Theoretically I agree with you. I think we can be certain that some ideas are bad for society. And such ideas should be kept out of schools. But I don’t trust any politicians enough to be comfortable with giving them the power to take away the rights of individuals to express their opinion publicly. This of course doesn’t apply to blatantly criminal conduct like calling for terrorist attacks and sharing pedophile content but we already have laws for things like that. Going any further than this can create a slippery slope. Desantis used the terrorism excuse to ban student groups that criticised the Israeli government for example. Maybe I’m mistaken about the specifics of that but it’s not hard to imagine a situation where the government starts doing things like that. Using the excuse of the greater good to censor criticism of themselves and their policies. And their allies.
Anyway, theoretically, if there was a politician who I would trust with that sort of power, I still think it would be counterproductive because it would give the left strong ammunition to build a strong counter movement. People like being victims, aren’t always rational and are fuelled by emotion and the fascist censorship of speech will give them plenty of ammunition. It would be very easy to demonise such a politician and turn people against them. I think it’s more productive from a political standpoint to just use our speech to ridicule and destroy their ideas and turn people against them. If this was done effectively, I think the whole movement would lose its legs but conservatives have completely failed so far to do so. Nowhere near enough backbone has been showed.
All societies throughout human history have enforced censorship. It's morally necessary. And secular liberalism censors, too -- except the rules are unwritten. Power is a political reality whether you like it or not, and it's actually morally good. Fathers have power in families, for example. God gives it to them. In the same way, the State has power.
I think lgbt ideology needs to be defeated ideologically. If I was a politician, I’d use my free speech to attack it and wake people up. I’d ban it in schools. But I don’t think I’d take away people’s speech rights to disagree with me publicly. That would make me look and feel like a fascist. Once you give the government the power to ban speech, it’s very easy for them to abuse that power. And the worst kinds of people tend to be attracted to politics. And the more you centralise their power, the more they tend to abuse it. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with the idea of giving government the ability to do something like that. Not because I don’t agree with you. But because I think that power will be abused. In some kind of utopia where all politicians are benevolent and share our morality, it would work. But we live in a world that’s very far from that reality. They’d restrict lgbt speech. But then at the same time, they’d restrict other speech like our ability to question their abuses of power. What if they banned discussing the Epstein saga? As soon as you centralise power and give them the ability to ban speech, it’ll be abused I think. This is also why I’m uncomfortable with the Catholic Church. Because power is very centralised which makes it much easier for corrupt people to abuse their power. The more power you give people, the more they tend to abuse it. Interesting conversation though. Conservatism vs classic liberalism.
Sorry for the poor wording. Just woke up and only had 2 minutes. Ideally would edit that so I repeat myself less because i rambled a bit but got the point across nevertheless.
While I agree with your views whole heartedly, i am still curious on what you would say to the libtards who themselves believe “error has no rights”. They firmly believe they are in the right by censoring the “error” - traditional family values whilst espousing the progressive liberal agenda - their “right way of living”. Surely a left wing authoritarian government like in 1984, one which is actively controlling the narrative, is something that is undesirable. What I think I’m asking is How do we make society as we want it to be without going against the censoring now currenlty in place - “cancel culture” and how to prevent our own ideas, if and when In power, from becoming corrupted.
They don't believe in truth. They only believe in power narratives. And Christians can learn useful lessons from them. Power is good and must be wielded. Censorship, too, is good. Cancel culture is good. But right now the wrong people are doing it. And it's the "free speech" fantasy of classical liberalism that led to this.
The way that you should run a household is very different to the way that you should run a government though in my opinion. Obviously the more power that the state has, the less the citizens have. And not sure what type of censorship you’re referring to. I can’t justify political censorship. On any internet platforms or otherwise. Not allowing your opposition to speak freely is immoral in my opinion. This obviously doesn’t apply to things that are criminal. Porn is complicated. I definitely support the censorship of it on social media and I’d maybe even be fine with banning it completely but would have to think about it because it would create a black market etc. Banning topics from school is fine. I completely support that. But restricting the political speech of adults when speaking publicly is not something that I could ever see myself supporting. Would need to see examples. I don’t support gay marriage but that’s obviously not speech. I’d never support banning people from expressing their support for gay marriage 🤷♂️.
The nation is an extended family, and kings were called 'Sire' for that reason. Patriarchy goes all the way up. And error has no rights. Free speech has only instrumental value. The idea that liberty for its own sake is the supreme good is liberalism.
I think it’d create too much backlash and be counterproductive if a politician not only banned abortion and gay marriage (which I agree with); but also made it illegal to debate those topics and publicly disagree.
It’s possible though that banning it in the past would’ve stopped society from degenerating to the place that we’re at now. I don’t think I would agree with doing so but I’ll think about it.
I also didn’t see your headline which makes your position a bit clearer. The headline that I thought I read was ‘free speech is for fake conservatives.’
I believe in constitutional republics where people have the right to vote. Is it possible that banning all public lgbt related speech amongst adults would lead to a strong counter movement that would gain traction and undermine the cause that you’re trying to progress? I think as soon as you start behaving like a fascist, people will turn against you. And the cause will be undermined. I think more people will be supportive of the cause if you protect people’s speech rights to publicly disagree with you and use your speech to ridicule them and expose the absurdity of their ideas.
