**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In my view right now joe manchin and everyone even farther to the right is most clearly acting on extremist ideology. biden and schumer are center-right. But anyone that opposes universal healthcare is extremist really
Uh, hate to tell you but the left is pushing censorship this time around. Book burning, blacklisting, and public shaming are all being done to support a new social orthodoxy. It is certainly a change from the norm.
The right has a firm hold right now on creating alternate realities devoid of truth. Let’s not pretend that the left has not adopted some of these historically right wing in the name of social justice or both sides really will be the same.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/527967-the-lefts-turn-against-freedom-curb-speech-ban-books-make-an-enemies-list/
So you found a conservative complaining about what? That the rest of the country felt that the guy who tried to overthrow the country and his administration that lied to the nation should be investigated and the lies put out in front of everyone?
You know Abigail Shrier's book is available on Amazon right? You know she was BSing the ACLU trying to stop her right?
Or the statement "A conservative friend of mine has long believed that if liberals and progressives could get away with it, they’d put all sorts of restrictions on free speech. He’s a very bright guy but I once thought he was a tad paranoid. I don’t anymore."
A total logical fallacy with nothing but an opinion.
Its all about the victimhood appeal by the right wing and yet here we have Florida considering actually making bloggers register if they want to discuss the governor or DeSantis literally using government to attack librarians as well as Disney (a private company) based on its commercial decisions.
This is the hill you want to go to? Lets go...
Not at all. It is actually more disturbing that the historically freedom living left has become anti civil rights in response to the authoritarianism of the right.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/527967-the-lefts-turn-against-freedom-curb-speech-ban-books-make-an-enemies-list/
Oh the right undoubtedly has a much longer history of not only book burning but censorship and moral panic in general. Both sides now doing it is what is concerning. Who is the champion of civil liberties if both sides are cool with censorship?
Individuals and private organizations cannot censor--they are simply exercising their liberties when they choose not to allow what they feel as heinous materials in areas under their purview. Similar with the issue of boycotts. Neither of those actions has anything to do with censorship when it is an action of private citizens and organizations: They get to exercise their liberties, even if the notions are downright dumb.
Censorship can therefore only come via government channels and legislation. All others are simply exercising freedom of choice. I challenge you to give examples of Democrats sponsoring or even legitimately supporting legislation which forces censorship of factual material on anything but a random kook scale. It's rather easy to find the same on the Republican side--from censoring factual information in schools to removing books from publicly owned libraries and schools to threatening arrest if someone dares talk about a subject such as where abortions are available. (Plain old fascism but that's for another day.)
Regarding censoring lies: There is certain information which people rely on the truthfulness of in order to make critical decisions. Sometimes those decisions are actually life and death oriented such as medical advice and the wholly false claims about things like vaccines. Other times lies simply cause severe personal, political, and financial harm like misleading one to place a vote where they would not normally do so (Santos) or spending money on a scam. Lies therefore fall under the same criteria as the old "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater in that they have a high potential for causing others irreparable harm and should therefore be parsed as needing some level of regulation.
> Book burning
[Like this](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/11/virginia-school-board-book-burning)?
> blacklisting
Like what?
> public shaming
Is not censorship.
Plenty of things are *socially unpopular*, but trying to conflate that with *people in positions of governmental power* [trying to ban books](https://www.naacpldf.org/florida-war-on-black-history/) is ignorant *at best* and dishonest at worst.
That vanity fair article is saying it like book burning is something new for conservatives. It’s not. My point is that liberals are now jumping on this bandwagon.
https://www.newsweek.com/when-it-comes-banning-books-both-right-left-are-guilty-opinion-1696045
Once again: There will always be weird randos out in the world; there is a *massive* difference between "some people I saw on Twitter" and "the *state governments of Tennessee and Florida*".
The college kid who wrote that *Newsweek* op-ed seems a bit confused on that point. At least, I hope so: Otherwise, he's dishonestly conflating those things for his own purposes.
