Has the left shown that we should repeal the 1st Amendment?

Woko Haram said:
You seem to assume that being an opportunistic tyrant makes someone not of the left. I could make the same claim about any right wing leader that became an opportunistic tyrant.
Click to expand...

True, but the difference is that Authoritarianism is right-wing. There are frauds on the Left and on the Right who will say whatever it takes to get power. But the people who honestly do believe in Conservatism are fighting for Fascism and are much much more likely to support Fascists. People who honestly believe in Liberalism won't do that.

The Bolsheviks were left wing. They certainly weren't right wing.
Click to expand...

If the Bolsheviks were really left-wing, then they would have respected the will of the Left, who voted for Liberal Democracy. And once the Bolsheviks got into power, they didn't even try to have collective ownership. Instead, they made a typical right-wing state where a small minority controls everything.
 
StoneByStone said:
True, but the difference is that Authoritarianism is right-wing. There are frauds on the Left and on the Right who will say whatever it takes to get power. But the people who honestly do believe in Conservatism are fighting for Fascism and are much much more likely to support Fascists. People who honestly believe in Liberalism won't do that.

If the Bolsheviks were really left-wing, then they would have respected the will of the Left, who voted for Liberal Democracy. And once the Bolsheviks got into power, they didn't even try to have collective ownership. Instead, they made a typical right-wing state where a small minority controls everything.
Click to expand...

By that definition, every revolutionary regime has been right wing.

In fact, outside of maybe Rojava, are there any left wing nations or societies?

Basically, if we go by how you're defining this, then I guess left wing ideals are ok but ultimately pointless. When people get power, they will use it for their own benefits, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to mobilize an angry mob.
 
Look up the horseshoe theory. And the right wing vs left wing were pretty much different back then.

Both can be authoritarian.
 
Woko Haram said:
By that definition, every revolutionary regime has been right wing.

In fact, outside of maybe Rojava, are there any left wing nations or societies?

Basically, if we go by how you're defining this, then I guess left wing ideals are ok but ultimately pointless. When people get power, they will use it for their own benefits, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to mobilize an angry mob.
Click to expand...

Any country with checks and balances is a left-wing country. It's generally a spectrum, America leans to the Right more than Switzerland does, but both are Left because they have Democracy and decentralized governments.
 
MarcusA said:
I'm tempted to argue that the left, lacking any virtue or morality to speak of, has made the case for why the 1st Amendment can no longer be viable in a God-fearing society.

It's been shown that the left, if "left" to their own devices will simply use and abuse it in the name of inferior heathen pleasures and pursuits, whether childish porn addictions, spreading lies and misinformation, or other rather deleterious things which those of a righteous and Godly mind would naturally find repellant and repulsive.

At this point, I believe that repelling the 1st Amendment may be the next step in the right direction; "frees peach" in public should be limited solely to that speech which helps to build a Kingdom of God on earth, elect candidates known for their righteous values and virtues.

The use and abuse of "speech" to promote degenerate and inferior causes, such as helping to elect left-wing candidates, promote social ills such as abortion, sodomy, "transgender" rights, racist and sexist "identity politics" and other things that only the base, the vulgar, and the bestial would find interesting, akin to a feral dog licking up its own vomit, since it lacks the palate and discretion by which a man or woman of superior taste and refinement would find in a healthy meal.

Much akin to a spoiled child or untamed animal, it is apparent that the left simply cannot be trusted to speak, or to be able to produce anything other than feral grunts and groans which no women or man of higher virtue, vocabulary, and character would even find being worthy of calling "speech" to begin with.

So yes, it is time to remove the archaic notion of "frees speech" from the base and vile underclass left, the atheist, the heathen, the inferior, much like gleaning wheat from chaff, or the body's immune system removing toxins, to remove and censor such inferior speech is merely to cleanse, to purify, to enlighten the lost and the damned in the right direction. Such a thing is, therefore ultimately autlristic, not oppressive at all, and those who'd diagree have no opinion worth uttering to begin with, let alone one that the virtuous should bother to consider.
Click to expand...

No. Next!
 
Know This: The Bus Drivers to UTOPIA will do what ever is required to get there, which includes being willing to run over as many as it takes.
 
StoneByStone said:
Any country with checks and balances is a left-wing country. It's generally a spectrum, America leans to the Right more than Switzerland does, but both are Left because they have Democracy and decentralized governments.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I've found the cause for our disagreement. When you say "left", you seem to be referring to what I would call "libertarian" or "classically liberal". When I say left, I'm referring more specifically to socialism, Communism, and social liberalism.

I view politics as a set of axes. One of which is the authoritarian to libertarian spectrum, and the other being left to right. This is why you can have authoritarian left governments like the Soviet Union and Maoist China. Left and right have economic and social attributes, but neither are strictly authoritarian or libertarian.
 
Woko Haram said:
Ok, I think I've found the cause for our disagreement. When you say "left", you seem to be referring to what I would call "libertarian" or "classically liberal". When I say left, I'm referring more specifically to socialism, Communism, and social liberalism.

I view politics as a set of axes. One of which is the authoritarian to libertarian spectrum, and the other being left to right. This is why you can have authoritarian left governments like the Soviet Union and Maoist China. Left and right have economic and social attributes, but neither are strictly authoritarian or libertarian.
Click to expand...

I get that line of thinking, it's the political compass test. But economic and social Conservatism is also more authoritarian and often leads to Fascism. Whereas economic and social Liberalism isn't authoritarian by nature and, like I mentioned before, doesn't lead to Totalitarian unless a minority of tyrants goes against the will of the Left. It's no coincidence that the Soviet Union and Maoist China were still socially conservative and made no effort to try the common ownership that Marx talked about. And it's the same thing with North Korea today.

Check out this video. I think it does a fantastic job giving an overview of the Left vs Right history.

 
StoneByStone said:
I get that line of thinking, it's the political compass test. But economic and social Conservatism is also more authoritarian and often leads to Fascism. Whereas economic and social Liberalism isn't authoritarian by nature and, like I mentioned before, doesn't lead to Totalitarian unless a minority of tyrants goes against the will of the Left. It's no coincidence that the Soviet Union and Maoist China were still socially conservative and made no effort to try the common ownership that Marx talked about. And it's the same thing with North Korea today.

Check out this video. I think it does a fantastic job giving an overview of the Left vs Right history.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty biased assessment by that guy, but I'm not surprised.

We're going to fundamentally disagree on this topic, and I don't see either of us changing our minds on this.
 
MarcusA said:
God, as in the Supreme Being of all the cosmos, is only discernable through logic and mathematics, something which defectives and sub-human vermin like you aren't capable of comprehending; preferring your quaint little atheistic and heathen archetypes. ooga booga, and superstitious much as atheists and inferior pagans have as far back as the days of Socrates, who condemned the degenerate rabble for their worship of such atheistic and material idols rather than God or the Supreme Being.
.
Click to expand...


You are incurably insane and need to be humanely euthanized, both for own good and also in case you're contagious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top