4 ms·

Wouldn’t „more freedom of expression“ imply less conservative? Or what aspects of conservatism, and what aspects of freedom of expression, are you referring to

Wouldn’t „more freedom of expression“ imply less conservative? Or what aspects of conservatism, and what aspects of freedom of expression, are you referring to here?

imdsm 2mo ago
Not if your tradition is to have freedom. Then to be a conservative means to conserve freedom. Think about the UK & US. The conservatives don't want to change what it means to be American/British, but the far left want to change it all. They want to change: ownership, innovation, free market, property, freedom of speech/expression, freedom of thought/opinion, employment, government, you name it. Conservatives = resist change Progressive = encourage change and change goes both ways -/+ right? We know this. In Poland, they want to have a place to call home that feels European, feels Western. In the UK if you say that, straight-to-jail.gif or less flippantly, threatened and shunned by either people who don't want you to have an opinion or people afraid of them. It's a sorry state of affairs.
- ManuelKiessling 2mo ago
  But why the did Poland introduce a de-facto abortion ban in early 2021, with terminations only permitted in cases of rape, incest or if there is a threat to the mother's health or life? And abortions due to fetal abnormalities are no longer permitted in Poland. Isn’t that at odds with „conserve freedom“?
  - ImJamal 2mo ago
    If you believe a fetus is a human then banning abortion is conserving freedom of the fetus. This is no different than saying banning murder of a person who is born is a way of conserving freedom. Obviously you disagree that a fetus is human or has human rights, but for somebody who does it makes perfect sense.
    - hdgvhicv 2mo ago
      So they’re happy to remove the rights of the woman carrying the fetus I assume that continues when the baby is born and people have to sacrifice their rights to feed the baby. Not in as extreme a way as bodily servitude, perhaps just taxation of the work they do to provide food, shelter, healthcare.
      - ImJamal 2mo ago
        I am not really sure what you are getting at. I can't imagine you don't understand that some people think that a fetus, being a creature that is alive and has human DNA is considered a human. You may disagree with such an opinion but it is held by huge amounts of the population. Once you understand that you should be able to understand that some people would continue along the logical conclusion that all humans should have equal rights including the right to not be killed. Protecting humans from being killed is protecting rights of individuals, not removing the rights of the would be murderer. There is a clear way you can say banning abortion in about protecting rights. It is fine if you disagree, but I don't think there is any point in this conversation since you cannot even understand where people are coming from and just assume the worst in others.
        hdgvhicv 2mo ago
        Right. So the same people protect people from being killed by providing them with healthcare, food and shelter? After all to do that doesn’t require involuntary servitude to carry a fetus for 9 months
        ImJamal 2mo ago
        The Polish government provides that for its citizens along with foreigners. https://www.gov.pl/web/family/social-assistance-principles https://www.gov.pl/web/family/social-assistance-principles The Catholic Church also provides additional services that includes food, healthcare and shelter. https://caritas.pl/ https://caritas.pl/ So yes, it seems like the people who support abortion bans do provide them with healthcare, food and shelter.
newsclues 2mo ago
No, think of the US founders who were freedom of speech champions.
- hackernud3s 2mo ago
  Yet conservative in sense that they... declared independence? I'm trying to follow the second half of that logic train.
- shimman 2mo ago
  When first put to a vote, every single constitution delegate all originally voted against the bill of rights and John Adams didn't want to include a bill of rights at all (nor did he want to write one, Patrick Henry scared the hell out of him into including it). It wasn't until the threat of a commoner revolt (Shays' Rebellion aftermath (where private bankers hired a militia to kill American farmers, who were getting foreclosed on)). Please remember that the US constitution is a slaver's document written to enable minority rule of slaver states at the expense of everyone else hence why it took nearly 80 years for the first republic to utterly fail and make way for the better second founding.
- rsynnott 2mo ago
  Ah, yes, when I think 'conservative', I think... revolutionaries?
Dig1t 2mo ago
Many examples of “liberal” governments being extremely illiberal WRT freedom of expression. More people are locked up in the UK for speech than in many more conservative countries. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
wowczarek 2mo ago
More conservative if you understand how the term is used. In my experience and observing Poland today, "freedom of expression" is the term favoured by the right wing, denoting that it is OK to spew racist / nationalist nonsense somewhere because a) "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" and b) a lot of the public is sadly quite accepting of it. This is what I typically see when people mention Poland and freedom of expression. Because if people call out hatred for what it is, it's censorship.
lelanthran 2mo ago
> Wouldn’t „more freedom of expression“ imply less conservative? Depends on the status quo, I suppose.
rsynnott 2mo ago
Yeah, they may be defining 'freedom of expression'... interestingly. For instance, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-free_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-free_zone - such freedom of expression!

