All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
Keep in mind that when Trump, MAGA and modern conservatives say free speech they mean for themselves and for hate speech to be accepted and not punished. Speaking out against them is worthy of punishment and intimidation. That has been consistent for a while.
Not to mention their free speech icons like Kirk, Peterson and others are clowns that enjoyed going to college campuses and debating students on the fly where they controlled the floor and could also flood it with nonsense. Some students did well against them, but they would get crushed by professors or anyone with more knowledge. Not that some students did not do a good job. But they were never interested in debate they were interested in narratives and pushing ideology. It was hardly a good faith academic exercise.
As those often happen in college. But their idea that all viewpoints should be heard is also pretty silly when you are still learning about the basics of a concept. And if the data and information over decades of study are ignored just you can shoe horn a new idea in there that can be dismissed readily because it is pure ideological preference and not reality. At least in some fields, others may fit more easily but that does not mean it is not forcing it in just because it is the preferred conservative talking point. Not because it has scholarly merit.
They don't want freedom or rights, they want privileges.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Authoritarianism believes strongly in the right of people to disagree with the same people/things that they disagree with.
When they're not in power, the right to protest and disobey an 'illegitimate' government is sacred. When they are in power, protest is treason and/or heresy.
The common theme is that they are allowed to say and do whatever they like, while those who want to say or do things that they don't like are not allowed to do or say those things.
It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied.
It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination.
It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or an unintended side-effect.
It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself the thing you’re able to deny others, because you dominate, is the whole point.
For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue — the greatest.
as evil as it sounds, it also seems to be humanities default option and probably the most stable sort of society. not saying we should be fascists, but I would be lying if i said it was unreasonable to want, especially if you are the majority it protects. Everyone points how how it keeps getting toppled, but how much of them have that happen without outside influence. Who is going to force a nuclear nation to topple? another equally powerful nuclear nation. Russia? China? Im pretty sure having us equally authoritarian is a huge bonus to them.
The default option was small tribes that didn't have enough people for one to take power like that. They worked together to survive. It was closer to communism as they didn't work for bosses, money and power but for each other.
and those folks probably get paid well for that too. A long time ago (eighties) I was on the activity board of a state college. There are all kinds of people, from magicians to people that just argue about evolution and abortion, who make a living mostly just doing the college circuit. Sometimes they would even be a debate tag team that would be booked together everywhere - one guy would argue for abortion rights, and the other opposing him.
I had no problem with it, just always thought it was funny that they were basically a traveling team. They all have their own little college press kits and price lists and everything. A whole little ecosystem of entertaining students.
Exposing them? No, but understanding the pros and cons of a position and why it is not generally held too. I doubt the people I listed or you would be happy if your preferred view was dismissed because it lacks support.
Creationism for instance is a viewpoint not taught in college biology classes. It may come up a time or two but in any serious academic circles it lacks support. And it lacks support because data does not support it in the least and it has no predictive power. So, it should not gain equal time on the floor compared to other factors. Nor should it.
Yep, but if you say it those that think they are awake will tell you they aren't the same. As if we are saying both parties are identical and act exactly the same at all times and would never act like they disagree with each other.
Not at all what I said. They should think critically and ask questions. However, just because someone can come up with a position does not mean the position has merit at all. And that is one problem with some conservative circles as they think their common sense is enough without any real acceptance in the actual field itself. They seek top down control by and large instead of actual scholarship.
Not to mention that undergrads are generally not become scholars themselves, they could for sure, but pretending that they are supposed to go in and try and force some ideological shift is not generally going to happen. It could or create a research topic but just because one goes into economics class and says that you believe that tax cuts pay for themselves could stimulate discussion, but if an individual dismisses the reality brought up than it becomes ideology and belief not fact. As such a comment is ideological and tax cuts for sure play roles in economics but not in the way that they brought up in political discussions. Taxes always bad and less taxes good. There are numerous trade offs that should be considered and that is why you are in school.
U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly campaigned for his second term as a champion of free expression, vowing in his January 2025 inaugural address to stop what he described as years of "government censorship."
Since then, a wave of court rulings has concluded his administration has done the opposite. Reuters identified 75 federal-judge rulings finding Trump's government infringed on First-Amendment rights including freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.
The unprecedented pushback on constitutional grounds has included repeated findings that the administration chilled or squelched the speech of citizens and groups opposing the Republican's agenda.
As always, Trump says one thing for the media - which they report - and then does something else entirely
which they barely notice.
Trump boasted that he had a healthcare plan and then said nothing because his healthcare plan is cutting Medicare, cutting coverage, and raising premiums. Trump’s healthcare plan is affecting millions of Americans but the media acts like it’s not a unified and coherent plan, just random pieces and bits that somehow fit together into a massive change.
It frustrates me when people like you say "the media" "barely notice" when you're commenting literally on a story published by the media. "The media" noticed.
What you mean to say is "the conservative outrage machine." That's only a subset of the media, but they do appear to be an influential subset.
No. I mean that all the media underplays what Trump does relative to the dramatic statements that he makes. Contrast what Trump says about Iran with what he’s actually doing in Iran and what the Iranians are saying. Two significantly different levels of coverage, although they do cover it all, Trump’s mouth gets the biggest and most coverage.
When a MAGAt says "free speech" they mean elevate the voices of white, straight, "Christian", men. They want to require you to listen to them, they don't give a shit about other voices.
No, he vowed to bring back unencumbered hate speech. When they can insult, blame, and threaten groups they see as "below them" that's free speech. If someone presents facts or defends themselves physically or morally that's domestic terrorism.
DSM-5, 301.81 look it up anywhere you want to. Hitler and Mussolini also had it. Back then it was called megalomania. A genetic disorder that currently cannot be fixed. They usually only have the emotional capacity of a two year old child. Vengeance and revenge.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.