7 ms·

I thought Republicans were for small government and were anti-censorship.

by tjpnz 8mo ago

dsabanin 8mo ago
Turned out they just were the selfish assholes everyone always said they were, with everything they say just being poor attempts at rationalization of their deep lack of morals, including their self-serving primitive religion.
kayodelycaon 8mo ago
They were also supposed to be for state’s rights. My entire life it’s been about nothing more than domination of the “immoral” and the end justifies any means when the alternative is someone else winning the vote. They are the people the phrase “there is no hate like Christian love” is referring to.
__s 8mo ago
That'd be the Libertarian Party
JCattheATM 8mo ago
No, that's just the nonsense they say to hide their bigotry/fascism focused goals.
- co_king_4 8mo ago
  [flagged]
Braxton1980 8mo ago
This is why the both sides argument is frustrating to hear. Yes. Both sides censor people. I'm sure we'll see a comment about Biden censoring anti covid vaccine posts and the poster is somewhat right. The difference is the Republicans run on freedom of speech making them hypocrites. Being a hypocrite is the worst attribute a politician can have in a representative democracy
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- wredcoll 8mo ago
  I'm not sure it's the worst attribute you can have, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. As I've gotten older, I've become less fond of slippery slope style arguments. People love making them for censorship-related rules and laws. "Oh if <biden> is allowed to ask/tell social media to stop publishing so many lies about covid then that means trump will be able to <whatever>" First of all, trump and his ilk are probably going to do <whatever> regardless of what people did in the past and the technical legality of the actions seems to be of only minor concern. Secondly, I hate this idea that laws and rules can't have nuances. We can, with our collective brain power, probably come up with a law that helps reduce covid lies and doesn't also apply to government criticism or whatever. I get the appeal of a simple "all speech is free! No laws about speech allowed!" But fairly obviously you're going to have laws about fraud/threats/slander/"porn" at which point we're back to nuances and deciding which bits we allow and where. As for modern republicans, I'm not old enough to have ever believed their states rights/small gov/freedom lies, but I thought I could at least count on them to be anti-russia invading other countries.
fanatic2pope 8mo ago
I mean obviously they never were. I think what really surprised people is that it turns out that despite it's supposed "libertarian" roots, the tech community has largely broken hard right authoritarian when the rubber hits the road. Kind of reinforcing the old adage that libertarians are just republicans who want to legally smoke weed.
- like_any_other 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - OKRainbowKid 8mo ago
    That was almost 7 years ago, the world was in a very different place back then.
    - like_any_other 8mo ago
      Those policies are still in place, as far as I know, so why the past tense?
  - 1986 8mo ago
    It's not 2019 any more.
jalapenoj 8mo ago
[dead]
somenameforme 8mo ago
[flagged]
- oceansky 8mo ago
  They are both fully legal.
  - somenameforme 8mo ago
    That's, at the minimum, debatable. The primary point of people reporting on the location if ICE agents is to enable other people to evade or interfere with law enforcement. And that walks right into the illegal zone in various ways - accessory, obstruction, interference, aiding and abetting, and so on.
    - oceansky 8mo ago
      Pointing out police checkpoints aren't illegal. Waze is partially based on that.
    - adgjlsfhk1 8mo ago
      It really isn't debatable. You aren't responsible for what other people do with information you give them. If someone told you "I'm going to commit a crime, tell me if the police are nearby" it would be probably illegal to tell them (as furtherance to a conspiracy), but without an agreement to help commit an illegal act it's totally legal
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        No agreement is necessary under law, only knowledge of an illegal activity and an intent to help it succeed. Agreements just tack on new charges like criminal conspiracy. This is why the peer comment about Waze is interesting. They likely have a fairly strong argument that it's simply sharing publicly available information - which is of course 100% legal, while I think ICEBlock will likely lose a very open and shut case because it's entire purpose is to facilitate the evasion or disruption of law enforcement. I expect the government is probably thrilled to get sued by ICEBlock precisely because of this. It's probably about as favorable a case as they could ever find, and ICEBlock losing will set a highly useful (from the government's perspective) legal precedent which will then probably be weaponized to go after stuff like Waze.
