True to a point, but if the Republicans had the levers of power I still think our side is mostly principled enough to not do the same shit back to the Left.
I want them to do worse to the left at this point. Leftists are a threat, and need to be dealt with.
Spez: to be clear, principles are all well and good, up until you keep saying "But we stuck to our principles" as you get murdered in the streets, and shoved on cattle cars.
Don't be a faggot. The right collectively needs to wake up, and actually stop the left from fucking around (or if they do, make sure they find out).
If The Right were truly in power in society the way the Left is today - at all institutional levels - and not just a certain political party holding the US Congress, the few people with any principles on either side wouldn't matter. The masses of NPCs who do what they are told by the media would be right-wing/conservative. The people who are trannies and SJWs today would suddenly be white shirt tie-wearing churchgoers who demand censorship of entertainment to protect the children. The corrupt politicians would still manage to wind themselves into leadership positions, where they would promote whatever restrictions they thought would engender the masses and benefit them. The federal government and three letter agencies would still want control and censorship of Big Tech to hide their dirty laundry. So it wouldn't matter if Republicans promoted an ideological platform of free speech, because the idiotic masses that get to participate eventually dilute and twist the meaning of that.
The people who are trannies and SJWs today would suddenly be white shirt tie-wearing churchgoers who demand censorship of entertainment to protect the children.
That's the way it would be after 50 years of the Right controlling the cultural institutions (teaching/college, HR, media). If they got power now it would just mean slowly returning to an already too liberal center.
The problem with the political pendulum analogy is that it's not gravity that swings it back - it's not inevitable - it's millions of people pulling it back from the fringe taking small actions in their everyday life. And there's so many crazy left out there that even in total power the pendulum can't swing back that fast unless it's reset.
Just because a book is removed from schools does not mean it is banned. You're perfectly free to get yourself a copy of Debbie does Dallas but showing that in a primary school assembly is frowned upon.
I don't think you know what it means to "ban books". Saying that a book is not appropriate for young children as part of a school curriculum is not the same as banning it.
its retarded commie language, you can't take it at face value, they lie like they breathe
when he says "banning books" he really means "trivially increasing the effort required to subvert culture and dissolve society so people who agree with me can seize power"
Is it banned anywhere? And what "banned" means changes based on political motivation. Remove Kipling from a school library and they're "decolonizing" the library. Remove Twain and they're updating for sensitivity. But someone says maybe The Kite Runner shouldn't be on sixth grade reading lists and suddenly "MUH BAND BOOKS!"
That specifically is erotica, not porn. It targets a slightly different kind of satisfaction, but telling women they deserve to be fought over by multiple high-status men for being utterly average lights up the same area of the brain as showing men a nice set of tits.
Doesn't explain all the difference, but mainly it's not really a democrat / republican change it's young and indoctrinated democrat / normal people.
The people who thought bare ankles were scandalous want less censorship, it's almost solely the naive young and indoctrinated who want more - people who grew up with instant access to all kinds of disgusting porn and faces of death, and what they can't stand being out there is information.
No doubt because their beliefs defy reason and evidence and deep down they know it. They don't want an open debate because they know they'll lose the debate; they have no compelling arguments. Being confronted with data and evidence is their Achilles heel, not the mockery.
You can always tell who's persecuted and who's doing the persecuting by who supports and opposes free speech respectively.
True to a point, but if the Republicans had the levers of power I still think our side is mostly principled enough to not do the same shit back to the Left.
I want them to do worse to the left at this point. Leftists are a threat, and need to be dealt with.
Spez: to be clear, principles are all well and good, up until you keep saying "But we stuck to our principles" as you get murdered in the streets, and shoved on cattle cars.
Don't be a faggot. The right collectively needs to wake up, and actually stop the left from fucking around (or if they do, make sure they find out).
If The Right were truly in power in society the way the Left is today - at all institutional levels - and not just a certain political party holding the US Congress, the few people with any principles on either side wouldn't matter. The masses of NPCs who do what they are told by the media would be right-wing/conservative. The people who are trannies and SJWs today would suddenly be white shirt tie-wearing churchgoers who demand censorship of entertainment to protect the children. The corrupt politicians would still manage to wind themselves into leadership positions, where they would promote whatever restrictions they thought would engender the masses and benefit them. The federal government and three letter agencies would still want control and censorship of Big Tech to hide their dirty laundry. So it wouldn't matter if Republicans promoted an ideological platform of free speech, because the idiotic masses that get to participate eventually dilute and twist the meaning of that.
But I'd still prefer THAT over what we have now.
Sign me the fuck up
That's the way it would be after 50 years of the Right controlling the cultural institutions (teaching/college, HR, media). If they got power now it would just mean slowly returning to an already too liberal center.
The problem with the political pendulum analogy is that it's not gravity that swings it back - it's not inevitable - it's millions of people pulling it back from the fringe taking small actions in their everyday life. And there's so many crazy left out there that even in total power the pendulum can't swing back that fast unless it's reset.
AIPAC
The fact that the Republican numbers are so high demonstrates the utter ethical bankruptcy of the 2-party system.
But it’s trending in the right direction.
Good to know the right supports enemy propaganda.
"Kids, you don't know how great it is to cut your dick off" - It's beautiful to see free speech...
Our patience should have a limit, as a man once said.
It's always a good thing to link to the source..
amazon, which supports and promotes leftist agendas, is suppressimg and banning books
Neither, as far as I'm aware.
Just because a book is removed from schools does not mean it is banned. You're perfectly free to get yourself a copy of Debbie does Dallas but showing that in a primary school assembly is frowned upon.
I don't think you know what it means to "ban books". Saying that a book is not appropriate for young children as part of a school curriculum is not the same as banning it.
its retarded commie language, you can't take it at face value, they lie like they breathe
when he says "banning books" he really means "trivially increasing the effort required to subvert culture and dissolve society so people who agree with me can seize power"
It depends. Do you support pushing pornography on children?
Is it banned anywhere? And what "banned" means changes based on political motivation. Remove Kipling from a school library and they're "decolonizing" the library. Remove Twain and they're updating for sensitivity. But someone says maybe The Kite Runner shouldn't be on sixth grade reading lists and suddenly "MUH BAND BOOKS!"
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Comment Approved: This actually appears to be a pedantic argument, not disinformation.
That specifically is erotica, not porn. It targets a slightly different kind of satisfaction, but telling women they deserve to be fought over by multiple high-status men for being utterly average lights up the same area of the brain as showing men a nice set of tits.
No link to the data, no context to see what's actually going on here. That's the kind of superficial divisive crap a small-dick incel would post.
More censorship: by gov / by tech
High school: -1 / -1
Some college: +11 / +4
College: +21 / +8
Ages 18-29: +19 / +17
Ages 30-49: +15 / +7
Ages 50-64: +6 / +4
Ages 65+: +0 / -7
Doesn't explain all the difference, but mainly it's not really a democrat / republican change it's young and indoctrinated democrat / normal people.
The people who thought bare ankles were scandalous want less censorship, it's almost solely the naive young and indoctrinated who want more - people who grew up with instant access to all kinds of disgusting porn and faces of death, and what they can't stand being out there is information.
No doubt because their beliefs defy reason and evidence and deep down they know it. They don't want an open debate because they know they'll lose the debate; they have no compelling arguments. Being confronted with data and evidence is their Achilles heel, not the mockery.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Comment Approved: This is an opinion, not disinformation.