10 ms·

It is new. Historically, the left aggressively defended its opponent’s right to freedom of speech and assembly on the understanding that legalized limits on fre

It is new. Historically, the left aggressively defended its opponent’s right to freedom of speech and assembly on the understanding that legalized limits on free speech will ultimately be used against the left more than it will be used against the right. An often cited American example is the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members to speak freely and assemble. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html The real story is that the historical left no longer exists.

ContrarianBrit 5y ago
The balance of power has now changed. Liberal positions are favoured by majorities; conservative positions are favoured by minorities.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Do you mean favored by minorities, or that the conservative position is the minority?
  - ContrarianBrit 5y ago
    Sorry should have been clearer; conservative positions now tend to be in the minority.
krapp 5y ago
Cancel culture isn't a pursuit of legalized limits on free speech, it's an expression of free speech. Only conservatives are currently pursuing anything of the sort, by attempting to regulate social media, banning critical race theory, the discussion of gender identity and sexuality, etc.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Only" Are they also banning religion/prayer in schools, or firearm education/imagery, etc? After Trump won, I seem to remember a lot of people supporting the idea of managing misinformation on social media. My point is that all sides do it.
  - krapp 5y ago
    No one has banned religion or prayer in schools. The Supreme Court ruled that public schools requiring the practice of a specific religion by students was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as public schools are government entities. Granted, the campaign to ban coerced prayer in schools was led by a famous atheist activist, Madeline Murray O'Hair, but it's difficult for me to see the Supreme Court as more leftist than conservative in its decision making. I don't know what "firearm education/imagery" refers to, all I could find was a case of a school banning gun imagery on t-shirts, but nothing about banning firearm education. I'd agree with you that this case seems egregious, but I don't see evidence that leftist ideology in particular is responsible. It's not as if the dress code only banned images of guns on shirts because the school board opposes the Second Amendment. But even conceding that for the sake of argument - it still pales compared to what the right is attempting currently.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Yes, SCOTUS only did away with state sponsored prayer. However, the implementation of that decision tends to go farther. For example, prayer must be done privately, so most overt prayer is banned. Some schools have/tried banning religious items that would be overt, such as rosaries. So it goes farther than simply banning state sponsored prayer and becomes a 1st Ammendment issue if students are being told they can pray, but must not speak it. For the gun topic. Some schools removed firearm education from the curriculum and even as an elective. So it's not an outright ban but a defacto one. Even when there is agreement that safety should be taught, there is a lot of debate about using a program designed by gun control groups or gun rights groups. What we also have seen are students getting in trouble for off-campus, non-threatening, lawful use of firearms. These discaplinary events are very egregious, and the schools has no basis for their actions in these cases. The only assumption that can be made is that the people making those decisions politically oppose that to the point that they are ignorant of the laws and overreact. The issue of gun images is not a second amendment issue, but a first. School dress codes are only allowed to ban general things that would interfere with education. However, guns are usually explicitly called out. Not to mention the display of gun imagery in a manner that doesn't condone violence would not interfere with education. "it still pales compared to what the right is attempting currently." What is that?
seba_dos1 5y ago
> The real story is that the historical left no longer exists. Is there any left left in the US? From an outsider perspective, the US political scene seems to consist of right and far-right.
- giantg2 5y ago
  What would you consider left? I don't follow a lot of the smaller proposals, but I believe some of the newer members have some "left" proposals. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be one to google.
- ContrarianBrit 5y ago
  I'm not from the US, but I would consider Biden to be a traditional left-liberal. Unfortunately, moderates like Biden seem terrified of radical progressives!
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    To be fair, I could consider Sanders as a traditional left-liberal.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Sanders is far more left than any government in Europe. His reforms include giving 20% of every public/large company to workers, make 45% of company boards elected by workers, the government will instruct large companies what their long term plans must be and they are legally bound to follow those rather than the owners wishes, companies restructuring their organizations must give even more ownership to the workers who were laid off during the restructure etc. Those things are much more radical than anything you see in Europe, he isn't left-liberal, he is about as far left you can go without being outright communist. Note that I myself support left-wing liberalism very much, I want public healthcare, strong separation between religion and state, free speech etc, that isn't what makes Sanders far left, it is all the other things he also wants to do. Everything I mentioned here is all on his homepage: https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-an...
giantg2 5y ago
The ACLU is only one segment, just as there are various segments in the other side. There are historical examples of liberals supporting restrictions on free speech going back decades (again, only some segments). For example, forced public sector union dues, various speakers being booed or intimidated to not speak, even school curriculum/speech (firearm education and images). Then there are segments that don't support those groups being able to speak, such as the SPLC. So I don't really see much difference from historical examples. There are subgroups in both sides that may take opposing stances. To be fair, the historical versions of any party no longer exist. They evolve, that's what they do.