croes 8mo ago
Remember, it’s only censorship if they block what I want to say, if the block what I don’t like it’s for the greater good
HighGoldstein 8mo ago
> I thought Republicans were for small government and were anti-censorship. They are against very specific parts of big government and censorship
gruez 8mo ago
It's not hard to find similar dunks for the other side, eg. "I thought Democrats were for bodily autonomy" (with regards to vaccine mandates/passports) or "I thought liberals were for free speech" (with regards to cancel culture).
- malfist 8mo ago
  Free speech absolutely does not mean free from consequences speech.
  - gruez 8mo ago
    I don't think you realize it, but your retort could be easily applied to the story in the OP just as easily as it could be applied to cancel culture. The point isn't whether either side is "right" or not, but that both side's positions shouldn't be distilled down to 1 liner dunks like the original commenter was engaging in.
    - yoyohello13 8mo ago
      The difference is “cancel culture” is not official policy of the state.
    - plagiarist 8mo ago
      No. The First Amendment does not protect from consequences between non-government entities. A government agency attempting to track down people when it disagrees with their speech is explicitly what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Hope that helps.
- p_j_w 8mo ago
  >"I thought Democrats were for bodily autonomy" (with regards to vaccine mandates/passports) The liberal position on bodily autonomy (and indeed most things) has never been absolute. If an action is likely to cause harm to others (and forgoing a vaccine in the midst of a deadly pandemic is indeed likely to cause harm to others), then reasonable action to curtail the harm is justified. As recently as the 2010s, both parties supported vaccine mandates. I remember conservatives making fun of the antivax movement as liberal lunacy as recently as 2019. >"I thought liberals were for free speech" (with regards to cancel culture). Cancel culture is itself a form of free expression and association.
SmirkingRevenge 8mo ago
They're for small government and anti-censorship in the same way they are for "secure elections". An election is secure when they win. It's fraudulent when they lose. Republicans today are far-right extremists straight out of an authoritarian regime, operating within the friend-enemy mode of politics ("everything for my friends, the law for my enemies"). And the project is to preserve this hierarchy with themselves at the top. https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/your-comprehensive-guide-to-the-far-27f https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/your-comprehensive-guide-to-... > The far right is animated by the revolutionary project of reconfiguring society along the exclusionary or hierarchical lines patterned after a “divine” or “natural” order. Far-right figures envision societies organized through hierarchies—whether racial, ethnic, religious, or ideological. They aspire to deploy state power to defend the “true people” (sometimes called the Volk), who often already occupy the top rungs of society, from a constellation of perceived enemies or from relative or outright disempowerment. The far-right ideal is a homogeneous society, and that ideal is diametrically opposed to a liberal, pluralistic order. The far right believes that liberal pluralism represents a dangerous and unprecedented upheaval of the natural order. The far right blames most or all social problems on that upheaval—that is, on liberalism. Instead of seeing social order as emerging from the interactions of many diverse persons and groups cooperating in a polycentric system, the far right believes a homogeneous order must be imposed—and imposed in a holistic fashion, incorporating all forms of social interaction, from the structure of the nation-state to the most intimate relationships in the home. > The far right’s commitment to freedom extends only to the “true people,” whose values align with far-right goals. This is an exclusionary conception of freedom, entirely contraposed to a neutral rule of law. Generally for the far right, discussion and deliberation are denigrated in favor of authoritarianism and “decisive action,” although the far right will also frequently invoke values like “freedom of speech” to exert pressure on discourse communities to welcome its ideas and rhetoric (see Why do far-right groups often talk about “freedom”?).
balls187 8mo ago
Republicans and Democrats. Both in the Epstein Files.

