• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If Musk re-opens the public square, ending undemocratic leftist censorship, can the left survive honest and open scrutiny?

Sorry, that was you when you moved into that from when we were previously talking about biological sex it's also why transgenderism is all about presenting as the opposite sex, including hormone therapy (effecting biology) and actual sex change operations (changing the biological appearance.)
Transgenerism is not the same as gender non conformity. One is a bucking of social ideas of what it means to be a man or woman culturally (not biologically) and the other is when you feel at odds with your biological gender (bearing in mind there is no biological imperative to be a home maker).
 
Lol...WUT? Our current, liberal-run schools, are producing dumbed down kids right now.
No biggy, just add schools to your enemies list and properly so since the gop is already in the process of banning books.
 
Transgenerism is not the same as gender non conformity. One is a bucking of social ideas of what it means to be a man or woman culturally (not biologically) and the other is when you feel at odds with your biological gender (bearing in mind there is no biological imperative to be a home maker).
Gender non-conforming is also the same thing I mentioned above. There is no term needed for a women that goes into the work force, that likes blue, that wear pants. Gender non-conforming people also change their appearance to present in a more ambiguous/androgenous manner, and by that I mean biological sex.
 
I think you are wrong. The SCOTUS said that the first Amendment does not include yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is what the right wingers did who lied about the election being stolen and then got their people to cause January 6th. They yelled fire, fire, fire for months, even though many had to know it was all a lie. So, if you say you think that the trickle down theory works, you have free speech to say so. If you say that we should overthrow the government because we do not like the outcome of an election and then have people take action to do so, then you do not have the right to free speech.

That didn't stop 2 newspapers from admitting they lied about Hunter's laptop, then being repeated by social media jumping on the bandwagon by sensoring it as fake news.
 
The left control the vast majority of "news" media outlets, and they dominate social media as well. So they basically control the modern public square. They've used that power to demonize and censor their political enemies, while promoting partisan propaganda 24/7.

But can the democrats and the progressive movement survive open, honest dialog, where they can't simply silence everyone? Can the modern left survive free speech? [A question to our truly liberal members: Why do the democrats and the leftist elites fear free speech so much]?
If "free speech" means spreading lies and misinformation that can harm others it is not covered under the 1st amendment.

Fake News: Lies spread faster on social media than truth does

People are quicker to repeat something that's wrong than something that's true

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...spread-faster-social-media-truth-does-n854896
 
That didn't stop 2 newspapers from admitting they lied about Hunter's laptop, then being repeated by social media jumping on the bandwagon by sensoring it as fake news.
They said the information that Rudy released supposedly FROM Hunter's laptop was suspect and the FBI agreed with that conclusion. They said Rudy has been in contact with Russian spies that may have given him misinformation. The FBI has had possession of Hunters laptop for years. They know what was on it.
 
The left control the vast majority of "news" media outlets, and they dominate social media as well. So they basically control the modern public square. They've used that power to demonize and censor their political enemies, while promoting partisan propaganda 24/7.

But can the democrats and the progressive movement survive open, honest dialog, where they can't simply silence everyone? Can the modern left survive free speech? [A question to our truly liberal members: Why do the democrats and the leftist elites fear free speech so much]?
I'm not sure what Musk has to do with your statement since Twitter would only be a portion of the "public square" you've outlined. The problem I see with your assessment is the assumption media is a public square, which it isn't since media companies are not in the business of serving the public good, but to benefit their shareholders if they are a private company, and the owners if they are a privately held one. If you're interested in this discussion, then it's not just a "left" issue but a "right" one as well, since media companies who lean in that direction create content for a very specific political demographic.

What's not clear is why you think people are being silenced to the degree where conservative or other voices aren't heard. This is not true on social media or on news media in the way you're framing it. I don't think Democrats or leftist elites hate free speech, but what continues to crop up is the inability of some in those circles to handle contradictory views. This is not limited to just that group though, since you don't see much tolerance for different views among conservative leaning media sites and outlets. The broader problem is both sides being unwilling to meet in the middle on many issues.
 
