Majority Tyranny and Freedom of Speech

[CenSin]

So browsing around, I found a locked thread which I hadn’t read yet. And I could not find a better example of majority tyranny on this forum than when I read it:

It cracks me up that VG8 upvoted this. "Nationalism and xenophobia," ah yes, that's the ticket I'll sign on to.

I stand by my comment, though. When you grossly generalize negative beliefs about certain peoples and do everything your power to eliminate their rights and humanity, that makes you a racist.

Ironically, the above post comes with this signature:

Dissent is patriotic.

 

I’m not saying that the criticism of Via Garibaldi 8’s views is wrong though. He is free to express his views as you are free to criticize them. That’s freedom of speech. His speech is free just as much as the retaliation that follows. But his views constitute dissent—dissent against the majority opinion on this forum and in this state (which cannot really be labeled with a single word without diluting or corrupting its meaning.) So see the two above quotes in one post was incredibly ironic. It implies that dissent is unpatriotic when it doesn’t agree with your views, and that’s exactly the problem that our founding fathers were so cautious against.

[GojiMet86]

Patriotism is an archaic relic of an age where emotion and lack of knowledge ruled the world. Unfortunately, it still has many adherents and will forever more. It implies there is something inherently superior about whatever it is one is patriotic about, not because of evidence or science or valid rational logic, but because one feels it. It has a way to rally the buffoons of society into committing horrific acts in the name of this romantic notion of society to justify material robbery. Hence things like Manifest Destiny.

 

The argument presented argues that dissent against the majority is unpatriotic when it doesn't agree with one's views. And this assumes patriotism is a perfectly valid belief.

 

The issue really isn't about that, though. It is about the consequences of taking a stand against a majority that sees the dissenter as a person to be killed. Historically (supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence), people who have held conservative beliefs about other peoples or religions have ended creating wars or attempting to annihilate said groups or religions. Clearest example today is the Islamic State, who has tried to wipe out anyone who will not bow to their ideals. There is the Spanish Inquisition, the invasion of the Americas and Africa by the Europeans, the list goes on. And like it or not, people who have held societal liberal values and have practiced them are almost always on the wrong end of that stick. It really has not been the case the other way around. How many times has there been a very homosexual-friendly, all-religion tolerant, all-races welcoming dictatorship? There is none that crosses my mind. There are people who argue the US is just that. But it would have to be the queerest and most sissy like dictatorship in history, and it can't even enforce immigration laws the way most dictatorships have.

 

You seem to support your view of dissent for the sake of doing so. But the consequences matter as well, and the ideals that been presented by a certain orange-haired, millionaire presidential candidate have historically led to oppression and suppression against, ironically, the dissenting minority.

[CenSin]

Patriotism is an archaic relic of an age where emotion and lack of knowledge ruled the world. Unfortunately, it still has many adherents and will forever more. It implies there is something inherently superior about whatever it is one is patriotic about, not because of evidence or science or valid rational logic, but because one feels it. It has a way to rally the buffoons of society into committing horrific acts in the name of this romantic notion of society to justify material robbery. Hence things like Manifest Destiny.

 

The argument presented argues that dissent against the majority is unpatriotic when it doesn't agree with one's views. And this assumes patriotism is a perfectly valid belief.

 

The issue really isn't about that, though. It is about the consequences of taking a stand against a majority that sees the dissenter as a person to be killed. Historically (supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence), people who have held conservative beliefs about other peoples or religions have ended creating wars or attempting to annihilate said groups or religions. Clearest example today is the Islamic State, who has tried to wipe out anyone who will not bow to their ideals. There is the Spanish Inquisition, the invasion of the Americas and Africa by the Europeans, the list goes on. And like it or not, people who have held societal liberal values and have practiced them are almost always on the wrong end of that stick. It really has not been the case the other way around. How many times has there been a very homosexual-friendly, all-religion tolerant, all-races welcoming dictatorship? There is none that crosses my mind. There are people who argue the US is just that. But it would have to be the queerest and most sissy like dictatorship in history, and it can't even enforce immigration laws the way most dictatorships have.

