The right isn't getting people fired or stepping on free speech, you say?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Aetrion:
The thing to keep in mind is that the people who are most against censorship from the left are the exact same people that spent the Bush years fighting religious policy making from the right. They haven't actually shifted their position at all, it's just that the left has gone so far to the extreme that they now call those people right wingers, and thereby try to lump them in with the right wing authoritarians they are actually also against.

There is a reason why a lot of people who used to take the piss out of creationists are now ranting about SJWs, because they are against dogmatic brainwashing no matter who does it.

Exactly. I hated when the right did it. I hate when my fellow lefties do it now. Me disliking their tactics somehow makes ignorant people label me as right wing. Their ignorant labels have no bearing on the truth of the matter. A shame that such horrible tactics and witchhunts are being perpetuated by people who were ostensibly my political allies.

The person that famously decreed "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" is an elitist eugenicist and a terrible human being with no true ethical core. He used poorly parsed and understood utilitarianism to justify his terrible tactics. A lot of sadists and sociopaths use utilitarianism to explain why them being terrible people to opponents is somehow ok.
The abuse and misunderstanding of utilitarianism from some of the "intellectuals" here would make my old philosophy professors very sad or very indignant. When you see a 4 paragraph justification for bad tactics (as happens often by some people here who incidentally like to portray their opponents as intellectually less than) it almost always goes down to some utilitarian justification for why being snarky, abusive, underhanded, and terrible is a ok because its done buy the left and therefore its ok. Those bad tactics make you a bad person no matter which side you employ them for.

Right wingers getting people fired are as bad as left wingers getting people fired.
Terrible tactics aren't ok because you think you are employing them for a good cause.

Adam Jensen:
The right has always been about authoritarianism. How much depends on how far to the right they are. Their rhetoric about the left stepping on free speech is just a projection. They don't give a shit about free speech. Never have and never will. It's not in their nature. Right-wing attracts a certain element of society that is simply not interested in equality and liberty. They want the right to free hate speech and the right to discriminate. They want to have more rights than others who they deem to be inferior in some way. That's what freedom means to them. And if they can't have that, they feel oppressed.

Actually the rhetoric about the left stepping on free speech is still true. There are plenty of people on both the right and left that take punitive actions to chill speech they dislike. Saying it is merely rhetoric ignores the reality of the situation.

Left or right, people that try and get other people fired for saying mean things online or holding out of work views they dislike are bad people unless the people fired indicate their political biases cause them to treat some people differently at work like some biased psychologist who treats those that dislike immigrants as having a a disorder and recommending them for further tests or a teacher who gives a gay kid worse grades because of their orientation) at work in which case they are unprofessional and then firing isn't bad). Getting people fired for mean ro offensive words outside of work is horrible and heartless and only sadists and sociopaths advocate retaliatory firings. It saddens me that some here fall into that category and snarkily defend their sadism and sociopathy with utilitarian justification for why being a terrible person to others is ok because the people they are advocating being horrible to fail to conform tot heir views.

The people that wanted to cancel colbert on both sides were hypocrites for the most part.

Right wingers getting people fired are as bad as left wingers getting people fired.
Terrible tactics aren't ok because you think you are employing them for a good cause.

Terrible people tend to cling to utilitarianism to justify their horrible actions. It doesn't make them any less terrible.

Members of either side that try and get people fired for wrongspeak or wrongthink are just shitty people.

Namehere:

Your statement was about occupying the middle of the political spectrum, it had no qualifiers and it deemed it somehow wrong.

I'm going to have to stop you right there. I did not say that, and nor do I believe it. If I have to spend half of every post correcting misrepresentations of what I've said, it's going to get very tiresome.

Namehere:

My statement was that extreme shifts politically are bad - universally. Because they are. If they aren't, feel free to demonstrate where extreme shifts proved beneficial and successful. Otherwise I don't know why your still replying. And your right, it does generalise all societies. If you can't find an example of a time when extreme shifts worked, then there's a good chance there isn't one.

Giving the vote to people five hundred years ago and dismantling their government/social structures - which is what it would call for - would lead to chaos. The world we know would not exist and liberalism and likely democracy would both have died a crib death. Giving the vote to North Koreans would result in an election of their current dictator or absolute madness. After all, whose running? These things demand deep consideration that they seldom receive. Who ran for office in Afghanistan's elections? Warlords. The ECC stopped the smallest but didn't have the power to stop the biggest of them. That's just 1 problem in 1 circumstance.

You realise, of course, that when the vote was given, that was a radical change. When the tyrannical monarchies fell, that was a radical change. All revolutions-- including the bloodless ones--
were radical. The civil rights acts were radical changes. Those who marched for women's suffrage were radical by the considerations of their time. Gay rights activists in oppressive countries might be considered "radical"-- and that's because it is the status quo in those countries which is unacceptable and wrong.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here