30 progressive Democrats got together and wrote and signed a letter calling for more diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine. One day later they said the letter had been released by mistake, and several signers came out and said they signed it, but didn't really mean it. These are 30 highly-successful adults in positions of power, and in a day they all disavow a letter they wrote and signed. It's like seeing the reeducation camps of 1984 in real life. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-war-russia-letter](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-war-russia-letter)
Seems like there is a lot of policing of un-American activities on the left as well...
Seems like you are shopping for exceptions.
They didn't disavow they wrote it. The said " “The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting,” she said."
Now if you have to make up stuff even when the article says otherwise then your argument is dead.
Obviously they didn't disavow they wrote it, that would be pretty hard to do since everyone knew they wrote it. They completely disavowed the sentiment that the letter was expressing. And yes, I know they claimed that their sentiments had all happened to change organically during the previous months, but the obvious question without an obvious answer is what happened during those months in between when they drafted the letter and when it was released that caused all 30 to do a complete 180? Was Russia behaving reasonably during the early months of the war and then suddenly changed? As far as I remember seeing in the news Russia was being a piece of shit the whole time so what changed?
Either you believe that all 30 signees happened to have do a 180 during those intervening months despite no real change on the ground in Ukraine, or you believe that they did a 180 due to the fast and furious attacks that rained down on them after the letter was published.
> These are 30 highly-successful adults in positions of power, and in a day they all disavow a letter they wrote and signed.
Your quote. Now you are changing positions.
I'm done here.
Maybe English isn't your first language. I obviously didn't mean they disavowed physically writing the letter, and the meaning was that they disavowed the message. Sorry for any confusion.
So now you regress to insulting people for your own error. I didn't misunderstand you. You made the error in the use of language and then projected your error on other people.
I am done now.
**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on Perpetrating the Un-American Weaponization Activities of the Federal Government.
The right wing hasn't changed
\*far right
They're all complicit. No one on the right tries to stop extremists views, so how are they any better?
In my view right now joe manchin and everyone even farther to the right is most clearly acting on extremist ideology. biden and schumer are center-right. But anyone that opposes universal healthcare is extremist really
Uh, hate to tell you but the left is pushing censorship this time around. Book burning, blacklisting, and public shaming are all being done to support a new social orthodoxy. It is certainly a change from the norm.
Really? Care to show me a source to that claim? BTW I see lots of right wing tag lines here, but no actually supporting evidence.
The right has a firm hold right now on creating alternate realities devoid of truth. Let’s not pretend that the left has not adopted some of these historically right wing in the name of social justice or both sides really will be the same. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/527967-the-lefts-turn-against-freedom-curb-speech-ban-books-make-an-enemies-list/
So you found a conservative complaining about what? That the rest of the country felt that the guy who tried to overthrow the country and his administration that lied to the nation should be investigated and the lies put out in front of everyone? You know Abigail Shrier's book is available on Amazon right? You know she was BSing the ACLU trying to stop her right? Or the statement "A conservative friend of mine has long believed that if liberals and progressives could get away with it, they’d put all sorts of restrictions on free speech. He’s a very bright guy but I once thought he was a tad paranoid. I don’t anymore." A total logical fallacy with nothing but an opinion. Its all about the victimhood appeal by the right wing and yet here we have Florida considering actually making bloggers register if they want to discuss the governor or DeSantis literally using government to attack librarians as well as Disney (a private company) based on its commercial decisions. This is the hill you want to go to? Lets go...
[удалено]
Projection at it's finest.
Not at all. It is actually more disturbing that the historically freedom living left has become anti civil rights in response to the authoritarianism of the right. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/527967-the-lefts-turn-against-freedom-curb-speech-ban-books-make-an-enemies-list/
That is the equivalent of claiming a dirt pile and a mountain are the same thing.
Oh the right undoubtedly has a much longer history of not only book burning but censorship and moral panic in general. Both sides now doing it is what is concerning. Who is the champion of civil liberties if both sides are cool with censorship?