ContrarianBrit 5y ago

The balance of power has now changed. Liberal positions are favoured by majorities; conservative positions are favoured by minorities.

giantg2 5y ago
Do you mean favored by minorities, or that the conservative position is the minority?
- ContrarianBrit 5y ago
  Sorry should have been clearer; conservative positions now tend to be in the minority.

krapp 5y ago

Cancel culture isn't a pursuit of legalized limits on free speech, it's an expression of free speech. Only conservatives are currently pursuing anything of the sort, by attempting to regulate social media, banning critical race theory, the discussion of gender identity and sexuality, etc.

giantg2 5y ago
"Only" Are they also banning religion/prayer in schools, or firearm education/imagery, etc? After Trump won, I seem to remember a lot of people supporting the idea of managing misinformation on social media. My point is that all sides do it.
- krapp 5y ago
  No one has banned religion or prayer in schools. The Supreme Court ruled that public schools requiring the practice of a specific religion by students was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as public schools are government entities. Granted, the campaign to ban coerced prayer in schools was led by a famous atheist activist, Madeline Murray O'Hair, but it's difficult for me to see the Supreme Court as more leftist than conservative in its decision making. I don't know what "firearm education/imagery" refers to, all I could find was a case of a school banning gun imagery on t-shirts, but nothing about banning firearm education. I'd agree with you that this case seems egregious, but I don't see evidence that leftist ideology in particular is responsible. It's not as if the dress code only banned images of guns on shirts because the school board opposes the Second Amendment. But even conceding that for the sake of argument - it still pales compared to what the right is attempting currently.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Yes, SCOTUS only did away with state sponsored prayer. However, the implementation of that decision tends to go farther. For example, prayer must be done privately, so most overt prayer is banned. Some schools have/tried banning religious items that would be overt, such as rosaries. So it goes farther than simply banning state sponsored prayer and becomes a 1st Ammendment issue if students are being told they can pray, but must not speak it. For the gun topic. Some schools removed firearm education from the curriculum and even as an elective. So it's not an outright ban but a defacto one. Even when there is agreement that safety should be taught, there is a lot of debate about using a program designed by gun control groups or gun rights groups. What we also have seen are students getting in trouble for off-campus, non-threatening, lawful use of firearms. These discaplinary events are very egregious, and the schools has no basis for their actions in these cases. The only assumption that can be made is that the people making those decisions politically oppose that to the point that they are ignorant of the laws and overreact. The issue of gun images is not a second amendment issue, but a first. School dress codes are only allowed to ban general things that would interfere with education. However, guns are usually explicitly called out. Not to mention the display of gun imagery in a manner that doesn't condone violence would not interfere with education. "it still pales compared to what the right is attempting currently." What is that?

seba_dos1 5y ago

> The real story is that the historical left no longer exists. Is there any left left in the US? From an outsider perspective, the US political scene seems to consist of right and far-right.

giantg2 5y ago
What would you consider left? I don't follow a lot of the smaller proposals, but I believe some of the newer members have some "left" proposals. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be one to google.
ContrarianBrit 5y ago
I'm not from the US, but I would consider Biden to be a traditional left-liberal. Unfortunately, moderates like Biden seem terrified of radical progressives!
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  To be fair, I could consider Sanders as a traditional left-liberal.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Sanders is far more left than any government in Europe. His reforms include giving 20% of every public/large company to workers, make 45% of company boards elected by workers, the government will instruct large companies what their long term plans must be and they are legally bound to follow those rather than the owners wishes, companies restructuring their organizations must give even more ownership to the workers who were laid off during the restructure etc. Those things are much more radical than anything you see in Europe, he isn't left-liberal, he is about as far left you can go without being outright communist. Note that I myself support left-wing liberalism very much, I want public healthcare, strong separation between religion and state, free speech etc, that isn't what makes Sanders far left, it is all the other things he also wants to do. Everything I mentioned here is all on his homepage: https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-an...

giantg2 5y ago

The ACLU is only one segment, just as there are various segments in the other side. There are historical examples of liberals supporting restrictions on free speech going back decades (again, only some segments). For example, forced public sector union dues, various speakers being booed or intimidated to not speak, even school curriculum/speech (firearm education and images). Then there are segments that don't support those groups being able to speak, such as the SPLC. So I don't really see much difference from historical examples. There are subgroups in both sides that may take opposing stances. To be fair, the historical versions of any party no longer exist. They evolve, that's what they do.