[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?

[Traitorfish]

people can take the moral high ground with the hammer and sickle flags that showed up for the democrats then lie back and think of the green fields of Cambodia

That's a good point.

There isn't a shortage of examples of Communist Parties participating in peaceful, democratically-elected governments, if that's your standard for these things. The Nepal Communist Party is currently the governing national party, and Communist Parties serve as junior coalition partners in Bangladesh, Ecuador, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Uruguay. Until recently, they formed similar roles in Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Italy, Peru, and Sri Lanka. There are dozens of further examples at sub-national levels of government across the world.

Nobody disputes that Communism has a chequered legacy, but to pretend that the movement and its symbols can be directly equated to the historical abomination of Nazism is either profoundly disingenuous, or still more profoundly ignorant. Whatever stains you may think that the worst revolutionary excesses have left on the trappings of the Leninist legacy, whatever moral blindspots you think that the maintenance of that legacy implies, it's just not a honest or useful description of Communism as a century-old political movement.

It's essentially the sort of impractical dogmatic posturing that centrists claim to revile.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

One man's noble martyr is another man's fanatical suicide bomber.

Getting crucified or fed to lions by an intolerant state isn't exactly blowing yourself up, but I suppose in a certain simpleminded "martyrdom is martyrdom" view they could be considered interchangeable.

 

[Berzerker]

Sure he was. He was just informed he did it wrong. The nature of anything is going to change when you take it from small and "pure" and broaden it to the less selfless, less dedicated. Doesn't mean that it's general traits don't still apply, but you aren't going to get the same sort of consistency. And we have several examples of even the best of the best OGs making mistakes. The silver, the sword, and the rooster. Christians all, imperfect all. You get more Christians? You get more imperfect people. Every one of them is going to be a sinner, so it says. The lessons are still the lessons, and those are probably better refined, on average, and kinder, on average, by longstanding continued effort.

Are mass murderers serving Jesus when they do it wrong and kill in his name? I dont know why you took exception with my claim the early Christians were more Christ-like, citing one who was rebuked by Jesus for acting in his defense when later Christians slaughtered millions of people is quite a false equivalency. Now if Jesus' band of followers stormed off to murder the infidels after the Crucifixion I wouldn't hold them up as beacons, but they did an amazing job of spreading the word peacefully.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's ultimately selfish and that's even if you only take yourself out when you go.

It isn't about "taking yourself out." The early Christian martyrs, and a whole lot of martyrs since had nothing to do with their being "taken out." Whether executed by an intolerant state or an intolerant mob, their only input on the situation was saying "no." If the US enacted a law that every individual must swear personal loyalty to Trump on pain of death I'd expect there to be plenty of martyrs, and would like to believe that I'd choose to be among them.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's been a recent trend where people claim that they have a right to free speach, and that they speak the truth even if people's feelings are hurt....they're such a badass, etc.

And then they just get massively butthurt when told they are wrong. "being silenced" almost feels like a meme to me, because disagreement apparently equals that. I mean, unless someone is literally gagging your mouth or having you killed, it's hard to say you are being silenced. Being banned from a website is not being silenced.

Something tells me that's just really not the issue here... After all, if they can talk people can respond, and nothing says they have to respond well. And if you're getting booted from everywhere, perhaps there's something wrong with you?

It's too much drama IMO. I think if some people were to put some effort into being a decent human being then they would have more people willing to host their ideas. If everyone sees you as a liability, then why should they give you a platform? Isn't that the E word that gets tossed around so much?

 

[Farm Boy]

They might be, it's possible. You'd have to ask them their motivations. You'll note not all the failures of the Disciples were equal, the failure done in self interest was significantly more severe than the failure of courage or the surrender to wrath. God's love is bigger than them all.

What equivalency? I'm flat out saying for thier spread the message has gotten better, the people have remained largely, well, people. You don't have to like them, but if you take the message sincerely you are commanded to love them. Which sucks, at least a good portion of the time. Since they do indeed suck a good portion of the time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They might be, it's possible. You'd have to ask them their motivations. You'll note not all the failures of the Disciples were equal, the failure done in self interest was significantly more severe than the failure of courage or the surrender to wrath. God's love is bigger than them all.

