5 ms·

One has to be careful in support. I don't know about the Infowars or Alex Jones situation. I had to read up in order to post. Liberal ideology, in the one that

One has to be careful in support. I don't know about the Infowars or Alex Jones situation. I had to read up in order to post. Liberal ideology, in the one that designed the Bill of Rights, and such ideas do espouse in the free trade of ideas and thoughts. And generally, this is a great thing to be able to discuss controversial ideas or criticise people in power. However, other groups figured out that this idea of liberalism has one major flaw - it would fight for the rights of those whom would stifle the very speech they use. in fact, some of these groups would kill dissenters over even so much as minor insults to the head of that state. It's effectively the single major 'hack' that our system has. And the destructive outcome means the reduction or elimination of the very vehicle they use to spread - our speech, our freedom to petition government for a redress of grievances, our freedom of the press, our freedom of religion.

busterarm 8y ago
If you don't drag bad ideas out into the light (kicking and screaming, if need be) and beat the crap out of them in rigorous debate, then they fester and grow in dark places and eventually kill you. Edit: to add, the reason people don't take this tactic anymore, is (in my opinion) because they are 1) intellectually lazy, 2) poor debaters and 3) not comfortable with confrontation.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  That's fine and good. What happens when its a whole bunch of "traditionalists" (read: white supremacists) espousing the following views: 1. Xenophobia 2. Hyper-nationalistic 3. militarism 4. Glorification of violence and readiness to use it 5. Fetishization of masculinity 6. Leader cult 7. Lost-golden-age syndrome 8. Hierarchical party structure and tendency to purge the disloyal And when you look at the numbers, the majority of the people are apathetic and disempowered. And those that despise this go against those whom support it by voting or participation? Sometimes, a direct and harsh response is needed to preserve our institutions.
  - busterarm 8y ago
    I hate to say that I don't buy it here, but popular sovereignty (and its close cousin, social contract) is a core belief of liberal democracy. Literally "the will of the people". The people deserve the state they vote for, nothing more, nothing less. If you try to maintain the institutions over the mechanisms that guarantee those institutions, you'll find that those institutions will slip away from you anyway. You risk turning into the very thing you're fighting. As someone who views themselves as more in the center, this is exactly how I see mainstream left politics going right now. "The concept of popular sovereignty holds simply that in a society organized for political action, the will of the people as a whole is the only right standard of political action"[1] [1]:https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Massachusetts_Constitution_of_1780.html?id=ZLHT4V6sFa4C https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Massachusetts_Const...
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      And the idea of fascism is newer than 1780, as you quoted. Not to mention, grassroots campaigning of this ideology across the internet is also rather new. And summoning up the specters of fascism isn't a scare tactic. It's what happened last year in Charlottesville. White supremacists of all types had a big march. Even killed a counter-protester. Maybe you saw it? We even had a neofascist group do a march here in my local city. And right now, there's flyers espousing the "goodness" of fascism. You can argue all you want from people from 300 years ago. I know if these people get say-so in government, I and my friends will lose rights, become disenfranchised, and possibly murdered. They say precisely that. So yeah, I do have a rather strong claim to not want fascists to take hold.
      - samueldavid 8y ago
        is communist antifa any better?
      - busterarm 8y ago
        If the ideological root of your governance cannot withstand a newer competing ideology without its compromise, then at face value your ideological system is 1) flawed, 2) deserves to die, and 3) will inevitably die; with haste. I do not believe this to be true and representative democracy managed to survive the larger half of a century with opposition from fascism, socialism, communism, autocracy, modern dictatorship and Orwellian totalitarianism. I think this trend will continue but it seems that you do not. Keep in mind that a full third of the English language comes from German. In the 20s & early 30s, one of the largest and most financially/socially successful groups of immigrants in the US & UK were German. Germany and Fascism were politically very popular here and openly supported until (and on the US side, part-way through) WWII. Even under those circumstances, it was politically untenable. This is even more true now.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
What? You're argument is that a non-zero number of Alex Jones supporters don't support free-speech therefore all private platforms should ban him? As a moderate liberal, this type of extremism (i.e. seeing Nazis and hate-speech and shootings everywhere, without every checking the numbers) actually pushes me to the right. I know I'm not alone, it's Joe Rogan's whole shtick.
- busterarm 8y ago
  I've been having scores of conversations with fellow progressives (the ones that still can hold conversations) over the last two years who are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that they find themselves agreeing more and more politically with their up-until-now opponents. From my observation, it has been because the right well-understood their losses in the last political cycle and learned how to empathize with and embrace their disagreements. The "battle lines" of the traditional right/religious right/(multifaceted-)alt-right (as in there's 10x as much political diversity there) don't line up at all and in some cases seem to be mutually opposed (religious Zionists & Neo Nazis), but they all hear each other and give each other a platform. They also constantly debate their politics. They all manage to find some thing or another in common and work to that goal. In contrast, us (and I strongly consider myself one) progressives show absolutely zero empathy for people that do not agree with our politics to a tee. We're all about "correct thought", focus sharply on how we are divided and shut down conversation with outsiders. Honestly at this point I'm completely disgusted with the movement and the direction it is going.
  - froasty 8y ago
    This is definitely the case in my experience and reading of the situation. Here's a quote from The Coming of the Third Reich by the premier historian of the period, Richard Evans: "Communist rhetoric had become a good deal more violent since the inauguration of the ‘third period’ by the Comintern leadership in Moscow in 1928. From this point onwards, the party directed its venom principally against the Social Democrats. Every German government in its eyes was ‘fascist’; fascism was the political expression of capitalism; and the Social Democrats were ‘social fascists’ because they were the main supporters of capitalism, taking workers away from revolutionary commitment and reconciling them to Weimar’s ‘fascist’ political system. Anyone in the leadership who tried to question this line was dismissed from his party post. Anything that would help overthrow the ‘fascist’ state and its Social Democratic supporters was welcome." Let's take a random quote from an article on Jordan Peterson that appeared yesterday. This is a man whose claim to fame is tselling young alienated ripe for alt-right recruitment men that, yes, liberal society has a place for you, but only if you clean your room and buy my books: "Jordan Peterson's recent speaking engagement in Hamilton prompted Coun. Matthew Green's observation that Peterson is inflammatory and popular with the alt-right. And yet Peterson is frequently lauded as today's most important public intellectual. In fact, Peterson is less an intellectual than he is a gifted motivational speaker for racists and misogynists." Jordan Peterson is de-radicalizing young men back towards an open and free society and is bringing back the cachet of public intellectuals (which is sad as Noam Chomsky is still alive). For some reason, the inquisitional progressives view this de-radicalization as a bad thing. It's absolutely bonkers.

