By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 30 September 2020
Edit Thread
Moren said:
Slimebeast said:

It's scary that the country who once embraced freedom of speech and was famous all over the world for it, has suddenly become the strongest force in the West to suppress diversity of opinion. Just a few decades ago we as Swedes saw America, that you venerate freedom of speech. You even allowed nazis to march openly because freedom of speech was so holy. Now it's the other way around, cancel culture is rapidly spreading from the US universities, Big Tech and HR departments to Sweden and Europe. US college after college is being taken over by the woke mob with critical race theory and intersectionality being enforced in all areas, from school bureaucracy, to the curriculum, to recruitment and hiring practices.

But isn't it an objective and decisive truth that Nazis are bad, and that their speech should be completely suppressed and cancelled?

People should use any legal means at their disposal to silence them. Other countries take it a step further, and utilize the law to do so directly. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but would have to study more about how it works in European nations that employ such laws.

I know it wasn't addressed towards me, but I figured someone ought to answer it...

Slimebeast said:
JWeinCom said:

Should I just repeat the same thing I said before? Because you keep bringing up the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech, and again neither has anything to do with what you just said. You just spewed out buzzwords that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Just your opinions on what is moral to say or not to say, and I don't really care at all.

You then suggested that the government should regulate private enterprises and define what view points they can choose to platform or not platform. THAT is in violation of the First Amendment. If people don't like the restrictions these platforms place, they are free to go somewhere else. If it is not viable for any competing platform to emerge, then that's an anti-trust issue, wholly separate from the First Amendment.

And, no you can't speak for everyone on the right. Ffs.

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Let us assume for a second that Donald Trump is not the President, since that actually DOES create pretty severe First Amendment concerns. But lets say he's a private citizen who objects to players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. Why is it wrong for him call for those players to be fired or suspended?

What are you talking about?

Can you try to help with staying on the subject please? A few posts above one post talked about a right-leaning magazine and some political themes which according to some posters were controversial:

"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

'If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.'' 

And I commented how remarkable it is that a totalitarian mindset of cancel culture and censorship has taken hold of the USA, who historically has been so famous for freedom of speech. I didn't mention the First Amendment until you brought it up.

My point wasn't specifically about the First Amendment and I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution, but as it is teached to us here in Europe (up until recent years at least), American children are already from school ingrained to be tolerant about speech. America is always been brought up as the prime example of a society with freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that there's great tolerance to dissenting opinion unlike anywhere else, and how the American culture and spirit of classical liberalism has its roots and protection in the constitution. Law is not just law, law also forms a culture and national spirit.

In light of that background it's shocking as a European to witness the explosion in recent years of this hyper-sensitive atmosphere in so many American public institutions, thought police and witchhunts against people who hold dissenting opinions. I find it shocking that a magazine that opposes "censoring enforced by leftists" is seen as "extreme" and "onesided".

Yes, I absolutely can stay on topic and am doing so as best I can. If you think I am not, feel free to pose a direct question, and I will answer it. 

If you discuss America being founded about freedom of speech you are talking about the first amendment. Because that is what protects freedom of speech. The interpretation of that Amendment is what determines the boundaries of our freedom of speech. If you're talking about what freedom of speech means or should mean in America, you are talking about the first amendment. You cannot discuss one without the other.

Your school is wrong. There's nothing special about Americans. We react the same as anyone else to speech we don't like, on both sides of the spectrum. The difference is that it is illegal to criminalize speech about matters of public concern due to the first amendment. That's all. And even that's not an accurate portrayal of American history. For many years seditious libel, encouraging rebellion against the government, was illegal. Speaking against the draft was illegal. During the cold war people were blacklisted and ostracized for support of socialism. Teaching evolution was banned. There were laws against atheists holding public office, and there are still plenty of places in America where you will be ostracized for openly being an atheist. In some states, a non-violent sexual advance by a person of the same gender is still legal grounds for provocation to violence. In 13 US States (all red) it is illegal to defame beef (or other food products). People were lynched to silence them. American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right.

So, maybe you should learn a bit about the history of free speech in America before talking about the good ol' days where a man could speak his mind without fear. Cause that never existed. I wouldn't talk about freedom of speech in Sweden cause I know fuck all about that, and I stay in my lane. 

But, if you wish, fine. Let's discuss whether cancel culture is a good thing, independent of any law.

Allow me to respond to your comment. First off, it's not censorship as defined by law... but since you want to ignore the law since it disagrees with your personal values, if it condemned all calls for censorship, then that would not make it one sided. If it ignores calls for censorship when it's from one side, then it's one sided. Similarly if it only posts positive stories about Trump, that's one sided. Unless you'd like to take the position he's done nothing worthy of criticism.

Moreover, the site did not reach to Google for comment and relied solely on the position of one side of the story, reporting it as fact. It is one-sided in the most literal sense of the word.

So, back to my question about cancel culture. Which you said is the biggest threat to America or something like that. 

Do you believe that it is wrong to call for someone's private employer to fire them based on speech that you disagree with?

If so, then please, your opinion on this,

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Do you support Donald Trump's right to call for athletes to be fired for speech he does not approve of? Yes or no question man. Typing 2 to 3 letters should not be hard.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 30 September 2020