Along with former ACLU president Nadine Strossen, Carleton professor Amna Khalid, and "Mighty Ira" producer/co-director Nico Perrino, a response to a recent WNYC segment on "free speech absolutism"
Liberals are still suffering from PTSD over Trump's victory over Clinton. Their disdain for people holding differing opinions is almost complete - they consider those people sub-human, incapable of reason, and easily manipulated by the free speech they fear.
Well, they did the same thing in 2017 when the Democratic party elites decided that Kamala Harris was their preferred candidate in 2020. Despite not winning one Democratic Presidential Primary and dropping out before Super Tuesday, they still put her in line for the White House, didn't they? I find it hilarious that those same elites are now hoist on their own petard as it seems unlikely that Harris will ever become president via election.
Did you happen to see the piece from a few weeks back that talked about how die hard Democrats now view that "deplorable" phrase as prophetic instead of insulting. In other words, anyone other than a partisan Democrat is somehow subhuman and the Trump presidency proved it.
I think that the only smart thing to do is to wear that "deplorable" label with pride as a raised middle finger to a crew of obvious assholes.
Yeah, that's right, and I can confirm that by my interactions with my entire liberal friend base (I'm actually pretty liberal, but man do I want to distance myself from that term these days). They went from "free speech forever" on November 5, 2016, to wanting to censor the crap out of all things Trump and Trump-adjacent, culminating this year in their unity in wanting to censor all things Republican. I tried the "answer to bad speech is more speech" line and was, to a person, yelled out of the conversation. It's depressing and disgusting and unacceptable.
At the moment, sure. But why don't you go back and reread the article Matt wrote a few days ago? GW's time in office wasn't all that long ago. Where was the principled stand for individual rights when the Patriot Act was passed?
Fair point, although I do not think you can overestimate the country-wide fear that 9/11 brought about. Yes, much was irrational and some based in bigotry. But it was understandable. The question ought to be why the Patriot Act continues to exist years, decades later? Possibly because the Security State finds it so useful and Congress lacks the backbone to do something about it. Or the Security State Apparatus have Reps and Senators gonads firmly in its grip.
>> The question ought to be why the Patriot Act continues to exist years, decades later?
Once any government acquires a power it will never give it up willingly. I fear that the residents of Australia and New Zealand are about to learn this the hard way.
I always had huge respect for Nadine Strossen, an old school civil libertarian. I wonder what she honestly thinks has become of her organization, which now advocates for kangaroo courts for college sexual misconduct cases and mandatory vaccination. It is an absolute farce to call it a civil liberties organization now.
Fun fact: Vermont ratified the individual right to gun ownership and the abolishing of slavery in their State Constitution at the same time in 1777. The second amendment actually helped defeat racism and the only thing racist about it is the disproportionate infringement against minorities.
ACLU is so filled with shit that there's nothing left in them.
The argument that the 2nd amendment is racist is a complete nonsense. Your statement about Vermont is just one of many facts that demonstrate that the amendment is a large part of civil rights. Another example is the racist action taken by California to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of Americans in the early years of the Black Panthers.
Strossen is definitely not an old school libertarian, as evidenced on her views about the second amendment. She has glossed over, skirted, and otherwise all but ignored the issue when presented to her via queries about the civil liberties aspect of the 2nd. I've read two separate interviews with her about the issue, one with Reason, and one that was conducted by David Shankbone, a wikinews editor.
The following are direct quotes of Ms Strossen's from these interviews:
"So I think it’s more a philosophical debate than it has any practical difference." She was giving this answer in response to a question about whether the right was collective or individual. In her opinion, the question is merely philosophical. She never answered the question directly in that interview.
This second quote is from her interview with Reason magazine in 1994:
"Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."
So something mentioned in the Constitution does not automatically equate to a civil liberty? Then how does something not mentioned in the Constitution (abortion) become a civil liberty (I'm pro-choice)?
She has had many occasions to express a solid answer, but has always ducked out with some lame diatribe about philosophies and such.
If you want to read the Reason article, here is the link:
I support the Second Amendment, and I'm well aware that the national ACLU was never a supporter (although some state affiliates at one time were). However, to say that Strossen is not a civil libertarian because of that is to demand absolute agreement, when in fact she is a strong ally on many points. I think these kinds of absolute litmus tests are unwise and a good way to lose.
Always helps to know what you're talking about when you're talking about something. Or at the very least, take a bit more care and time to actually form the words that accurately convey your thoughts.
The ACLU has always "supported" the second amendment. I believe what you're attempting to say is: " The ACLU interprets the second amendment differently than I do." The constitution and bill of rights are living documents, and both frown on being referenced in such a clumsy and ignorant manner. This simple statement of yours is an excellent demonstration of how disinformation accumulates on the web, either through willful ignorance, lazy indifference, or studied disingenuousness. Read below:
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU Position
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
You have quoted the ACLU's own website. And those words are very clear. The ALCU does not support the individual right to own a firearm. As you correctly quoted, they see it as a collective right, which really isn't a right/civil liberty at all.
Civil liberties apply to the individual. My assertion is unassailable. The ACLU is hostile to the second amendment. It is the only civil liberty they refuse to see as applying to the individual. That, in itself, is laughable.
Lawrence Tribe at Harvard Law, Akhil Amar at Yale Law, and Sanford Levinson at Texas Law all researched the matter and concluded that 2A confers an individual right. Tribe did a famous mea culpa, saying he'd been wrong for decades in claiming that it confers only a collective right. All three are in favor of gun control on policy grounds and are unhappy with their findings; Levinson's article is titled, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment."
Thus, the ACLU's position is contradicted by the most respected (liberal) constitutional law scholars. It is a politicized position.
I agree that it's good to know what you're talking about before posting on the internet. Also, on Matt Taibbi's site, the general approach is to be civil and polite with people you disagree with. That seems to work well in life too.
Addendum: Your characterization of the ACLU’s interpretation as “politicized” is more disingenuous idiocy. And of course your views are certainly not “political” in any way, shape, or form. Views and positions as pure as driven snow, unquestionably.
My comment held you accountable for your patently false statement that the ACLU does not “support” the second amendment. Nothing more. I pointed out that the ACLU certainly supports the second amendment, they just happen to interpret its meaning and language in a manner that most probably differs from you own interpretation. Nowhere in my post did I go on record as personally subscribing to ANY particular interpretation of the second amendment. For all you know my views on the second amendment and interpretation of its meaning and intent are the same or quite similar to yours. Or Tribe’s. Or Amat’s. Or Levinson’s. But who gives a shit what these three think? And my interest in your views on the second amendment is non-existent. And why even introduce the views of these three scholars when it clearly and obviously not germane to my argument? And as scholars, MOST respected by whom? Have you polled the nation’s legal community to arrive at this assessment? This sort of disingenuous smoke might be where any sort of mutually agreeable “civility” goes into forfeiture. Why not just stand corrected rather than doubling down on an obviously egregiously ignorant statement? Not an ideal strategy to prompt me to ask you out dancing. And I’m not disagreeing with you—I’m shining a light on your false statement—once again. Why is this simple point so difficult to grasp? What’s really behind your intransigence on this simple point?
" I pointed out that the ACLU certainly supports the second amendment, "
And this is where you are making your mistake. Civil liberties apply to the individual. What you are seemingly agreeing with is that, strangely, every single right known to humankind, save for the right to bear arms, is individual. How can you not see the lunacy in a position such this?
The ACLU can not claim to be an entity that fights for individual civil liberties while simultaneously stating that one of the expressly enumerated rights (the second amendment) in the Constitution is meant to be a collective right. It's political pandering, and it's disingenuous.
A civil libertarian, a true civil libertarian, would only respond with "Firearms ownership is a right. End of discussion." A civil libertarian would not say, " I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."
Yes, we know that progressives have evolved beyond the concept of civil liberties. We know they stand ready to deliver us from the chains of freedom, and deliver us unto the land of "The Common Good."
It's certainly a philosophical question . . . until you find yourself struggling under a 235lb rapist in the bushes by the side of the park walkway at night. Then the question becomes a whole lot less philosophical and a bit more . . . practical. Urgent, even.
The technical definition of “civil liberties” are the Constitutional rights enjoyed by all Americans. Civil rights-rights granted by the gov but not part of the Constitution, are a much more flexible and nebulous concept, which liberal/woke legal “scholars” adore, of course
"Our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights" - Wait, what?!? Are people nodding along with that? What exactly *are* constitutional rights then? Is this America 2.0? America-Lite?
Of course they are not. Civil liberties is a concept that precedes and is larger than the specific liberties outlined in the Constitution. Among other things, the Constitution has been amended multiple times. Of course civil liberties is a larger concept, and even if the Constitution were amended to eliminate say the First Amendment, which could happen, it would mean nothing for the the idea of civil liberties per se.
Indeed. Right are natural by virtue of birth. They belong to everyone (until governments come along and reduce, restrict, abridge or outright destroy them). The Constitution does not create, or grant, rights as some believe. It is a document that merely exist to protect those rights from government overreach.
As you say, eliminating the first amendment would not mean the elimination of free speech. Free speech belongs to humankind by virtue of birth. The same applies to the second amendment. Were government to remove the second's language from the Bill of Rights altogether, the right would still exist.
That depends. I don't believe every court would be hostile to the issue.
And any judge or attorney with a basic understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties would be aware that the document does not create these rights; the document was written to protect natural rights from undue and unnecessary government interference and abridgment. The particular area of law that would deal with this issue would need to be cognizant of this fact.
And a ruling court of law doesn't negate the fact that rights are, indeed, natural. If humankind didn't create or invent the right, then, in my opinion, a court of law can not completely and outright abridge that law.
Sure, they can rule that way, but that's what civil disobedience is all about. It worked for Thoreau, after all.
Why of course they are. Even Locke, and Hobbes, Hutcheson, Hegel and Paine agree with me. Men and governments do not create rights. Early man did not have to seek out permission to club the tiger trying to eat him in self defense. He did not have to seek counsel before acting in this self defense.
You are confusing rights with customs, laws, or mores and belief systems. Take driving, for example. The processes for obtaining a driver's license, and operating a motor vehicle on the roadways is a man made custom, or law if you choose to refer to it that way. but speaking freely is something you are born with the right to do; defending yourself from harm is something you are born with the right to undertake.
Rights are not dependent on laws in terms of creation, though they are part of the social contract via the manner in which we exercise them. Laws can, however, be used to temporarily remove or restrict them (as punishment for transgression against man made laws, for example).
And a word for someone who makes the bold claim about others being incredibly stupid (perhaps use another adjective to add more punch, like profoundly, or magnificently), do not use wikipedia as a source for anything, even for the simplistic exercise of providing a definition. It betrays the lack of education you are trying to hide.
