7 ms·

It's unfortunate how both political extremes are just the same: The right uses the state to censure. The left uses people and popularity to censure. To fight

• boobsbr 9y ago
  How is the right using the state to censure? Are you referring to the US, or in a global context?
  • creaghpatr 9y ago
    If anything, the state censures any speech that goes against hand-picked 'protected groups'
    • and0 9y ago
      The state doesn't censor speech. Hate speech laws (in the US, anyway) aren't very strong, for example the Supreme Court in the USA didn't rule against the Westboro Baptist Church or even people burning crosses on black family's property. (All these people whining about "facts" being censored and none of them are using facts of their own..)
  • dijit 9y ago
    Think: Russia. The state says there are no gays, therefore if you discuss being gay with people you will be arrested for propaganda. Ring wing censorship comes from the state, left wing censorship comes from peers.
    • Chris2048 9y ago
      This might be the traditional view of "left" vs "right", but the rise of the "leftist fascist" in the US is challenging those views.
      • and0 9y ago
        Please don't insist that "leftist fascist" is a thing. Sorry that people don't react with perfect civility to your uncivil attempts to create an ethnostate. That doesn't make you a victim.
        • Chris2048 9y ago
          Please don't "insist" that it isn't. What would you call the Berkeley rioters? > your uncivil attempts to create an ethnostate "Identity politics" better describes such a thing. Tell me, would you describe the actions of historical fascists as "not perfect civility" as well? > That doesn't make you a victim What strawman are you projecting here?
  • heurist 9y ago
    In the US, the right is closely aligned with white evangelical Christians. A large portion of their platform is dedicated to ensuring all Americans must hold the same moral code as that small group. They also actively suppress minority opinion through gerrymandering, voter roll purges, and voter idenfitication requirements. Conservative media isn't operated by the state but it's so tightly interwoven with conservative leadership that it might as well be. Fox News, Breitbart, and the Sinclair Broadcast Group all push decidedly right-wing messaging under the guise of journalism. Trump's EPA is censuring scientists. Trump's FCC is ignoring citizen outreach. Recordings of the White House press briefings are no longer allowed and Trump has called the media "the enemy of the people". Republicans control the US government through what most on the left consider illegitimate means. The way they hold power is decidedly anti-democratic. They've gotten to a point where they control the day to day narrative and don't even have to listen to opposing viewpoints as they govern. Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick just said this: > "People are happy with their governments at their state level, they're not with the city," said Patrick, a Republican, in an interview with Fox Business Network. He was responding to a question about gubernatorial races. > "Our cities are still controlled by Democrats," he added. "And where do we have all our problems in America? Not at the state level run by Republicans, but in our cities that are mostly controlled by Democrat mayors and Democrat city council men and women. That's where you see liberal policies. That's where you see high taxes. That's where you see street crime." Ignoring that crime scales with population everywhere, people live in cities, cities are centers of production for most states, cities are generally healthier than suburban/exurban/rural areas, and cities are absolutely not happy with republican state governments, this comes on the heels of a series of anti-city legislation at the state level. The Texas legislature has been actively undoing liberal policies in Austin for no reason other than ideological disagreements. We apparently can be overruled at any time by rural legislators from hundreds of miles away. Suppression is censorship in aggregate. It's not exactly "your opinion is harmful so stop talking" but it sure feels like it, and has the same results. The aggregate form happens to be easier to hide because it is more abstract. Classic quote by Republican strategist Lee Atwater: > You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” P.S. The dichotomy of state vs private censorship among parties is a false one. I've seen multiple references to a contemporary "red scare" in this forum today. It concerns me that if I were to bring up Russian collusion and election interference I might be shut down as a fear-monger when the concerns are completely valid. I also understand the Republican viewpoint of states suppressing opinion when it comes to things like affirmative action, political correctness, etc. There's too much noise right now for anyone to take anyone else seriously. Hard to imagine that ending anytime soon.
  • d0100 9y ago
    In a global, generalized way. At least for me, usually the extreme image for the right is a dictatorship, and the left, academics, popular people and their twitter mob.
• danharaj 9y ago
  Are you saying that the far right and the far left have the same policies? If they have different policies, how are they the same? Are they essentially the same? Does that mean the content of one's political beliefs is not essential to their political identity? I don't get it so please clarify.
