Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Freedom of speech

Recommended Posts

This is a topic I've given some thought to of late, as we see more and more examples of it being under attack from the forces of the Left. This topic flows from a conversation on another topic, which went well off topic. Rather than continue it there, I thought I'd start afresh.

It seems to me that much of the Left has established that its message is of such nobility and virtue, that anyone who disagrees is self-identifying as an opponent of nobility and virtue. This is no mere disagreement, but the belief that anyone who disagrees is a 'bad' person, not misguided, not mistaken, but actually immoral. We saw this as far back as when Mike Harris was premier of Ontario and the progressives would shout that he hated the poor. Not poverty, but hated poor people.

Things have gotten worse since then. Not only are you a heartless and cruel person if you want to cut back on government spending, you're a warmonger if you want a well-funded defense, a racist if you don't like immigration, or aren't impressed by the legions of the native rights industry, or by Muslim apologists (actually if you're white you're racist) don't believe in womens rights if you have any quibbles on abortion, and a misogynist if you don't think women should be appointed to jobs simply because they're women

By establishing that their enemy is immoral, the Left removes any need of intelligent debate or discussion (which they are, for the most part, incapable of anyway), because the matter under contention now simply becomes one of good vs evil, and they, of course, are good.

You see this in the behaviour of the Left here and on other web sites. In person you see it in the angry, self-righteous determination to stop others from speaking, or from demonstrating, or from doing anything that the Left doesn't like.

The most popular chants one sees when leftists set out to stop someone from speaking are ones which, oddly, seem incredibly fascist. For example “Whose streets? OUR streets!” and “Nazi scum, off our streets!” and “Racists, fascists off our streets!”

When you think about it, you get the reasoning. This is THEIR world, and no one else is allowed to demonstrate or speak or have opinions which go contrary to theirs. If they do, they're evil, which means, they're racists and fascists (terms most on the Left don't even understand except they mean 'bad'.)The irony of them wearing masks and chanting at the Jewish Defense League, for example, and calling them fascists, seems to have escaped them.

 

 

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Argus said:

By establishing that their enemy is immoral, the Left removes any need of intelligent debate or discussion (which they are, for the most part, incapable of anyway)

Perhaps it's this, and other assumptions that cause you to be missing out on intelligent debate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

......I think you got the 's' in the wrong spot......it's 'peaches'.  Although I feel like I'm free to enjoy nectarines if I want.

Sue me. Its a lazy Sunday morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sue me. Its a lazy Sunday morning.

 

Pretty much underlines your OP....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Pretty much underlines your OP....

Would you care to expand on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Argus said:

Would you care to expand on that?

 

The spelling of preaches is more important to these folks than the argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about the Left is their disdain for our values and beliefs. I was reading Bloomberg this morn and there was another of those columns about the divisions in America - which exist here too. Anyway, it talked about the lousy messages that are taking hold, including Trumps, but then said the Left was no better.

The competing left-wing story, against which many Trump voters reacted, isn’t much better. It portrays the American story as nothing more than a series of injustices in which every seeming accomplishment hides some terrible wrong and the country’s very existence is a crime against humanity. What begins as a valid historical corrective, like Landrieu’s speech, evolves into a corrosive nihilism. A culture cannot long survive self-hatred.

I thought that this was so accurate when it came to the Left in Canada. Everything about our history is a search to condemn the attitudes and beliefs and values of our ancestors and what they did from the moment they set foot here. You know, if you go to the Canadian Museum of History, which is one of our national museums in the national capital, you'll see precious little about Canada. 90% of the permanent display space is on natives. That's because there's nothing about Canada's history and accomplishments the Left doesn't find worthy of condemnation.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

This is no mere disagreement, but the belief that anyone who disagrees is a 'bad' person, not misguided, not mistaken, but actually immoral. We saw this as far back as when Mike Harris was premier of Ontario and the progressives would shout that he hated the poor. Not poverty, but hated poor people.

...well, if you're concerned that the poor can't afford food or a place to live, and Mike Harris's policy is to cut support for poor people further, then maybe "he hates poor people" is a reasonable conclusion?

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Things have gotten worse since then. Not only are you a heartless and cruel person if you want to cut back on government spending, you're a warmonger if you want a well-funded defense, a racist if you don't like immigration, or aren't impressed by the legions of the native rights industry, or by Muslim apologists (actually if you're white you're racist) don't believe in womens rights if you have any quibbles on abortion, and a misogynist if you don't think women should be appointed to jobs simply because they're women

Sure.  There's lots of that.  There's lots of simplistic thinking on the other side too.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

By establishing that their enemy is immoral, the Left removes any need of intelligent debate or discussion (which they are, for the most part, incapable of anyway), because the matter under contention now simply becomes one of good vs evil, and they, of course, are good.

