Matt Taibbi puts forth a simple but powerful point.
Censorship is not a left-wing or right wing weapon. It is done by both . All who wish to suppress free thought and open discussion are killing our culture. Whatever party or ideology they carry.
“We must censor and suppress the other team because our views are so virtuous, and we are much…
Matt Taibbi puts forth a simple but powerful point.
Censorship is not a left-wing or right wing weapon. It is done by both . All who wish to suppress free thought and open discussion are killing our culture. Whatever party or ideology they carry.
“We must censor and suppress the other team because our views are so virtuous, and we are much smarter than average Americans.”
Phooey!
Free Americans must continue to stand up to the powerful ( eg. Congress and others) people and groups.
A free society and censorship, of any kind can never exist together.
Censorship has recently been "handled" through Democrats, but only because they happened to be the party in power. The globalists don't really GAF which party is the current window dressing. The Republicans have more than enough greed driven representatives of their own. Just off-hand I can see a long list of them. Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, John Bolton, the Bushes are just a few of the higher profile ones. So, don't be deluded into thinking that the Republicans are "clean".
Yes, and the ones you list are all the neocons and RINOs that Trump supporters usually decry. I believe that all of them have joined ranks with the DNC Democrats against Trump.
The opposition isn't just between Republicans and Democrats. Those are the overt party organizations, but a major reconfiguration has been going on over the past decade. The real struggle now is between the swamp aristocracy and the populist base. The neocons and the Clintonist/DNC Democrats represent the former, and the Sanders and Trump supporters the latter.
Since Hillary definitively took over the Democrats in 2016, moderate and populist Democrats have been coming over to the Trump side, while the rise of Trump has been pushing the neocon Republicans over to the Democrats. The populists on both wings still believe in the American ideal of liberty, and don't really have much appetite for serious censorship. The swamp aristocrats of both parties are control freaks, and absolutely want to install it.
Didn't say the Republicans were "clean," I said that at this moment in history, the Censorship Industrial Complex is a mostly Dem thing. In any case, the Repubs you mentioned are all Globalists, not Trump Republicans. Not the same party. Don't "delude" yourself about that.
True now. I hope we don't get drunk on the power we have now and end up doing the same. I don't think we would, but it's always a danger that has to be protected against.
Just try defending the Palestinians against the genocidal onslaught from Israel, and watch the Republicans foam at the mouth in favor of censorship, and worse: firings, deportations, etc. Very few clean hands on the R side, either.
Zionism is a third rail that dominates the upper levels of both parties. It is not organically MAGA, though MAGA has a lot of Christians who sympathize with Israel. I've seen that foaming from a few outlets that bill themselves as being conservative and anti-censorship, NAS being one of the most egregious, and I agree that it's pretty ugly.
I think there have already been some worrisome attempts at banning CRT, or LGBT literature, etc. Granted most of that was in schools, not for adults, but the Dems could respond in like manner that they were censoring Twitter and Facebook not everything.
Keep pornography out of the hands and minds of school age children is not "censorship," it is common decency. But yeah, the Dems are trying real hard to blur that distinction.
I believe this is one reason why the DOE needs to be abolished, and that power returns to the states. Where there is a majority liberal culture, they teach their kids what they want. Likewise states with a more dominant conservative culture can teach their kids want they want. America will never be homogenous. The 10th amendment here is very relevant.
I would amend this comment to say that any federal money assisting states in funding education be earmarked to supporting the 3 R's. No matter your cultural perspective, teaching kids how to think, instead of what to think, requires proficiency in the basics.
If it's actually banning of CRT or LGBT literature that people would choose freely for themselves, then that would indeed be censorship. But I think the issue in those cases is what is chosen to present to captive child audiences in public schools, isn't it?