I thought Republicans were for small government and were anti-censorship.

by tjpnz 8mo ago

I thought Republicans were for small government and were anti-censorship.

Turned out they just were the selfish assholes everyone always said they were, with everything they say just being poor attempts at rationalization of their deep lack of morals, including their self-serving primitive religion.

kayodelycaon 8mo ago

They were also supposed to be for state’s rights. My entire life it’s been about nothing more than domination of the “immoral” and the end justifies any means when the alternative is someone else winning the vote. They are the people the phrase “there is no hate like Christian love” is referring to.

__s 8mo ago

That'd be the Libertarian Party

JCattheATM 8mo ago

No, that's just the nonsense they say to hide their bigotry/fascism focused goals.

co_king_4 8mo ago
[flagged]

Braxton1980 8mo ago

This is why the both sides argument is frustrating to hear. Yes. Both sides censor people. I'm sure we'll see a comment about Biden censoring anti covid vaccine posts and the poster is somewhat right. The difference is the Republicans run on freedom of speech making them hypocrites. Being a hypocrite is the worst attribute a politician can have in a representative democracy

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
wredcoll 8mo ago
I'm not sure it's the worst attribute you can have, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. As I've gotten older, I've become less fond of slippery slope style arguments. People love making them for censorship-related rules and laws. "Oh if <biden> is allowed to ask/tell social media to stop publishing so many lies about covid then that means trump will be able to <whatever>" First of all, trump and his ilk are probably going to do <whatever> regardless of what people did in the past and the technical legality of the actions seems to be of only minor concern. Secondly, I hate this idea that laws and rules can't have nuances. We can, with our collective brain power, probably come up with a law that helps reduce covid lies and doesn't also apply to government criticism or whatever. I get the appeal of a simple "all speech is free! No laws about speech allowed!" But fairly obviously you're going to have laws about fraud/threats/slander/"porn" at which point we're back to nuances and deciding which bits we allow and where. As for modern republicans, I'm not old enough to have ever believed their states rights/small gov/freedom lies, but I thought I could at least count on them to be anti-russia invading other countries.

fanatic2pope 8mo ago

I mean obviously they never were. I think what really surprised people is that it turns out that despite it's supposed "libertarian" roots, the tech community has largely broken hard right authoritarian when the rubber hits the road. Kind of reinforcing the old adage that libertarians are just republicans who want to legally smoke weed.

like_any_other 8mo ago
[flagged]
- OKRainbowKid 8mo ago
  That was almost 7 years ago, the world was in a very different place back then.
  - like_any_other 8mo ago
    Those policies are still in place, as far as I know, so why the past tense?
- 1986 8mo ago
  It's not 2019 any more.

jalapenoj 8mo ago

[dead]

somenameforme 8mo ago

[flagged]

oceansky 8mo ago
They are both fully legal.
- somenameforme 8mo ago
  That's, at the minimum, debatable. The primary point of people reporting on the location if ICE agents is to enable other people to evade or interfere with law enforcement. And that walks right into the illegal zone in various ways - accessory, obstruction, interference, aiding and abetting, and so on.
  - oceansky 8mo ago
    Pointing out police checkpoints aren't illegal. Waze is partially based on that.
  - adgjlsfhk1 8mo ago
    It really isn't debatable. You aren't responsible for what other people do with information you give them. If someone told you "I'm going to commit a crime, tell me if the police are nearby" it would be probably illegal to tell them (as furtherance to a conspiracy), but without an agreement to help commit an illegal act it's totally legal
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      No agreement is necessary under law, only knowledge of an illegal activity and an intent to help it succeed. Agreements just tack on new charges like criminal conspiracy. This is why the peer comment about Waze is interesting. They likely have a fairly strong argument that it's simply sharing publicly available information - which is of course 100% legal, while I think ICEBlock will likely lose a very open and shut case because it's entire purpose is to facilitate the evasion or disruption of law enforcement. I expect the government is probably thrilled to get sued by ICEBlock precisely because of this. It's probably about as favorable a case as they could ever find, and ICEBlock losing will set a highly useful (from the government's perspective) legal precedent which will then probably be weaponized to go after stuff like Waze.

