Endgame of modern progressivism

[vegas giants]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.

So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

I have seen this suggested here many times.

But logically, this same idea would apply to literally any idea that contradicts literally any progressive idea. Those ideas would be bad for society and government should step in and restrict them.

And so the logical endgame would to to silence all opposition at the point of a gun.

It is such a grand epic irony that these same people see their opposition as fascists.

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.


That sounds great

 

[Phys251]

The US is still far to the right of say the Scandinavian countries (those happiest in the world type countries) and they seem to have achieved those 'leftist ideals' without becoming authoritarian dictatorships like you are suggesting. Many countries have virtually banned 'hate speech' against religious, cultural, ethnic, and sexual identity groupings. None of them are using guns to 'silence the opposition'. Banning 'hate speech' doesn't ban 'facts speech'. It bans people expressing their prejudices, their personal religious beliefs, and often their misconceptions in such a way as to deliberately harm others. Why would me pulling out a gun and threatening (say) a middle aged white bible carrying male be any different than that same white male saying that all gay people should be killed etc? Both are equally abhorrent, especially in todays social media word where a hate statement might get widely spread and eventually inspire someone of limited intelligence to commit a crime.

Saying that the scary liberals are going to take control of your life and take away your liberties has been standard GOP dogma for years now. So long now that through mere repetition even some of the sane, moderate conservatives seem to have stopped arguing how false that is.

If liberals wanted to take away people's freedoms, they had eight years to do it during the Obama administration...

 

[Simpletruther]

Literally every word you wrote here is wrong.

One example might be helpful with an explanation or actual support for your claim.

I do not want to be rude. But that was kind of a pointess post in a debating forum.

 

[vegas giants]

One example might be helpful with an explanation or actual support for your claim.

I do not want to be rude. But that was kind of a pointess post in a debating forum.

It sounds great

 

[Simpletruther]

No they don't. They hate drag queens, Muslims, and mass transit.

More shit post.

Straight to the ad homs. Good job.

Epic irony.

 

[reflechissez]

One example might be helpful with an explanation or actual support for your claim.

I do not want to be rude. But that was kind of a pointess post in a debating forum.

I'd say your first post in this thread is kind of pointless.

 

[Simpletruther]

It sounds great

Thank you.

 

[vegas giants]

Thank you.

If it benefits society....as you say....who would oppose it?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.

You nailed it. You shoulda stopped right there, but you had to run full tilt into the RWNJ crap and embarrass yourself for some reason.

SMH

 

[Simpletruther]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.


That sounds great

But do you see the problemi was pointing out with that, if one views banning speech as benefiting society?

 

[vegas giants]

But do you see the problemi was pointing out with that, if one views banning speech as benefiting society?

You oppose banning ANY SPEECH?

Really?????

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Can someone translate this ^ word salad into coherent English?

Don't tell him he can't say the "N" or the "gay" word. It pisses him off.

Plus he's trying to equate common decency with loony RWNJ policies.

 

[Simpletruther]

If it benefits society....as you say....who would oppose it?

Those who disagree that it benefits society.

 

[vegas giants]

Those who disagree that it benefits society.

They certainly can vote their conscience

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Can someone translate this ^ word salad into coherent English?

Local man angry he can’t call people faggots without social consequences anymore. Wants other people to feel sorry for him because he’s oppressed.

 

[Simpletruther]

You oppose banning ANY SPEECH?

Really?????

Only speech that poses a literal tangible danger like I citing violence. Or is obectibly purposefully lying and causes damage etc.

Basically what we have no I. The US.

 

[vegas giants]

Only speech that poses a literal tangible danger like I citing violence. Or is obectibly purposefully lying and causes damage etc.

Basically what we have no I. The US.

I support our democratic republic. If the people want hate speech outlawed.....so be it

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Um, the OP already accepts that as part of the premise. You have added nothing.

You said it was the "endgame" to outlaw it.
But it cant simply be "outlawed", so what you say the "endgame" is really doesnt matter.

 

[Redress]

One example might be helpful with an explanation or actual support for your claim.

I do not want to be rude. But that was kind of a pointess post in a debating forum.

OK...

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.

No. Progressive and liberal ideology is that government should do what it can within the limits of practical restraint. This is not the same thing.

So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

Ironically, conservatives are the ones trying to outlaw speech. Hate speech is constitutionally protected.

I have seen this suggested here many times.

Claims like this without examples are meaningless.

