But onto the topic of censorship also wow this thread got some real feedback.
[MENTION=10251]Red Herring[/MENTION] I can actually agree with a lot of your points. I know a history teacher I had in college, he was very irritated about how loosely terms get tossed around now days to describe something we like or dislike.
The direct definition of censorship are as follows:
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
The Britannica definition:
Censorship, the changing or suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.
The reason [MENTION=7991]chickpea[/MENTION] [MENTION=26674]Norrsken[/MENTION] I included the complaints against these people as forms of censorship is because under the umbrella, the goal of this "cancel/call-out" culture that is discussed is to completely prevent that stuff from being appreciated by the general public. OF COURSE, as you stated, thus far, nothing has been done which keeps anyone from indulging in it. Their ultimate goal in "cancelling" someone is getting them fired, taken down, etc. and viewed as a negative. This is no way condones anything which is stated. I understand how political morality can change over time, but it usually doesn't involve literally tearing about things that happened in a completely different time. Of course we can analyze it naturally and say, hm, maybe there should have been some well represented people of color here. Why do all of these people have to get on their hands and knees and apologize for the way they created something in the 90s? And the mainstream media pushes all these things onto you with an agenda as well. Keyword "mainstream". The one you can very easily get on your browser front page with very clickbaiting titles prepared to get you pissed off one way or another. There are unbiased media sources who try to look at things more objectively and I think more people need to look for them.
I want to also discuss the issue of fascists/antifascists. My history instructor got on a bit of a soapbox about people using "fascists" very loosely after the 2016 election. It is because fascism is actually, historically speaking, a very difficult term to tie down. Many historians and philosophers still debate what makes someone a fascists over merely a dictator. Because if you go too far down both party lines they're both most certainly capable of some sort of dictatorship. People are corrupt and use power. A communists regime is a form of dictatorship. So would Trump's campaign if it rigs an election and forces him to stay in office. Dictatorship fears are not really a partisan issue, it is a corruption in our government existing issue. What he stated was everyone agrees Mussolini of Italy was a true fascists regime. Because Hitler had seen Mussolini and emulated Mussolini, he is also viewed as a fascist regime. The word they are actually looking for is well related to neo-nazi. Neo-fascism. This takes into account the way the word has become a pejorative in itself for, in instance, Stalin Russia or the KKK. They aren't "real" fascists based on analysis but many people threw the word around.
There are a few things which Fascism would require.
The State: Fascist regimes have had a tendency to try and push people to not think of anything but the state. Worship the state. Give anything for the state. Some of this propaganda came from analyzing how people respond to "Religion" to give them a purpose. They want an individual to see the country/state as their purpose, their religion, to do anything for the state. Yes, even kill. However, fascists also dislike things like say, Jews, because they worshipped God and not the state. So because fascists regimes want your religion to be the state, they dislike "religion". Isn't that amusing. Also, it is also good to check our own nationalisms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving your country and feeling patriotic, but if you would do quite any horrible thing for your "leader" you are susceptible to falling into a fascists regime. "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people" - Mussolini's own editorial.
The Use of Children and/or opportunism: Fascists regimes often arise during times of turmoil, where the rich are rich and the poor are extremely poor with no aid. These dictators arise promising a better future, life, and unity. This is a manipulative tactic to get the oppressed on board to overthrow. After all, because conditions are so bad for them, what do they have to lose? Fascists are "revolutionary" in nature and always intend to overthrow the government in power in order to take over and "offer them this better life". They also push the propaganda into schools, and some have a history of using the children as revolutionaries as well. They would adjust history to fit with the fascists movement so the children and people of education would all continue to push the fascism agenda and worship the state.
Political Violence: Fascists regimes, due to their revolutionary nature, also involved political violence and creating chaos. Many fascists nations armed their own militias as well. They endorsed this also from social Darwinism. They felt biologically weak or degenerate people needed to be purged. Hence why Hitler wouldn't flinch experimenting on and killing disabled people. Or, depending on the agenda, this could include killing them by whatever is perceived as degenerate. This could include the mentally ill, the people of color, religious people of any kind, or otherwise people who do not fit the Fascist agenda and therefore would be a problem.