Amna Khalid, after noting that Enlightenment scholars were influenced by Mediterranean, Arabic, and North African cultures: "To think about the enlightenment... as something that is Western or white-only is doing such a huge disservice to the rest of the world."
That is, woke critics of Enlightenment ideals are themselves casually practicing Eurocentrism.
I've thought about this quite a bit lately, and the people who detest "Western" values are not going to detest "Eastern" values any less. Logical thinking and hard work are human values, and that is ultimately what they detest. Only a very small minority (claim to) want to return to the utopia(?) of hunting and gathering in community-property tribes. If doing homework or showing up for work on time is a burden to the Woke, let them try working a rice paddy 12 hours a day.
"...Logical thinking and hard work..." Logical, critical thinking, IS hard work itself.
But oh is it worth it, there can be no better labors' reward for a person of conscience, though slings and arrows, along with mud, be the price paid. Self-satisfaction can be---and is---a good thing when melded to a rightful sense of personal integrity.
"....Logical thinking and hard work are human values, and that is ultimately what they detest...."
That's a rather broad, sweeping outside-the-lines assertion you make. How did you arrive at this conclusion about such a large group of people you're clearly unfamiliar with? And may we assume that you've spent many 12-hour days "working in a rice paddy?" Here you're making a gratuitous assumption about unknown individuals and then presumably holding yourself up as someone possessing superior values than said unknown individuals. That's not very smart. Rather uncharitable too.
I was, fairly obviously, referring to the Smithsonian's “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness in the United States." Here are some specifics:
Phrases like “hard work is the key to success” and “objective, rational linear thinking” are now representative of "white dominant culture, or whiteness." "The ways white people and their traditions, attitudes, and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States."
As for the rice paddy, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a fantastic essay on the topic. I don't recall which book it was in, but it's well worth the time required to read it.
One hypothesis is that Asian work ethic and attention to detail stems in part from the great focus needed to tend a rice paddy. It's a fascinating idea and I think you (or anyone else) would really enjoy reading the piece.
Haha, thanks. I can't be in front of my screen all day. I leave for a few hours and return to find I'm being scolded and mocked. Ah, well, par for the Internet course.
What are you, his handler? Attorney? Guide dog? Big brother? Legal guardian? A sympathetic and concerned passerby? I trust he can answer for himself. Are these new rules now? One is obligated to pause for Part 2 of a comment before commenting on Part 1? If so, I didn't get the memo. But now that you've inserted yourself into the conversation, why not go the full route and answer for him? Come on, "make a bunch of shit up" for us.
The imperial exams are something I only recently learned about. They seem like a good idea, but I don't think they were IQ tests exactly, so other factors could enter in.
You are right about the hunting/gathering thing. I was really going for a cheap shot moreso than a good comparison. Lately, I've been thinking about how a version of Rosseau's noble savage idea seems to be gaining in popularity. Disdain for logic, time, objective experience, effort. The silliness going on in San Francisco with $949 of shoplifting being a non-crime, a law applauded by the woke. It's like we're seeing a refitting of noble savagery for an urban environment.
I won’t allege she’s wrong but I wish she had given examples of non-Western influences on Western Enlightenment thinkers. That’s very easy in math for example, which evolved after the Greeks by Arab, Chines and Indian thinkers for 1000 years before Europe took up the baton again. And before the Greeks the near-Eastern cultures had tremendous math sophistication, including the theorem credited to Pythagorus, probably the single most influential idea in broad world history — so math is a human project not a Western project.
With Enlightenment thought I think situation is more complicated. This is a huge topic that winds through comparative religion, ideas of property, ideas of the individual as separate and distinct from the tribe, the idea of an individual relationship with God, and structures of group consciousness, and I wish she had cited her references.
Camus very carefully traced some of this in THE REBEL and found little outside the Western cannon.
Her implication however clearly establishes the idea of an ethical absolute, that some actions are inherently wrongful abuses of the individual without regard to tribe, ethnicity, nation or location. That’s a very “un-woke” thought, as they seem to argue reality itself must be interpreted through racial and gender lenses. Although I frankly think they’re too stupid as a community to recognize their own tangled inconsistencies and hypocrisies.
Defining an absolute stationary point of ethical judgment has been a primary project of Western Civ since the advent of Greek thought, and possibly before.
If we argue that our self evident point of judgment is merely a racial or gender attribute, and call out abuses heaped by Western Civ on non-Western cultures, then by what standard do we say that? The answer itself asserts a stationary point of judgment in an infinite loop. This is similar to Plato's Third Man argument in the Parmenides.
The best our intellectual history can do -- so far -- is to assert that broader social justice demands free speech since only speech and the debate it permits can illuminate the location of a stationary point of judgment and persuade society to honor it for society’s own good. Clearly here there’s deep roots in Jewish and Christian ethics along with Greek ethics. There’s also tremendous overlap with art censorship, since the human essence has been illuminated through both art and religious doctrine, and much of Western intellectual history is the belated recognition that censorship which seemed good at the time but was actually bad and stupid and held society back.
But for sure, many pagan religious systems had little formal ideas of the rights of individuals as individuals. This was very much a Western project — although it was violated as much as honored in practice.
So it would be nice if she had cited the references she had in mind.
I used to respect the ACLU twenty years ago, but it is just another corporate tool for woke-washing now. They also don’t consider the 2nd Amendment as a part of the BoR, for all practical purposes.
"....They also don’t consider the 2nd Amendment as a part of the BoR, for all practical purposes..." Probably meant to say that the ACLU doesn't consider your particular interpretation of the second amendment to be an accurate interpretation of the meaning of the second amendment's language as written and conveyed by Madison. Fairly certain the ACLU still considers the second amendment to be a hefty chunk of the bill of rights.
And -- Schiff is now leading the US government’s domestic terrorism legislation drive !!
Congressmen Holding Concert Fundraisers Could See a Beyonce Bump | Politics | US News
The Russia-gate lying team is back in full power -- we are now paying the price for not fully unmasking the scam of the century.
Trump and GOP lunatics were and are VERY bad -- DNC lying warmongering team in infinitely more dangerous.
WHO will be the first current or former Democrat Congresswoman/man or Senator to publicly acknowledge and confirm the scam of the century -- the Russia-gate conspiracy?
Beyoncé needs to learn a thing or three from her Houston homeboys The Geto Boys-the 3rd verse is 15 years ahead of it’s time….. https://youtu.be/6IJCFc_qkHw
Most of the ''debates'' within the media are not debates at all, they are about promoting group think by a media establishment that has been completely taken over by the intelligence agencies ie The Five Eyes. You can turn on Canadian television, Australian television, you're going to see exactly the same debates and talking points.
I don't think we should take 90% of these reporters and talking heads seriously. They function more as propagandists, witting or unwitting, for a much more coordinated counter-intelligence operation.
Plato's parable of the cave comes to mind. These are the shadows of something else. Our focus should be on what's actually casting the shadows.
I would recommend reading the book “The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters” by Frances Stonor Saunders. It's a good case study of how these intel operations work, especially within the world of culture and academia. It demonstrates how a bunch of academics and ''intellectuals'' can easily be manipulated into thinking they are simply partaking in some kind of organic debate when in reality they are simply unwitting tools.
The problem is that many people seem to have a Hollywood-type idea of how these kinds of psyops and intelligence operations work, as if it’s some Fight Club conspiracy where everyone is in on it. In reality, it’s quite the opposite: The reason they work is because most of the people involved believe they are following their own convictions, and because they are so ideologically convinced that they are unable to see the hand guiding events. The whole art of these operations lies in their subtlety, in making everything appear as though it were a completely natural and organic process.
Unfortunately, I think people don’t appreciate the degree to which these operations are run throughout the culture and entertainment world as well. People believe they are just watching a movie, reading a book, or listening to a debate, but in fact, something completely different is taking place.
The media has in fact become weaponized by the intelligence establishment. It is being used in a a manner which for all intents and purposes makes it a weapon of war.
The history of the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the CIA is but one of many cases, most of which we still probably don't even know about.
And it's working frighteningly well. The bulk of the population has switched off their inner skeptic and act like a massive horde of lemmings. Most people around me seem to be highly motivated to virtue signal compliance with the new order.
Yes, there's a reason it's become so effective though. There was a very good discussion between the editor of the UK Column and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on how the UK and other Five Eye members have been using things like ''Nudge Theory,'' Neuro Linguistic Programming and other techniques to shape the messaging. The idea is that the messages are designed to target what they call ''automatic motivations'' ie unconscious processes like basic survival instincts, the need to protect one's kin and family.
By pumping out 24/7 fear-mongering, and then saying things like covid could kill your family, friends, loved ones, the messaging is then framed as ''protecting loved ones,'' rather than about any facts about something like covid, which has a 99% survival rate. The constant stories of people dying day in day out, framing everything in terms of protecting your family, these all target what the social engineers refer to as ''automatic motivations.''
It's known that in times of fear, panic, those who identify with ''the group'' will regard those who aren't considered part of the group as threats, potential danger, ultimately making people more aggressive towards ''the others.''
Interestingly, in a recent campaign speech, Justin Trudeau said ''those people (unvaccinated people) are endangering our children.''
''Those people'' polarizes everything between the vaccinated and unvaccianted, the group and ''those people'' ie outside threats. Not only that, he added ''are endangering our children.'' What is anyone's response when someone else presents themselves as a threat to their offspring? It goes without saying that the person will became aggressive and be ready to fight ''those people'' if they are seen as a threat.
That's really what they are using. The CRT stuff does the same. It's all about tribalizing everything. Those who are not part of the group, who are not ''anti-racist'' are necessarily seen as a aggressive and hostile.
It's very powerful stuff, but it only really works if people don't realized these kinds of ''nudges'' are being introduced into the language and thinking.
I was on a Notable books jury (of Librarians) when this came out and it has haunted me. Saramago was a mechanic not a university grad.and he won a Nobel Prize.
Gosselin is a propagandist. Whether he's paid or not is his business, but he is most assuredly a propagandist. This is the 14th or 15th iteration of the same "comment" that he's been posting her at TK for the past few months. He continually links to sites that are well-known Russian propaganda mills.
For instance, his link here to the Rising Tide Foundation, which is overseen by Gosselin's buddy and fellow smirking (useful?) idiot and propagandist Matthew Ehret. Also closely affiliated with the Rising Tide Foundation is Edward Lozansky, president of American "University" in Moscow, an ersatz academic institution with no faculty and no students and that is well-tethered to the Russian government and exists to pursue Russian interests through American University's phony academic profile, using subcontractors such as our man in Montreal, the cunning canuck Dave Gosselin. Lozansky has been busy cultivating republicans in high places in America since his defection 30 years ago under the guise of being a "soviet dissident," but in reality has been busy since converting republicans into Kremlin enthusiasts and Putin groupies.