What equivalency? I'm flat out saying for thier spread the message has gotten better, the people have remained largely, well, people. You don't have to like them, but if you take the message sincerely you are commanded to love them. Which sucks, at least a good portion of the time. Since they do indeed suck a good portion of the time.

Are you deeply convinced of that "self interest"? Everyone had their role to play in events. I'm not convinced that some should be blamed, others exonerated, and still others lauded. Fulfilling prophecy is a harsh business.

 

[Old Hippy]

There isn't a shortage of examples of Communist Parties participating in peaceful, democratically-elected governments, if that's your standard for these things. The Nepal Communist Party is currently the governing national party, and Communist Parties serve as junior coalition partners in Bangladesh, Ecuador, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Uruguay. Until recently, they formed similar roles in Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Italy, Peru, and Sri Lanka. There are dozens of further examples at sub-national levels of government across the world.

Nobody disputes that Communism has a chequered legacy, but to pretend that the movement and its symbols can be directly equated to the historical abomination of Nazism is either profoundly disingenuous, or still more profoundly ignorant. Whatever stains you may think that the worst revolutionary excesses have left on the trappings of the Leninist legacy, whatever moral blindspots you think that the maintenance of that legacy implies, it's just not a honest or useful description of Communism as a century-old political movement.

It's essentially the sort of impractical dogmatic posturing that centrists claim to revile.

yes its Old Hippies fault ... always said I'd be first up against the wall when the revolution comes for ''claiming'' I'm a centrist (a right wing small business owner and strong Union member in the most militant left wing union in the country and a lifelong Socialist)

centrists would claim that 50% of republicans and 50 % of democrats and most of the examples of Communist Parties participating in peaceful, democratically-elected governments are centralists but to keep claiming that black clad violent thugs are or bike lock clubbing professors are the people participating in peaceful democratically-elected governments Or that the century old political movement is just so different from Narzis is a moral blind spot of socialists like myself or yourself (what ever your politics are) considering we were both alive and probably both had strong views on Pol Pot who was a Cambodian communist revolutionary of the Ideologically Marxist–Leninist and Khmer nationalist variety up to the1980's
To not see the similarities between the identity politics of both the far right and the far left that just have a different group to hate apart from that they are two sides of the same coin
have you actually considered your defence of pol pot and other genocide communist regimes can be seen as '' yes but he's our genocidist so you can't compare him to hitler because'' ....reasons / chequered history/old fashioned/ its the white supremist male capitalist patriarchs turn/ I'm better so this time....
centalists can only listen to what the mob on the street are saying...same as you do with narzis
then we have to listen and read what the other side wants

 

[Hrothbern]

To not see the similarities between the identity politics of both the far right and the far left that just have a different group to hate apart from that they are two sides of the same coin

Both are I think manifestations of populism.
Instead of coherent ideological, political programs, balancing a multitude of important values and objectives, to give value to democracy and the governmental responsibility, a simplification of viewing the world around you has taken place and the void is filled in with strongman-following, identity politics (which includes fundamental religious thinking), and being against everything complex.

 

[Old Hippy]

Both are I think manifestations of populism.
Instead of coherent ideological, political programs, balancing a multitude of important values and objectives, to give value to democracy and the governmental responsibility, a simplification of viewing the world around you has taken place and the void is filled in with strongman-following, identity politics (which includes fundamental religious thinking), and being against everything complex.

isn't Democracy a manifestation of populism to start with
we just need coherent, political programs, balancing a multitude of important values and objectives, to give value to democracy and governmental responsibility forget the ideological that's not important unless you want to fill the void between complex good ideas and tribal isms

 

[Hrothbern]

isn't Democracy a manifestation of populism to start with
we just need coherent, political programs, balancing a multitude of important values and objectives, to give value to democracy and governmental responsibility forget the ideological that's not important unless you want to fill the void between complex good ideas and tribal isms

Smile
There are quite some countries where the weight of ideologies is relatively smaller and the weight of "coherent, political programs, balancing a multitude of important values and objectives" is relatively higher. I live in such a country.
If you would go several steps further, ....quite a leap actually...., you could use polls with enough depth to measure the weight of the objectives/values of your population and use magistrates to implement that into policies.
The role of political parties would reduce to entities influencing the objectives/values of the population. The degree of success of competing entities influencing the population not measured by votes, but by the resulting effects in the objectives/values of the population.

