PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on April 23, 2024, 06:45:06 AM
-
Jim called out my "ambiguous" sounding position on the pro-Hamas protests, as if he wants me to come out in full support of the protestors' right to free speech, and I've been holding back just a bit. Here's why.
For decades now, the major institutions influencing public opinion (media and education), and more importantly, the development of ideology in our children, have been taken over by neo-Marxist anti-Americans. These protestors are mostly young people, as usual; brains not fully developed, no adult life experience, think they know everything, but have not been exposed to a wide range of ideas.
For years now, ramping up hard recently, these institutions have censored speech, not from these neo-Marxists (aka the left) but from the right and from anything upholding the ideals of our founding fathers (such as the Constitution). Conservative speakers are banned from campus. Mainstream media is now openly just a propaganda arm for the Democrats, and social media we now know is infiltrated by federal agencies controlling who is allowed to speak freely. Political speech is not the only speech censored, we have scientists blacklisted and censored for speaking truthfully about climate change or covid.
There IS NO free speech in America anymore. So now all of a sudden I'm supposed to defend a bunch of brats siding with terrorists and shouting threats at our very nation? Where's the call to support all the above, censored everywhere except X and a few alternative platforms?
The issue is not we need to allow pro-Palestinian speech; that is a subset of speech and openly allowed and supported. Any countering subsets are suppressed, and that is apparently acceptable. We have destroyed free speech in America. Those protests aren't free speech; they are what is allowed to be said by the puppet masters.
Free speech must apply to everyone and all points of view or it isn't free speech at all. What is allowed simply becomes the rantings of a properly brainwashed set of minions.
-
Go to a BLM protest and shout "BLM is a hate group!", then find yourself in cuffs being dragged away.
BLM and ANTIFA (democrat hate groups) can burn the US flag and trample it, but if one is caught desecrating a BLM flag, they will promptly be arrested.
Just imagine a group of people wearing red MAGA hats shutting down a highway or bridge, how long before the paddy wagons show up and these people are incarcerated being charged with multiple crimes?
We are now under full blown lawfare, in which depending upon your ideology, you will be granted constitutional rights or charged with a series of laws (whether the law applies or not) then bankrupted.
So yes, you are correct, free speech is no more. Just look at the "tik tok" law just passed by congress. It will not affect Tik Tok in how it was sold, but gives the government a huge swath of power to ban outlets it disagrees with.
Oh, and we were sold down the river with the FISA reauthorization.
-
Jim is a classic example of a one sided argument, with a closed one, using language to pretend to fairness, and objectivity.
His bullshit is just a bit more evolved than blm but just as treasonous.
-
Jim called out my "ambiguous" sounding position on the pro-Hamas protests, as if he wants me to come out in full support of the protestors' right to free speech, and I've been holding back just a bit.
You replied to my post of that thread and clarified your position - and I agree with it. I got what I sought and wasn't expecting anything else. Otherwise I'd have posted further.
For decades now, the major institutions influencing public opinion (media and education), and more importantly, the development of ideology in our children, have been taken over by neo-Marxist anti-Americans. These protestors are mostly young people, as usual; brains not fully developed, no adult life experience, think they know everything, but have not been exposed to a wide range of ideas.
For years now, ramping up hard recently, these institutions have censored speech, not from these neo-Marxists (aka the left) but from the right and from anything upholding the ideals of our founding fathers (such as the Constitution). Conservative speakers are banned from campus. Mainstream media is now openly just a propaganda arm for the Democrats, and social media we now know is infiltrated by federal agencies controlling who is allowed to speak freely. Political speech is not the only speech censored, we have scientists blacklisted and censored for speaking truthfully about climate change or covid.
There IS NO free speech in America anymore. So now all of a sudden I'm supposed to defend a bunch of brats siding with terrorists and shouting threats at our very nation? Where's the call to support all the above, censored everywhere except X and a few alternative platforms?
The issue is not we need to allow pro-Palestinian speech; that is a subset of speech and openly allowed and supported. Any countering subsets are suppressed, and that is apparently acceptable. We have destroyed free speech in America. Those protests aren't free speech; they are what is allowed to be said by the puppet masters.
Free speech must apply to everyone and all points of view or it isn't free speech at all. What is allowed simply becomes the rantings of a properly brainwashed set of minions.
I agree with all the claims and observations you make above. Further, mobs in the street and other physical interference in the lives of others is not a form of speech. Here's what Ayn Rand said about that in 1978:
-
You replied to my post of that thread and clarified your position - and I agree with it. I got what I sought and wasn't expecting anything else. Otherwise I'd have posted further.
I agree with all the claims and observations you make above. Further, mobs in the street and other physical interference in the lives of others is not a form of speech. Here's what Ayn Rand said about that in 1978:
You mean we were violently agreeing all along? ;D
-
You mean we were violently agreeing all along? ;D
Could be.
-
Rand is spot on with that video. Your first amendment right stops when you fuck with my daily routine.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/GTHSspF.png)
-
Here's what Ayn Rand said about that in 1978:
I actually think she is missing an important point. There is no right that anyone has to extort money from others to build streets in the first place.
So it becomes more complex when you have a government extorting money from the citizens and using it to build roads. It is quite reasonable for the citizens whose money has thus been extorted to demand that if it will be used to build roads that then groups of those citizens can apply for a permit to block those streets in order to protest.
Whether people can do that should be up to the private owners of the roads.
-
I actually think she is missing an important point. There is no right that anyone has to extort money from others to build streets in the first place.
So it becomes more complex when you have a government extorting money from the citizens and using it to build roads. It is quite reasonable for the citizens whose money has thus been extorted to demand that if it will be used to build roads that then groups of those citizens can apply for a permit to block those streets in order to protest.
Whether people can do that should be up to the private owners of the roads.
I’ve been the private owner of a road. It’s not so great.
-
Here's what Ayn Rand said about that in 1978:
Back in the mid '80 I was reading the Ayn Rand books. I mentioned them to some of the leftist feminists I worked with as a rebuttal to some of their absurd views. To my astonishment (see what I did there), they all said they LOVED Ayn Rand. To this day, that surprises me because almost all of her views were diametrically opposed to those leftists.
They justified it by saying that she was a "strong woman". But if they thought it through,and they admired her, then they would NOT take the views on society that they did.
-
Back in the mid '80 I was reading the Ayn Rand books. I mentioned them to some of the leftist feminists I worked with as a rebuttal to some of their absurd views. To my astonishment (see what I did there), they all said they LOVED Ayn Rand. To this day, that surprises me because almost all of her views were diametrically opposed to those leftists.
They justified it by saying that she was a "strong woman". But if they thought it through,and they admired her, then they would NOT take the views on society that they did.
There was borderline rape and the “strong woman” loved it. Lol, leftist feminists. Although back in the 80s they weren’t like the ones today, who will sue you into oblivion if you try to ask them for sex.
Feminist in the 80s: I can be a strong woman and still appreciate an even stronger man.
Feminist today: We don’t need no stinkin man.
The problem with leftist feminists or leftists in general is they don’t understand basic economics. They’ve been indoctrinated to believe in a system of parasitism enforced by authoritarianism. That’s all leftism is: An economic system based on parasitism. A non-leftist understands that voluntary transactions and profit motive in the context of a truly free market result in the highest productivity and richest economy.
As far as I can tell, the biggest problem with a rich free market economy is that it allows people to become so comfortable and complacent that they forget where it all comes from and fail to guard their founding principles, allowing future generations (by taking over education) to be targeted by leftists who then undermine the whole system and here we are.