Post: #1

You see and hear it a lot with young people who think we need more restrictions on speech and should censor anything mean or offensive. Why!?? Why can't people just walk away from something they don't like or maybe try to see different points of view. I don't get why the fuck someone would want to close the gates even more in this country. Don't they realize what censoring different opinions and thoughts really means?

Post: #2

I agree with this, one of the things I didn't like about Canada was the politically correct b.s

Post: #3

(12-06-2013 09:22 AM)houston Wrote:  You see and hear it a lot with young people who think we need more restrictions on speech and should censor anything mean or offensive. Why!?? Why can't people just walk away from something they don't like or maybe try to see different points of view. I don't get why the fuck someone would want to close the gates even more in this country. Don't they realize what censoring different opinions and thoughts really means?

Suffrage, single mothers, common core/no civics in the schools. People that have only known comfort and excess. 'Everything is great except sometimes I read uncomfortable things on my iphone that almost makes me question my behavior/worldview.'

Post: #4

Houston has found a formula on these threads.

He knows if he starts a thread with:

"Why do Americans..."

"Why does America..."

"Why is America..."

He has a smash hit on his hands every time out.

Post: #5

Wealth and prosperity (even if it's an illusion) tends to make people soft and decadent. It's a massive irony that the nation(s) which once fought for freedom and risked their existences to resist plainly evil totalitarian regimes are fast on track to becoming like that themselves. I feel about this matter like Martin Luther must have felt about the Catholic Church on the eve of Anno Domini 1517: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

Post: #6

In part, it's human nature. The insecure person and the petty vindictive type both have an ego need for moral one-upmanship through faux outrage, and from this flows all control freak speech codes, taking mock offense at things, being willfully obtuse.
When you boil it down, it's basically a power move. (like pretty much everything.)

Post: #7

(12-06-2013 09:37 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Wealth and prosperity (even if it's an illusion) tends to make people soft and decadent. It's a massive irony that the nation(s) which once fought for freedom and risked their existences to resist plainly evil totalitarian regimes are fast on track to becoming like that themselves. I feel about this matter like Martin Luther must have felt about the Catholic Church on the eve of Anno Domini 1517: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

Wealth and prosperity in a culture needs an underlying system of ethics (in America's case, Judeo-Christian), to temper it against the darker tendencies of human nature.
After all, we're not Ferengi.

Post: #8

It's part of the great plan - the communization of society but led by a totalitarian authority.

It seems to be working nicely.

Singapore and China are the role models.

"So bye bye, Miss American Pie..."

Post: #9

Be cause we fear reprisal. That's why we turn to anonymous free speech on internet forums.
You can't have anything non-pc associated with your name without affecting your livelihood.

Post: #10

Because women breed a contemptible society of fragile ego males. Even multibillionaire CEOs shake like a leaf at the thought of a sexual discrimination suit. Watch 60 minutes with the Bezos interview. Does this guy look like a cool collected CEO? He looks more like a nervous neurotic deer-in-headlights.

By simple statistics, not all men in the corporate world could believe in feminism. Yet they still have a job because they are hiding their thoughts or are liars. This makes these men shaky and pushovers, since they fear someone challenging their beliefs.

When pussy is connected to politics, we lose.

Post: #11

They don't appreciate it because they've never had to fight for it. Plain and simple. The right to free speech is not something conferred automatically. Every generation needs to re-fight the battle and keep overreaching systems of power and control firmly in check. If they don't do this with regularity, the government will slowly and insidiously erode those rights.

People think that the First Amendment freedom of speech is just some automatic thing that descends down from the heavens. It doesn't. It had to be fought bitterly for. Even thought it was in the Constitution, the right had to be fought out in the courts.

The government immediately tried to get around the guarantee of free speech. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were one attempt. And in 19th century America, prosecutions for anti-government speech were common, although it was done under the guise of politically-motivated "treason" trials.

Even during World War I, the government passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and prosecuted a huge number of people for criticizing the government. What we today view as an age-old right (free speech) is actually a relatively recent creation of the court system. It was a right that had to be fought and won, and fought hard.

People today are soft, spoiled, and ignorant. That's why we're losing our rights. Because nobody appreciates them, and people forget how hard it was to get them.

Post: #12

(12-06-2013 01:33 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Even thought it was in the Constitution, the right had to be fought out in the courts.

The government immediately tried to get around the guarantee of free speech. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were one attempt. And in 19th century America, prosecutions for anti-government speech were common, although it was done under the guise of politically-motivated "treason" trials.

Even during World War I, the government passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and prosecuted a huge number of people for criticizing the government. What we today view as an age-old right (free speech) is actually a relatively recent creation of the court system. It was a right that had to be fought and won, and fought hard.

I remember learning about those Acts in history classes in highschool. They were glossed over and justified with the "national security" argument. Looking back on it, I'm horrified no one connected the two dots together and asked why the fuck the government was trying to take away this fundamental right, how long it's been doing this shit, and what else it's been getting up to (Patriot Act, Obama's Executive Orders, etc).

Wald

Post: #13

Free speech is only useful when you actually have something to say.

So America, you are free to communicate whatever you want, as long as its Honey Booboo or Fox News.

Its "free" as in beer, not as a bird.

Post: #14

Narcissism (again) and complacency:

- the narcissistic delusion that they are a good person, and, as such, nothing they could ever say could be bad enough to require censorship, so they'd never require free speech. (There's a crazy fattie on Tuthmosis' twitter account at the moment who actually spewed hate and bile then came out with the 'I'm a good person' line. She's ugly inside and out).

- the complacency that because the political stability that currently give them power is all they've ever known, it will always remain so.

Post: #15

There is no free speech. There never was.