Theoretically I agree with you. I think we can be certain that some ideas are bad for society. And such ideas should be kept out of schools. But I don’t trust any politicians enough to be comfortable with giving them the power to take away the rights of individuals to express their opinion publicly. This of course doesn’t apply to blatantly criminal conduct like calling for terrorist attacks and sharing pedophile content but we already have laws for things like that. Going any further than this can create a slippery slope. Desantis used the terrorism excuse to ban student groups that criticised the Israeli government for example. Maybe I’m mistaken about the specifics of that but it’s not hard to imagine a situation where the government starts doing things like that. Using the excuse of the greater good to censor criticism of themselves and their policies. And their allies.
Anyway, theoretically, if there was a politician who I would trust with that sort of power, I still think it would be counterproductive because it would give the left strong ammunition to build a strong counter movement. People like being victims, aren’t always rational and are fuelled by emotion and the fascist censorship of speech will give them plenty of ammunition. It would be very easy to demonise such a politician and turn people against them. I think it’s more productive from a political standpoint to just use our speech to ridicule and destroy their ideas and turn people against them. If this was done effectively, I think the whole movement would lose its legs but conservatives have completely failed so far to do so. Nowhere near enough backbone has been showed.
All societies throughout human history have enforced censorship. It's morally necessary. And secular liberalism censors, too -- except the rules are unwritten. Power is a political reality whether you like it or not, and it's actually morally good. Fathers have power in families, for example. God gives it to them. In the same way, the State has power.
Liberalism is the real slippery slope.
I think lgbt ideology needs to be defeated ideologically. If I was a politician, I’d use my free speech to attack it and wake people up. I’d ban it in schools. But I don’t think I’d take away people’s speech rights to disagree with me publicly. That would make me look and feel like a fascist. Once you give the government the power to ban speech, it’s very easy for them to abuse that power. And the worst kinds of people tend to be attracted to politics. And the more you centralise their power, the more they tend to abuse it. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with the idea of giving government the ability to do something like that. Not because I don’t agree with you. But because I think that power will be abused. In some kind of utopia where all politicians are benevolent and share our morality, it would work. But we live in a world that’s very far from that reality. They’d restrict lgbt speech. But then at the same time, they’d restrict other speech like our ability to question their abuses of power. What if they banned discussing the Epstein saga? As soon as you centralise power and give them the ability to ban speech, it’ll be abused I think. This is also why I’m uncomfortable with the Catholic Church. Because power is very centralised which makes it much easier for corrupt people to abuse their power. The more power you give people, the more they tend to abuse it. Interesting conversation though. Conservatism vs classic liberalism.
Sorry for the poor wording. Just woke up and only had 2 minutes. Ideally would edit that so I repeat myself less because i rambled a bit but got the point across nevertheless.
While I agree with your views whole heartedly, i am still curious on what you would say to the libtards who themselves believe “error has no rights”. They firmly believe they are in the right by censoring the “error” - traditional family values whilst espousing the progressive liberal agenda - their “right way of living”. Surely a left wing authoritarian government like in 1984, one which is actively controlling the narrative, is something that is undesirable. What I think I’m asking is How do we make society as we want it to be without going against the censoring now currenlty in place - “cancel culture” and how to prevent our own ideas, if and when In power, from becoming corrupted.
They don't believe in truth. They only believe in power narratives. And Christians can learn useful lessons from them. Power is good and must be wielded. Censorship, too, is good. Cancel culture is good. But right now the wrong people are doing it. And it's the "free speech" fantasy of classical liberalism that led to this.
The way that you should run a household is very different to the way that you should run a government though in my opinion. Obviously the more power that the state has, the less the citizens have. And not sure what type of censorship you’re referring to. I can’t justify political censorship. On any internet platforms or otherwise. Not allowing your opposition to speak freely is immoral in my opinion. This obviously doesn’t apply to things that are criminal. Porn is complicated. I definitely support the censorship of it on social media and I’d maybe even be fine with banning it completely but would have to think about it because it would create a black market etc. Banning topics from school is fine. I completely support that. But restricting the political speech of adults when speaking publicly is not something that I could ever see myself supporting. Would need to see examples. I don’t support gay marriage but that’s obviously not speech. I’d never support banning people from expressing their support for gay marriage 🤷♂️.
The nation is an extended family, and kings were called 'Sire' for that reason. Patriarchy goes all the way up. And error has no rights. Free speech has only instrumental value. The idea that liberty for its own sake is the supreme good is liberalism.
I think it’d create too much backlash and be counterproductive if a politician not only banned abortion and gay marriage (which I agree with); but also made it illegal to debate those topics and publicly disagree.
It’s possible though that banning it in the past would’ve stopped society from degenerating to the place that we’re at now. I don’t think I would agree with doing so but I’ll think about it.
I also didn’t see your headline which makes your position a bit clearer. The headline that I thought I read was ‘free speech is for fake conservatives.’
Free speech isn't a conservative idea. It's one of the lies of liberalism. My position is the traditional one: error has no rights.
I believe in constitutional republics where people have the right to vote. Is it possible that banning all public lgbt related speech amongst adults would lead to a strong counter movement that would gain traction and undermine the cause that you’re trying to progress? I think as soon as you start behaving like a fascist, people will turn against you. And the cause will be undermined. I think more people will be supportive of the cause if you protect people’s speech rights to publicly disagree with you and use your speech to ridicule them and expose the absurdity of their ideas.
Criticism of governments should be allowed, but gay marriage, for example, should be illegal. The state has a duty to prevent grave social evil.
I agree, but marriage isn’t speech?
The point is the "free discussion" about gay marriage led to legalising it. It should never have been dignified with debate.