4 ms·

> All views of freedom are paradoxical other than the most basic view, which is that everyone has the freedom to do anything to anyone. No, there is a valid vi

> All views of freedom are paradoxical other than the most basic view, which is that everyone has the freedom to do anything to anyone. No, there is a valid view of individual freedom that is limited by other people's freedom. In fact, that's the traditional American view of freedom. I have the freedom to do anything that doesn't actively restrict the freedom of others. I can walk into an empty space. I can't walk into a space you occupy. > Political philosophy consists of more than a worrisome story written eighty years ago. If only 1984 was just "a worrisome story written eighty years ago". Instead, it describes the totalitarian regime created by Marxist takeover of the Soviet union. We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society. Books are being banned. Ideas are becoming unacceptable, shunned, erased from public discourse, and from our memories. President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015: https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-praised-dr-seuss-during-presidency/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai... But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. And his books are, accordingly, being erased. Cancelled. To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered." The real point isn't that Dr. Seuss is actually racist (he never was), but to condition us to reject, ban, and shun "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command. The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>I have the freedom to do anything that doesn't actively restrict the freedom of others. I can walk into an empty space. I can't walk into a space you occupy. Exactly! In this way, your freedom is limited for the sake of other freedoms. However, as with the corpse desecration example, your freedom is also limited for the sake of various freedom froms. With assault, for example, there is no freedom to write and post threatening letters. If I receive a threatening letter, my freedom to do things hasn't been impacted. However, my freedom from threats has been impacted. Even the traditional American view of freedom is very widely restrictive, and for good reason. >We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society. If this is a 'Marxist takeover', I'd have to say the Marxists are doing a pretty poor job of it. I don't recall Marx writing that racist depictions in children's books shouldn't be sold at auction, though. >But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. No, you're not. Who's forcing you to say that? In fact, who's even forcing you to accept that view? The very fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that this isn't happening. >but to condition us to reject, ban, and shun "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command. This is conspiratorial thinking. We are already conditioned to shun unacceptable ideas, thoughts and expressions; it comes from two elements of our world - freedom of association, and moral autonomy. >The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society. I'm a leftist and I don't share that view, at least. I can't really think of anyone who does. All the leftists with influence (from Marx to academics) has never shared this view. In fact, they called out the capitalist regulation of consciousness and its control through culture. The 'leftists' were the first to systematically investigate the role of ideology in the modern world.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  The point is that the left is expanding the concept of "freedom from harm" to such an extreme and paradoxical degree, that it eliminates all freedoms. If we are all "free" to not ever be offended, then nobody has any sort of freedom at all, because any expression or action might be offensive to someone, somewhere, at some point. As soon as anyone is willing to claim offense (which is actively encouraged by the left), whatever happens to offend them is banned and cancelled. We are actively cancelling books, people, scientific research, and numerous other ideas and expressions. Our politicians are explicitly promoting government-mandated limits on "offensive speech". If you object or resist any of these social trends, you are a bigot, and you will be cancelled. We are not yet in a 1984 zero-freedom Marxist dystopia, but we are well on our way there. The ideological foundations for this dystopia have been laid and accepted by most on the left, including those unaware of their ultimate outcome. Marx and his original supporters likewise didn't intend or foresee the Soviet totalitarian dystopia that resulted from their ideology. Much like leftists today, they excused incursions on individual freedom because it will lead to "greater good" such as "freedom from harm", "freedom from want", etc. It ended with gulags, commissars, purges, mass executions, genocide, and the elimination of all actual human freedoms in pursuit of some idealized, self-contradictory mirage of "perfect freedom". This was not intended, but it's also not an accident. Once you ideologically commit to sacrificing individual freedom in pursuit of other goals (social justice, a socialist Utopia, etc) then totalitarian oppression becomes a distinct possibility - arguably, an inevitability.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    You have blamed Marxists and leftists for the topic at hand many times in this thread, and have likened what's happening to "Soviet" book banning and the USSR. But the decision to stop selling this book was made by capitalists in a capitalist system. Marxists and leftists have nothing to do with this. You say "Once you ideologically commit to sacrificing individual freedom in pursuit of other goals (social justice, a socialist Utopia, etc) then totalitarian oppression becomes a distinct possibility", but this decision is due to individual freedom at its height. It's a perfect example of the exercise of individual freedom in the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, any other outcome would be a contraction of individual freedom. Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided to stop publishing the book. That is, they exercised their individual freedom to stop publishing the book. No one made this decision for them except for themselves, particularly not the government. In fact, it's only due to their limited monopoly over the rights of this work that they are able to have this freedom. Marxists and leftists would disagree with the concept of "intellectual property" outright. Dr. Seuss Enterprises would not be able to stop the publication of these books under a Marxist system because they would not have the right to make that decision; anyone could decide to publish them if Dr. Seuss Enterprises didn't want to. It sounds like maybe you are taking the Marxist position on this one. eBay decided to stop selling the books. It is their right as a corporation to decide what they want and what they don't want on their platform. This decision was made by the capitalists who own and control the eBay corporation. The alternative would be the government forcing them to sell the books on their platform. How would that in pursuit of individual freedom? Marxists and leftists would say that the workers at eBay should make this decision, for they are the ones who should own and control eBay. But I fail to see how capitalists deciding what they should do with their platform, under a capitalist system, is somehow a reflection of Marxist ideology gone haywire. If anything your problem is with capitalism.
tired-dev 6y ago
> We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society. Your imagined "takeover" is merely a 21st century re-imagining of literal nazi propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism The idea that we're "being bullied" into believing that a man who drew extremely racist anti-Japanese war propaganda was perhaps not beyond reproach in terms of his views on race is, itself, revisionism. When you say "he was never racist", you're either woefully misinformed or lying. He very much was racist; and after the war, regretted it, and ended up campaigning against the sorts of "America first" views he once championed.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>I have the freedom to do anything that doesn't actively restrict the freedom of others. I can walk into an empty space. I can't walk into a space you occupy. Exactly! In this way, your freedom is limited for the sake of other freedoms. However, as with the corpse desecration example, your freedom is also limited for the sake of various freedom froms. With assault, for example, there is no freedom to write and post threatening letters. If I receive a threatening letter, my freedom to do things hasn't been impacted. However, my freedom from threats has been impacted. Even the traditional American view of freedom is very widely restrictive, and for good reason. >We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society. If this is a 'Marxist takeover', I'd have to say the Marxists are doing a pretty poor job of it. I don't recall Marx writing that racist depictions in children's books shouldn't be sold at auction, though. >But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. No, you're not. Who's forcing you to say that? In fact, who's even forcing you to accept that view? The very fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that this isn't happening. >but to condition us to reject, ban, and shun "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command. This is conspiratorial thinking. We are already conditioned to shun unacceptable ideas, thoughts and expressions; it comes from two elements of our world - freedom of association, and moral autonomy. >The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society. I'm a leftist and I don't share that view, at least. I can't really think of anyone who does. All the leftists with influence (from Marx to academics) has never shared this view. In fact, they called out the capitalist regulation of consciousness and its control through culture. The 'leftists' were the first to systematically investigate the role of ideology in the modern world.