Wouldn’t „more freedom of expression“ imply less conservative? Or what aspects of conservatism, and what aspects of freedom of expression, are you referring to here?

imdsm 2mo ago

Not if your tradition is to have freedom. Then to be a conservative means to conserve freedom. Think about the UK & US. The conservatives don't want to change what it means to be American/British, but the far left want to change it all. They want to change: ownership, innovation, free market, property, freedom of speech/expression, freedom of thought/opinion, employment, government, you name it. Conservatives = resist change Progressive = encourage change and change goes both ways -/+ right? We know this. In Poland, they want to have a place to call home that feels European, feels Western. In the UK if you say that, straight-to-jail.gif or less flippantly, threatened and shunned by either people who don't want you to have an opinion or people afraid of them. It's a sorry state of affairs.

ManuelKiessling 2mo ago
But why the did Poland introduce a de-facto abortion ban in early 2021, with terminations only permitted in cases of rape, incest or if there is a threat to the mother's health or life? And abortions due to fetal abnormalities are no longer permitted in Poland. Isn’t that at odds with „conserve freedom“?
- ImJamal 2mo ago
  If you believe a fetus is a human then banning abortion is conserving freedom of the fetus. This is no different than saying banning murder of a person who is born is a way of conserving freedom. Obviously you disagree that a fetus is human or has human rights, but for somebody who does it makes perfect sense.
  - hdgvhicv 2mo ago
    So they’re happy to remove the rights of the woman carrying the fetus I assume that continues when the baby is born and people have to sacrifice their rights to feed the baby. Not in as extreme a way as bodily servitude, perhaps just taxation of the work they do to provide food, shelter, healthcare.
    - ImJamal 2mo ago
      I am not really sure what you are getting at. I can't imagine you don't understand that some people think that a fetus, being a creature that is alive and has human DNA is considered a human. You may disagree with such an opinion but it is held by huge amounts of the population. Once you understand that you should be able to understand that some people would continue along the logical conclusion that all humans should have equal rights including the right to not be killed. Protecting humans from being killed is protecting rights of individuals, not removing the rights of the would be murderer. There is a clear way you can say banning abortion in about protecting rights. It is fine if you disagree, but I don't think there is any point in this conversation since you cannot even understand where people are coming from and just assume the worst in others.
      - hdgvhicv 2mo ago
        Right. So the same people protect people from being killed by providing them with healthcare, food and shelter? After all to do that doesn’t require involuntary servitude to carry a fetus for 9 months
        ImJamal 2mo ago
        The Polish government provides that for its citizens along with foreigners. https://www.gov.pl/web/family/social-assistance-principles https://www.gov.pl/web/family/social-assistance-principles The Catholic Church also provides additional services that includes food, healthcare and shelter. https://caritas.pl/ https://caritas.pl/ So yes, it seems like the people who support abortion bans do provide them with healthcare, food and shelter.

newsclues 2mo ago

No, think of the US founders who were freedom of speech champions.

hackernud3s 2mo ago
Yet conservative in sense that they... declared independence? I'm trying to follow the second half of that logic train.
shimman 2mo ago
When first put to a vote, every single constitution delegate all originally voted against the bill of rights and John Adams didn't want to include a bill of rights at all (nor did he want to write one, Patrick Henry scared the hell out of him into including it). It wasn't until the threat of a commoner revolt (Shays' Rebellion aftermath (where private bankers hired a militia to kill American farmers, who were getting foreclosed on)). Please remember that the US constitution is a slaver's document written to enable minority rule of slaver states at the expense of everyone else hence why it took nearly 80 years for the first republic to utterly fail and make way for the better second founding.
rsynnott 2mo ago
Ah, yes, when I think 'conservative', I think... revolutionaries?

Dig1t 2mo ago

Many examples of “liberal” governments being extremely illiberal WRT freedom of expression. More people are locked up in the UK for speech than in many more conservative countries. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...

wowczarek 2mo ago

More conservative if you understand how the term is used. In my experience and observing Poland today, "freedom of expression" is the term favoured by the right wing, denoting that it is OK to spew racist / nationalist nonsense somewhere because a) "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" and b) a lot of the public is sadly quite accepting of it. This is what I typically see when people mention Poland and freedom of expression. Because if people call out hatred for what it is, it's censorship.

lelanthran 2mo ago

> Wouldn’t „more freedom of expression“ imply less conservative? Depends on the status quo, I suppose.

rsynnott 2mo ago

Yeah, they may be defining 'freedom of expression'... interestingly. For instance, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-free_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-free_zone - such freedom of expression!