Rising Tide is actually a shady company based in Switzerland, and also has under its umbrella a "cancer research" foundation---both created by Shawn Stephenson, who "runs a company named Rising Tide, which, according to its website, manages the intellectual property associated with CTCA and its affiliates. Founded in 2006, Rising Tide is based in the Swiss town of Schaffhausen. Stephenson also chairs the board of two related charities: the Rising Tide Foundation, which funds libertarian causes around the world, and the Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research."
All sorts of fun stuff in the primary documents MotherJones unearthed in this investigation years ago. The phony treatment claims of the "Rising Tide foundation for clinical cancer research." Freedom Works. Cancer Treatment Centers of America. How the Koch brothers were---and still are---key players in derailing any attempt to bring affordable health care to Americans with support from grifter-goons like Stephenson. Stephenson was a right-wing grifter before it was even cool to be a right-wing grifter.
I'll both quote and paraphrase Gosselin himself: "Unfortunately, I think people don’t appreciate the degree to which these operations are run throughout [posts like mine on sites like TK] as well. People believe they are just watching a movie, reading a book, or listening to a debate, [or just reading a disinterested post from a dull Montreal blogger] but in fact, something completely different is taking place." Quite accurate.
Does Aunt Martha do any of these connectos when listening to her usual media sources? Probably not.
There is a simple test: is what I said true? Does it make a valid point?
One of the main counter-intelligence methods is trying to cast doubt on the source, because people's evaluation of information is in large part influenced by how they view the source. If you can get people to feel uneasy about the source, it doesn't really matter what's said, people will instinctively deem it to be unreliable.
You haven't weighed in on the truthfulness or falseness of the statements made, you just simply went directly for casting doubt on the source, and on a person's character. And of course you won't address the question of truthfulness, despite the obvious fact that intel agencies have seriously infiltrated most major media. You'll simply say anyone who believes this needs psych meds and is crazy.
It's always the same formulas.
If I post a story from Russia Today, does that make me a Russian agent? What about if a post a story by Caitlin Johnstone, highlighting the same reality about intelligence infiltration of the media by the CIA, does that make me an agent of Caitlin Johnstone and whatever connectos you can make with her?
By the way, she's also published by Russia Today, so I guess she's also a Russian agent! By your logic, anyone who writes for Russia Today or shares a story from Russia Today would be an agent because they ''shared information by an outlet closely associated with the Russian government.''
Ahhhhh! Russian agents everywhere!
Notice the main tactic: generate fear, cast doubt on the sources, never address the actual content, just focus on getting people riled up.
You can level all the personal attacks you like, but what I said in the comments above is true, which is why I keep saying it lol.
Sorry Aunt Martha, you're going to have to get up pretty early in the morning.
If you really want to know what I think, you can just look at the stuff I actually publish and write about (mostly poetry), or talk about in podcasts...
I never implied that you're a russian agent. Though you make yourself out as one with your very questionable sources. As does Caitlin Johnstone who is a flake and sometimes is right, mainly by accident. And your assertions might not be entirely implausible but what do they signify? How will all this play out? If the "five eyes" network is as nefariously active as you suggest, aren't you worried that eventually, soon perhaps, they'll be coming after you? What do you suppose to be the end game of the five eyes? You never tell us. You set off alarms, yell "fire," and then refuse to lead us out of the burning building.
“The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters” by Frances Stonor Saunders. This is an excellent read. Brought me back to Lewis Lapham's facile piece from 20 years ago in Harper's. For you. Lapham is always a gem to read. It's from a PDF that's paywalled, but Lapham is always worth a lengthy excerpt. From the May 2000 issue of Harper's.
"Among the many cautionary tales told by Frances Stonor Saunders in her new book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, the one about the canonization of Jackson Pollock I found the most instructive. At Yale
University in the 1950s (the period of Ms. Saunders's primary concern) I was introduced to Pollock's genius in a sophomore course explicating the enigmatic texts of abstract expressionism. Although I thought the paintings meaningless, I dutifully took the required notes ("rhapsodies in blue," "triumph of American art," "answer to Picasso") and attributed my ignorance to the low status of an underclassman not yet initiated into the mysteries of the modernist aesthetic. Had I known that Pollock's Blue Poles was meant to be appreciated as an instrument of Cold War foreign policy, like a nuclear arms treaty or an aircraft carrier, I might have better understood the course.
Elsewhere in the university at the time I had come across professors acting as CIA recruiting officers, and I was familiar with the suddenly clandestine tone of the conversation at Mory's when the topic shifted from the Elizabethan playwrights to the weather in Berlin. The professor paused to fill his favorite pipe-the one given to him by an RAF pilot when he was with the OSS in London during World War II-and the rest us at the table knew that the time had come to talk about career opportunities in what was then known as "The Company."
"....The friends of democratic freedom apparently had learned more from their Soviet enemies than their enemies had learned from them, and on both sides of what came to be known in the 1980s as "the culture wars" the combatants deployed history as agitprop, art as advertising copy, the preferred lie as the re- vealed truth. By now we have become so accustomed to thinking of culture as an adjective modifying a political or commercial noun (cultural identity, cultural development and diversity, cultural policy objective, multicultural T-shirt, etc.) that on first opening a book or walking into an art gallery we look for the stamps of ideological inspection rather than a talent for expression. Ms. Saunders reminds us that long ago and in another country, literary critics noticed the difference be- tween good writing and bad, and works of art were ends, not means."
All these smears and diversions always follow the same formula. It’s kind of funny and easy to point out these days. People just need to let themselves have fun and point out how wretched the people who use these tactics are.
We’ll never hear a nuanced argument from them people. It will always be fear, smear, accuse, and then hope most people will just instinctively distance themselves, not because something is true or not, but simply because of the potential blow back they could experience if they wade into the debate.
Most people are agreeable and want to be accepted into the group. It’s not a nice feeling to have the group energy directed at you, especially the shame. However, once the real motivations are pointed out, how the propaganda works, how people’s behaviour can be changed, how the group dynamic is manipulated, and how we can all be influenced by it, the magical spell that a lot of this messaging has disappears quite quickly.
There's a joke that's been circulating inside the Kremlin for the past few years. Question: What's a republican? Answer: an idiot. Question: what's a useful idiot? Answer: a republican at a cocktail party.
Such cogent observations. And great to see you count ''Aunt Martha'' as one of your reliable sources.
You should read the Frances Saunders book for yourself instead of relying on her analysis. It's called "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters."
Much of the think tanks and msm outlets are just mouth pieces and vehicles for promoting ideologies sanctioned by the intel establishment and the financiers. The fact that many of the academics, intellectuals and talking heads are just surrogates for this establishment should be obvious in 2021.
If that's a contentious point for you, you're living in lala land.
You don't think most of the MSM is infiltrated by intelligence agencies? You believe the talking heads are really just saying what they believe? Do you honestly believe that?
Two modern problems with free speech: Number one - speech has become concentrated into very few platforms. Many newspapers have died and most people communicate on FaceBook, Twitter, and internet blogs. This gives Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey the undeserved power of being the modern arbiters of speech. Number two - Technology has made it easy to suppress speech. Years ago when school systems were talking about “sanitizing Mark Twain” it would have been wrong but also very difficult to do. Changing all the hard copy books is almost impossible. Today books exist in digital form which makes to easy to delete or “sanitize” anything with the flip of a delete key.
You mention some of the current challenges with censorship our society is confronting; however the problems associated with censorship, as this very informative discussion made very clear✔, are not limited to these present attempts to curb or impede free speech. they have been pervasive throughout our history. Thanks for your opinions💡 on Matt's topic.
Of course; however, as "Sue" rightly points out that it is vastly easier to censor now in the electronic era. Now the totalitarians have all the tools they need to create an iron clad police state. The Stasi would have had a mega-orgasm over the surveillance tools that exist now. Critical thinking and courses in logic are as rare as the dodo and fewer and fewer actually are interested in researching any topic past the propaganda they are subjected to 24/7.
Critical thinking, in the context of your sincere concerns about modern technological threats to censorship and/or speech and privacy involve employing the most current technological security (encryption) measures to protect yourself. 🎯
This discussion did not even attempt to cover all the issues that spring from dealing with the multiple problems presented by the advances in cyber-space and the behavior of its corporate operators; or the government's unilateral use to violate the privacy of law-abiding citizens.🦄❔
Ultimately, all of this boils down, to me, anyway, that,”The people are too stupid to make up their own minds.” I mean, I can read something and determine,”This is bullshit,” on my own. Or I can read something and come to the conclusion that maybe I should check this out a little more. I don’t doubt that people’s preconceived notions determines their reaction to what they’re reading/listening to/whatever, but is that really any different now than it was twenty or fifty years ago, pre-internet? All this kind of stuff makes me think of is how people reacted to the Devil’s Music Rock and Roll sixty years ago or how television was gonna melt children’s brains in the seventies or how heavy metal supposedly made its listeners kill their parents in the eighties or whatever. It’s old people freaking out about something new, except now, younger people are freaking out, too. This is the natural result of people who’ve grown up “liking” or “sad-faced emoji-ing” or blocking anything they don’t like. Their entire world view has been determined by an algorithm.
All of this also implies that people have no values; that if they’re exposed to some sort of gawd-awful worldview, they’ll succumb to it, which is just asinine. I remember reading an article about white supremacists in Rolling Stone like 30+ years ago, when I was 14, and one of the things mentioned in the article was a band called Skrewdriver. So I went and picked up a Skrewdriver album from my local independent record store, put it on the turntable and gave it a listen; not because I leaned Nazi, but just because I love music and was curious. First of all, the music was gawd-awful, just from a musician’s point of view (I’ve been a writing music since I was twelve). Secondly, I didn’t become a Nazi, even though I’d (gasp!) listened to that album.
I’m actually listening to “Reign in Blood” by Slayer right now, one of the most important and influential albums of all time, in any genre. Been listening to it my whole life, yet somehow, I’m still not a devil-worshipper. Imagine that…
Reign in Blood is a stone cold classic. Every song is brilliant, moral and ethical problems with the inclusion of Angel of Death in an album filled with cheesy horror-cum-Satanic imagery aside. Guess it never bothered Rick Rubin when he was producing it.
Skrewdriver are hilariously kkkrap. Do you know you can find a cover version of Hail the New Dawn (which just reminds me of drunk Nazi skins at a local punk/metal disco in the late 80s sieg-heiling round on the dancefloor before knocking over tables and falling over unconscious)(a fine example of a Master Race!)(laughing) on Youtube...but not the original? It reminds me of when the UK telly used to have Gerry Adams on in the 80s, but not his actual voice - it was, hilariously and bizarrely, dubbed. Pure comedy.