busterarm 8y ago

If you don't drag bad ideas out into the light (kicking and screaming, if need be) and beat the crap out of them in rigorous debate, then they fester and grow in dark places and eventually kill you. Edit: to add, the reason people don't take this tactic anymore, is (in my opinion) because they are 1) intellectually lazy, 2) poor debaters and 3) not comfortable with confrontation.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
That's fine and good. What happens when its a whole bunch of "traditionalists" (read: white supremacists) espousing the following views: 1. Xenophobia 2. Hyper-nationalistic 3. militarism 4. Glorification of violence and readiness to use it 5. Fetishization of masculinity 6. Leader cult 7. Lost-golden-age syndrome 8. Hierarchical party structure and tendency to purge the disloyal And when you look at the numbers, the majority of the people are apathetic and disempowered. And those that despise this go against those whom support it by voting or participation? Sometimes, a direct and harsh response is needed to preserve our institutions.
- busterarm 8y ago
  I hate to say that I don't buy it here, but popular sovereignty (and its close cousin, social contract) is a core belief of liberal democracy. Literally "the will of the people". The people deserve the state they vote for, nothing more, nothing less. If you try to maintain the institutions over the mechanisms that guarantee those institutions, you'll find that those institutions will slip away from you anyway. You risk turning into the very thing you're fighting. As someone who views themselves as more in the center, this is exactly how I see mainstream left politics going right now. "The concept of popular sovereignty holds simply that in a society organized for political action, the will of the people as a whole is the only right standard of political action"[1] [1]:https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Massachusetts_Constitution_of_1780.html?id=ZLHT4V6sFa4C https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Massachusetts_Const...
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    And the idea of fascism is newer than 1780, as you quoted. Not to mention, grassroots campaigning of this ideology across the internet is also rather new. And summoning up the specters of fascism isn't a scare tactic. It's what happened last year in Charlottesville. White supremacists of all types had a big march. Even killed a counter-protester. Maybe you saw it? We even had a neofascist group do a march here in my local city. And right now, there's flyers espousing the "goodness" of fascism. You can argue all you want from people from 300 years ago. I know if these people get say-so in government, I and my friends will lose rights, become disenfranchised, and possibly murdered. They say precisely that. So yeah, I do have a rather strong claim to not want fascists to take hold.
    - samueldavid 8y ago
      is communist antifa any better?
    - busterarm 8y ago
      If the ideological root of your governance cannot withstand a newer competing ideology without its compromise, then at face value your ideological system is 1) flawed, 2) deserves to die, and 3) will inevitably die; with haste. I do not believe this to be true and representative democracy managed to survive the larger half of a century with opposition from fascism, socialism, communism, autocracy, modern dictatorship and Orwellian totalitarianism. I think this trend will continue but it seems that you do not. Keep in mind that a full third of the English language comes from German. In the 20s & early 30s, one of the largest and most financially/socially successful groups of immigrants in the US & UK were German. Germany and Fascism were politically very popular here and openly supported until (and on the US side, part-way through) WWII. Even under those circumstances, it was politically untenable. This is even more true now.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