They said the information that Rudy released supposedly FROM Hunter's laptop was suspect and the FBI agreed with that conclusion. They said Rudy has been in contact with Russian spies that may have given him misinformation. The FBI has had possession of Hunters laptop for years. They know what was on it.

The New York Times said the exsistance of the laptop itself was Russian disiformation.
 
Gender non-conforming is also the same thing I mentioned above. There is no term needed for a women that goes into the work force, that likes blue, that wear pants.
You completely missed my point. There are societies that think women must wear burkas and shouldn't drive cars or go to school. This society used to think women didn't belong at work and had no need to own property. These ideas obviously had no basis in biology, they are instead cultural and social ideas of what a woman's role in society is and of course they had and have plenty of names for women who didn't conform to these ideas. They are called bitches and harlots and sinners to people who believe this is how women should dress and behave. Now, don't get confused because this isn't an argument that explains every instance of gender non conformity its just an example of the difference between what it means to be a woman biologically as opposed to what it means to be a woman culturally.
Gender non-conforming people also change their appearance to present in a more ambiguous/androgenous manner, and by that I mean biological sex.
I think you'll find that too is largely a social construct. If you doubt me then tell me what a woman is supposed to look like according to biology because I doubt it's anything like what society thinks a woman should look like.
 
That didn't stop 2 newspapers from admitting they lied about Hunter's laptop, then being repeated by social media jumping on the bandwagon by sensoring it as fake news.
Who decides if it's a lie?

Consider this:

The Washington Post on Wednesday became the second major news outlet to reverse course and admit that emails from the infamous Hunter Biden laptop are authentic — nine months after it obtained them and a year and a half after the New York Post first reported on them.

 
Last edited:
The New York Times said the exsistance of the laptop itself was Russian disiformation.
Probably because they knew the FBI was in possession of it and have been for years. The story about the blind computer repairman was totally bogus too.
 
Probably because they knew the FBI was in possession of it and have been for years. The story about the blind computer repairman was totally bogus too.

They admitted they fudged several news stories on the laptop during the election. Source on the blind computer shop owner.
 
You completely missed my point. There are societies that think women must wear burkas and shouldn't drive cars or go to school. This society used to think women didn't belong at work and had no need to own property. These ideas obviously had no basis in biology, they are instead cultural and social ideas of what a woman's role in society is and of course they had and have plenty of names for women who didn't conform to these ideas. They are called bitches and harlots and sinners to people who believe this is how women should dress and behave. Now, don't get confused because this isn't an argument that explains every instance of gender non conformity its just an example of the difference between what it means to be a woman biologically as opposed to what it means to be a woman culturally.
Sure sure...but none of that has anything to do with biological sex, but then we're hearing about all these medical treatments to present as the opposite sex. Like I said, gender is constantly conflated, even with how the gender radicals want to define things.
I think you'll find that too is largely a social construct. If you doubt me then tell me what a woman is supposed to look like according to biology because I doubt it's anything like what society thinks a woman should look like.
You're unaware that men and women look different? Weird. I have no issue telling the difference between the two at a glance unless someone is purposefully trying to look ambiguous. Even then, a second more than a glance will have that figured out as well.
 
Who decodes if it's a lie?

Consider this:

The Washington Post on Wednesday became the second major news outlet to reverse course and admit that emails from the infamous Hunter Biden laptop are authentic — nine months after it obtained them and a year and a half after the New York Post first reported on them.

There is still no connection to President Biden and that was the point of releasing them before the election. The Times was correct in not allowing them to influence the election. It would have been wrong.
 
Sure sure...but none of that has anything to do with biological sex, but then we're hearing about all these medical treatments to present as the opposite sex. Like I said, gender is constantly conflated, even with how the gender radicals want to define things.