In how far democracy is already a manifestation of populism.....
A cynical approach to the voting democracy is that it is no more than a safety valve on uncontrolled populism.

I think that the traditional representative democracy with on top supreme courts, FBI's, etc and civil society that are far away enough from direct political influence come a long way. This includes a bigger role for magistrates and a lesser role for politicians driven by 24x7 newsmedia, the polls, the next election.

If for example universities, with the feedback of their university hospitals and research among the population, paid fully by the people and therefore free from Big Pharma.... their key people, their magistrates so to say, come to the conclusion that certain researches and programs are needed.... then that is what is what is most likely going to happen, because they can convince the politicians, unless some politician made some promisses in an election campaign.
Is that not for that field of knowledge and socital value eliminating populism by politicians ?
And was that not the way things were in the 50ies and 60ies in most western countries ?

This thread is mostly on the US, where the whole top layer of civil servants can be replaced by the new president. In my country none of the civil servants is replaced. They have a job at the department and stay in place. They are magistrates, knowledgable in their job, in principle for life unless they job-hop, and politics has no direct influence on existing employees job continuity.

EDIT
But trusting magistrates can indeed be a big hurdle for some people and some countries.... especially because they are not chosen.
Nixon tried to blow up the code of the FBI, and succeeded halfway.
Trump tries to do the same now. But I trust the unchosen Mueller with his code far more than the chosen Trump (or chosen Obama, Bush, etc)
Erdogan removed all the magistrates that were not yes-nodding.
Populism is basically against magistrates.

 

[Old Hippy]

Smile
There are quite some countries where the weight of ideologies is relatively smaller and the weight of "coherent, political programs, balancing a multitude of important values and objectives" is relatively higher. I live in such a country.
If you would go several steps further, ....quite a leap actually...., you could use polls with enough depth to measure the weight of the objectives/values of your population and use magistrates to implement that into policies.
The role of political parties would reduce to entities influencing the objectives/values of the population. The degree of success of competing entities influencing the population not measured by votes, but by the resulting effects in the objectives/values of the population.

<snip>

interesting, could you name your country so i can get an idea of whether its working from other sources (googling current affairs)
I am British and live in Victoria/Australia so am aware of our older ideas of a stable and semi-permanent civil service tho not used much nowadays.

 

[Hrothbern]

interesting, could you name your country so i can get an idea of whether its working from other sources (googling current affairs)
I am British and live in Victoria/Australia so am aware of our older ideas of a stable and semi-permanent civil service tho not used much nowadays.

I live in The Netherlands
Multi party PM system with proportional representation for both chambers. The Senate is focused on responsible statemanship and is the proportional vote of the Provinces election, whereby the members do not participate in the election. Governors of provinces and Mayors are appointed magistrates.
We have in general a high trust in civil service like judges, police, etc and in our government.
Our judicial system: we have no jury, new appointments of our Supreme Court is in reality cooptive and only the formal blessing of the politics.
Our traditional political parties and news outlets have relatively high acceptance (proxy for trust) by all at around the same level.
And ofc in the high tide of populism we have our populist political party that faces a cordon sanitaire in parliament and attacks the newsmedia, the magistrates, wants chosen mayors, abolish the Senate, etc, and champions all the time free speech as if it was not there already.

On that "trust" in all traditional parties this graph from PEW
http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/07/12...ross-western-europe-more-than-populist-views/

 

[Lexicus]

have you actually considered your defence of pol pot and other genocide communist regimes

Except he didn't defend them at all? Like what on earth are you talking about?