Whereas social-conservatives are nuanced thinkers with broad understanding of the underlying issues and an open-minded approach to finding evidence-based solutions to multifaceted problems, right?

 -k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

You see this in the behaviour of the Left here and on other web sites. In person you see it in the angry, self-righteous determination to stop others from speaking, or from demonstrating, or from doing anything that the Left doesn't like.

Right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described "Dangerous Faggot", had this schtick where he'd go around to college campuses on a speaking tour full of material that was offensive to just about everybody, and provoke a furious reaction from many different groups, and then point to the resulting furor as proof that "the left" was afraid of discussing ideas they didn't like.

Which is fine.  It might have been more compelling if he had gone around with some message that actually merited a real discussion, but his point was mostly just that the left would try to shut him down and he was right.

So whatever happened to ol' Milo?

Well, just before he was schedule to launch his book and speak at the Conservative Political Action Committee, a conservative blogger went through some of Milo's old podcasts and found one where Milo talked about how a sexual encounter with an older man, while he was a teenager, was an important event in his life in helping him come to terms with his own sexual orientation.  And the blogger posted this with the spin that Milo was saying that it was positive for grown men to have sex with teenage boys. And Milo got dropped from CPAC and his book got cancelled and he got fired from Breitpravda.

So here's a guy who made his career by provoking furious reactions from "the left" and laughing at them because they can't deal with ideas they aren't comfortable with... and he's tries to talk with nuance about a personal experience, and his career gets ended because "the right" can't deal with ideas they aren't comfortable with either. I think there's some amount of irony in that.

 -k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kimmy said:

...well, if you're concerned that the poor can't afford food or a place to live, and Mike Harris's policy is to cut support for poor people further, then maybe "he hates poor people" is a reasonable conclusion?

No, it's not! Look, the Left and Right both dislike poverty. The Left feels that if you take a lot of money from working people and give it to the poor, that will help them and make you feel good. The problem is, as any human behaviourist will tell you, the more you give people to do something the more people will do that thing. When Mike Harris was addressing 'support for the poor' 10% of the population of the province was on welfare. Not counting natives.  That cost a lot! Which means you have to tax a lot! Which does what? It slows the economy and produces - ta da - more poverty!

Quote

Whereas social-conservatives are nuanced thinkers with broad understanding of the underlying issues and an open-minded approach to finding evidence-based solutions to multifaceted problems, right?

No, but we're not talking about nuanced thinking so much as behaviour. You won't see social conservatives out screaming insults and trying to shut down some extremely liberal speaker or a gathering of liberals. Yet absolutely guaranteed, if there's a meeting of people who want to condemn M-103, or Abortion, if there's a trade show for the defense association, if there's any high ranking member of the US administration coming for whatever reason, hordes of progressives will be out in the street, marching and trying to shut things down. True or false. If Ivanka Trump showed up in Vancouver or Toronto to open a store there'd be riots in the streets.

On the other hand, none of those people would bother to come out to protest if Vladimir Putin showed up, or Turkey's Erdogen, or China's president either. Because they don't hate those people, regardless of how many they murder. Now I've made my own opinion of Trump fairly clear, but the truth is Trump has yet to actually do much of anything. These people have murdered or been responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands. Where is the outrage?

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kimmy said:

So here's a guy who made his career by provoking furious reactions from "the left" and laughing at them because they can't deal with ideas they aren't comfortable with... and he's tries to talk with nuance about a personal experience, and his career gets ended because "the right" can't deal with ideas they aren't comfortable with either. I think there's some amount of irony in that.

The very notion of sex with underagers is, today, absolutely toxic and cannot be discussed in public except for the purposes of condemning it. I've spoken about this before. Remember Tom Flanagan? He is a conservative commentator, very in-tight with Canada's conservative politicians, and on all the TV panel shows until he made the mistake of suggesting, while he had no sympathy for child molesters he had 'grave doubts about putting people in prison because they viewed some pictures'. It pretty much wrecked his career. He was dropped from the panels, and his own university forcibly retired him. He was persona non grata everywhere - among both left and right. So I'm not surprised that this guy talking about what a great thing it was for him as a 13 year old boy to have sex with an adult men and that maybe some of 13 year olds are mature enough to make their own decisions would cause a similar reaction. He didn't actually call for lowering the age of consent, but people don't believe in nuance on this subject - from either side of the political spectrum.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, it's not! Look, the Left and Right both dislike poverty. The Left feels that if you take a lot of money from working people and give it to the poor, that will help them and make you feel good. The problem is, as any human behaviourist will tell you, the more you give people to do something the more people will do that thing. When Mike Harris was addressing 'support for the poor' 10% of the population of the province was on welfare. Not counting natives.  That cost a lot! Which means you have to tax a lot! Which does what? It slows the economy and produces - ta da - more poverty!