You're unaware that men and women look different? Weird. I have no issue telling the difference between the two at a glance unless someone is purposefully trying to look ambiguous. Even then, a second more than a glance will have that figured out as well.
LOL Naivety about how some people look "down there" is not an excuse to discriminate. Not all people with penises are men.

Genitalia
The presence or lack of a penis is often thought of as another clear indicator of biological sex, but that’s not a decisive way to divide the sexes either. Some individuals are born with ambiguous genitalia and are not clearly male or female in genital appearance at birth. In fact, research indicates that about 2% of the population is born with these ambiguous traits. Those born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), for example, are chromosomally female but may have very masculinized genitalia. Despite the ambiguity, biological sex is often assigned to these individuals within a few days of birth.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/?sh=2c8340dc76b9
 
There is still no connection to President Biden and that was the point of releasing them before the election. The Times was correct in not allowing them to influence the election. It would have been wrong.

That's not their job. It's their job to report the news, not to change the narritive. They lied to effect an election.
 
That's not their job. It's their job to report the news, not to change the narritive. They lied to effect an election.
Prove it. The "narrative" had nothing to do with the election either. Absolutely nothing.
 
Sure sure...but none of that has anything to do with biological sex, but then we're hearing about all these medical treatments to present as the opposite sex. Like I said, gender is constantly conflated, even with how the gender radicals want to define things.
Exactly. Notions of gender roles have nothing to do with biological sex because they are two separate things. Took you long enough to come to that realization.
You're unaware that men and women look different? Weird. I have no issue telling the difference between the two at a glance unless someone is purposefully trying to look ambiguous. Even then, a second more than a glance will have that figured out as well.
What do you mean when you say someone is trying to look ambiguous? Give me an example so I know what you're talking about. You mean they're tucking the frank and beans between their legs or they aren't dressing or grooming in a way that you ascribe to women? Because I hate to break it to you, there is no biological imperative to even wear clothes in the first place. Unless of course it's to protect you from the elements and even then there is no biological imperative that men and women should dress differently when doing so.
 
Last edited:
But can the democrats and the progressive movement survive open, honest dialog, where they can't simply silence everyone? Can the modern left survive free speech? [A question to our truly liberal members: Why do the democrats and the leftist elites fear free speech so much]?
No Here is a great example

 
LOL Naivety about how some people look "down there" is not an excuse to discriminate. Not all people with penises are men.

Genitalia
The presence or lack of a penis is often thought of as another clear indicator of biological sex, but that’s not a decisive way to divide the sexes either. Some individuals are born with ambiguous genitalia and are not clearly male or female in genital appearance at birth. In fact, research indicates that about 2% of the population is born with these ambiguous traits. Those born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), for example, are chromosomally female but may have very masculinized genitalia. Despite the ambiguity, biological sex is often assigned to these individuals within a few days of birth.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/?sh=2c8340dc76b9
It's less than 2%. That study is flawed. It's actually 0.018%. To get to 2% they include things that are only tangentially related to intersex, but not actually intersex. However, even in cases of actual intersex, you do not have two operational gametes. Only one or none. In the case were there are working gametes, there is your answer.


Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.
 
The left control the vast majority of "news" media outlets, and they dominate social media as well. So they basically control the modern public square. They've used that power to demonize and censor their political enemies, while promoting partisan propaganda 24/7.

But can the democrats and the progressive movement survive open, honest dialog, where they can't simply silence everyone? Can the modern left survive free speech? [A question to our truly liberal members: Why do the democrats and the leftist elites fear free speech so much]?
Dishonest and ignorant premise.

Conservative opinion isn’t being censored. Right wing lies are. Don’t like it? Carry your ass on over to Truth (if it’s still operating) or Parler.
 
It will be a start to them having a lot more trouble controlling the narrative, but there are so many leftist institutions that need to be reformed that Twitter alone won't be able to remedy. The biggest one that needs to be fixed is education.
Folks that share your belief are part of a shrinking demographic.
 
Back
Top Bottom