What? You're argument is that a non-zero number of Alex Jones supporters don't support free-speech therefore all private platforms should ban him? As a moderate liberal, this type of extremism (i.e. seeing Nazis and hate-speech and shootings everywhere, without every checking the numbers) actually pushes me to the right. I know I'm not alone, it's Joe Rogan's whole shtick.

busterarm 8y ago
I've been having scores of conversations with fellow progressives (the ones that still can hold conversations) over the last two years who are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that they find themselves agreeing more and more politically with their up-until-now opponents. From my observation, it has been because the right well-understood their losses in the last political cycle and learned how to empathize with and embrace their disagreements. The "battle lines" of the traditional right/religious right/(multifaceted-)alt-right (as in there's 10x as much political diversity there) don't line up at all and in some cases seem to be mutually opposed (religious Zionists & Neo Nazis), but they all hear each other and give each other a platform. They also constantly debate their politics. They all manage to find some thing or another in common and work to that goal. In contrast, us (and I strongly consider myself one) progressives show absolutely zero empathy for people that do not agree with our politics to a tee. We're all about "correct thought", focus sharply on how we are divided and shut down conversation with outsiders. Honestly at this point I'm completely disgusted with the movement and the direction it is going.
- froasty 8y ago
  This is definitely the case in my experience and reading of the situation. Here's a quote from The Coming of the Third Reich by the premier historian of the period, Richard Evans: "Communist rhetoric had become a good deal more violent since the inauguration of the ‘third period’ by the Comintern leadership in Moscow in 1928. From this point onwards, the party directed its venom principally against the Social Democrats. Every German government in its eyes was ‘fascist’; fascism was the political expression of capitalism; and the Social Democrats were ‘social fascists’ because they were the main supporters of capitalism, taking workers away from revolutionary commitment and reconciling them to Weimar’s ‘fascist’ political system. Anyone in the leadership who tried to question this line was dismissed from his party post. Anything that would help overthrow the ‘fascist’ state and its Social Democratic supporters was welcome." Let's take a random quote from an article on Jordan Peterson that appeared yesterday. This is a man whose claim to fame is tselling young alienated ripe for alt-right recruitment men that, yes, liberal society has a place for you, but only if you clean your room and buy my books: "Jordan Peterson's recent speaking engagement in Hamilton prompted Coun. Matthew Green's observation that Peterson is inflammatory and popular with the alt-right. And yet Peterson is frequently lauded as today's most important public intellectual. In fact, Peterson is less an intellectual than he is a gifted motivational speaker for racists and misogynists." Jordan Peterson is de-radicalizing young men back towards an open and free society and is bringing back the cachet of public intellectuals (which is sad as Noam Chomsky is still alive). For some reason, the inquisitional progressives view this de-radicalization as a bad thing. It's absolutely bonkers.