croes 8mo ago

Remember, it’s only censorship if they block what I want to say, if the block what I don’t like it’s for the greater good

HighGoldstein 8mo ago

> I thought Republicans were for small government and were anti-censorship. They are against very specific parts of big government and censorship

gruez 8mo ago

It's not hard to find similar dunks for the other side, eg. "I thought Democrats were for bodily autonomy" (with regards to vaccine mandates/passports) or "I thought liberals were for free speech" (with regards to cancel culture).

malfist 8mo ago
Free speech absolutely does not mean free from consequences speech.
- gruez 8mo ago
  I don't think you realize it, but your retort could be easily applied to the story in the OP just as easily as it could be applied to cancel culture. The point isn't whether either side is "right" or not, but that both side's positions shouldn't be distilled down to 1 liner dunks like the original commenter was engaging in.
  - yoyohello13 8mo ago
    The difference is “cancel culture” is not official policy of the state.
  - plagiarist 8mo ago
    No. The First Amendment does not protect from consequences between non-government entities. A government agency attempting to track down people when it disagrees with their speech is explicitly what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Hope that helps.
p_j_w 8mo ago
>"I thought Democrats were for bodily autonomy" (with regards to vaccine mandates/passports) The liberal position on bodily autonomy (and indeed most things) has never been absolute. If an action is likely to cause harm to others (and forgoing a vaccine in the midst of a deadly pandemic is indeed likely to cause harm to others), then reasonable action to curtail the harm is justified. As recently as the 2010s, both parties supported vaccine mandates. I remember conservatives making fun of the antivax movement as liberal lunacy as recently as 2019. >"I thought liberals were for free speech" (with regards to cancel culture). Cancel culture is itself a form of free expression and association.

SmirkingRevenge 8mo ago

They're for small government and anti-censorship in the same way they are for "secure elections". An election is secure when they win. It's fraudulent when they lose. Republicans today are far-right extremists straight out of an authoritarian regime, operating within the friend-enemy mode of politics ("everything for my friends, the law for my enemies"). And the project is to preserve this hierarchy with themselves at the top. https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/your-comprehensive-guide-to-the-far-27f https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/your-comprehensive-guide-to-... > The far right is animated by the revolutionary project of reconfiguring society along the exclusionary or hierarchical lines patterned after a “divine” or “natural” order. Far-right figures envision societies organized through hierarchies—whether racial, ethnic, religious, or ideological. They aspire to deploy state power to defend the “true people” (sometimes called the Volk), who often already occupy the top rungs of society, from a constellation of perceived enemies or from relative or outright disempowerment. The far-right ideal is a homogeneous society, and that ideal is diametrically opposed to a liberal, pluralistic order. The far right believes that liberal pluralism represents a dangerous and unprecedented upheaval of the natural order. The far right blames most or all social problems on that upheaval—that is, on liberalism. Instead of seeing social order as emerging from the interactions of many diverse persons and groups cooperating in a polycentric system, the far right believes a homogeneous order must be imposed—and imposed in a holistic fashion, incorporating all forms of social interaction, from the structure of the nation-state to the most intimate relationships in the home. > The far right’s commitment to freedom extends only to the “true people,” whose values align with far-right goals. This is an exclusionary conception of freedom, entirely contraposed to a neutral rule of law. Generally for the far right, discussion and deliberation are denigrated in favor of authoritarianism and “decisive action,” although the far right will also frequently invoke values like “freedom of speech” to exert pressure on discourse communities to welcome its ideas and rhetoric (see Why do far-right groups often talk about “freedom”?).

balls187 8mo ago

Republicans and Democrats. Both in the Epstein Files.