The First Amendment prevents me from using the federal government to prevent you from putting forth your views, and vice versa. But it also has a clause about no established religion. That isn't some tangential anti-religious remark about churches. The point is that, just as neither of us can use the government to prevent the other from speaking and publishing, so too we cannot use the government to put our own ideology up as a hat on a pole that everyone else must bow down to. Feeding Woke, CRT, LGBT, or any other kind of partisan propaganda, without any counter-argument, to public school children in order to prejudice them for life for or against some political point of view, is doing exactly that.
No school can offer access to every book published. Of necessity, some books are chosen while others are not. They don’t censor, they curate. Facebook and Twitter can accommodate any post that is put up. It’s not a valid comparison, because the circumstances are different.
The problem with censorship is that a powerful person or group decides what is true and what is a lie and has the power to enforce it. I bet every single one of us considers some things to be lies, but the point of a free society and the 1st amendment is that freedom of expression is guaranteed for truth and for lies. Let the better argument win.
Truths are real, but finding the truth can be difficult. Any one of us can be wrong about what we believe to be the truth. Talking it out against other people with different beliefs is how we check and correct our beliefs, and theirs.
I agree that the notion of "my truths/your truths" is relativist lunacy. But "my beliefs/your beliefs, and let's argue to find out which are right and which are wrong" is the humble reality we are always left with if we want to find the truth. Censorship prevents us from doing that.
It's tricky, because everyone has so much ego invested in their beliefs. I try to avoid slamming the other person, and to give their views a fair hearing even if I don't agree with them.
Quite often they do, though it depends on the person and the issue. I think it's also largely a matter of how well they trust me to listen fairly to them, and that's a reputation thing that needs to be built up over time.
Actually, Maoism is the origin of the idea of "political correctness." As in, your point may not be factually correct, but it is politically correct, i.e., aligns with Maoist doctrine.
Matt Taibbi puts forth a simple but powerful point.
Censorship is not a left-wing or right wing weapon. It is done by both . All who wish to suppress free thought and open discussion are killing our culture. Whatever party or ideology they carry.
“We must censor and suppress the other team because our views are so virtuous, and we are much smarter than average Americans.”
Phooey!
Free Americans must continue to stand up to the powerful ( eg. Congress and others) people and groups.
A free society and censorship, of any kind can never exist together.
Nah, the censorship we face today is almost 100% from the Dems... Sorry to dump on your "both sides-ism."
Censorship has recently been "handled" through Democrats, but only because they happened to be the party in power. The globalists don't really GAF which party is the current window dressing. The Republicans have more than enough greed driven representatives of their own. Just off-hand I can see a long list of them. Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, John Bolton, the Bushes are just a few of the higher profile ones. So, don't be deluded into thinking that the Republicans are "clean".
Yes, and the ones you list are all the neocons and RINOs that Trump supporters usually decry. I believe that all of them have joined ranks with the DNC Democrats against Trump.
The opposition isn't just between Republicans and Democrats. Those are the overt party organizations, but a major reconfiguration has been going on over the past decade. The real struggle now is between the swamp aristocracy and the populist base. The neocons and the Clintonist/DNC Democrats represent the former, and the Sanders and Trump supporters the latter.
Since Hillary definitively took over the Democrats in 2016, moderate and populist Democrats have been coming over to the Trump side, while the rise of Trump has been pushing the neocon Republicans over to the Democrats. The populists on both wings still believe in the American ideal of liberty, and don't really have much appetite for serious censorship. The swamp aristocrats of both parties are control freaks, and absolutely want to install it.
💯💯💯💯💯
Didn't say the Republicans were "clean," I said that at this moment in history, the Censorship Industrial Complex is a mostly Dem thing. In any case, the Repubs you mentioned are all Globalists, not Trump Republicans. Not the same party. Don't "delude" yourself about that.
True now. I hope we don't get drunk on the power we have now and end up doing the same. I don't think we would, but it's always a danger that has to be protected against.
Hate to say it, but it's the most likely outcome. But hopefully not...
Just try defending the Palestinians against the genocidal onslaught from Israel, and watch the Republicans foam at the mouth in favor of censorship, and worse: firings, deportations, etc. Very few clean hands on the R side, either.