Some people have this notion that welfare people are living the high-life and would just go get jobs if welfare were eliminated.  I encounter a lot of the extreme poor in my area, as our warm climate makes street life more bearable than in Winnipeg or Edmonton.  I can assure you that these people aren't getting jobs under any circumstances.  No employer on earth would hire these folks. They're unsuitable for any task. Taking away their assistance won't persuade them to go put on a shirt and tie and get a 9-5 job, it'll cause them to starve. And yes, many people do view that as immoral and evil.

There may be some scamming welfare, just as there are those scamming worker's compensation and long-term disability. However, the notion that this represents the entirety of the problem... that if we get rid of welfare everybody will just go get jobs, is as stupid as thinking that just giving everybody money will solve all their problems.

And there are a lot more shades of grey in this issue as well. There are a lot of people who are working, but can't get enough hours to pay their expenses, for example.

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, but we're not talking about nuanced thinking so much as behaviour.

Earlier it seemed like you were criticizing the simple-minded thought-processes of leftists, but now you're just complaining about unseemly public demonstrations.  Ok, simple-minded leftists have loud public protests, and simple-minded rightists just forward dumb posts amongst each other on Facebook and post dumb crap on message boards.

53 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yet absolutely guaranteed, if there's a meeting of people who want to condemn M-103, or Abortion, if there's a trade show for the defense association, if there's any high ranking member of the US administration coming for whatever reason, hordes of progressives will be out in the street, marching and trying to shut things down.

There's anti-abortion protesters marching up and down the street just a few blocks from me every week, I don't see them getting shut down.  A lot of people criticized motion 103, and were not crucified or burned at the stake.  I don't actually know much about defense trade shows or resulting protests. The biggest protests I think Canada has seen have been the various protests against globalism, particularly the G20 protests in Toronto.

49 minutes ago, Argus said:

On the other hand, none of those people would bother to come out to protest if Vladimir Putin showed up, or Turkey's Erdogen, or China's president either. Because they don't hate those people, regardless of how many they murder.

I do recall protesters when Ergogan showed up in the US... his goons beat up some of them. I don't think people actually care very much what happens in China or Russia or Turkey, but I do think they care what happens in the US.  I think people think that China and Russia and Turkey are pretty much beyond help.

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

He didn't actually call for lowering the age of consent, but people don't believe in nuance on this subject - from either side of the political spectrum.

Another example, then, Tomi Lahren.  An internet celebrity with the right-wing "The Blaze" website, a darling of the conservatives, until she said she thought it was contradictory for "small government" conservatives to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices.   Boom. Fired. Off the air.  You've complained about the Liberal Party essentially banning anti-abortion viewpoints, but in the US the Republicans are just as rigid in the opposite direction.  In Canada the urban progressives are apparently a super-powerful voting block, and in the US so are the Evangelicals.

 -k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kimmy said:

....I do recall protesters when Ergogan showed up in the US... his goons beat up some of them. I don't think people actually care very much what happens in China or Russia or Turkey, but I do think they care what happens in the US.  I think people think that China and Russia and Turkey are pretty much beyond help.

 

Maybe they care because the U.S. provides most of the social media platforms and access used by both sides.  

It is certainly the dominant framework used in Canada to debate such things...like "freedom of speech".

As for welfare deadbeats, Bill Clinton came down hard on them decades ago, but he is still loved in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Some people have this notion that welfare people are living the high-life and would just go get jobs if welfare were eliminated. 

Some are. I saw them where I used to live. There wasn't an awful lot of hoops to jump through to get welfare and there was precious little validation of needs, so a lot of people in the place I used to live collected multiple cheques. Some would exchange kids so they could pretend to the welfare officer they had more kids than they did. Families of five because families of eight fairly easily.  A lot of what Harris did involved more validation, more checking on fraud, more hoops to jump through.

Quote

I encounter a lot of the extreme poor in my area, as our warm climate makes street life more bearable than in Winnipeg or Edmonton.  I can assure you that these people aren't getting jobs under any circumstances.  No employer on earth would hire these folks.

Well, maybe all the biggest losers head out to BC. Where I used to live, I didn't meet anyone who looked or seemed incapable of work, at least of manual labour. They certainly put a lot of thought and effort into trying to come up with scams to get more money without working.

Quote

Taking away their assistance won't persuade them to go put on a shirt and tie and get a 9-5 job, it'll cause them to starve. And yes, many people do view that as immoral and evil.

Can you tell me, just in round figures, how many people starved after Harris did his thing?

Quote

There may be some scamming welfare, just as there are those scamming worker's compensation and long-term disability. However, the notion that this represents the entirety of the problem... that if we get rid of welfare everybody will just go get jobs, is as stupid as thinking that just giving everybody money will solve all their problems.