 

You seem to support your view of dissent for the sake of doing so. But the consequences matter as well, and the ideals that been presented by a certain orange-haired, millionaire presidential candidate have historically led to oppression and suppression against, ironically, the dissenting minority.

My point was that the country was founded on the principle that the majority should not be able to suppress the minority completely. Hence, exercising the right to hold dissenting views is patriotic. Patriotism, is an attachment to the core values of a country—such as the fact we are one of the few countries to protect freedom of speech. I don’t think there is an evidence-based or scientific approach to argue for or against things like that.

 

The argument presented argues that dissent against the majority is unpatriotic when it doesn't agree with one's views. And this assumes patriotism is a perfectly valid belief.

The argument I presented argues that dissent against the majority is patriotic. It affirms it.

 

You seem to support your view of dissent for the sake of doing so. But the consequences matter as well, and the ideals that been presented by a certain orange-haired, millionaire presidential candidate have historically led to oppression and suppression against, ironically, the dissenting minority.

Yes. Dissent for the sake of dissent is good. So is provocation for the sake of provocation. Not becoming sedated and complacent is necessary for the quick adaptation and evolution of a group. I’ve held many different views over the years on many things sometimes swinging from one extreme to another, but ultimately converging on something I believe to be right thanks to always having internal dissent keeping my opinions in check. If a nation were to be lead in one direction by a majority, it would eventually lead to the same magnitude of extremism that you claim the Islamic State represents.

 

Conservative forces must exist to keep progressive forces from staying too far and same for the progressive forces.

[CenSin]

Patriotism is an archaic relic of an age where emotion and lack of knowledge ruled the world. Unfortunately, it still has many adherents and will forever more. It implies there is something inherently superior about whatever it is one is patriotic about, not because of evidence or science or valid rational logic, but because one feels it. It has a way to rally the buffoons of society into committing horrific acts in the name of this romantic notion of society to justify material robbery. Hence things like Manifest Destiny.

Love of another person is also something that happens absent of evidence and scientific logic. If everything were based on science and evidence alone, we would be machines.

[GojiMet86]

Not really. Ironically, love is more present and more allowed in a scientific society. Like the modern United States. Think of all the same-sex and mixed race marriage that was prevented because some doppy conservative used pseudoscience to justify his idea of patriotism. And that's not even getting into the fact that a lot of hate towards gays and minorites has come from religion and scientific ignorance. An all science society would not make us machines. Compassion is still present. And that is what the right lacks.

 

As for extremities, a liberal extremist society would be much peaceful than that of a conservative one simply by definition. Who would there be to oppress and torture and round up? Again, history has shown this to be the case. In theory, extremes can be violent, but reality has shown that to be different. Conservativism is inheritantly destined to oppress.

 

An internal check like that is bound to stall, and create a stagnant, society.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So browsing around, I found a locked thread which I hadn’t read yet. And I could not find a better example of majority tyranny on this forum than when I read it:

Ironically, the above post comes with this signature:

 

I’m not saying that the criticism of Via Garibaldi 8’s views is wrong though. He is free to express his views as you are free to criticize them. That’s freedom of speech. His speech is free just as much as the retaliation that follows. But his views constitute dissent—dissent against the majority opinion on this forum and in this state (which cannot really be labeled with a single word without diluting or corrupting its meaning.) So see the two above quotes in one post was incredibly ironic. It implies that dissent is unpatriotic when it doesn’t agree with your views, and that’s exactly the problem that our founding fathers were so cautious against.

It's nothing new with MVH... He has an incredible viewpoint that says, you're either a bleeding liberal or you're against the country.  Talk about narrow points of view.  As I stated in another thread, I am an Independent, and am actually liberal on several issues, but conservative fiscally and on other issues such as illegal immigration and trade.  A proud protectionist... Republicans historically are not protectionists, so that right there doesn't put me in favor with the Republicans though I have voted for some, but I have voted probably for more third party candidates than anyone.

[B35 via Church]

Guys, the issue that led to that thread being locked was a lack of self-control on MHV's part & nothing more.....

 

There was no reason to throw in that shot about not taking VG8 seriously due to what he has in his sig.... That's trying to pick a fight for the sake of doing so....