I don’t have a problem with “Angel of Death.” It’s a song ABOUT Nazis. It’s not a song saying,”Hey, let’s all become Nazis.” Slayer wasn’t espousing racist beliefs; they just wrote a song about Auschwitz. No different than anybody writing stories about it. I don’t think they were glorifying Hitler, anyway. And even if they were, Dave Lombardo makes up for it haha. Such a good drummer.
As far as Skrewdriver is concerned, I honestly only listened to that album maybe three times, when I was 14, and then probably sold it back to the record store I bought it from. Listening to it, I came to the conclusion that skinheads and new-Nazis have zero taste in music, if Skrewdriver was their go-to band. The songs sucked. I’m not even talking lyrically; just as a musician, the dudes could barely play. And I’m fine with shitty musicianship, I fucking love the Misfits and the Sex Pistols and whoever all else, but Skrewdriver was unacceptably bad at simply playing their instruments. And the singer’s voice sucked, too.
Well, I don’t give a shit haha. If Jeff Hanneman likes Nazis, I don’t care. Slayer still kicks ass. I will never understand this whole idea that we have to hate artists who are “bad people” in real life. Chris Brown is a woman-beater, but his music is banging. I will listen to that. Vincent Van Gogh cut his fucking ear off and sent it to his woman; I don’t care, I still appreciate his art. Tom Cruise is a fucking FREAK; does that mean I shouldn’t love “Magnolia” as much as I do? Fuuuuuuuuuck you… If the art is good, the art is good. I don’t care what said artists do in their personal lives.
Sighing. Did I say to judge somebody on their life versus their art? I have written a lot about William S Burroughs, an absolute nutcase of a man. Lifelong heroin addict, wife-murderer (cos it was no accident), absent father, occult dabbler, pederast...basically an advert for how NOT to live your life. I learned everything I know artistically from crazy, terminally wrong people. Trust me. Chuckling.
Yeah, I’m quite familiar with Burroughs. Read all of his books multiple times; his biography “Literary Outlaw” is one of my favorites. Definitely familiar with GG Allin, too.
I have long been a supporter of FIRE. I don't fear they will become woke ala the ACLU because of their founders and leadership. I just pray they're all in good health!
Isn't the ACLU representing a very likely future for FIRE? Leadership changes, flood of money, dissolution ensues. I wonder how and to what extent something like the Rockefeller Foundation maintains it's efficacy in the eyes of it's founder over the generations?
None of these people is a liberal; they are illiberal authoritarians. The division is no longer between D and R, nor left and right, nor liberal and conservative. It is between authoritarians and libertarians. You are doing a public service by providing the evidence.
Absolutely right. We may disagree on income redistribution, but if we can agree on freedom of speech, equal justice under law, and due process, we can be allies. We must be.
My first exposure to Monty Python was with my friend, Pat Cook. His father, a Lutheran minister, rented it and watched it with us. At first I was somewhat apprehensive, watching this with a Lutheran minister. But his commentary about the troop's comedic timing and delivery was rather revelatory.
Agnostic on economics? You have that luxury. As well as the luxury to indulge your passion for "free speech." When you're eking out a subsistence living, or warming your hands over a barrel fire underneath a city viaduct, "free speech" concerns tend to be rapidly displaced by "economic" concerns. The same people who would GENUINELY take away our free speech, would first render us destitute---then the issue of "free speech" takes care of itself.
Yes, government is allied with Big Tech, Corporatist Media and large businesses to impose an authoritarian regime on our country. They have looted the United States, which foolishly believes the lie that unlimited borrowing is OK because we are the world's reserve currency. What they fail to understand is how quickly that can change. The yuan, Euro and Swiss Franc are all positioned to replace the dollar at a moment's notice, and a basket of those currencies would replace the dollar near-instantly.
The real problem begin when the liars begin to drink their own bath water.
Free speech is worth fighting for for those on both sides of the political aisle. From Bill Maher to Matt Taibbi to Tucker Carlson to Ben Shapiro, we should hope that all media figures fight vigorously for free speech.
"Free speech absolutism" is itself a straw man. What is absolute is that political views, unpopular phrasing, profanity and racist language are absolutely protected. Words tending to cause immediate physical risk - yelling "fire" in a full movie house, for example, is not protected. It is not hard, but Prog seek to make it so.
For the love of god, please do not use "fire in a theater" as not protected. It is sourced from an abysmal decision that even the author of it eventually thought better. It was in fact arguing for the suppression of political speech - criticizing the utterly un-necessary involvement of the United States in the Great War in Europe.
You CAN yell fire falsely in a crowded theater. You will be charged for causing a panic and likely be held for damages. Every moron that uses this is talking about sanctions a priori or for causing hurt feelings, not real damages.
Of course, you miss the concept. Perhaps intentionally. It does not matter the source of the "fire in a theater" concept, the point - over your head? - is that IT IS NOT PROTECTED. And yes, you can say whatever your want but some things will get you sanctioned. That means they are not "absolutely" protected.
Get it? Absolute versus not absolute. Or is this too hard. Perhaps I am a moron as you write. But even for a moron this is not hard. Where does that put you?
The source/context is everything. The idiot phrase was written during the justification of suppressing political speech. You can't divorce it from that.
I love Christopher Hitchens. Thanks for that link. He is one of the greatest polemicists of all time. I truly did love the guy.
Sadly, despite your profane and offensive writing, two things are true: One, you and I seem closer in ideas than not and Two, you still don't get it. You keep setting up your own straw man arguments. Go back to my original post. Read it again. Maybe several times. Here is the point about "fire" in a theater. It "is not protected". I wrote nothing about gags, about pre-expression restrictions. I wrote about "protection". Again, I hope that is not a hard concept for you.
BTW, I may indeed be a moron, but you model levels below that on the Stanford-Binet scale. I'd hoped you did not occupy those realms, but it seems you might.
The point that Hitchens so eloquently makes is that there is no punishment for yelling fire.
Had he caused a stampede, which caused injuries, he could have been held liable for THAT, not for saying "fire".
You could at least use the example of slander to illustrate that speech that causes harm (even merely reputational) can be sanctioned - which means it isn't protected.
How refreshing to see someone actually understand the foolishness of the phrase. Whenever anyone uses that argument in discussions with me, I kindly remind them that we do not issue muzzles to people upon entering a theater.
Yes, you absolutely can yell "fire" in a crowded theater because nothing can actually prevent this. And as you so correctly pointed out, you are only sanctioned after the fact.
Also, the remedy that is desired to keep people from falsely yelling fire is to gag everyone before they take their seat in the theater. That way, no one can do it; then they can remove their gags upon leaving the theater (or not, after all, we wouldn't want them falsely yelling fire on the street either).
I don't believe this is a free speech issue. Falsely yelling fire is not speech which conveys any idea or thought - even one that is repugnant to most. It is a verbal act intended to cause harm. Pulling the fire alarm is equivalent to yelling fire - exactly the same quality and intention but done with a different body part - finger instead of vocal chords. Neither are free speech issues as neither do or are intended to convey any thought or idea. It is not protected speech in my country as it would be an act of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE: "...Every one is criminally negligent who in DOING ANYTHING shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons." Criminal acts are not free speech.
I would imagine that Holmes used the damnable phrase out of concern from the Italian Hall disaster, where a panic was created by falsely yelling fire (though not in a theater). The perpetrator was never apprehended let alone punished.
its amazing how intolerant the dems/left have become. i appreciate i am brushing w/ too broad a stroke, but all of the censorship today is pushed most strongly by democratic elected officials and their sycophants in the media & their boosters/campaign funders in big tech. this has been recently diagnosed and documented by glenn greenwald.
there definitively are censorship advocates on the right - anyone with 2 braincells that was sentient 20 yrs ago remembers how the gop & their lap dogs in the media (bill o'reilly among other neocons) shouted down anyone who questioned the bush/cheyne 'war on terror' as being a terrorist sympathizer.
it is infuriating and depressing that once principled institutions (ACLU) have been so effectively co-opted. i feel as though there is a silent majority who are anti censorship, but that faction can be so easily divided across any other 'political' topic that the message cannot coalesce. combine it with the power of big tech & big media to attack anyone who deviates from the orthodoxy (see fish cleaner/HCQ, horse dewormer or nicki minaj media cycles) and people are fearful of speaking out or unable to gain access to the biggest stage to push their ideas.
Liberals are still suffering from PTSD over Trump's victory over Clinton. Their disdain for people holding differing opinions is almost complete - they consider those people sub-human, incapable of reason, and easily manipulated by the free speech they fear.
Deplorable, I think, was the word used to describe half the country. Because it was her turn.
Hated that her-turn thing - like the merito-crats were self-selecting who deserved to be president.
Well, they did the same thing in 2017 when the Democratic party elites decided that Kamala Harris was their preferred candidate in 2020. Despite not winning one Democratic Presidential Primary and dropping out before Super Tuesday, they still put her in line for the White House, didn't they? I find it hilarious that those same elites are now hoist on their own petard as it seems unlikely that Harris will ever become president via election.
“Meritocrats”
Did you happen to see the piece from a few weeks back that talked about how die hard Democrats now view that "deplorable" phrase as prophetic instead of insulting. In other words, anyone other than a partisan Democrat is somehow subhuman and the Trump presidency proved it.
I think that the only smart thing to do is to wear that "deplorable" label with pride as a raised middle finger to a crew of obvious assholes.
I am starting a line of 'Adorable Deplorable' teeshirts...and will make a mint.
I was going to steal your idea like a good business bro but…
https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/707509-adorable-deplorable
Oh well. Worth a try.
Maybe an ambiguous tee shirt “Camp Gitmo.”
For the left it is a sarcastic comment, for the right it hilariously makes light of imprisonment. Everyone could wear it.
Yeah, that's right, and I can confirm that by my interactions with my entire liberal friend base (I'm actually pretty liberal, but man do I want to distance myself from that term these days). They went from "free speech forever" on November 5, 2016, to wanting to censor the crap out of all things Trump and Trump-adjacent, culminating this year in their unity in wanting to censor all things Republican. I tried the "answer to bad speech is more speech" line and was, to a person, yelled out of the conversation. It's depressing and disgusting and unacceptable.
It's not liberals. It's the elites that run both parties that are suffering from PTSD.
Liberals are the ones calling for a suppression of free speech.
At the moment, sure. But why don't you go back and reread the article Matt wrote a few days ago? GW's time in office wasn't all that long ago. Where was the principled stand for individual rights when the Patriot Act was passed?
Fair point, although I do not think you can overestimate the country-wide fear that 9/11 brought about. Yes, much was irrational and some based in bigotry. But it was understandable. The question ought to be why the Patriot Act continues to exist years, decades later? Possibly because the Security State finds it so useful and Congress lacks the backbone to do something about it. Or the Security State Apparatus have Reps and Senators gonads firmly in its grip.
>> The question ought to be why the Patriot Act continues to exist years, decades later?
