single term "Marxist" seems inadequate.

New Totalitarian Tribalists is the best I could come up with and I'm pleased if someone can improve on the concept.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 7:12 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 35917
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
A glimmer of hope?


_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 7:54 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15267
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18687
"Social media should advance freedom of speech . . ." Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

But lets be honest. There is going to be some dank "bath water" with that baby of "free speech." Anything which is not a direct call to criminality, nor an actual commission of criminality (considered broadly to include libel, slander, and harassment I suppose, though I think the actual legal precedents for the boundaries there are poorly defined at this bleeding edge stage of cyber evolution) MUST BE considered to be "free speech."

From this standpoint, it is not possible to "shut down" many "flavors" of speech which most of us freedom-loving Westerners might well find objectionable or malignant. I suspect that for most of you on this board, I am preaching to the choir. We are generally a group of Big Boys who can handle engaging in a meaningful rebuttal with a Nazi, or an ACTUAL racist, or an ACTUAL bigot, or an ACTUAL Flat-Earther/Science Ignoramus.

Actual "Free Speech" is training wheels off, no hand-rails, batten-down-the-hatches, gird-your-loins, type stuff and this may well be the main reason why all the pussies in Silicon Valley have resorted to unfree "Politically Correct" safe standards for communication.

ADDIT: as for the supposition that "Platform Access 'Is a Civil Right,'" that I think is an untested assertion, given that all of the platforms in question technically represent "private property." If I make a website on which I want to exclude a particular segment of humanity I do not see how that segment of humanity: WHATEVER they may be, can legitimately invoke "Civil Rights" as an argument for why my exclusion of them is unjust. It is MY fucking website, and I may not want "THEM" on it. PERIOD. End of fucking story.

You do not have to let anyone who wants _in_ to enter your house/property, you do not have to pick up every hitchhiker, you do not have to tolerate people invading your personal space in public, and you do NOT have to allow people to log in to your website if you do not want to. It really does NOT matter what the basis for excluding them is. It could be anything. I have EVERY RIGHT, to exclude all Christians or all people with the last name of Hernandez, or all people under 4 feet tall from my house and the sovereign has ZERO right to impose on my life, liberty and right to private property in that regard.

So, if this view that "platform access is a civil right" is going to be advanced, it is going to have to come at it from an unconventional stance by somehow arguing that Faceboook, Twitter, Discord servers, Youtube, etc. are NOT actually private property, or should not be considered to be for some special reason.

Please note: I am not agreeing with the New Totalitarian Tribalist's obvious cartel-like agenda to de-platform people and groups of particular orientations. I heartily disagree with those actions BECAUSE they are cowardly, self-serving, and oppressive, and also pathetic by pandering to a ideological viewpoint which is poorly founded and fundamentally at odds with the core values of freedom we share in the West. At the same time, I think it has to be pointed out that: these "oppressors" are in fact, at least prima facie, fully in their rights to do as they have done.

Let us not sabotage our own movement by coming at this quandary with poorly founded agendas or poorly thought through premises.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 8:55 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 35917
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Quote:
ADDIT: as for the supposition that "Platform Access 'Is a Civil Right,'" that I think is an untested assertion, given that all of the platforms in question technically represent "private property." If I make a website on which I want to exclude a particular segment of humanity I do not see how that segment of humanity: WHATEVER they may be, can legitimately invoke "Civil Rights" as an argument for why my exclusion of them is unjust. It is MY fucking website, and I may not want "THEM" on it. PERIOD. End of fucking story.

You do not have to let anyone who wants _in_ to enter your house/property, you do not have to pick up every hitchhiker, you do not have to tolerate people invading your personal space in public, and you do NOT have to allow people to log in to your website if you do not want to. It really does NOT matter what the basis for excluding them is. It could be anything. I have EVERY RIGHT, to exclude all Christians or all people with the last name of Hernandez, or all people under 4 feet tall from my house and the sovereign has ZERO right to impose on my life, liberty and right to private property in that regard.




My bold emphasis above.

There are some exceptions to that (bolded)
If you own a business (such as a retail store, hotel, apartment building) you cannot exclude people of “protected” classes (based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc). For example, you cannot say if you are a landlord or run a hotel “I will not lease/rent to any of you (__insert group__).
That property may be yours, but you cannot deny services to people of those protected classes based on those certain traits.
Now whether that can somehow be extended to free speech...I don’t know.

Another angle might be action based on that company’s “terms of service”.
If their terms of service indicate that customer’s access to a social media platform can be restricted if they do “xxxxx”, and then you can prove that they are not treating their customer’s equally/uniformly, (such as only/primarily kicking off “conservatives” for doing xxxx, while not doing the same to liberals who have done the same exact thing), then maybe you can make a legal argument for unfair treatment or unfair enforcement of their TOS.

Another angle to the issue would be this:
The federal government may be on thin ice trying to enforce “free speech” on ‘private’ social media platforms, but they can make life difficult for them....lawsuits, audits...or they can unleash other sections of the federal bureaucracy on them (the IRS to examine them for tax evasion, the FTC for possible monopolies, OSHA, for their work safety of their employees, the EEOC for discrimination in their hiring practices, etc.).

Trump can make his bureaucracy crawl so far up Zuckerberg’s ass until he cries uncle.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 10:30 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 21700
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 17053
I agree that "left and right" are terms that no longer mean what they meant. The same is true of progressive. The term has been coopted by people that call themselves progressive but who are retrogressive, elitist, classist, racist, and unapologetically totalitarian.

That said, I think most conservatives fall into the same camp. Their path to hell is a different path. But their goal is "we manage your life whether you would have us or not" is the same. This is especially true of christian fundamentalists. (It's also true of many moslems, but in the USA at least they have little power).