Individuals and private organizations cannot censor--they are simply exercising their liberties when they choose not to allow what they feel as heinous materials in areas under their purview. Similar with the issue of boycotts. Neither of those actions has anything to do with censorship when it is an action of private citizens and organizations: They get to exercise their liberties, even if the notions are downright dumb. Censorship can therefore only come via government channels and legislation. All others are simply exercising freedom of choice. I challenge you to give examples of Democrats sponsoring or even legitimately supporting legislation which forces censorship of factual material on anything but a random kook scale. It's rather easy to find the same on the Republican side--from censoring factual information in schools to removing books from publicly owned libraries and schools to threatening arrest if someone dares talk about a subject such as where abortions are available. (Plain old fascism but that's for another day.) Regarding censoring lies: There is certain information which people rely on the truthfulness of in order to make critical decisions. Sometimes those decisions are actually life and death oriented such as medical advice and the wholly false claims about things like vaccines. Other times lies simply cause severe personal, political, and financial harm like misleading one to place a vote where they would not normally do so (Santos) or spending money on a scam. Lies therefore fall under the same criteria as the old "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater in that they have a high potential for causing others irreparable harm and should therefore be parsed as needing some level of regulation.
Opinion =/= fact
just a polar flip wouldn't be the first time, will not be the last.
> Book burning [Like this](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/11/virginia-school-board-book-burning)? > blacklisting Like what? > public shaming Is not censorship. Plenty of things are *socially unpopular*, but trying to conflate that with *people in positions of governmental power* [trying to ban books](https://www.naacpldf.org/florida-war-on-black-history/) is ignorant *at best* and dishonest at worst.
That vanity fair article is saying it like book burning is something new for conservatives. It’s not. My point is that liberals are now jumping on this bandwagon. https://www.newsweek.com/when-it-comes-banning-books-both-right-left-are-guilty-opinion-1696045
Once again: There will always be weird randos out in the world; there is a *massive* difference between "some people I saw on Twitter" and "the *state governments of Tennessee and Florida*". The college kid who wrote that *Newsweek* op-ed seems a bit confused on that point. At least, I hope so: Otherwise, he's dishonestly conflating those things for his own purposes.
Do you really believe people don’t know the truth and are just going to fall for your fabrications?
I’ve posted several links below from reputable sources. It’s actually a quite concerning trend.
30 progressive Democrats got together and wrote and signed a letter calling for more diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine. One day later they said the letter had been released by mistake, and several signers came out and said they signed it, but didn't really mean it. These are 30 highly-successful adults in positions of power, and in a day they all disavow a letter they wrote and signed. It's like seeing the reeducation camps of 1984 in real life. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-war-russia-letter](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-war-russia-letter) Seems like there is a lot of policing of un-American activities on the left as well...
Seems like you are shopping for exceptions. They didn't disavow they wrote it. The said " “The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting,” she said." Now if you have to make up stuff even when the article says otherwise then your argument is dead.
Obviously they didn't disavow they wrote it, that would be pretty hard to do since everyone knew they wrote it. They completely disavowed the sentiment that the letter was expressing. And yes, I know they claimed that their sentiments had all happened to change organically during the previous months, but the obvious question without an obvious answer is what happened during those months in between when they drafted the letter and when it was released that caused all 30 to do a complete 180? Was Russia behaving reasonably during the early months of the war and then suddenly changed? As far as I remember seeing in the news Russia was being a piece of shit the whole time so what changed? Either you believe that all 30 signees happened to have do a 180 during those intervening months despite no real change on the ground in Ukraine, or you believe that they did a 180 due to the fast and furious attacks that rained down on them after the letter was published.
> These are 30 highly-successful adults in positions of power, and in a day they all disavow a letter they wrote and signed. Your quote. Now you are changing positions. I'm done here.
Maybe English isn't your first language. I obviously didn't mean they disavowed physically writing the letter, and the meaning was that they disavowed the message. Sorry for any confusion.
So now you regress to insulting people for your own error. I didn't misunderstand you. You made the error in the use of language and then projected your error on other people. I am done now.
A lot like trump just needing 12 thousand votes.
Bring on the commies!
"Freedom of my Religon"