Once any government acquires a power it will never give it up willingly. I fear that the residents of Australia and New Zealand are about to learn this the hard way.
I always had huge respect for Nadine Strossen, an old school civil libertarian. I wonder what she honestly thinks has become of her organization, which now advocates for kangaroo courts for college sexual misconduct cases and mandatory vaccination. It is an absolute farce to call it a civil liberties organization now.
ACLU also recently tweeted that second amendment is racist.....
> "Racism is foundational to the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights."
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1419294620417155074
Fun fact: Vermont ratified the individual right to gun ownership and the abolishing of slavery in their State Constitution at the same time in 1777. The second amendment actually helped defeat racism and the only thing racist about it is the disproportionate infringement against minorities.
ACLU is so filled with shit that there's nothing left in them.
The argument that the 2nd amendment is racist is a complete nonsense. Your statement about Vermont is just one of many facts that demonstrate that the amendment is a large part of civil rights. Another example is the racist action taken by California to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of Americans in the early years of the Black Panthers.
https://www.forgottenhistory.me/domestic-affairs/black-panther-capitol-march
Strossen is definitely not an old school libertarian, as evidenced on her views about the second amendment. She has glossed over, skirted, and otherwise all but ignored the issue when presented to her via queries about the civil liberties aspect of the 2nd. I've read two separate interviews with her about the issue, one with Reason, and one that was conducted by David Shankbone, a wikinews editor.
The following are direct quotes of Ms Strossen's from these interviews:
"So I think it’s more a philosophical debate than it has any practical difference." She was giving this answer in response to a question about whether the right was collective or individual. In her opinion, the question is merely philosophical. She never answered the question directly in that interview.
This second quote is from her interview with Reason magazine in 1994:
"Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."
So something mentioned in the Constitution does not automatically equate to a civil liberty? Then how does something not mentioned in the Constitution (abortion) become a civil liberty (I'm pro-choice)?
She has had many occasions to express a solid answer, but has always ducked out with some lame diatribe about philosophies and such.
If you want to read the Reason article, here is the link:
https://reason.com/1994/10/01/life-liberty-and-the-aclu/
I support the Second Amendment, and I'm well aware that the national ACLU was never a supporter (although some state affiliates at one time were). However, to say that Strossen is not a civil libertarian because of that is to demand absolute agreement, when in fact she is a strong ally on many points. I think these kinds of absolute litmus tests are unwise and a good way to lose.
Always helps to know what you're talking about when you're talking about something. Or at the very least, take a bit more care and time to actually form the words that accurately convey your thoughts.
The ACLU has always "supported" the second amendment. I believe what you're attempting to say is: " The ACLU interprets the second amendment differently than I do." The constitution and bill of rights are living documents, and both frown on being referenced in such a clumsy and ignorant manner. This simple statement of yours is an excellent demonstration of how disinformation accumulates on the web, either through willful ignorance, lazy indifference, or studied disingenuousness. Read below:
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU Position
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
You have quoted the ACLU's own website. And those words are very clear. The ALCU does not support the individual right to own a firearm. As you correctly quoted, they see it as a collective right, which really isn't a right/civil liberty at all.
Civil liberties apply to the individual. My assertion is unassailable. The ACLU is hostile to the second amendment. It is the only civil liberty they refuse to see as applying to the individual. That, in itself, is laughable.
Lawrence Tribe at Harvard Law, Akhil Amar at Yale Law, and Sanford Levinson at Texas Law all researched the matter and concluded that 2A confers an individual right. Tribe did a famous mea culpa, saying he'd been wrong for decades in claiming that it confers only a collective right. All three are in favor of gun control on policy grounds and are unhappy with their findings; Levinson's article is titled, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment."
Thus, the ACLU's position is contradicted by the most respected (liberal) constitutional law scholars. It is a politicized position.
I agree that it's good to know what you're talking about before posting on the internet. Also, on Matt Taibbi's site, the general approach is to be civil and polite with people you disagree with. That seems to work well in life too.
Addendum: Your characterization of the ACLU’s interpretation as “politicized” is more disingenuous idiocy. And of course your views are certainly not “political” in any way, shape, or form. Views and positions as pure as driven snow, unquestionably.
My comment held you accountable for your patently false statement that the ACLU does not “support” the second amendment. Nothing more. I pointed out that the ACLU certainly supports the second amendment, they just happen to interpret its meaning and language in a manner that most probably differs from you own interpretation. Nowhere in my post did I go on record as personally subscribing to ANY particular interpretation of the second amendment. For all you know my views on the second amendment and interpretation of its meaning and intent are the same or quite similar to yours. Or Tribe’s. Or Amat’s. Or Levinson’s. But who gives a shit what these three think? And my interest in your views on the second amendment is non-existent. And why even introduce the views of these three scholars when it clearly and obviously not germane to my argument? And as scholars, MOST respected by whom? Have you polled the nation’s legal community to arrive at this assessment? This sort of disingenuous smoke might be where any sort of mutually agreeable “civility” goes into forfeiture. Why not just stand corrected rather than doubling down on an obviously egregiously ignorant statement? Not an ideal strategy to prompt me to ask you out dancing. And I’m not disagreeing with you—I’m shining a light on your false statement—once again. Why is this simple point so difficult to grasp? What’s really behind your intransigence on this simple point?
" I pointed out that the ACLU certainly supports the second amendment, "
And this is where you are making your mistake. Civil liberties apply to the individual. What you are seemingly agreeing with is that, strangely, every single right known to humankind, save for the right to bear arms, is individual. How can you not see the lunacy in a position such this?
The ACLU can not claim to be an entity that fights for individual civil liberties while simultaneously stating that one of the expressly enumerated rights (the second amendment) in the Constitution is meant to be a collective right. It's political pandering, and it's disingenuous.
A civil libertarian, a true civil libertarian, would only respond with "Firearms ownership is a right. End of discussion." A civil libertarian would not say, " I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."
Yes, we know that progressives have evolved beyond the concept of civil liberties. We know they stand ready to deliver us from the chains of freedom, and deliver us unto the land of "The Common Good."
It's certainly a philosophical question . . . until you find yourself struggling under a 235lb rapist in the bushes by the side of the park walkway at night. Then the question becomes a whole lot less philosophical and a bit more . . . practical. Urgent, even.
Indeed.
That might prove to be tricky, unless you remove his throbbing phallus from your mouth, first.
The technical definition of “civil liberties” are the Constitutional rights enjoyed by all Americans. Civil rights-rights granted by the gov but not part of the Constitution, are a much more flexible and nebulous concept, which liberal/woke legal “scholars” adore, of course
"Our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights" - Wait, what?!? Are people nodding along with that? What exactly *are* constitutional rights then? Is this America 2.0? America-Lite?
Our rights are whatever we're told they are that day, as part of our daily software and surveillance update.
Still snoozing in the Matrix?
Of course they are not. Civil liberties is a concept that precedes and is larger than the specific liberties outlined in the Constitution. Among other things, the Constitution has been amended multiple times. Of course civil liberties is a larger concept, and even if the Constitution were amended to eliminate say the First Amendment, which could happen, it would mean nothing for the the idea of civil liberties per se.
Indeed. Right are natural by virtue of birth. They belong to everyone (until governments come along and reduce, restrict, abridge or outright destroy them). The Constitution does not create, or grant, rights as some believe. It is a document that merely exist to protect those rights from government overreach.
As you say, eliminating the first amendment would not mean the elimination of free speech. Free speech belongs to humankind by virtue of birth. The same applies to the second amendment. Were government to remove the second's language from the Bill of Rights altogether, the right would still exist.
"....Were government to remove the second's language from the Bill of Rights altogether, the right would still exist....."
Not in a court of law, it wouldn't.
That depends. I don't believe every court would be hostile to the issue.
And any judge or attorney with a basic understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties would be aware that the document does not create these rights; the document was written to protect natural rights from undue and unnecessary government interference and abridgment. The particular area of law that would deal with this issue would need to be cognizant of this fact.
And a ruling court of law doesn't negate the fact that rights are, indeed, natural. If humankind didn't create or invent the right, then, in my opinion, a court of law can not completely and outright abridge that law.
Sure, they can rule that way, but that's what civil disobedience is all about. It worked for Thoreau, after all.
Why of course they are. Even Locke, and Hobbes, Hutcheson, Hegel and Paine agree with me. Men and governments do not create rights. Early man did not have to seek out permission to club the tiger trying to eat him in self defense. He did not have to seek counsel before acting in this self defense.
You are confusing rights with customs, laws, or mores and belief systems. Take driving, for example. The processes for obtaining a driver's license, and operating a motor vehicle on the roadways is a man made custom, or law if you choose to refer to it that way. but speaking freely is something you are born with the right to do; defending yourself from harm is something you are born with the right to undertake.
Rights are not dependent on laws in terms of creation, though they are part of the social contract via the manner in which we exercise them. Laws can, however, be used to temporarily remove or restrict them (as punishment for transgression against man made laws, for example).
And a word for someone who makes the bold claim about others being incredibly stupid (perhaps use another adjective to add more punch, like profoundly, or magnificently), do not use wikipedia as a source for anything, even for the simplistic exercise of providing a definition. It betrays the lack of education you are trying to hide.
Yes. Saved me the trouble.
Nicely put.
Amna Khalid, after noting that Enlightenment scholars were influenced by Mediterranean, Arabic, and North African cultures: "To think about the enlightenment... as something that is Western or white-only is doing such a huge disservice to the rest of the world."
That is, woke critics of Enlightenment ideals are themselves casually practicing Eurocentrism.
I've thought about this quite a bit lately, and the people who detest "Western" values are not going to detest "Eastern" values any less. Logical thinking and hard work are human values, and that is ultimately what they detest. Only a very small minority (claim to) want to return to the utopia(?) of hunting and gathering in community-property tribes. If doing homework or showing up for work on time is a burden to the Woke, let them try working a rice paddy 12 hours a day.
"...Logical thinking and hard work..." Logical, critical thinking, IS hard work itself.
But oh is it worth it, there can be no better labors' reward for a person of conscience, though slings and arrows, along with mud, be the price paid. Self-satisfaction can be---and is---a good thing when melded to a rightful sense of personal integrity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA
"....Logical thinking and hard work are human values, and that is ultimately what they detest...."
That's a rather broad, sweeping outside-the-lines assertion you make. How did you arrive at this conclusion about such a large group of people you're clearly unfamiliar with? And may we assume that you've spent many 12-hour days "working in a rice paddy?" Here you're making a gratuitous assumption about unknown individuals and then presumably holding yourself up as someone possessing superior values than said unknown individuals. That's not very smart. Rather uncharitable too.
I was, fairly obviously, referring to the Smithsonian's “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness in the United States." Here are some specifics:
Phrases like “hard work is the key to success” and “objective, rational linear thinking” are now representative of "white dominant culture, or whiteness." "The ways white people and their traditions, attitudes, and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States."