NeverFade 6y ago
The point is that the left is expanding the concept of "freedom from harm" to such an extreme and paradoxical degree, that it eliminates all freedoms. If we are all "free" to not ever be offended, then nobody has any sort of freedom at all, because any expression or action might be offensive to someone, somewhere, at some point. As soon as anyone is willing to claim offense (which is actively encouraged by the left), whatever happens to offend them is banned and cancelled. We are actively cancelling books, people, scientific research, and numerous other ideas and expressions. Our politicians are explicitly promoting government-mandated limits on "offensive speech". If you object or resist any of these social trends, you are a bigot, and you will be cancelled. We are not yet in a 1984 zero-freedom Marxist dystopia, but we are well on our way there. The ideological foundations for this dystopia have been laid and accepted by most on the left, including those unaware of their ultimate outcome. Marx and his original supporters likewise didn't intend or foresee the Soviet totalitarian dystopia that resulted from their ideology. Much like leftists today, they excused incursions on individual freedom because it will lead to "greater good" such as "freedom from harm", "freedom from want", etc. It ended with gulags, commissars, purges, mass executions, genocide, and the elimination of all actual human freedoms in pursuit of some idealized, self-contradictory mirage of "perfect freedom". This was not intended, but it's also not an accident. Once you ideologically commit to sacrificing individual freedom in pursuit of other goals (social justice, a socialist Utopia, etc) then totalitarian oppression becomes a distinct possibility - arguably, an inevitability.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  You have blamed Marxists and leftists for the topic at hand many times in this thread, and have likened what's happening to "Soviet" book banning and the USSR. But the decision to stop selling this book was made by capitalists in a capitalist system. Marxists and leftists have nothing to do with this. You say "Once you ideologically commit to sacrificing individual freedom in pursuit of other goals (social justice, a socialist Utopia, etc) then totalitarian oppression becomes a distinct possibility", but this decision is due to individual freedom at its height. It's a perfect example of the exercise of individual freedom in the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, any other outcome would be a contraction of individual freedom. Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided to stop publishing the book. That is, they exercised their individual freedom to stop publishing the book. No one made this decision for them except for themselves, particularly not the government. In fact, it's only due to their limited monopoly over the rights of this work that they are able to have this freedom. Marxists and leftists would disagree with the concept of "intellectual property" outright. Dr. Seuss Enterprises would not be able to stop the publication of these books under a Marxist system because they would not have the right to make that decision; anyone could decide to publish them if Dr. Seuss Enterprises didn't want to. It sounds like maybe you are taking the Marxist position on this one. eBay decided to stop selling the books. It is their right as a corporation to decide what they want and what they don't want on their platform. This decision was made by the capitalists who own and control the eBay corporation. The alternative would be the government forcing them to sell the books on their platform. How would that in pursuit of individual freedom? Marxists and leftists would say that the workers at eBay should make this decision, for they are the ones who should own and control eBay. But I fail to see how capitalists deciding what they should do with their platform, under a capitalist system, is somehow a reflection of Marxist ideology gone haywire. If anything your problem is with capitalism.

tired-dev 6y ago

> We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society. Your imagined "takeover" is merely a 21st century re-imagining of literal nazi propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism The idea that we're "being bullied" into believing that a man who drew extremely racist anti-Japanese war propaganda was perhaps not beyond reproach in terms of his views on race is, itself, revisionism. When you say "he was never racist", you're either woefully misinformed or lying. He very much was racist; and after the war, regretted it, and ended up campaigning against the sorts of "America first" views he once championed.