4 ms·

In the US, Democrats/left/liberals are well known for trying to control speech. [0] [1] [2] They are the party of greater government and using law more liberall

In the US, Democrats/left/liberals are well known for trying to control speech. [0] [1] [2] They are the party of greater government and using law more liberally to control more aspects of society. Republicans/right/conservatives are the party of small government - hence the word conservative describing them. They favor free markets, which is to say: Don't make too many laws getting in the way of business! The very meaning of the word Conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation." [3] Less change = less laws. The conservative right weren't the ones behind the Civil Rights movement in the US - that was the liberal left, creating more laws controlling things like school segregation and so forth. So, I think you can see that "more (vs less) use of law" is absolutely one of the overarching themes at play in our political scene. Even as a complete layman who actively avoids politics I wasn't able to avoid this knowledge. I think you can confirm it with a few quick searches to get a feel for what kinds of things people have said about either party [4] [5] [6]. [0] https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-first-amendment https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-... [1] https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-supports-a-constitutional-amendment-that-would-radically-curtail-freedom-of-speech/ https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-s... [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-id... [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conservatism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conservatism [4] https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+against+freedom+of+speech https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+against+freedom+of... [5] https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+want+to+control+everything https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+want+to+control+ev... [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+want+to+control+everything https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+want+to+control+...

quietbritishjim 6y ago
Those first two sources are obviously biased to an almost comical degree. They're very much of the "those horrible Democrats want to take your freedom of speech" bent. Your third link has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Yes, conservatives favour smaller government and fewer laws - actually that term means exactly that here in British politics too. But that doesn't mean any extra laws are necessarily liberal. Go back to my example of legislated racism to see that, which is clearly not liberal (in every sense of the word) despite requiring more laws and bigger government. Like the original comment I replied to, your comment and those sources come across a shallow attempt to insult Democrats by saying "look, this bad thing would require a law, and Democrats love laws, therefore they must want this bad thing!". Maybe in this case my distance, as an outside observer, is actually helpful. I can see pretty clearly that Democrats wanting to limit freedom of speech is a rumour that doesn't reflect what Democrats actually want.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  The first 2 links cited incontrovertible evidence, I don't see much comedy in that. The third link shows a law that controls speech, which is exactly how I labeled it in my first sentence. You're arguing with me because I made a comment that stemmed from my own perception of politics. Now that I've clearly explained the reasoning for my comment, you're contorting yourself to prove that my perception is wrong. In the face of empirical evidence you've given nothing more than your opinion. > I can see pretty clearly that Democrats wanting to limit freedom of speech is a rumour that doesn't reflect what Democrats actually want. They want to control speech. I've shown a law, one among many that they've enacted, which proved my point. In response to that you applied some strawman argument about it not being "freedom of speech" when nobody ever said that. I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm going to end this here.

quietbritishjim 6y ago

Those first two sources are obviously biased to an almost comical degree. They're very much of the "those horrible Democrats want to take your freedom of speech" bent. Your third link has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Yes, conservatives favour smaller government and fewer laws - actually that term means exactly that here in British politics too. But that doesn't mean any extra laws are necessarily liberal. Go back to my example of legislated racism to see that, which is clearly not liberal (in every sense of the word) despite requiring more laws and bigger government. Like the original comment I replied to, your comment and those sources come across a shallow attempt to insult Democrats by saying "look, this bad thing would require a law, and Democrats love laws, therefore they must want this bad thing!". Maybe in this case my distance, as an outside observer, is actually helpful. I can see pretty clearly that Democrats wanting to limit freedom of speech is a rumour that doesn't reflect what Democrats actually want.

wayneftw 6y ago
The first 2 links cited incontrovertible evidence, I don't see much comedy in that. The third link shows a law that controls speech, which is exactly how I labeled it in my first sentence. You're arguing with me because I made a comment that stemmed from my own perception of politics. Now that I've clearly explained the reasoning for my comment, you're contorting yourself to prove that my perception is wrong. In the face of empirical evidence you've given nothing more than your opinion. > I can see pretty clearly that Democrats wanting to limit freedom of speech is a rumour that doesn't reflect what Democrats actually want. They want to control speech. I've shown a law, one among many that they've enacted, which proved my point. In response to that you applied some strawman argument about it not being "freedom of speech" when nobody ever said that. I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm going to end this here.