Sure, you can have a law that states that all citizens can say whatever they want. You can have another law that says that the press can publish whatever it wants. But, laws cannot change human nature. Laws exist to determine as unambiguously as possible under what conditions the state can use the threat of lethal force.

Saying what is on your mind always costs something. It costs time, at the least. If what you say makes other people like you, if it makes you more popular, then you are building social capital, which is usually worth more than the time you spent saying it. However, if what you say goes against the "religion" of the people you're speaking to, then you're destroying social capital. Why destroy social capital if you gain nothing in the process?

The dominant religion of our times in the West is progressivism. If you say something that signals you're a believer then the majority of the people will like you. If what you say signals that you're a non-believer, you're ostracized, deleted from Facebook, no longer invited for dinner parties. Which is why there is nothing more pathetic than an aggressive progressive atheist attacking religion...

However, even non-religious speech costs you something. If you gossip about things of no importance, you signal to the one or ones being addressed that you're not trustworthy. After all, if you gossip about other people, you will gossip about those who are now being addressed, too. If you're going to gossip, gossip about something that matters. Don't alienate potential business partners to play silly high-school games.

Information is power. If you disclose important information without asking for anything in return in a subtle manner, with plausible deniability, you're announcing that you're a fool who does not know how to negotiate, who does not even know that there's a game being played.

The only speech that is free is inane speech, such as gossip about celebrities, talking about the weather, etc. All other speech will cost you something, sometimes your job, and in extreme cases, it will cost you even your life.

The actual and the nominal are different things. If you fail to realize that, and focus too much on the letter of the law, you will likely self-destruct. The only freedom a human being has is freedom of thought. Use it. But whenever you speak, or write, you are not free.

Does it make such an enormous difference if oppression is enforced or sponsored by the state, or if self-important individuals spontaneously and voluntarily engage in thought-policing to sate their lust for power?

Post: #16

The Constitution only says what Supreme Court says it says.....if that makes any sense. Every sentence in the Constitution can be argued that it really means A.... no no no, it really means B. And then PEOPLE on the Supreme Court decide what it says/means.

And, the free speech clause really refers to freedom of expression, not just verbal speech.

The Government, Tis Government, every Government, by nature, seeks to erode individual rights over time. It's a zero sum game. The more power individuals have, the less power the government has, and vice versa.

Post: #17

(12-06-2013 08:29 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  Government, by nature, seeks to erode individual rights over time.

Look at what happened to Pax Dickinson. Why are you so worried about the government?

The government is to be feared, of course. But, do note that there are leaderless lynch mobs roaming the streets, and they can be much scarier. The government does not have the monopoly on the power to destroy people's lives.

In fact, the government is often very happy to outsource the unpleasant task of suppressing dissent to the voluntary lynch mobs. What amazes me is that the lynch mobs are spontaneous, voluntary, and unpaid!!! The policeman asks for money in exchange for his services. The self-righteous volunteer in the lynch mob is after power only, and he is happy to do the dirty work for free.

Post: #18

Where are there leaderless lynch mobs roaming the streets? Lynch mob = physical violence.

Post: #19

(12-06-2013 09:39 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  Where are there leaderless lynch mobs roaming the streets? Lynch mob = physical violence.

Again, look at what happened to Pax Dickinson. If you don't like metaphors and the words "lynch mobs", then feel free to use the words "witch hunts" instead.

Post: #20

What is happening here is a phenomenon I've touched upon previously on the forum.

Namely the belief in the benevolent authority. This is in its essence a naive outlook, that expresses a longing for a superordinate power which is "good" and puts the world to right. Usually this kind of adorable notion is shed in the early teenage years, but for some reason a large amount of women live on in the dream of the benevolent authority a long time after they've passed the 20-year hurdle.

In the US today, the politically correct elite by way of social media has taken it upon themselves to act as the benevolent authority. It has likely not been intentional and the role carries with it a number of problems for PC elite, the largest one being that open expression of these thoughts would be laughed at by adult, independently thinking people. On the plus side they have an ever expanding cadre of women and their supplicatiors of all ages, that without a second thought accept the most absurd spins and lies.

Sweden, as a comparison, had a political event (that I won't go into detail on) in the 70's where the believers overstepped their wish for a central authority and as a result were pushed back to obscurity and ridiculed. Regulations, checks and balances were put into place to see that they couldn't prosper to the point they had in the future. The US in contrast is experiencing this heightened belief in the benevolent authority right now in the age of social media.

What institutions and informed citizens are present and organized enough today to push back this growing centralization of power?

Post: #21

   

Post: #22

That's one of the many things I admired about American culture was it's sense of Freedom and individualism that made America the envy of the world which a lot of countries never had.

I remember learning about American history at School in Scotland and being amazed at the success of the Country when the people are allowed to have free will. But I think with the subversion of the Educational System (two good books to read on that by John Taylor Gatto and charlotte iserbyt) Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism has really brought America back almost into the British system.

America fought for their Freedom and won,it would do the world an injustice to see it turn into a defeat.

Post: #23

People forget that the purpose of the right to free speech is to defend the right to express the most unpopular and offensive opinions. It's in those situations when you see if a people are really dedicated to the idea of a society where you can express your thoughts without having the government coming to lock you in the slammer. These are the situations that test to see if people really want an open society where ideas are allowed to circulate (even bad or offensive ones) and then fought for and against in the marketplace of ideas as opposed to a society where only pre-approved ideas can be expressed.

I support the ACLU for this reason. I know they are usually associated with fighting for these progressive, leftist causes which isn't exactly revolutionary or controversial these days but there have been times where they really stood their ground on issues that really had a chance of permanently tarnishing their reputation. Back in 1977 they defended the the rights of American Nazis to hold a rally in a town that had a big population of Holocaust survivors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_So..._of_Skokie