My opinion on that is that such goal is not feasible in the foreseeable future, essentially for reasons of international politics and war.
Centralized governments with patriotically/religiously/ideologically motivated masses will, as a rule, be able to conquer and colonize anarchic communities.
I am also skeptical of the level of protection afforded to minorities in arrangements where they have no higher authority/power to appeal to when harassed or exploited by majority members or groups.
Except the Democrats from before desegregation are the Republicans of today, often literally the same people. And âRepublicansâ of that era were the party of Lincoln, strong federal government, and Shermanâs March.
Youâre pretending that some sort of role reversal has occurred, but in fact this is simply pushback from the same old school segregationists, fueled by Koch funded front organizations like the âVoter Integrity Project of North Carolina.â
But youâre from NC, so you know that, and you just pretend to not know these things.
Nobody wants to censor your defenseless friends. I have no problem with people openly discussing and analyzing events. I do have a problem if the movie you discuss happens to features extensive footage of the candidate, or extensive quotes or the like, That would be campaigning one way or another. Making it is probably irrelevant AFAIAC, but screening it at fundraisers might become relevant.
As for TV airtime, that should be regulated somewhat. Itâs a quality of life issue if nothing else. Political ads and pundits are insufferable.
Are you telling me that the FCC makes its determinations without even beginning to consider what Platanoides finds insufferable??? Itâs an outrage, thatâs what it is!
There seem to be more than a few boingers who think the First Amendment should say just that.
Why do I get the feeling someone is just dying to make a comment about getting the iron heel of minorities off the neck of the white race?
point made. (that is, thank you for making my point)
Wow, Aetius! You must be making some good money tonight, what with all these words yer writin.
Are you asking??
My guess would be that itâs comforting to you to think that anyone who has different political views from yours must be a racist.
Perhaps because this post on a popular blog about the Koch Brothers (spawn of the John Birch Society that they are) attracted some of their devoted minions into commenting here. Some of whom may even be paid to do that.
somehow the Koch brothers are brainwashing people or forcing them to vote a certain way?
You think that people who love money more than (other peopleâs) life itself would spend said precious money on think tanks, institutes, etc. if it didnât help to indoctrinate people into believing in profitable lies that spur them to vote against their own interests while further enriching the Koch brothers?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jensenko/the-brainwashing-of-my-dad-documentary
Youâre either shilling or youâre completely ignorant to the mechanics of propaganda.
Do you think that the speech produced by those think tanks, institutes, etc should be censored and banned simply because you believe it it wrong?
Iâm very familiar with the mechanics of propaganda. Iâm also familiar with the First Amendment. Which do you value more - free speech or stopping propaganda?
You mean the kind of people who say âIâm sick of being called a racist!â
My specialty is spotting Holocaust deniers, and there are way, way more of those than youâd expect.
Itâs not a question of what we âsimply believeâ is wrong like you dismissively pretend. Itâs a question of what the public interest is, and what does real damage to it.
When people try to redefine âfree speechâ to mean the right to unlimited and secretive campaign funding and lobbying, something that is demonstrably harmful and has no connection with why real free speech is valuable in the first place, weâre not going to feel bad for opposing it. Just because youâre using the same two syllables doesnât make it the same.
It makes for good propaganda, though, conflating the two concepts like that. I look forward to when the argument is expanded to the logical conclusion that no bribes should ever be illegal, because money is speech and speech must be unrestricted.
I value non-false dichotomies most of all.
But-but-but Agenda 21! New World Order! Illuminauti! Creeping Sharia!
Why arenât the conspiracy nuts all over this story of a real conspiracy? Not enough space aliens?
I see that youâre making the same false argument with me as you are with others in this thread. Itâs about transparency and exposing destructive corruption, lies and âhalf-truth production factoriesâ that serve the extremely wealthy while fucking over everyone else.
First of all, I addressed your question with my post and youâre ignoring it. Donât think for a second that your going to slither out of that with me in hopes Iâll forget that. You asked about indoctrination and I addressed it. Acknowledge it, please.
Secondly, combating lies from the Koch brothers and thier many weasel lackeys with the truth isnât censorship. These scumbags use thier vast wealth to drown out the speech of others. If you are so legitimately concerned with censorship, then why arenât you focused on one of the most prolific examples of it?
Who defines what the public interest is? You?
And who defines âreal free speechâ - you again? Should campaigns or their supporters be banned from distributing movies espousing their point of view? What about books? Leaflets? Pamphlets? Speeches? Should those things be banned because they cost money to produce and distribute? And are you going to ban politicians from talking with their donors, friends, and supporters because they might have influence over them? Are you going to ban people from creating radio shows or podcasts because they happen to support one candidate or another? What about for-profit newspapers or TV stations?
Thatâs the problem with trying to define âreal free speechâ. The purpose of the First Amendment is precisely to prevent the government from assuming the power to define what speech is allowed and what isnât. And Citizens United correctly established that censors could not use the back door of controlling spending to censor speech.