As for the rice paddy, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a fantastic essay on the topic. I don't recall which book it was in, but it's well worth the time required to read it.
One hypothesis is that Asian work ethic and attention to detail stems in part from the great focus needed to tend a rice paddy. It's a fascinating idea and I think you (or anyone else) would really enjoy reading the piece.
How about you give him time to elaborate on the point instead of making a bunch of shit up.
Haha, thanks. I can't be in front of my screen all day. I leave for a few hours and return to find I'm being scolded and mocked. Ah, well, par for the Internet course.
What are you, his handler? Attorney? Guide dog? Big brother? Legal guardian? A sympathetic and concerned passerby? I trust he can answer for himself. Are these new rules now? One is obligated to pause for Part 2 of a comment before commenting on Part 1? If so, I didn't get the memo. But now that you've inserted yourself into the conversation, why not go the full route and answer for him? Come on, "make a bunch of shit up" for us.
Optics, bruh.
The imperial exams are something I only recently learned about. They seem like a good idea, but I don't think they were IQ tests exactly, so other factors could enter in.
You are right about the hunting/gathering thing. I was really going for a cheap shot moreso than a good comparison. Lately, I've been thinking about how a version of Rosseau's noble savage idea seems to be gaining in popularity. Disdain for logic, time, objective experience, effort. The silliness going on in San Francisco with $949 of shoplifting being a non-crime, a law applauded by the woke. It's like we're seeing a refitting of noble savagery for an urban environment.
I won’t allege she’s wrong but I wish she had given examples of non-Western influences on Western Enlightenment thinkers. That’s very easy in math for example, which evolved after the Greeks by Arab, Chines and Indian thinkers for 1000 years before Europe took up the baton again. And before the Greeks the near-Eastern cultures had tremendous math sophistication, including the theorem credited to Pythagorus, probably the single most influential idea in broad world history — so math is a human project not a Western project.
With Enlightenment thought I think situation is more complicated. This is a huge topic that winds through comparative religion, ideas of property, ideas of the individual as separate and distinct from the tribe, the idea of an individual relationship with God, and structures of group consciousness, and I wish she had cited her references.
Camus very carefully traced some of this in THE REBEL and found little outside the Western cannon.
Her implication however clearly establishes the idea of an ethical absolute, that some actions are inherently wrongful abuses of the individual without regard to tribe, ethnicity, nation or location. That’s a very “un-woke” thought, as they seem to argue reality itself must be interpreted through racial and gender lenses. Although I frankly think they’re too stupid as a community to recognize their own tangled inconsistencies and hypocrisies.
Defining an absolute stationary point of ethical judgment has been a primary project of Western Civ since the advent of Greek thought, and possibly before.
If we argue that our self evident point of judgment is merely a racial or gender attribute, and call out abuses heaped by Western Civ on non-Western cultures, then by what standard do we say that? The answer itself asserts a stationary point of judgment in an infinite loop. This is similar to Plato's Third Man argument in the Parmenides.
The best our intellectual history can do -- so far -- is to assert that broader social justice demands free speech since only speech and the debate it permits can illuminate the location of a stationary point of judgment and persuade society to honor it for society’s own good. Clearly here there’s deep roots in Jewish and Christian ethics along with Greek ethics. There’s also tremendous overlap with art censorship, since the human essence has been illuminated through both art and religious doctrine, and much of Western intellectual history is the belated recognition that censorship which seemed good at the time but was actually bad and stupid and held society back.
But for sure, many pagan religious systems had little formal ideas of the rights of individuals as individuals. This was very much a Western project — although it was violated as much as honored in practice.
So it would be nice if she had cited the references she had in mind.
Related to ancient mathematical development:
https://creation.com/oldest-example-of-applied-geometry
The ACLU has done a full 180 on mandatory vaccinations and religious exemptions. Of course they supported conscientious objection when Dubya was in office…… https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/volokh/2021/09/02/aclu-endorses-vaccine-mandates-without-religious-exemptions/%3famp
I used to respect the ACLU twenty years ago, but it is just another corporate tool for woke-washing now. They also don’t consider the 2nd Amendment as a part of the BoR, for all practical purposes.
woke-washing---arch
"....They also don’t consider the 2nd Amendment as a part of the BoR, for all practical purposes..." Probably meant to say that the ACLU doesn't consider your particular interpretation of the second amendment to be an accurate interpretation of the meaning of the second amendment's language as written and conveyed by Madison. Fairly certain the ACLU still considers the second amendment to be a hefty chunk of the bill of rights.
Hence the qualifier “ for all practical purposes”
What you mean is "for your purposes," which anybody is free to judge as either practical or unpractical.
Remember when Raytheon put on a Beyonce concert to promote Adam Schiff?
Truly despicable -- that human excrement and serial liar is among leading Congress war-mongers and recipient of arm industry donations.
http://politicalpartytime.org/party/36073/
And -- Schiff is now leading the US government’s domestic terrorism legislation drive !!
Congressmen Holding Concert Fundraisers Could See a Beyonce Bump | Politics | US News
The Russia-gate lying team is back in full power -- we are now paying the price for not fully unmasking the scam of the century.
Trump and GOP lunatics were and are VERY bad -- DNC lying warmongering team in infinitely more dangerous.
WHO will be the first current or former Democrat Congresswoman/man or Senator to publicly acknowledge and confirm the scam of the century -- the Russia-gate conspiracy?
Beyoncé needs to learn a thing or three from her Houston homeboys The Geto Boys-the 3rd verse is 15 years ahead of it’s time….. https://youtu.be/6IJCFc_qkHw
Most of the ''debates'' within the media are not debates at all, they are about promoting group think by a media establishment that has been completely taken over by the intelligence agencies ie The Five Eyes. You can turn on Canadian television, Australian television, you're going to see exactly the same debates and talking points.
I don't think we should take 90% of these reporters and talking heads seriously. They function more as propagandists, witting or unwitting, for a much more coordinated counter-intelligence operation.
Plato's parable of the cave comes to mind. These are the shadows of something else. Our focus should be on what's actually casting the shadows.
I would recommend reading the book “The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters” by Frances Stonor Saunders. It's a good case study of how these intel operations work, especially within the world of culture and academia. It demonstrates how a bunch of academics and ''intellectuals'' can easily be manipulated into thinking they are simply partaking in some kind of organic debate when in reality they are simply unwitting tools.
The problem is that many people seem to have a Hollywood-type idea of how these kinds of psyops and intelligence operations work, as if it’s some Fight Club conspiracy where everyone is in on it. In reality, it’s quite the opposite: The reason they work is because most of the people involved believe they are following their own convictions, and because they are so ideologically convinced that they are unable to see the hand guiding events. The whole art of these operations lies in their subtlety, in making everything appear as though it were a completely natural and organic process.
Unfortunately, I think people don’t appreciate the degree to which these operations are run throughout the culture and entertainment world as well. People believe they are just watching a movie, reading a book, or listening to a debate, but in fact, something completely different is taking place.
The media has in fact become weaponized by the intelligence establishment. It is being used in a a manner which for all intents and purposes makes it a weapon of war.
The history of the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the CIA is but one of many cases, most of which we still probably don't even know about.
https://risingtidefoundation.net/2021/05/24/why-must-aesthetics-govern-a-society-worthy-of-political-freedom-ask-the-cia/
And it's working frighteningly well. The bulk of the population has switched off their inner skeptic and act like a massive horde of lemmings. Most people around me seem to be highly motivated to virtue signal compliance with the new order.
It's the new Church. Heresy is once again out of fashion.
Yes, there's a reason it's become so effective though. There was a very good discussion between the editor of the UK Column and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on how the UK and other Five Eye members have been using things like ''Nudge Theory,'' Neuro Linguistic Programming and other techniques to shape the messaging. The idea is that the messages are designed to target what they call ''automatic motivations'' ie unconscious processes like basic survival instincts, the need to protect one's kin and family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wlvPBg4loM&t=8300s
By pumping out 24/7 fear-mongering, and then saying things like covid could kill your family, friends, loved ones, the messaging is then framed as ''protecting loved ones,'' rather than about any facts about something like covid, which has a 99% survival rate. The constant stories of people dying day in day out, framing everything in terms of protecting your family, these all target what the social engineers refer to as ''automatic motivations.''
It's known that in times of fear, panic, those who identify with ''the group'' will regard those who aren't considered part of the group as threats, potential danger, ultimately making people more aggressive towards ''the others.''
Interestingly, in a recent campaign speech, Justin Trudeau said ''those people (unvaccinated people) are endangering our children.''
''Those people'' polarizes everything between the vaccinated and unvaccianted, the group and ''those people'' ie outside threats. Not only that, he added ''are endangering our children.'' What is anyone's response when someone else presents themselves as a threat to their offspring? It goes without saying that the person will became aggressive and be ready to fight ''those people'' if they are seen as a threat.
That's really what they are using. The CRT stuff does the same. It's all about tribalizing everything. Those who are not part of the group, who are not ''anti-racist'' are necessarily seen as a aggressive and hostile.
It's very powerful stuff, but it only really works if people don't realized these kinds of ''nudges'' are being introduced into the language and thinking.
You make me think of Saramago's The Cave.
I was on a Notable books jury (of Librarians) when this came out and it has haunted me. Saramago was a mechanic not a university grad.and he won a Nobel Prize.
That's the chill. How did you capture that?
Gosselin is a propagandist. Whether he's paid or not is his business, but he is most assuredly a propagandist. This is the 14th or 15th iteration of the same "comment" that he's been posting her at TK for the past few months. He continually links to sites that are well-known Russian propaganda mills.
For instance, his link here to the Rising Tide Foundation, which is overseen by Gosselin's buddy and fellow smirking (useful?) idiot and propagandist Matthew Ehret. Also closely affiliated with the Rising Tide Foundation is Edward Lozansky, president of American "University" in Moscow, an ersatz academic institution with no faculty and no students and that is well-tethered to the Russian government and exists to pursue Russian interests through American University's phony academic profile, using subcontractors such as our man in Montreal, the cunning canuck Dave Gosselin. Lozansky has been busy cultivating republicans in high places in America since his defection 30 years ago under the guise of being a "soviet dissident," but in reality has been busy since converting republicans into Kremlin enthusiasts and Putin groupies.
Rising Tide is actually a shady company based in Switzerland, and also has under its umbrella a "cancer research" foundation---both created by Shawn Stephenson, who "runs a company named Rising Tide, which, according to its website, manages the intellectual property associated with CTCA and its affiliates. Founded in 2006, Rising Tide is based in the Swiss town of Schaffhausen. Stephenson also chairs the board of two related charities: the Rising Tide Foundation, which funds libertarian causes around the world, and the Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research."