[Around the Horn]

Not sure why this thread was created, but good points throughout.

 

Not much more that I can add but two sides are required in any argument because the truth most likely exists in between. Theoretically, argument and debate creates the best outcome. However in current society, two extremes refuse to cooperate.

[Interested Rider]

Around the Horn raises a key point when he states that "argument and debate creates the best outcome" and "However in current society two extremes refuse to cooperate". If there is anything that disturbs me as I see and hear about the loss of free speech is the inability of many in our community to take to heart that the best outcomes come from argument and debate and therefore they should take the time to listen to the other side. The problem is that too many in our community do not do it and right away, we are faced with a person or group so rigid in their thinking that nothing next to a meteor literally hitting them will they take the time to listen to what we have to say in response. This is extremely dangerous to our society and  has led to the loss of this most precious right "the right of free speech" without having to worry about the proverbial knock at the door or the trip to the local police station. This is what i fear and unfortunately I read about it, hear it and see it on a daily basis.

What many in our society forget and do not want to remember is that we have the right to express our opinions on issues and not be shouted down by those who believe that there way is right as this is one of the reasons that the United States of America was created. Our founding fathers almost saw the possible defeat of the proposed constitution until it was agreed that the "Bill of rights"  would become part of this document.  Our constitution was unique at that time and our country with all its flaws was able to survive as we had to right to redress  our grievances against the government. Today I took the time to read the Declaration of Independence and to comprehend what our founding fathers were asking for at that time and how relevant it is today. As Via Garibaldi stated, she is socially liberal and fiscally conservative on various issues which I am as well and I respect her views. Even though I am a member of a political party, I take the time to speak to members of the opposite party and hear what they have to say as maybe I can learn something from them and vice versa. The problem that I find appalling is that  I am attacked for doing this even though it is in the best interest of the community. What the enemies of free speech want is balkanization so that the powers that be can divide and conquer to achieve their goals which includes the shredding of the United States Constitution. Once we lose free speech, we will have tyranny and by the time many of us wake up, it will be too late.  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Guys, the issue that led to that thread being locked was a lack of self-control on MHV's part & nothing more.....

 

There was no reason to throw in that shot about not taking VG8 seriously due to what he has in his sig.... That's trying to pick a fight for the sake of doing so....

I should also add that my signature has been this way well before Trump became the nominee, and it's funny that only now he takes issue with it.  If I had Hillary as my signature, he wouldn't say squat.  

[CenSin]

So, after a weekend cleaning up and finding over $500 stashed under old documents and receipts, I’m ready to bask in my clean room with a beer. Getting back on topic…
 

Not really. Ironically, love is more present and more allowed in a scientific society. Like the modern United States.

Science does not prescribe anything. It only observes and hypothesizes. It’s the human emotional element that looks at the conclusion and tries to take action or lobby for what ought to be done to those in power. But the stereotypical scientist tends to harbor chilly views like how humans should be selectively bred (read: idiots are sterilized) for the betterment of the human race.
 

Think of all the same-sex and mixed race marriage that was prevented because some doppy conservative used pseudoscience to justify his idea of patriotism. And that's not even getting into the fact that a lot of hate towards gays and minorites has come from religion and scientific ignorance. An all science society would not make us machines. Compassion is still present. And that is what the right lacks.

What if the conservatives are right? What if the generous amount of compassion is just part of a recipe for the destruction of the nation? We’ll never know if we only hear one side of the story. Everyone wants to argue that they are better by claiming to be words that most people find positive. I think the intervening posts argue my point better on my behalf:

Not much more that I can add but two sides are required in any argument because the truth most likely exists in between. Theoretically, argument and debate creates the best outcome. However in current society, two extremes refuse to cooperate.