But logically, this same idea would apply to literally any idea that contradicts literally any progressive idea. Those ideas would be bad for society and government should step in and restrict them.

Again, this is conservatives doing this, not progressives.

And so the logical endgame would to to silence all opposition at the point of a gun.

Something virtually no one has suggested.

It is such a grand epic irony that these same people see their opposition as fascists.

Odd, I do not see most of the opposition as fascist.

 

[Simpletruther]

Local man angry he can’t call people faggots without social consequences anymore. Wants other people to feel sorry for him because he’s oppressed.

This is pathetic trolling. I can do that all day without consequence. But I don't.

You are demonstrating the fascist progressive tactic of silencing and damaging the oppositional any way you can.

The same mentality fully demonstates the validity of the OP, should you gain the power to do so you would not just give "social sequences".

 

[Ishm]

Is it not true that in some EU countries you can run afoul of the law for hate speech and be punished by government?

I've worked in many of the EU countries, but never tested their hate speech laws. If however you read my first post properly, I said that I understand that many countries do have hate speech laws, and yes that means that like any law, breaking it usually incurs a penalty from the govt of some sort. To me, "hate speech" should not be confused with "free speech". Hate speech is an attack on a person or group, and imo that is no different than pointing a gun at them in todays world. In fact it may cause more overall harm than a gun. To me, those using 'the right to free speech' as an excuse to spread their 'hate speech' are ignorant fools who are abusing, and potentially putting at risk, one the worlds most important rights.

I have observed (through public media while living abroad) some examples of peoples hate speech being addressed by the police/govt. Extreme cases have been punished through the courts. Most other cases (including the many unreported ones I imagine) end with the police issuing a verbal warning and explanation of the legal limits on hate speech. None of that ever gave me cause to even consider whether that might become a restriction on my legitimate rights to 'free speech'. If you don't consider hate speech as a 'right' to freely abuse and threaten others, then free speech isn't a companion topic. One note though, imo all political speech counts as free speech and operate under the normal free speech boundaries. I don't think that there is a reasonable way to separate out political hate speech, even though some of it should probably count as full on mindless hate speech.

 

[Simpletruther]

OK...

No. Progressive and liberal ideology is that government should do what it can within the limits of practical restraint. This is not the same thing.

Yet a few progressives have already shown you to be wrong here, and agreed with my statement there.

Ironically, conservatives are the ones trying to outlaw speech. Hate speech is constitutionally protected.

Sorry,but oregressives are too, it's been said here many times.

Claims like this without examples are meaningless.

Like you just did?

Again, this is conservatives doing this, not progressives.

See^ but to deny it happens is being silly. And we see this progression in the EU that has banned hate speech. And US progressives are Lways pointing to enlightened EU

Something virtually no one has suggested.

That is why I said it's a Logical endgame.

Odd, I do not see most of the opposition as fascist.

Many progressives do. If you oppose anything they are championing you are called a fascist.

 

[Simpletruther]

I've worked in many of the EU countries, but never tested their hate speech laws. If however you read my first post properly, I said that I understand that many countries do have hate speech laws, and yes that means that like any law, breaking it usually incurs a penalty from the govt of some sort. To me, "hate speech" should not be confused with "free speech". Hate speech is an attack on a person or group, and imo that is no different than pointing a gun at them in todays world. In fact it may cause more overall harm than a gun. To me, those using 'the right to free speech' as an excuse to spread their 'hate speech' are ignorant fools who are abusing, and potentially putting at risk, one the worlds most important rights.

I have observed (through public media while living abroad) some examples of peoples hate speech being addressed by the police/govt. Extreme cases have been punished through the courts. Most other cases (including the many unreported ones I imagine) end with the police issuing a verbal warning and explanation of the legal limits on hate speech. None of that ever gave me cause to even consider whether that might become a restriction on my legitimate rights to 'free speech'. If you don't consider hate speech as a 'right' to freely abuse and threaten others, then free speech isn't a companion topic. One note though, imo all political speech counts as free speech and operate under the normal free speech boundaries. I don't think that there is a reasonable way to separate out political hate speech, even though some of it should probably count as full on mindless hate speech.

Well, one problem. Is anything that "damages society can be defined as hate speech.

You must hate your fellow man to say things damaging to society right?

Or at least you ate showing hate at that moment right?

Is it not hateful to damage society?

 

[Slartibartfast]

 

[Simpletruther]

View attachment 67441446

Not about liberals.