smacks BG with a cosmic string
OK, BG, that one was acceptable. Barely. But watch it!
North Korean state media offers support for ‘wise politician’ Donald Trump
Offered without comment.
Right wing hypocrisy? Oh my.
But you are correct both sides do it. But we conservatives are supposed to be the repressive ones.
And proud of it.
Exactly. And now these left wing zealots come along and upset the natural order with their authoritarian tendencies.
This seems to conflict with your claim that “it’s undeniable that the war against free speech in the modern era is waged by the left”.
I was being a tiny bit facetious with that comment. Look, I’m not a religious member of the right. So things like pornography or random religions don’t bother me. I do think Islam is more dangerous as ideology than a random religion though so I do share that with some on the Christian Right.
But for the most part I don’t care what people say or print or worship. And my observations are that those who do are primarily on the left. I don’t care if it’s offensive to others or not. It’s not my problem someone chooses to be offended.
And I think this is the superior point of view in a society that claims to value liberty. The truth is we have huge groups in society that only value freedom if you are part of a hive mind. The backlash against that hypocrisy I saw coming a couple years ago. Resentment towards smug condescension is a powerful force.
When president Obama, a Democratic president, feels the need to criticize left wing intolerance that ought to be sufficient evidence there is a real problem. And the partisan hacks on the left choose not to see it.
Your observations are pure confirmation bias. For example, which side has a presidential candidate calling for a ban on Muslims? Left or Right?
I’m not offended – I just don’t think it’s true that they’re “primarily on the left”. I don’t know if one side or the other has more kooks who want to limit free speech in some way, but both sides have these kooks among them.
As for Islam, feel free to think what you like about it – the only reason I’d challenge you on this is if you want to treat it differently (i.e. prevent Muslims from building a mosque on private property; ban Muslim travelers and immigrants from entering the country; declare that Islam is not really a religion or something).
I’m all for criticizing intolerance, and I agree that being for free speech universally (with rare exceptions like the “fire!” in a theater, or threats and advocacy for violence) is superior to the alternatives.
But I don’t see the resentment, intolerance and hypocrisy you seem to be describing, at least not in large numbers. I see a handful of violent kooks and assholes that make headlines. And I see college students protesting various speakers – but (peacefully) protesting a visiting speaker isn’t opposing free speech, it’s just more speech. They can protest all they like, and the school administrators can go forward or ignore them. Neither is calling for boycotts opposing free speech – it’s, again, just more speech.
Apart from violence – which I agree is very bad and does demonstrate opposition to free speech – what examples of anti-free speech attitudes are you referring to?
Perhaps my own bias is showing here, but I certainly don’t agree with your assessment here. I am aware of PLENTY of people on the right of the spectrum who want to restrict how or what people can worship. There seems to be no lack of people on the right who want to restrict certain things we can see or read. Censorship of movies, TV, books etc. is frequently championed by those on the right. Sometimes on the left as well, but certainly there are not a lot of “lefties” wanting to ban books they don’t like. Remember all the people wanting to ban Harry Potter books because they offended their Christian sensibilities?
Yes, there are those types on both sides of the aisle. But to say that they are “primarily on the left?” No, I disagree.
Strangely, the very idea of that horrifies me. Perhaps because of what it would imply about the stability of the American political system. Sure, I hope Trump gets slaughtered at the polls, but not literally slaughtered.
Well, that’s a delicate point. The no-enemies-to-the-right coalition Bill Buckley put together was always supposed to be broad enough to include libertarians. If it is so no longer . . .
Just another reminder that even if Trump loses the election, the right wing in this country is still going bark-at-the-moon mad and there’s no indication that this affliction will abate anytime soon. The right wing long ago stopped debating people; it seems now that they’re resorting to political manipulation and physical intimidation, occasionally dropping hints of an American beer hall putsch.
Fun fact:
If you search Google Images for “Racist Blowhard”, you will see pages and pages of Trump photos.
I can entirely distinguish between criticizing the tact and timing of speech, especially inflammatory speech,and “suppressing” speech. Speech is power, and a democracy such as ours is an experiment in sharing power. Hence, we are naturally protective of speech rights. Free speech is a gift we give to one another, we will share the power.
Lets say a guy walks into a BPM rally festooned with White Power and Klan regalia. The public consequences of such free speech are not good, but likely limited to one jerk getting his butt kicked. But what about the guy who feels compelled to protect him, what about the guy who’s job it is to protect him…?
I think that is an insult but not a crime. It is not a responsible use of the rights and power than we share, what we share has been soiled. But we dare not punish. Dammit!
Well, the bird hall putsch already failed. 
Only half joking, there are a lot of Trump supporters coming from that kind of crowd*, but while they can be dangerous I think that if they act on their craziness many more will not accept the barkers-at-the-moon way, as the Bundies found out.
- One big item that shows that the media is not liberal as many on the right claim is how the connection to the sheriff on the county on the north of Malheur that acted so in favor of the occupiers was virtually ignored, he is part of a group that follows ideologies that dismiss federal power over them, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. One very important member of that right wing sheriff’s group? Joe Arpaio, big buddy of Donald Trump.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent salesman?”:eek:
So, because wild mobs can’t control their bodies people shouldn’t exercise fundamental rights? That’s akin to suggesting women should wear traditional clothing designed by the patriarchy to avoid rapes and beatings. There is no excuse for suggesting that people can lay a hand on another due to state of dress or political affiliation.