We're in a very dark period where people are fine with censoring viewpoints that they don't agree with, especially around political boundaries. It's very unfortunate - censorship is censorship, plain and simple.
Yup. I gave up arguing with the posters and even founder of TechDirt about it. They call it 'content moderation' when they agree with it and censorship when they don't, based on whether it's left leaning (Good™) or right leaning (Bad™).
It's so bizarre how the left controls the house, the presidency, academia, the mainstream media for the most part, all of the big tech companies, but complain that the Republicans are the fascists.
We either have free speech, or we have fascism. And it's not the right trying to censor and cancel people, it's the authoritarian left who feel like they know better than everyone else. Very irritating as a libleft, because they read my disagreement as being right leaning rather than freedom loving.
If you are a freedom lover foremost perhaps you should work more on making the issue seperate from right vs left rhetorics. Always look at why someone wants to censor, rather than just assume it's because of ordinary left vs. right. The scale seems to a lot more binary in the US than I'm used to.
It's not a left right issue, we do need to have sex-ed in schools, you need to talk about homosexuality, and the problem with nationalism even the american flavour. I don't even think those are issues that all left leaning people agree on. Dig deeper.
>If you are a freedom lover foremost perhaps you should work more on making the issue seperate from right vs left rhetorics.
I have tried. It simply doesn't work. Proudly censorious authoritarian leftists. They see themselves as the good guys saving the world, and if that means free speech has to go, then so be it.
I'm reminded of this quote:
>“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
The problem with opposing civil rights movements is that reciprocity matters in the real world. People are disinclined to support your rights if they see you as advocating against theirs.
This might have been the case maybe 30 years ago, today's mentality is really all about submission to power, their power. If they say "put a hand on your stomach, one on your head, and turn from right to left singing the International on a single hand", you better do it, or fear being cancelled.
I’m not accepting your assertion as fact. There are currently multiple civil rights movements facing organized conservative resistance.
You can invent whatever moralizing obligation you want, but I don’t think it’s reasonable expect an organized effort from the {$outgroup} community to defend the rights rights of the people who designated them the outgroup.
Existence of such groups is not your original assertion. You stated:
> People are disinclined to support your rights if they see you as advocating against theirs.
By that argument, the Libertarians would be loved by everybody, but they aren't, because it's no longer a discussion on ethics, it's a fight over holly dogma. The ACLU will no longer support people on the Right in the name of Free Speech. Lines in the sand have been dug by the left, and they no longer crosses them. The right, (ie. the MSM's fascist) however do it all the time because they are the most open ones. If you are a gay 1sh amendment absolutist, you aren't gay, you're just a nazi. The ancients Greeks are no longer the bases of our culture/civilization, they're esclavagist.