 

[Old Hippy]

Except he didn't defend them at all? Like what on earth are you talking about?

If I say how Morally Bankrupt and genocidal communism can be and someone says its not an honest description because of moral blind spots and just not a honest description because of communism's chequered history because of what ever stains I MAY think are on the revolutionary excess of the left. Is a defense of the genocidal claims I made about Communism actually quite a strong one

Nobody disputes that Communism has a chequered legacy, but to pretend that the movement and its symbols can be directly equated to the historical abomination of Nazism is either profoundly disingenuous, or still more profoundly ignorant. Whatever stains you may think that the worst revolutionary excesses have left on the trappings of the Leninist legacy, whatever moral blindspots you think that the maintenance of that legacy implies, it's just not a honest or useful description of Communism as a century-old political movement.

 

[Lexicus]

Nobody disputes that Communism has a chequered legacy, but to pretend that the movement and its symbols can be directly equated to the historical abomination of Nazism is either profoundly disingenuous, or still more profoundly ignorant. Whatever stains you may think that the worst revolutionary excesses have left on the trappings of the Leninist legacy, whatever moral blindspots you think that the maintenance of that legacy implies, it's just not a honest or useful description of Communism as a century-old political movement.

[/QUOTE]

"Communism isn't the same as Nazism"
"You're defending Pol Pot!"

Well I can see that this discussion is clearly being carried on in good faith. This is of course leaving aside the fact that the Khmer Rouge weren't even Communists or leftists at all really...

 

[Old Hippy]

"Communism isn't the same as Nazism"
"You're defending Pol Pot!"

Well I can see that this discussion is clearly being carried on in good faith. This is of course leaving aside the fact that the Khmer Rouge weren't even Communists or leftists at all really...

"not my kind of Communism at all really"..." I would be so much better at fighting wrong thought this time because of" ...reasons

 

[Lexicus]

not my kind of Communism at all really... I would be so much better at fighting wrong thought this time because of ...reasons

I'm not a Communist of any kind, and I'm pretty opposed to Leninism in all its forms. But it's pretty ignorant to characterize the Khmer Rouge as Communists. If you want to talk about Communists murdering people at least go with Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

In any case it's pretty clear that Traitorfish was defending "Communism" as an entire movement, by referencing the fact that plenty of Communist parties participate in nonviolent parliamentary politics, by contrast with the Nazis who wasted no time destroying the parliamentary system in Germany as soon as they had sufficient power to do so. As I said before, reading this as any kind of defense of Pol Pot or other revolutionary mass-murders is hardly a good-faith argument.

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm not a Communist of any kind, and I'm pretty opposed to Leninism in all its forms. But it's pretty ignorant to characterize the Khmer Rouge as Communists. If you want to talk about Communists murdering people at least go with Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

i choose pol pot because i remember it happerning and i wanted to keep the numbers of dead to a level that people can relate to

In any case it's pretty clear that Traitorfish was defending "Communism" as an entire movement, by referencing the fact that plenty of Communist parties participate in nonviolent parliamentary politics, by contrast with the Nazis who wasted no time destroying the parliamentary system in Germany as soon as they had sufficient power to do so. As I said before, reading this as any kind of defense of Pol Pot or other revolutionary mass-murders is hardly a good-faith argument.

I am a Socialist who will be voting for the left wing party next year to keep my Universal health care. A nonviolent way to "Do" parliamentary politics,
now your comparing nazis with "Communism"
its like they both use identity politics just different "others"

 

[Mouthwash]

In any case it's pretty clear that Traitorfish was defending "Communism" as an entire movement, by referencing the fact that plenty of Communist parties participate in nonviolent parliamentary politics, by contrast with the Nazis who wasted no time destroying the parliamentary system in Germany as soon as they had sufficient power to do so.

Did any of those peaceful, democratic communist movements have sufficient power to destroy their host country's legislature?