Around the Horn raises a key point when he states that "argument and debate creates the best outcome" and "However in current society two extremes refuse to cooperate". If there is anything that disturbs me as I see and hear about the loss of free speech is the inability of many in our community to take to heart that the best outcomes come from argument and debate and therefore they should take the time to listen to the other side. The problem is that too many in our community do not do it and right away, we are faced with a person or group so rigid in their thinking that nothing next to a meteor literally hitting them will they take the time to listen to what we have to say in response. This is extremely dangerous to our society and has led to the loss of this most precious right "the right of free speech" without having to worry about the proverbial knock at the door or the trip to the local police station. This is what i fear and unfortunately I read about it, hear it and see it on a daily basis.
What many in our society forget and do not want to remember is that we have the right to express our opinions on issues and not be shouted down by those who believe that there way is right as this is one of the reasons that the United States of America was created. Our founding fathers almost saw the possible defeat of the proposed constitution until it was agreed that the "Bill of rights" would become part of this document. Our constitution was unique at that time and our country with all its flaws was able to survive as we had to right to redress our grievances against the government. Today I took the time to read the Declaration of Independence and to comprehend what our founding fathers were asking for at that time and how relevant it is today. As Via Garibaldi stated, she is socially liberal and fiscally conservative on various issues which I am as well and I respect her views. Even though I am a member of a political party, I take the time to speak to members of the opposite party and hear what they have to say as maybe I can learn something from them and vice versa. The problem that I find appalling is that I am attacked for doing this even though it is in the best interest of the community. What the enemies of free speech want is balkanization so that the powers that be can divide and conquer to achieve their goals which includes the shredding of the United States Constitution. Once we lose free speech, we will have tyranny and by the time many of us wake up, it will be too late.

As for extremities, a liberal extremist society would be much peaceful than that of a conservative one simply by definition. Who would there be to oppress and torture and round up? Again, history has shown this to be the case. In theory, extremes can be violent, but reality has shown that to be different. Conservativism is inheritantly destined to oppress.

In my honest opinion, extremism at either end of the spectrum tends to be extremely oppressive. A nation that follows an extreme ideology generally cannot sustain itself. Liberalism taken to the extremes would result in a complete absence of morals, deterioration of the fabric of society (no family values, and no families), and—dare I say—the return of man to the law of the jungle. Give conservatism the chance to reach the extremes, and we would be back into the dark ages, taking the entire world along with it through global warming and financial turmoil.
 

An internal check like that is bound to stall, and create a stagnant, society.

So how does one decide which side to eliminate so that society can move in some direction? Let’s eliminate the liberals? As said before, it’s a recipe for disaster to let one side pull. it would be no different than a group dictatorship where the dictator is a mob of extremists holding power under the guise of democracy.
 

Guys, the issue that led to that thread being locked was a lack of self-control on MHV's part & nothing more.....

There was no reason to throw in that shot about not taking VG8 seriously due to what he has in his sig.... That's trying to pick a fight for the sake of doing so....

I thought the post was interesting to remark on, so I moved the discussion here regardless of whether that post was treading into no-no territory.

[R10 2952]

Liberalism taken to the extremes would result in a complete absence of morals, deterioration of the fabric of society (no family values, and no families), and—dare I say—the return of man to the law of the jungle. Give conservatism the chance to reach the extremes, and we would be back into the dark ages, taking the entire world alongwith it through global warming and financial turmoil.

 

THIS. Both ends of the spectrum have indeed failed; mainly because they tend too far in their own directions.

 

A group dictatorship where the dictator is a mob of extremists holding power under the guise of democracy.

 

Which is basically what America has been devolving into post-1980; a third-rate banana republic regardless of which party has been in power....

[GojiMet86]

Clearly, you haven't been to an actual third-rate banana republic...

[CenSin]

Clearly, you haven't been to an actual third-rate banana republic...

It may not be third-rate, but there are certainly sleazy things going on, and America isn’t ranked #1 on the list of least corrupt countries.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/hitchens200810

http://nypost.com/2016/07/05/fbis-baffling-rescue-of-hillary-is-turning-america-into-a-banana-republic/

[R10 2952]

Clearly, you haven't been to an actual third-rate banana republic...

 

I have, actually. Asia, South America, post-communist Eastern Europe... I'm not really in the habit of pulling references out of my ass. Last I checked, my name ain't Peter Griffin.

[GojiMet86]

You just named three regions that have never been or had banana republics. Guatemala, my parent's home country, has been an actual Banana Republic.

 

Because it was controlled by a fruit company. Hence, the term Banana Republic.