I figure about 40% of Americans are progressives in the old school sense... natural rights oriented, skeptical of executive power, cognizant of the may ways that "the right people in all the best Think Tanks" are blowing smoke in everyone's face while picking
everyone's pocket, etc.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 10:55 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 12324
Reputation points: 16677
+1 !!!

_________________
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 12:18 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15267
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18687
chijohnaok wrote:
Quote:
ADDIT: as for the supposition that "Platform Access 'Is a Civil Right,'" that I think is an untested assertion, given that all of the platforms in question technically represent "private property." If I make a website on which I want to exclude a particular segment of humanity I do not see how that segment of humanity: WHATEVER they may be, can legitimately invoke "Civil Rights" as an argument for why my exclusion of them is unjust. It is MY fucking website, and I may not want "THEM" on it. PERIOD. End of fucking story.

You do not have to let anyone who wants _in_ to enter your house/property, you do not have to pick up every hitchhiker, you do not have to tolerate people invading your personal space in public, and you do NOT have to allow people to log in to your website if you do not want to. It really does NOT matter what the basis for excluding them is. It could be anything. I have EVERY RIGHT, to exclude all Christians or all people with the last name of Hernandez, or all people under 4 feet tall from my house and the sovereign has ZERO right to impose on my life, liberty and right to private property in that regard.




My bold emphasis above.

There are some exceptions to that (bolded)
If you own a business (such as a retail store, hotel, apartment building) you cannot exclude people of “protected” classes (based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc). For example, you cannot say if you are a landlord or run a hotel “I will not lease/rent to any of you (__insert group__).
That property may be yours, but you cannot deny services to people of those protected classes based on those certain traits.
Now whether that can somehow be extended to free speech...I don’t know.

Another angle might be action based on that company’s “terms of service”.
If their terms of service indicate that customer’s access to a social media platform can be restricted if they do “xxxxx”, and then you can prove that they are not treating their customer’s equally/uniformly, (such as only/primarily kicking off “conservatives” for doing xxxx, while not doing the same to liberals who have done the same exact thing), then maybe you can make a legal argument for unfair treatment or unfair enforcement of their TOS.

Another angle to the issue would be this:
The federal government may be on thin ice trying to enforce “free speech” on ‘private’ social media platforms, but they can make life difficult for them....lawsuits, audits...or they can unleash other sections of the federal bureaucracy on them (the IRS to examine them for tax evasion, the FTC for possible monopolies, OSHA, for their work safety of their employees, the EEOC for discrimination in their hiring practices, etc.).

Trump can make his bureaucracy crawl so far up Zuckerberg’s ass until he cries uncle.


Agree, there are many possible ways to "put the screws" to the cowardly censoring bastards and I think it IS called for. They legit should police actual criminal incitement or crimes on their platforms, but what they are engaging in is repugnant and should be resisted if not thwarted.

I'm simply pointing out that the simple idea "Platform Access IS A 'Civil Right'" is problematic.
The idea of "protected classes" had historical merit, and may still HAVE merit, but I have yet to see any proof to that effect. In fact, it seems to me that the societal effects of protecting these classes have swung the pendulum so far that many or all of these "protected classes" are now effectively "privileged classes." To the extent that is accurate, it demonstrates that: the various measures of the "Civil Rights" Movements over the last century HAVE worked. The broken leg has healed. At some point, the cast needs to be taken off.

All this to say: the reasons for the special provisions for "protected classes" are not because they are "special classes" in any inherent, or essential sense. Females, gays, ethnic minorities, etc., are not fundamentally deserving or MORE, better or different rights than males, heteros or ethnic majorities. They simply had been DENIED equal opportunity for reasons of complex social forces (in some cases institutionalized forces) in the past and measures were put in place to reverse these inequalities of opportunity. Based on these founding principles of Western Civilization, i.e., EQUALITY, and the founding principles of the Civil Rights Movement(s) of the past century, these special considerations CANNOT stand permanently. Eventually they must be dismantled or they will work contrary to the principles for which they were established.

I am the only person I have EVER heard explicate these points, with persons like Thomas Sowell (or that other black dude scholar whose name I cannot recall) perhaps making pretty similar arguments. I think these are the discussions which need to be had: When will we know that it is time to "take off the Affirmative Action bandage?"

mdiehl wrote:
I agree that "left and right" are terms that no longer mean what they meant. The same is true of progressive. The term has been coopted by people that call themselves progressive but who are retrogressive, elitist, classist, racist, and unapologetically totalitarian.

That said, I think most conservatives fall into the same camp. Their path to hell is a different path. But their goal is "we manage your life whether you would have us or not" is the same. This is especially true of christian fundamentalists. (It's also true of many moslems, but in the USA at least they have little power).

I figure about 40% of Americans are progressives in the old school sense... natural rights oriented, skeptical of executive power, cognizant of the may ways that "the right people in all the best Think Tanks" are blowing smoke in everyone's face while picking
everyone's pocket, etc.


It is always most edifying whenever we find ourselves in full agreement! :D

In any event: whether my call for a revolution in terminology is taken up by the masses or not, I think that promoting more detailed and careful thought on the matters is always a good thing. Pointing out how a "lot" of the "right-wingers" who get stigmatized as "Far Right Extremists" seem in fact to be MORE LIKE the "Leftists" of the 17th and 18th centuries and what that all really means is edifying I think.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tolerance and free speech
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2019 1:12 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 31708
Reputation points: 20000
Yes, it is absolutely true. The traditional wings of both parties tell us that the migration of all of central america and half of syria to the US is good for us. indeed, it's our duty. It's good for chicken processors.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 907 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 ... 91  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group