And who is saying it represents the entirety of the problem? Find another strawman.

Quote

And there are a lot more shades of grey in this issue as well. There are a lot of people who are working, but can't get enough hours to pay their expenses, for example.

Sure, and maybe if taxes were lower there'd be more jobs and they could get full time work.

Quote

Earlier it seemed like you were criticizing the simple-minded thought-processes of leftists,

No, I'm criticizing the intolerance of different points of view.

Quote

Ok, simple-minded leftists have loud public protests, and simple-minded rightists just forward dumb posts amongst each other on Facebook and post dumb crap on message boards.

And simple minded Leftists don't do that? I could name you half a dozen on this site alone.

Quote

There's anti-abortion protesters marching up and down the street just a few blocks from me every week, I don't see them getting shut down.  A lot of people criticized motion 103, and were not crucified or burned at the stake. 

Is that to be the standard, then? If you're not burned at the stake then it's all good?

Quote

I do recall protesters when Ergogan showed up in the US...

Yeah, members of the Turkish community.

Quote

I don't think people actually care very much what happens in China or Russia or Turkey, but I do think they care what happens in the US.  I think people think that China and Russia and Turkey are pretty much beyond help.

And Israel? What do you think would happen if the Israeli PM came to visit vs what would happen if the Palestinian President came to visit? The only people who would protest against the latter would be Jews.

Quote

Another example, then, Tomi Lahren.  An internet celebrity with the right-wing "The Blaze" website, a darling of the conservatives, until she said she thought it was contradictory for "small government" conservatives to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices.   Boom. Fired. Off the air.  You've complained about the Liberal Party essentially banning anti-abortion viewpoints, but in the US the Republicans are just as rigid in the opposite direction.  In Canada the urban progressives are apparently a super-powerful voting block, and in the US so are the Evangelicals.

So? I've said on a number of occasions that there are damned few conservatives in the US. Trump is not a conservative. Paul Ryan is not a conservative. Ted Cruz is not a conservative, and neither are the wack jobs running right wing media. And in any event, I'm talking about Canada. I see us going in the same direction as the US has gone, towards complete disrespect and intolerance for each other's viewpoints and for anyone on the other side of the political spectrum. Do you think that's a good direction to head?

Because if you think a Trump couldn't be elected here you're kidding yourself. If Kevin O'Leary had made more of the same noises as Trump had he'd have won the Conservative nomination. Could he beat Trudeau? In English Canada, easily. French Canada would be a harder row to hoe, but only because he can't speak French.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Maybe they care because the U.S. provides most of the social media platforms and access used by both sides.  

It is certainly the dominant framework used in Canada to debate such things...like "freedom of speech".

As for welfare deadbeats, Bill Clinton came down hard on them decades ago, but he is still loved in Canada.

Bragging about google again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...American platforms and content dominate...even in this thread.  

In Canada, people like Ezra Levant get imprisoned or deported for "freedom of speech"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Yes...American platforms and content dominate...even in this thread.  

In Canada, people like Ezra Levant get imprisoned or deported for "freedom of speech"

Oooh I certainly wouldn't try bragging about Ezra. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Wrong...Ezra Levant is a perfect example of Canada's cowardly approach to "freedom of speech".

 

The progs sure try to shut him-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yep....Ernst Zundel wasn't so "lucky".

 

I now assume we're all being logged here...good place for M-103 to gather examples of Islamophobia in action. Like a Squadron/Signal book...lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kimmy said:

Right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described "Dangerous Faggot", had this schtick where he'd go around to college campuses on a speaking tour full of material that was offensive to just about everybody, and provoke a furious reaction from many different groups, and then point to the resulting furor as proof that "the left" was afraid of discussing ideas they didn't like.

Milo is a troll. But then you've got other conservatives, like Ben Shapiro, who aren't terrible people who are also shouted down at university talks or outright banned by the admin.  It's a real problem.  The self-righteousness of these millennial "new progressives" has brought things to a new level, where they will deny people they disagree with basic human rights in the name of other human rights.  The admin fear the backlash so they have to cave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......right because people on the right don't shout people down when they don't agree.  I guess millenial describes how long he's been alive though.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj9heygwaXUAhVs9IMKHX9GATIQwqsBCB4wAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D2LX4Q643aEU&usg=AFQjCNGlpAA1n2V0zuu9bEsShYp_fcqh6g&sig2=JRVphsl6_Xggy8B17KLs7A

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Wrong...Ezra Levant is a perfect example of Canada's cowardly approach to "freedom of speech".

Are you a Rush Limbaugh fan too I bet? Hey and taxme would I'm sure be happy to introduce you to Right Edition. That way you could totally round out your media education. We'll pop the corn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...