Censorship...

[anticlimatic]

Still don't grasp that liberals aren't the left, huh?

Regressive left - Wikipedia

a pejorative term for a branch of left-wing politics that are accused of holding views that conflict with liberal principles, especially tolerating Islamism[1] and opposition to free speech.[2]

 

[ceecee]

Regressive left - Wikipedia

lol That's some serious reaching. That's also a pejorative term and I don't appreciate your lack of civility.

 

[rav3n]

So firsthand, to be clear, it is stated within the bill of rights, the first amendment, that we are allowed freedom of speech.

The first amendment only protects citizens against the tyranny of the gubmint. If the gubmint's not involved, the first amendment isn't applicable.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

lol That's some serious reaching. That's also a pejorative term and I don't appreciate your lack of civility.

He thinks Hillary is a leftist, lol.

 

[ceecee]

He thinks Hillary is a leftist, lol.

Nah. He read it somewhere and thinks it's an insult but there is a reason no one but Dave Rubin or Maajid Nawaz used it. I think I saw it described as a snarl term used by conservatives but in the end, just another thing invented by the right like Liberal Fascism or Cultural Marxism.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Nah. He read it somewhere and thinks it's an insult but there is a reason no one but Dave Rubin or Maajid Nawaz used it. I think I saw it described as a snarl term used by conservatives but in the end, just another thing invented by the right like Liberal Fascism or Cultural Marxism.

I think it's funny the way the right is now calling themselves liberals now that socialism is becoming popular. It wasn't like that 10 years ago.

 

[anticlimatic]

If we can agree censorship is bad, I don't need to rub anyone's nose in it.

I'm happy to oblige a 'no true Scotsman' and pretend that cancel culture and history re-visionaries are just products of some wacko group unaffiliated with any political leaning so that we can all condemn and stand up to them together.

(I was more expecting arguments for why it's good, so this is honestly a pleasant surprise)

The first amendment only protects citizens against the tyranny of the gubmint. If the gubmint's not involved, the first amendment isn't applicable.

What about things the government pays for?

Google, Tesla, Apple, Facebook rake in massive subsidies: report

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What about things the government pays for?

Google, Tesla, Apple, Facebook rake in massive subsidies: report

damn republic party

 

[rav3n]

What about things the government pays for?

Google, Tesla, Apple, Facebook rake in massive subsidies: report

That's irrelevant.

 

[anticlimatic]

How do we feel about tearing down statues?


I feel like number one, it's history. Number two, it's art. Someone made those and it wasn't easy. Also whoever made it is likely dead and forgotten and that statue is their legacy.

 

[Jonny]

lol That's some serious reaching. That's also a pejorative term and I don't appreciate your lack of civility.

From Wikipedia:

In November 2015, psychiatrist Khwaja Khusro Tariq, writing for The Huffington Post, classified the term as an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack, stating that the harshest critics of Islam are courted by both liberal and conservative media in the United States. Khusro also stated the term has been directed towards Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky, both of whom he said have never condoned violence or opined on the doctrine of Islam. He argued that there was no genuine inhibition on speaking against the religion.

In March 2016, Joseph Bernstein, a BuzzFeed reporter on web culture, wrote that according to Google Trends interest in the term "shot up" in late 2015. According to Bernstein, instead of criticising "cultural tolerance gone too far", the phrase has "become a catch-all for any element of the dominant new media culture that the anti-SJW internet doesn't like". He also suggests that even though the term can be sourced back to self-described liberal commentators like Nawaz, Maher and Dawkins, it is frequently used by the alt-right and other anti-SJW groups on Internet forums and social media as part of their rhetorical warfare.​

 

[chickpea]

how are either of these examples of "censorship"?

The TV show "Friends" is being chastised for having an all white main cast.

still an extremely popular show with bland whites with bad senses of humor everywhere. people threatened to cancel netflix when it was announced that it was being taken off the platform (for contractual/financial reasons.) if you go on etsy you'll probably find thousands of pieces of hideous merchandise with quotes from the show on it. sure, it has been criticized for taking place in a multicultural city like new york and having an all-white cast, as many shows have. it's faced no negative consequences based on the critiques.

Non-black stars being cancelled for old messages surfacing with them using the N word as a joke. I.E. Camila Cabello.

she has had huge hit songs long after her dirty laundry was aired out. played at walgreens and safeways around the country. straight up called her bandmate a racial slur, maybe our senses of humor differ in that regard. if people don't want to support the career of someone who has been racially insensitive *at best*, that also doesn't qualify as censorship.

the first amendment still allows both people and streaming platforms to choose the content they want to consume or broadcast. acceptable morality changes with the times. catch up jazzy!

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

How do we feel about tearing down statues?


I feel like number one, it's history. Number two, it's art. Someone made those and it wasn't easy. Also whoever made it is likely dead and forgotten and that statue is their legacy.

i love tearing down crappy ass statues of losers. Pikachu existed longer than the confederacy. Hell, Jar Jar binks is older.

I'm sorry if it triggers you and you were offended.

 

[ceecee]

i love tearing down crappy ass statues of losers. Pikachu existed longer than the confederacy. Hell, Jar Jar binks is older.

I'm sorry if it triggers you and you were offended.

Nickleback lasted longer.

Anyone that says they want to preserve history is full of shit. They want to preserve mythology because the history has been adulterated and twisted for so long and so successfully, many take the myth as fact. Those statues mostly put up in the 20th century have nothing to do with the civil war and everything to do with sticking an exclamation point on Jim Crow white supremacy and the majority of the country is sick of it.