All sorts of fun stuff in the primary documents MotherJones unearthed in this investigation years ago. The phony treatment claims of the "Rising Tide foundation for clinical cancer research." Freedom Works. Cancer Treatment Centers of America. How the Koch brothers were---and still are---key players in derailing any attempt to bring affordable health care to Americans with support from grifter-goons like Stephenson. Stephenson was a right-wing grifter before it was even cool to be a right-wing grifter.
I'll both quote and paraphrase Gosselin himself: "Unfortunately, I think people don’t appreciate the degree to which these operations are run throughout [posts like mine on sites like TK] as well. People believe they are just watching a movie, reading a book, or listening to a debate, [or just reading a disinterested post from a dull Montreal blogger] but in fact, something completely different is taking place." Quite accurate.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/30/1648943/-Lozansky-Man-Behind-the-curtain
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/freedomworks-switzerland-richard-stephenson-matt-kibbe/
https://thesternfacts.com/american-university-in-moscow-linked-to-russian-state-but-fake-like-trumpu-14d157fa234f
Wow, sounds like a conspiracy!!!
Does Aunt Martha do any of these connectos when listening to her usual media sources? Probably not.
There is a simple test: is what I said true? Does it make a valid point?
One of the main counter-intelligence methods is trying to cast doubt on the source, because people's evaluation of information is in large part influenced by how they view the source. If you can get people to feel uneasy about the source, it doesn't really matter what's said, people will instinctively deem it to be unreliable.
You haven't weighed in on the truthfulness or falseness of the statements made, you just simply went directly for casting doubt on the source, and on a person's character. And of course you won't address the question of truthfulness, despite the obvious fact that intel agencies have seriously infiltrated most major media. You'll simply say anyone who believes this needs psych meds and is crazy.
It's always the same formulas.
If I post a story from Russia Today, does that make me a Russian agent? What about if a post a story by Caitlin Johnstone, highlighting the same reality about intelligence infiltration of the media by the CIA, does that make me an agent of Caitlin Johnstone and whatever connectos you can make with her?
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/04/16/the-cia-used-to-infiltrate-the-media-now-the-cia-is-the-media/
By the way, she's also published by Russia Today, so I guess she's also a Russian agent! By your logic, anyone who writes for Russia Today or shares a story from Russia Today would be an agent because they ''shared information by an outlet closely associated with the Russian government.''
Ahhhhh! Russian agents everywhere!
Notice the main tactic: generate fear, cast doubt on the sources, never address the actual content, just focus on getting people riled up.
You can level all the personal attacks you like, but what I said in the comments above is true, which is why I keep saying it lol.
Sorry Aunt Martha, you're going to have to get up pretty early in the morning.
If you really want to know what I think, you can just look at the stuff I actually publish and write about (mostly poetry), or talk about in podcasts...
I never implied that you're a russian agent. Though you make yourself out as one with your very questionable sources. As does Caitlin Johnstone who is a flake and sometimes is right, mainly by accident. And your assertions might not be entirely implausible but what do they signify? How will all this play out? If the "five eyes" network is as nefariously active as you suggest, aren't you worried that eventually, soon perhaps, they'll be coming after you? What do you suppose to be the end game of the five eyes? You never tell us. You set off alarms, yell "fire," and then refuse to lead us out of the burning building.
“The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters” by Frances Stonor Saunders. This is an excellent read. Brought me back to Lewis Lapham's facile piece from 20 years ago in Harper's. For you. Lapham is always a gem to read. It's from a PDF that's paywalled, but Lapham is always worth a lengthy excerpt. From the May 2000 issue of Harper's.
"Among the many cautionary tales told by Frances Stonor Saunders in her new book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, the one about the canonization of Jackson Pollock I found the most instructive. At Yale
University in the 1950s (the period of Ms. Saunders's primary concern) I was introduced to Pollock's genius in a sophomore course explicating the enigmatic texts of abstract expressionism. Although I thought the paintings meaningless, I dutifully took the required notes ("rhapsodies in blue," "triumph of American art," "answer to Picasso") and attributed my ignorance to the low status of an underclassman not yet initiated into the mysteries of the modernist aesthetic. Had I known that Pollock's Blue Poles was meant to be appreciated as an instrument of Cold War foreign policy, like a nuclear arms treaty or an aircraft carrier, I might have better understood the course.
Elsewhere in the university at the time I had come across professors acting as CIA recruiting officers, and I was familiar with the suddenly clandestine tone of the conversation at Mory's when the topic shifted from the Elizabethan playwrights to the weather in Berlin. The professor paused to fill his favorite pipe-the one given to him by an RAF pilot when he was with the OSS in London during World War II-and the rest us at the table knew that the time had come to talk about career opportunities in what was then known as "The Company."
"....The friends of democratic freedom apparently had learned more from their Soviet enemies than their enemies had learned from them, and on both sides of what came to be known in the 1980s as "the culture wars" the combatants deployed history as agitprop, art as advertising copy, the preferred lie as the re- vealed truth. By now we have become so accustomed to thinking of culture as an adjective modifying a political or commercial noun (cultural identity, cultural development and diversity, cultural policy objective, multicultural T-shirt, etc.) that on first opening a book or walking into an art gallery we look for the stamps of ideological inspection rather than a talent for expression. Ms. Saunders reminds us that long ago and in another country, literary critics noticed the difference be- tween good writing and bad, and works of art were ends, not means."
PropOrNot was outed, if not eviscerated, more than sufficiently. Direct ties to Clinton Inc, the DNC, Ukie-Nazis, RFE/ RL.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/28/unpacking-the-shadowy-outfit-behind-2017s-biggest-fake-news-story/#comment-306927
Lol, duly noted.
All these smears and diversions always follow the same formula. It’s kind of funny and easy to point out these days. People just need to let themselves have fun and point out how wretched the people who use these tactics are.
We’ll never hear a nuanced argument from them people. It will always be fear, smear, accuse, and then hope most people will just instinctively distance themselves, not because something is true or not, but simply because of the potential blow back they could experience if they wade into the debate.
Most people are agreeable and want to be accepted into the group. It’s not a nice feeling to have the group energy directed at you, especially the shame. However, once the real motivations are pointed out, how the propaganda works, how people’s behaviour can be changed, how the group dynamic is manipulated, and how we can all be influenced by it, the magical spell that a lot of this messaging has disappears quite quickly.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=smVvJzijAek
There's a joke that's been circulating inside the Kremlin for the past few years. Question: What's a republican? Answer: an idiot. Question: what's a useful idiot? Answer: a republican at a cocktail party.
Such cogent observations. And great to see you count ''Aunt Martha'' as one of your reliable sources.
You should read the Frances Saunders book for yourself instead of relying on her analysis. It's called "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters."
Much of the think tanks and msm outlets are just mouth pieces and vehicles for promoting ideologies sanctioned by the intel establishment and the financiers. The fact that many of the academics, intellectuals and talking heads are just surrogates for this establishment should be obvious in 2021.
If that's a contentious point for you, you're living in lala land.
You don't think most of the MSM is infiltrated by intelligence agencies? You believe the talking heads are really just saying what they believe? Do you honestly believe that?
Two modern problems with free speech: Number one - speech has become concentrated into very few platforms. Many newspapers have died and most people communicate on FaceBook, Twitter, and internet blogs. This gives Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey the undeserved power of being the modern arbiters of speech. Number two - Technology has made it easy to suppress speech. Years ago when school systems were talking about “sanitizing Mark Twain” it would have been wrong but also very difficult to do. Changing all the hard copy books is almost impossible. Today books exist in digital form which makes to easy to delete or “sanitize” anything with the flip of a delete key.
@ Sue ❔🤔
You mention some of the current challenges with censorship our society is confronting; however the problems associated with censorship, as this very informative discussion made very clear✔, are not limited to these present attempts to curb or impede free speech. they have been pervasive throughout our history. Thanks for your opinions💡 on Matt's topic.
As Usual,
EA😎
Of course; however, as "Sue" rightly points out that it is vastly easier to censor now in the electronic era. Now the totalitarians have all the tools they need to create an iron clad police state. The Stasi would have had a mega-orgasm over the surveillance tools that exist now. Critical thinking and courses in logic are as rare as the dodo and fewer and fewer actually are interested in researching any topic past the propaganda they are subjected to 24/7.
@ EM 🤔
Critical thinking, in the context of your sincere concerns about modern technological threats to censorship and/or speech and privacy involve employing the most current technological security (encryption) measures to protect yourself. 🎯
This discussion did not even attempt to cover all the issues that spring from dealing with the multiple problems presented by the advances in cyber-space and the behavior of its corporate operators; or the government's unilateral use to violate the privacy of law-abiding citizens.🦄❔
As Usual,
EA
Ultimately, all of this boils down, to me, anyway, that,”The people are too stupid to make up their own minds.” I mean, I can read something and determine,”This is bullshit,” on my own. Or I can read something and come to the conclusion that maybe I should check this out a little more. I don’t doubt that people’s preconceived notions determines their reaction to what they’re reading/listening to/whatever, but is that really any different now than it was twenty or fifty years ago, pre-internet? All this kind of stuff makes me think of is how people reacted to the Devil’s Music Rock and Roll sixty years ago or how television was gonna melt children’s brains in the seventies or how heavy metal supposedly made its listeners kill their parents in the eighties or whatever. It’s old people freaking out about something new, except now, younger people are freaking out, too. This is the natural result of people who’ve grown up “liking” or “sad-faced emoji-ing” or blocking anything they don’t like. Their entire world view has been determined by an algorithm.
All of this also implies that people have no values; that if they’re exposed to some sort of gawd-awful worldview, they’ll succumb to it, which is just asinine. I remember reading an article about white supremacists in Rolling Stone like 30+ years ago, when I was 14, and one of the things mentioned in the article was a band called Skrewdriver. So I went and picked up a Skrewdriver album from my local independent record store, put it on the turntable and gave it a listen; not because I leaned Nazi, but just because I love music and was curious. First of all, the music was gawd-awful, just from a musician’s point of view (I’ve been a writing music since I was twelve). Secondly, I didn’t become a Nazi, even though I’d (gasp!) listened to that album.
I’m actually listening to “Reign in Blood” by Slayer right now, one of the most important and influential albums of all time, in any genre. Been listening to it my whole life, yet somehow, I’m still not a devil-worshipper. Imagine that…
Reign in Blood is a stone cold classic. Every song is brilliant, moral and ethical problems with the inclusion of Angel of Death in an album filled with cheesy horror-cum-Satanic imagery aside. Guess it never bothered Rick Rubin when he was producing it.