 

Banana Republics are specifically Central American countries. No other countries in Asia or Europe can lay claim to that. Not even the South Americans can do so.

 

And no, the USA is not turning into one just because Shillary is getting away with the email fiasco. And it never will.

[R10 2952]

Yeah I should have said South and Central America- I've been there as well.  I am well aware of what United Fruit did- I was using the term in a relatively broad sense.  And no, Hillary Clinton was the furthest thing from my mind, actually; it's hard to pay attention to election-year politics when the two main frontrunners for executive office are both pathological liars.  I actually meant to use the term 'third world country', but initially decided against that because I thought that would be jumping the gun.  Then again, when I think of the deplorable conditions I've seen in places like the South Bronx, Brownsville, as well as redneck parts of Jersey and Connecticut, foreseeing such a future might not be out of bounds at all.  The conservatives and the liberals have both worked to turn this country into a far shittier place for ordinary people then it was a few decades ago.  But I'm not too worried about it-  I'll probably be leaving in a few years' time, anyway.  Not because of social/political/economic issues, though.  Just a question of health- mine simply fares better when the temperature doesn't exceed 85 degrees.  With global warming going at the rate it is currently, I'll probably be spending my retirement on an ice cap- that is if if there's any left by then LMAO...  

[GojiMet86]

You might be better going up, or all the way south, like Patagonia South, with all the Zika mosquitos moving up.

[R10 2952]

It's not even diseases I'm worried about; it's simply the heat itself.  If I have to spend every summer marinating in heatwaves, I'll be stroked out by decade's end.  The cold never bothered me, I was always very resistant to its effects.  But the heat is too much of a strain.  If the issue were global cooling or something, I'd hardly notice.  

[SubwayGuy]

I rarely post in off topic, but everyone needs to get out of the textbook.

 

The problem with our society today is too much oversimplification and focusing on the power of a single word in a simplistic and often idiotic approach to understanding a problem by reducing the complexity of it to one factor. Works great in the scientific method, works like shit in politics and public policy.

 

"Patriotism" evokes different things for different people. Patriotism to me has always been pride in one's country. As much as I bash the way this country is run, I love it, and am damn proud to be an American. But patriotism also means doing right by your country and wanting what's best, it's not blind loyalty and flag waving, or cultural/ethnic/national superiority. You can root for your team without telling fans of the opposition that their team sucks. And you can sure as hell pick apart your team, identify its weaknesses, and try and fix them. And you damn well better talk about those weaknesses, understand them, and fix them as best you can. Get it?

 

Dissent isn't always healthy, but part of the problem in American history is that the "freedom" crowd has historically not been very militant at times when it needs to be. I consider myself the exception...my political views are extremely nuanced, and the kind of policy I support draws from key tenets of conservative and liberal thought, and (I believe) is most consistent with historical American values that reward hard work, create equal opportunity, and maintain law and order while providing a stable platform of a society. And I believe in saying the hard hitting truths, not sugar coating things, or worrying about people's feelings. Demand results, don't beg for them. The freedom crowd notices the erosion of their liberties, shrugs, writes a letter, stages a protest, or begs for them back. The gun rights see a threat to their guns being taken away, and march around with legal guns in questionably public spaces and make a scene.

 

However, dissent has often been stifled when protests are involved, but in reality dissent is never stifled in America. A few people getting arrested for getting rowdy at a protest notwithstanding, the internet allows for the spread of ideas all over the world. This can be good or bad. The proliferation of ISIS has largely been online, and the fact that ISIS is able to recruit Americans and disgruntled Islamists living in America speaks as much to the failures of American society as it does to the allure of the promises made by groups like ISIS when recruiting. If America were truly the land of opportunity you are told it is as a child, these people would not be willing to walk away from the lives they've built to join a group like ISIS. But the fact they are means they don't have that much to lose. Same goes for the American kids who are recruited as Somali pirates, or into military like organizations in Africa where they commit heinous atrocities that you'll never even hear about because American media doesn't give a shit about Africa.