Zionism is a third rail that dominates the upper levels of both parties. It is not organically MAGA, though MAGA has a lot of Christians who sympathize with Israel. I've seen that foaming from a few outlets that bill themselves as being conservative and anti-censorship, NAS being one of the most egregious, and I agree that it's pretty ugly.
I think there have already been some worrisome attempts at banning CRT, or LGBT literature, etc. Granted most of that was in schools, not for adults, but the Dems could respond in like manner that they were censoring Twitter and Facebook not everything.
Keep pornography out of the hands and minds of school age children is not "censorship," it is common decency. But yeah, the Dems are trying real hard to blur that distinction.
I believe this is one reason why the DOE needs to be abolished, and that power returns to the states. Where there is a majority liberal culture, they teach their kids what they want. Likewise states with a more dominant conservative culture can teach their kids want they want. America will never be homogenous. The 10th amendment here is very relevant.
I would amend this comment to say that any federal money assisting states in funding education be earmarked to supporting the 3 R's. No matter your cultural perspective, teaching kids how to think, instead of what to think, requires proficiency in the basics.
If it's actually banning of CRT or LGBT literature that people would choose freely for themselves, then that would indeed be censorship. But I think the issue in those cases is what is chosen to present to captive child audiences in public schools, isn't it?
The First Amendment prevents me from using the federal government to prevent you from putting forth your views, and vice versa. But it also has a clause about no established religion. That isn't some tangential anti-religious remark about churches. The point is that, just as neither of us can use the government to prevent the other from speaking and publishing, so too we cannot use the government to put our own ideology up as a hat on a pole that everyone else must bow down to. Feeding Woke, CRT, LGBT, or any other kind of partisan propaganda, without any counter-argument, to public school children in order to prejudice them for life for or against some political point of view, is doing exactly that.
Right. Those may be legit but we have to avoid the temptation to go too far for no other reason than we can.
No school can offer access to every book published. Of necessity, some books are chosen while others are not. They don’t censor, they curate. Facebook and Twitter can accommodate any post that is put up. It’s not a valid comparison, because the circumstances are different.
CRT and LGBT literature are fantasies, my way of saying lies. Why lie to school children?
The problem with censorship is that a powerful person or group decides what is true and what is a lie and has the power to enforce it. I bet every single one of us considers some things to be lies, but the point of a free society and the 1st amendment is that freedom of expression is guaranteed for truth and for lies. Let the better argument win.
There are real truths. The Left never argues, it uses subterfuge, intimidation, lawfare, and silencing through the power of the USG.
The last 60 plus years of social engineering has arranged this phantom “my truths/your truths”.
Truths are real, but finding the truth can be difficult. Any one of us can be wrong about what we believe to be the truth. Talking it out against other people with different beliefs is how we check and correct our beliefs, and theirs.
I agree that the notion of "my truths/your truths" is relativist lunacy. But "my beliefs/your beliefs, and let's argue to find out which are right and which are wrong" is the humble reality we are always left with if we want to find the truth. Censorship prevents us from doing that.
That's has never worked for me, conversations that is.
It's tricky, because everyone has so much ego invested in their beliefs. I try to avoid slamming the other person, and to give their views a fair hearing even if I don't agree with them.
Do they give your views a fair hearing even if they don't agree with them?
I get shut down quickly.
Quite often they do, though it depends on the person and the issue. I think it's also largely a matter of how well they trust me to listen fairly to them, and that's a reputation thing that needs to be built up over time.
Thing is, the machinery and legislated tools of suppression still exist.
It's a pretty tempting thing to 'just' shut people up if they're saying inconvenient things. Time will tell. What a test...
The Maoists called it "correct thought," but it's pretty much the same thing.
Actually, Maoism is the origin of the idea of "political correctness." As in, your point may not be factually correct, but it is politically correct, i.e., aligns with Maoist doctrine.
Beautifully stated, SGC!
I'm going to be using your last line a lot.