Skrewdriver are hilariously kkkrap. Do you know you can find a cover version of Hail the New Dawn (which just reminds me of drunk Nazi skins at a local punk/metal disco in the late 80s sieg-heiling round on the dancefloor before knocking over tables and falling over unconscious)(a fine example of a Master Race!)(laughing) on Youtube...but not the original? It reminds me of when the UK telly used to have Gerry Adams on in the 80s, but not his actual voice - it was, hilariously and bizarrely, dubbed. Pure comedy.
I don’t have a problem with “Angel of Death.” It’s a song ABOUT Nazis. It’s not a song saying,”Hey, let’s all become Nazis.” Slayer wasn’t espousing racist beliefs; they just wrote a song about Auschwitz. No different than anybody writing stories about it. I don’t think they were glorifying Hitler, anyway. And even if they were, Dave Lombardo makes up for it haha. Such a good drummer.
As far as Skrewdriver is concerned, I honestly only listened to that album maybe three times, when I was 14, and then probably sold it back to the record store I bought it from. Listening to it, I came to the conclusion that skinheads and new-Nazis have zero taste in music, if Skrewdriver was their go-to band. The songs sucked. I’m not even talking lyrically; just as a musician, the dudes could barely play. And I’m fine with shitty musicianship, I fucking love the Misfits and the Sex Pistols and whoever all else, but Skrewdriver was unacceptably bad at simply playing their instruments. And the singer’s voice sucked, too.
Jeff Hanneman had a bit of a Nazi interest. Seem to recall it was his way of connecting to his dad, who was in WWII. Witness songs like Crooked Cross.
I always liked the irony of white power failures like Skrewdriver using a black musical form - rock and roll - to be racist. Hilarious ignorance.
Well, I don’t give a shit haha. If Jeff Hanneman likes Nazis, I don’t care. Slayer still kicks ass. I will never understand this whole idea that we have to hate artists who are “bad people” in real life. Chris Brown is a woman-beater, but his music is banging. I will listen to that. Vincent Van Gogh cut his fucking ear off and sent it to his woman; I don’t care, I still appreciate his art. Tom Cruise is a fucking FREAK; does that mean I shouldn’t love “Magnolia” as much as I do? Fuuuuuuuuuck you… If the art is good, the art is good. I don’t care what said artists do in their personal lives.
Sighing. Did I say to judge somebody on their life versus their art? I have written a lot about William S Burroughs, an absolute nutcase of a man. Lifelong heroin addict, wife-murderer (cos it was no accident), absent father, occult dabbler, pederast...basically an advert for how NOT to live your life. I learned everything I know artistically from crazy, terminally wrong people. Trust me. Chuckling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PAH2aeeKCo
Yeah, I’m quite familiar with Burroughs. Read all of his books multiple times; his biography “Literary Outlaw” is one of my favorites. Definitely familiar with GG Allin, too.
I’ve started listening to a lot more Discharge since the pandemic bs started. State control-prophetic.
Oh hell, the anti-free speechers invoking "the arc of history". The cry of totalitarians right beside the glorious "will of the people".
I have long been a supporter of FIRE. I don't fear they will become woke ala the ACLU because of their founders and leadership. I just pray they're all in good health!
Isn't the ACLU representing a very likely future for FIRE? Leadership changes, flood of money, dissolution ensues. I wonder how and to what extent something like the Rockefeller Foundation maintains it's efficacy in the eyes of it's founder over the generations?
Ford Foundation - same story. Henry Ford was decidedly right wing. His successors deciding how to spend his legacy? Not so much.
Matt, thanks so much for sharing this wonderful defense of classic liberal values and philosophy.
None of these people is a liberal; they are illiberal authoritarians. The division is no longer between D and R, nor left and right, nor liberal and conservative. It is between authoritarians and libertarians. You are doing a public service by providing the evidence.
Absolutely right. We may disagree on income redistribution, but if we can agree on freedom of speech, equal justice under law, and due process, we can be allies. We must be.
Amen to this. $$$$ can always be negotiated. Freedoms cannot.
Hard agree. These things a priceless and allow us to be what we are to the full.
How do you define what speech matters or not?
Hear! Hear!
But all you will receive from those seeking to stifle speech at every turn will be a collectively loud harumph!
"We must do something about this immediately, immediately, immediately! I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!"
Pity that a movie as genius as Blazing Saddles could never be made today.
Indeed - most all good satire.
Just re-watched Life of Brian the other day, and Reg's scoffing/eye rolling at "Loretta" for wanting to be a woman in the JPF would never fly now.
My first exposure to Monty Python was with my friend, Pat Cook. His father, a Lutheran minister, rented it and watched it with us. At first I was somewhat apprehensive, watching this with a Lutheran minister. But his commentary about the troop's comedic timing and delivery was rather revelatory.
These days, I’m pretty agnostic on the economics. Just getting people to play fair, in regards to things like free thought, is hard enough.
Hard enough does not encapsulate the truth well enough. Perhaps "impossible" would suffice as an acceptable substitute.
Maybe, but in this case I simply refuse to consider it so.
Otherwise, it definitely won’t get better.
And maybe we’ll fail, but there is grace in that. Future generations will rise.
Ah, but will those future generations have learned the lessons of futility of trying to control speech?
If not, they will learn them again.
Agnostic on economics? You have that luxury. As well as the luxury to indulge your passion for "free speech." When you're eking out a subsistence living, or warming your hands over a barrel fire underneath a city viaduct, "free speech" concerns tend to be rapidly displaced by "economic" concerns. The same people who would GENUINELY take away our free speech, would first render us destitute---then the issue of "free speech" takes care of itself.
I’m generally agnostic as to whether socialism, capitalism, a mix, or some new third way is preferable.
Right now, I think it’s more pressing to make common cause with people that value freedom of thought.
Yes, government is allied with Big Tech, Corporatist Media and large businesses to impose an authoritarian regime on our country. They have looted the United States, which foolishly believes the lie that unlimited borrowing is OK because we are the world's reserve currency. What they fail to understand is how quickly that can change. The yuan, Euro and Swiss Franc are all positioned to replace the dollar at a moment's notice, and a basket of those currencies would replace the dollar near-instantly.
The real problem begin when the liars begin to drink their own bath water.
Free speech is worth fighting for for those on both sides of the political aisle. From Bill Maher to Matt Taibbi to Tucker Carlson to Ben Shapiro, we should hope that all media figures fight vigorously for free speech.
"Free speech absolutism" is itself a straw man. What is absolute is that political views, unpopular phrasing, profanity and racist language are absolutely protected. Words tending to cause immediate physical risk - yelling "fire" in a full movie house, for example, is not protected. It is not hard, but Prog seek to make it so.
For the love of god, please do not use "fire in a theater" as not protected. It is sourced from an abysmal decision that even the author of it eventually thought better. It was in fact arguing for the suppression of political speech - criticizing the utterly un-necessary involvement of the United States in the Great War in Europe.
You CAN yell fire falsely in a crowded theater. You will be charged for causing a panic and likely be held for damages. Every moron that uses this is talking about sanctions a priori or for causing hurt feelings, not real damages.
Of course, you miss the concept. Perhaps intentionally. It does not matter the source of the "fire in a theater" concept, the point - over your head? - is that IT IS NOT PROTECTED. And yes, you can say whatever your want but some things will get you sanctioned. That means they are not "absolutely" protected.
Get it? Absolute versus not absolute. Or is this too hard. Perhaps I am a moron as you write. But even for a moron this is not hard. Where does that put you?
The source/context is everything. The idiot phrase was written during the justification of suppressing political speech. You can't divorce it from that.
"The source/context is everything." and "You can't divorce it from that." But, but, but ... I just did that. Try to stay up. It is not that hard.
Then you are indeed a moron.
Just for you RBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
I love Christopher Hitchens. Thanks for that link. He is one of the greatest polemicists of all time. I truly did love the guy.
Sadly, despite your profane and offensive writing, two things are true: One, you and I seem closer in ideas than not and Two, you still don't get it. You keep setting up your own straw man arguments. Go back to my original post. Read it again. Maybe several times. Here is the point about "fire" in a theater. It "is not protected". I wrote nothing about gags, about pre-expression restrictions. I wrote about "protection". Again, I hope that is not a hard concept for you.
BTW, I may indeed be a moron, but you model levels below that on the Stanford-Binet scale. I'd hoped you did not occupy those realms, but it seems you might.
The point that Hitchens so eloquently makes is that there is no punishment for yelling fire.
Had he caused a stampede, which caused injuries, he could have been held liable for THAT, not for saying "fire".
You could at least use the example of slander to illustrate that speech that causes harm (even merely reputational) can be sanctioned - which means it isn't protected.
How refreshing to see someone actually understand the foolishness of the phrase. Whenever anyone uses that argument in discussions with me, I kindly remind them that we do not issue muzzles to people upon entering a theater.
Yes, you absolutely can yell "fire" in a crowded theater because nothing can actually prevent this. And as you so correctly pointed out, you are only sanctioned after the fact.
dammit, no edit! s/b "held liable for damages"
Also, the remedy that is desired to keep people from falsely yelling fire is to gag everyone before they take their seat in the theater. That way, no one can do it; then they can remove their gags upon leaving the theater (or not, after all, we wouldn't want them falsely yelling fire on the street either).
I don't believe this is a free speech issue. Falsely yelling fire is not speech which conveys any idea or thought - even one that is repugnant to most. It is a verbal act intended to cause harm. Pulling the fire alarm is equivalent to yelling fire - exactly the same quality and intention but done with a different body part - finger instead of vocal chords. Neither are free speech issues as neither do or are intended to convey any thought or idea. It is not protected speech in my country as it would be an act of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE: "...Every one is criminally negligent who in DOING ANYTHING shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons." Criminal acts are not free speech.
I would imagine that Holmes used the damnable phrase out of concern from the Italian Hall disaster, where a panic was created by falsely yelling fire (though not in a theater). The perpetrator was never apprehended let alone punished.
👍
thanks for sharing. great convo.
its amazing how intolerant the dems/left have become. i appreciate i am brushing w/ too broad a stroke, but all of the censorship today is pushed most strongly by democratic elected officials and their sycophants in the media & their boosters/campaign funders in big tech. this has been recently diagnosed and documented by glenn greenwald.
there definitively are censorship advocates on the right - anyone with 2 braincells that was sentient 20 yrs ago remembers how the gop & their lap dogs in the media (bill o'reilly among other neocons) shouted down anyone who questioned the bush/cheyne 'war on terror' as being a terrorist sympathizer.
it is infuriating and depressing that once principled institutions (ACLU) have been so effectively co-opted. i feel as though there is a silent majority who are anti censorship, but that faction can be so easily divided across any other 'political' topic that the message cannot coalesce. combine it with the power of big tech & big media to attack anyone who deviates from the orthodoxy (see fish cleaner/HCQ, horse dewormer or nicki minaj media cycles) and people are fearful of speaking out or unable to gain access to the biggest stage to push their ideas.
Is this available somewhere besides YouTube?