For the People?: The idea which created the overthrow often involved these dictators suggesting they were going to be for the people and help the people. However, they are actually authoritarian dictatorships that absolutely hate any form of democracy. This appointed dictator is actually the one who decides what is "degenerate", what "history" is, what you will "learn". Economies can vary, from a sort of nationalist capitalism to a nationalist sort of socialism. But all production should be for the state. Capitalism and profit should be for the state. Which kind of "defeats" the idea of a free market because in the eyes of the state, since you love the state so mcuh, you will give all to the state. So...it really isn't for "you".
Personally, I would definitely consider myself antifascist by these point. However, I can see a level of "fascism" pejoratively from both sides. I don't see how antifascism can technically, be a left or a right movement because fascism was neither left nor right. Fascism could and can be any party, any appearance, but usually some very power hungry individual for sure.
As to the statues issue... I disagree with the statues and monuments being attacked or destroyed, but I do not feel these figures should be admired either. Some of that is the negative feat of as [MENTION=19700]Officer Ed Powell[/MENTION] stated, petitions going ignored and unanswered. However, as [MENTION=33707]Population: 1[/MENTION] stated, I absolutely agree mob rule is never ever good. I think as [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] stated, these statues should be moved to a museum and used to teach history. Not that we should honor these statues, but they are strong figures of American history and we should not disintegrate them in an effort to "change" history, because you cannot change history. Not unless with agendas you choose to take history, twist it, to fit whatever agenda you see fit. Rewriting history is never ever a positive thing.
[MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION] speaking is correct also. I actually really agree with this statement. Nationalism of America was so strong, we actually got left behind. We felt we were so grand as a country, perfect morally in every right, that we neglected to educate ourselves, advance ourselves, and develop new things. My mother was looking at how South Korea was handling the pandemic with technology and was shocked by the innovation. She asked why we don't have those kinds of things here. Well...we did not innovate. We got cocky and said eh We're on top. Now we're not.
I also agree to a degree with [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] when stating telling you your idea sucks is NOT suppressing your free speech. I absolutely agree with that.
But [MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION] is also correct when he states we all know that some people are not just saying your idea sucks go away. They're actively applying effort to destroy anything that disagrees with their agendas. I think some right wing ideologies absolutely suck. I'm not out there violently protesting right wingers. I think some liberal ideas absolutely suck. I'm not out destroying and looting over it and disguising myself as a liberal. The saying of your idea sucks has expanded into some people taking it to an extreme and attempting to remove the thoughts of people who disagree with their thoughts. Or discredit and rewrite anything which disagrees with their thought. This is unhealthy and toxic for both sides and makes it extremely difficult to find structure, truth, and accountability. I also agree with [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] on the point though that liberal doesn't mean left. There are some "liberals" who do not talk like they are really just some very strong democrats. Sadly I think both parties have fell into extremes and with social media anyone's voices can be aired and everyone picks these lovely extremist to represent the sides. However, the more left or right you go, you find out they're both in the center...of each other...with no differences besides stating they have differences. An extremist liberal who attempts to censor speech, cancel anything they dislike, destroys history and suggest it needs relooked at, is no better than Donald Trump on the extremist front. But can we call either of these people liberal or republican? Real republicans are afraid to speak against Trump because of the authoritarian nature. Just like in the wake of this cancel culture people feel like they have to speak on every political issue or they don't care, they are afraid if they do not bow and apologize for their "white privilege" that they will be "cancelled" and bullied/harassed into oblivion. Tell me where that "Fear politics" is taking us? And where does it end? I'm not going to throw a for either side because as stated, I feel the people going SO FAR right or left they're extreme went full circle and landed in the same place.
Now that I have written a book, just want to say again thanks for the strong discussion here. For the most part it has been pretty civil. Nevertheless, I feel like there needs to be some improvement on how we go about some of this and I hope we try to come together as a nation rather than continue to let whatever is driving us apart to do so. America has a lot of freedoms we're at risk of losing, and it is more than a bipartisan issue.