 

The KKK didn't like black equality in the 1960s, so they started killing blacks. Well, where were the angry black men who lost family members to racists, who show up to a KKK meeting in tablecloths and whiteface, then, once the moment is right, machine gun them back to whatever hole they came from? The reality is the good guys have always played too nice, and the "bad good guys" are lazy, so they go after targets of opportunity rather than the real culprits. In 1960s America, this would mean an angry black man kills a random white person, rather than putting in the work to infiltrate and target the racists committing lynchings in the South.

 

Take a look at these police killings...you have 11 dead and innocent cops in Dallas who had nothing to do with either situation. Yet for all the complaining about police brutality or assertation that black lives matter, no one is talking about the system of nickel and diming residents of many municipalities - regardless of color - that creates confrontations between cops and ordinary people over minor traffic violations, and which also leads to the deaths of numerous white, yellow, and brown people at the hands of cops every year. And this is on purpose. If you're pissed at the cops, you won't be pissed at the system. The same people that are out protesting that black lives matter are the same mewling pussies running off and writing letters to their local representatives begging for speed cameras to slow down the traffic near their neighborhood school, or trying to eliminate right on red at crowded intersections...because rather than have cops just look for bad driving and ticket accordingly, there is this insufferable need to codify EVERYTHING into law, and keep codifying when things inevitably fall through the cracks. Just like gun laws. Even though they are incredibly strict in NYC, you have many gun incidents every year. The loopholes are in the south. But every time there's a shooting that doesn't involve poor people in a ghetto, up will come the cry for "more gun laws." No, stupid. We have gun laws. We just do a shit job enforcing them. And we make it too hard for the good guys to own guns. Most of the people commenting on guns don't even understand the issue, the life or death, the snap judgments that a person in an active shooter situation must make, and that being armed in an active shooter situation is a tremendous responsibility since you are as likely to be the hero as you are to be mistaken for the shooter and killed.

 

Just like if you're pissed at the MTA, you won't be pissed at the politicians who call the shots about it. Just like if you're pissed at rising healthcare costs, it's easy to blame "Obama" and not the hundreds of special interests groups and the congressmen and women that represent them that drafted their dream bill to put before the president. Just like if you're pissed about paying taxes, it's easier to blame the IRS than the rich guy claiming all the deductions you don't get to while he pays a lower effective rate than you since most of his income is capital gains, and yours is earned income.

 

There is a serious problem with people in this country misidentifying the true causes of things, and it's because the majority of people here still believe everything they see in the media.

 

On the other side, freedom of speech does not guarantee someone the right to say whatever they want with no repercussions. Call a minority a racist name and you deserve to get punched in the nose. Tell a woman you're going to rape her and you deserve to gag on pepper spray. Freedom of speech only protects you from retribution BY THE STATE. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in privately owned spaces, and it does not provide a basis to break other laws. An entire generation of liberals doesn't get this. Paying admission to a baseball game does not give you the right to scream and curse in front of all the other fans and ruin their experience. Why? The team owns the arena. If other fans complain, as they should, you deserve to get kicked out with no refund. If something "offends" you, stop trying to ban it. Tell the other person how inconsiderate they are. Make them feel really f**king awkward. People hate this, seriously. Someone starts telling you how to raise your child, give them hell. "Who are you to tell me how to raise my child?" Not a passive "thanks" that reniforces the habit. Someone touches you without permission. "Excuse me, I didn't say you could touch me." They might try to apologize or explain why they did. Don't let them go. "I don't care, I did not give you permision to touch me." Make them feel awkward. Make a scene. Make other people look at them in public. Remember how you felt when you f**ked up in school in front of everyone? Give that experience to these people. Don't sit there awkwardly and put up with it, your silence complicit in reinforcing the behavior you find so repulsive. Yet the "safe space" crowd won't do this. They'll beg the state and the schools to give them "trigger warnings" so they can leave first.

 

Dissenting voices have always been a thing, and always will be. Sometimes they present some very valid points, and the majority ignores them potentially at their own peril. And sometimes they're just a bunch of loonies that just need to be waved off. Experience is the only way to know the difference, and there is no cookie cutter answer. Shit, that means people actually need to do the work of understanding the issues, which we all know they're too dumb and lazy to do.