 

[anticlimatic]

Meaning is relative. Just because a lynch mob suddenly wants to see it there, doesn't mean the sculptors intended to convey "hooray for racism," and it doesn't mean that all it means to anyone is "hooray for racism," and people should really stop for a second and reevaluate their religion if they find themselves smashing art and burning books for the sake of it. Statues could be someone's company on pensive strolls. They could be witnesses to engagements. Places people revisit out of nostalgia to see a friendly face. There are plenty of people who enjoy history and take fascination with objects, particularly art, crafted by men long gone. The wanton destruction of it is disgusting to me, but if communities want to vote to take them down because it bothers the community its in they should be allowed. Put it in the basement of city hall or something.

 

[Jonny]

From 2017/2018

The left, pushing for the statues to be removed and put in museums:

Are Museums the Right Home for Confederate Monuments?
|
History

| Smithsonian Magazine

We Need to Move, Not Destroy, Confederate Monuments - The New York Times

What to do with Confederate monuments? Put them in museums as examples of ugly history, not civic pride - Los Angeles Times

Museums can deal with Confederate Memorials - Steven Lubar - Medium

Confederate monuments belong in museums, not public squares - Bangor Daily News

The right, pushing the narrative that the statues should remain in place:

https://radio.foxnews.com/2017/08/1...-believe-confederate-monuments-should-remain/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...ans-majorities-reject-tearing-down-monuments/

https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/22/north-carolina-committee-statues/

https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/18/in-defense-of-the-monuments/

And now here we are. The consequences of inaction on full display. There is power in (the threat of, perception of, use of) violence, for better or worse. If you kneel, you’re a traitor and should leave the country. But wait, kneeling is actually OK now because this is worse. We didn’t think you cared so much. Wanting to move the monuments to museums is a rejection of our history, they belong where they are. But wait, moving them is actually OK now because this is worse. We didn’t think you cared so much. This is the ugly proof of concept. First, of how little these things really mattered to those resisting change. It was all manufactured outrage, based on abstract, pseudo-principles. Second, of how it is sometimes necessary to punch someone in the face to knock some sense into them. I wonder if MLK would have been so acceptable to the public (to the extent he actually was) had other more militant black activists never existed to provide context. It’s all a matter of perspective. You apparently have to fight for what you believe in, though it shouldn’t be so.

https://chomsky.info/19671215/

 

[Red Herring]

Going through this thread I am once again baffled by how definitions vary by culture.

As a European I'm under the impression that many Americans have no idea what the following concepts they love to throw around actually mean (outside their country, among the other 95% of humanity, or even just outside the bubble of the American far-right) :

Liberal
Conservative
Censorship
Democracy
Freedom
Left
Right
Centrist
Fascism
Socialism
Communism
Globalism
Free market

I might be missing some more. There is little point in debating these concepts if there is so little agreement on the terminology (and so little knowledge of history and of life elsewhere).

Watching this is like watching a trainwreck with your eyes halfcovered, peeking between your fingers...

 

[Virtual ghost]

Going through this thread I am once again baffled by how definitions vary by culture.

As a European I'm under the impression that many Americans have no idea what the following concepts they love to throw around actually mean (outside their country, among the other 95% of humanity, or even just outside the bubble of the American far-right) :

Liberal
Conservative
Censorship
Democracy
Freedom
Left
Right
Centrist
Fascism
Socialism
Communism
Globalism
Free market

I might be missing some more. There is little point in debating these concepts if there is so little agreement on the terminology (and so little knowledge of history and of life elsewhere).

Watching this is like watching a trainwreck with your eyes halfcovered, peeking between your fingers...

I fully agree but I can see the same problem between you and me. The other day you attacked the center right in general but overall there are decent odds that here you would be center right voter. Not a hard-core one but the least disgusted by them, while our left could be too much for you. The trick is that our center right is reformed Communist party and therefore it isn't textbook center right in the west-european sense. But it is still clearly the most pro EU-Germany party on the table. For me Lark has almost nothing with any kind of left, right can exist with out being openly pro-market. But in English speaking world that is pure heresy.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I fully agree but I can see the same problem between you and me. The other day you attacked the center right in general but overall there are decent odds that here you would be center right voter. Not a hard-core one but the least disgusted by them, while our left could be too much for you. The trick is that our center right is reformed Communist party and therefore it isn't textbook center right in the west-european sense. But it is still clearly the most pro EU-Germany party on the table. For me Lark has almost nothing with any kind of left, right can exist with out being openly pro-market. But in English speaking world that is pure heresy.

Just for the record it is the most pro US and NATO party as well.

 

[anticlimatic]

Going through this thread I am once again baffled by how definitions vary by culture. As a European I'm under the impression that many Americans have no idea what the following concepts they love to throw around actually mean (outside their country, among the other 95% of humanity, or even just outside the bubble of the American far-right) : Liberal Conservative Censorship Democracy Freedom Left Right Centrist Fascism Socialism Communism Globalism Free market I might be missing some more. There is little point in debating these concepts if there is so little agreement on the terminology (and so little knowledge of history and of life elsewhere). Watching this is like watching a trainwreck with your eyes halfcovered, peeking between your fingers...

Its not all that complicated, and most Americans do agree on terminology...at least right up until someone does something they don't like who identifies with one of those labels that they DO like, at which point no true Scotsman gymnastics are required to preserve the idea that their identity groups of choice are the "good" ones.

Typically when people start arguing about definitions it just means they agree with whoever they are arguing with but can't just admit it simply for one reason or another. Probably a combination of identity politics and traditional American defeatism.

At bottom America is a dichotomous two party system with a media that benefits from division. It wasn't really a problem when people were still talking to each other and recognized that differences didn't necessarily mean the opposition was evil, but the Internet has since isolated everyone from antique civility and here we are.