  • dijit 9y ago
    Political beliefs are on a horseshoe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory The far left and far right have similar policies but for different reasons. The far right will censor to ensure that nobody questions the regime. But the far left will censor to ensure nobody questions the idea of the day. Which is functionally equivalent to a social regime.
    • danharaj 9y ago
      There's a criticism section specifically answering the point you're trying to make, mate. Am I supposed to accept Horseshoe Theory because it has a wikipedia page? All that means is that people hold the view that extreme ideologies are the same. I already acknowledged that people hold that view. > The far right will censor to ensure that nobody questions the regime. But the far left will censor to ensure nobody questions the idea of the day. Which is functionally equivalent to a social regime. Ok, I see. Your politics boil down to what you can say or cannot say in public without being publicly criticized.
  • travmatt 9y ago
    Not OP, and US centric, but far left and far right are both united in seeing the status quo as their enemy, and both believe they're better able to harness any chaos that will ensue from overthrowing it. That's why you had Snowden and Jill Stein throwing soft support to Trump, telling their followers that the previous election was a choice between Goldman Sachs (who apprarently clinton represented) and freedom from banker rule (which apparently trump represented), and why you have Bernie supporters now attacking minority centrist candidates, who would be a challenge to him in democratic primaries. It's pretty standard for any revolution, to be able to come together to kill the status quo without necessarily needing to agree on what would come next.
• Brendinooo 9y ago
  >The right uses the state to censure. >The left uses people and popularity to censure. I think that's only because of how our country's electorate has evolved. The left would be happy to use the state to censure, and the right would be happy to use people and popularity to censure. You could find examples of both sides using populism or legalism to advance their agendas. >To fight the dictators I can simply join a militia and fight a civil war. You say that pretty casually! To me that sounds almost as daunting as being targeted by a populist mass.
• and0 9y ago
  Both political extremes are not the same. Getting fired over a creepy manifesto that you chose to make public isn't censorship, and not a threat to your "rights".
  • ufmace 9y ago
    You're right. The Right doesn't control massive swaths of the economy and fire and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them on any point of their platform. The Left does.
    • and0 9y ago
      Right = capitalism. The right definitely controls the vast majority of capitol. You're delusional if you think otherwise. Most educated people (who aren't massively insecure) see gender equality as a progressive goal and moral good. Most educated people are socially progressive, even if they are capitalists and have very libertarian economic leanings. Silicon Valley is the biggest example of this dynamic, that I know of. Posting creepy memos about how one gender is biologically unsuited to write boring software is dumb and the guy was basically asking to be fired. It's good and hilarious that he is now dead.
• albinofrenchy 9y ago
  It is a little absurd to say that this is censorship by the left. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and the manifesto has been widely distributed. What rights were deprived from the author exactly? Did I miss a story where he got arrested?
  • ufmace 9y ago
    That misses an important point IMO. The idea of Freedom of Speech is what's important, and that idea is not "the literal first amendment and absolutely nothing else". Arranging for harm to come to someone for expressing points of views you don't like is antithetical to the idea of Freedom of Speech. What we're supposed to be protecting is everyone expressing any views they hold, and for bad or wrong views to be dealt with in the marketplace of ideas, not by silencing the owners of those views. You can perhaps say there are exceptions to views to be tolerated, but we're letting those exceptions become bigger and bigger. It's a dangerous trend, and if it continues, the idea of Freedom of Speech could be gone, even if the Government doesn't explicitly suppress it.
    • albinofrenchy 9y ago
      His job required him to participate in a team setting. His speech made that untenable according to his employer. He hasn't been silenced though, if anything his voice carried far further than intended. I'm not sure Google did the right thing here. The argument that this is the precise sacred cow he was talking about is strong. But it isn't censorship. His speech wasn't abridged. He isn't in jail. There is no freedom from reaction, nor is there a freedom from outrage. If he had sent out a racist tirade, dropping racial epithets, would you still say his right to free speech was infringed when he got fired?
• albinofrenchy 9y ago
  It is a little absurd to say that this is censorship by the left. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and the manifesto has been widely distributed. What rights were deprived from the author exactly? Did I miss a story where he got arrested?
• heurist 9y ago
  Good luck overthrowing the strongest military in the history of humanity with a militia...