Universities are also "speakers," with an independent mandate to teach, research, and pursue truth for the common good. And this requires taking sides.
  • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    As a centrist, let me tell you the truth - a threat to free speech is coming from both far ends of political spectrum.

      • bigkix@lemm.ee
        0·
        2 years ago

        I know, right! You can’t be a centrist if you adopt any right wing politics, that’s just a disguised MAGA nutjob.

      • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Who was it that suppressed Hunter Biden story or asked for “antivaxxer” doctors to be shut down on FB/Twitter?

        Sure, you will find some kind of excuses for the above, but the unbiased fact is that both sides engage in silencing of free speech according to their political agenda.

        • 4ce@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          As a centrist

          suppressed Hunter Biden story

          “antivaxxer”

          lmao

          • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            I know, it’s ridiculous for people to simultaneously agree and disagree with things said on both sides of political spectrum. I should work on one party unanimity, my bad.

            By the way… While you’re laughing your ass of, Hunter Biden story (no matter what you think of it) wasn’t supressed on all social media?

            • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              While you’re laughing your ass of, Hunter Biden story (no matter what you think of it) wasn’t supressed on all social media?

              That must be why nobody’s heard of it!

              • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
                0·
                2 years ago

                Yes, story broke out eventually, but it was silenced on social media when it broke because of political orders - a fact. I don’t know why saying that automatically makes people wince in horror. Both sides of political spectrum engage in silencing free speech when needed.

                • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  You do realize that most people here are on some kind of social media?

                  You can keep saying that the story was silenced, but I’ve heard about it non-stop for years because the right has been pushing the story hard.

                  So… definitely not a fact. Your echo chamber is not reality.

          • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            I know. That’s why I wrote “but the unbiased fact is that both sides engage in silencing of free speech according to their political agenda.”

          • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            Post got duplicated… Right wingers do. And who was deplatforming people during covid on social networks?

          • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            I know. That’s why I wrote “but the unbiased fact is that both sides engage in silencing of free speech according to their political agenda.”

            • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              I know. That’s why I wrote “but the unbiased fact is that both sides engage in silencing of free speech according to their political agenda.”

    • SlothMama@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      No, I completely agree. I’m center left and see a lot of this coming from the left too. I was surprised to see all the agreement that it’s only from the ‘right’, it is totally both, without question.

      More people should adopt deeper models of politics, like six or nine axis models because that’s how you really get at the features that drive censorship and limiting free speech.

        • TheKingBee@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          Is the freedom of association counted under your definition of free speech?

          If a private entity doesn’t want to host your content they are exercising their right to choose who they associate with…

          • bigkix@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            Yes, a private company can choose what content they allow. But to add to my argument, social media companies didn’t ban that story on their own decision, it was after intelligence agencies acted towards them. (Sorry, English is my second language)

    • Lightor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      You mean saying the people that are championing the banning of books are a threat to free speech?

      I mean, I disagree.

        • Lightor@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          No they don’t have a right to choose what their children are taught, and I’m sick of people acting like they do. You choosing not to teach your child crucial life skills or fundamental truths because you don’t want to, because it’s not what you believe, harms your child. It’s child abuse and should be treated as such.

          • fixed_point@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            No, choosing how to raise your child, even if it deviates from the dominant positions, is a fundamental human right. Child abuse is an extreme situation and does not remotely apply to this.

            • Lightor@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              Cold abuse directly applies to this. You can raise your child in a way that is abusive, and that protection from abuse is more important than your “fundamental human right”.

              I mean if I decide the way I raise my kid is by locking him in a box for 24 hours as my form of discipline, that would be my right? I mean that’s how I chose to raise him. But according to you, that wouldn’t have anything to do with child abuse…

              • fixed_point@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 years ago

                Yes, child abuse does exist and to some extent the state has a say in how parents raise their children. But parents get to choose what ideologies, religions, and morals they teach their children, among other things. The state should have very little say other than extreme cases of abuse. Same way you don’t tell a random man in Russia how to raise his child, you don’t tell your neighbor how to raise his child. Just mind your own business and stop pretending to have the moral high ground.

                • Lightor@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  So let parents fuck up their children and possibly destroy their lives all because “they’re my children, I can do what I want”, really? They’re not toys you can do whatever you like with, it’s a life.

            • Glowworm6441@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              I disagree with your claim that it’s a right. And would you look at that? So does the UN.

              I would agree that gaiting information from a child isn’t abusive, but like many things it’s not without nuance.

              • Santa? Sure, whatever.
              • Went out for drinks, but act like you were working late? Not great, but that’s your perogative.
              • Refuse to let the school teach about traffic lights, because you don’t like cars, and don’t drive? Uh. That’s gunna cause some issues down the road. (Pun very much intended)

              Generally I think it just comes down to under preparing them for life. It’s not abusive, but intense cases of it could start approaching neglect. The Wikipedia page for child neglect does mention this:

              Educational/developmental neglect is the failure to provide a child with experiences for necessary growth and development, such as not sending a child to school or educating them.

                • Lightor@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  Unless your child ends up struggling with it gender identity. Then your child is at risk of suicide, like many before then, because they have to hide who they are every day and feel hated.

                  People are so scared and ignorant about the topic of gender identity. You can’t read a book and turn gay. What you can do is let your child know you accept and love them no matter what, and if they happen to be trans you should realize that they’re still your child. Nothing changes. You’re just telling your child that trans is bad and if you feel that way you’re wrong.

  • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    Typical bothsideism in the comments of that site as per usual. Would love to see those bothsiders on an article stating the opposite of this one.

    • aelwero@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 years ago

      I’m a massive bothsider, I tolerate (and don’t tolerate, depends really) either, both, neither, however you wanna say it…

      Why exactly would I argue the right hasn’t adopted the cancel culture playbook and cranked it to 11? That is a VERY “both sides” statement… This is arguably a “both sides” article, a “both sides” point.

      If anything, id point out that all the pissing and moaning is silly, because the shit the right is doing is coming straight out of the lefts playbook. The fact that they’re feeding you your own shit sandwich doesn’t equate to them not serving shit for lunch… It’s still shit…

      Moderate/centrist == the other team…

  • downpunxx@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    always. every time. this is not surprising to anyone . people who act like this is untrue, or surprising, make me sick to my stomach.

  • Bucky@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    What they want is freedom to control reality. What Republicans say, every day is not real, they don’t live in reality. What they want is not free speech, they have that more than ever. What they want is to dictate reality to the rest of us.

    All conservative are bad, acab as it were.

    • ggBarabajagal@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      I think what they want is as many big-money donors as they can get, for which they require as many reliable Republican votes as they can get, for which they require Trump, for which they are required to give prima facia credence to whatever misinformation Trump is pushing on any given day.

      It didn’t always used to be like this, but that was a long time ago.

      Trump didn’t create his voter base – he stole it, from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Reilly, Glen Beck, Alex Jones, and all those other millionaires who spent decades feeding working-class conservatives daily servings hate for huge profit.

      And in all of history, who has been the conservative pundits’ all-time number-one biggest and best favorite target for this hate? It has to be Barack Obama. (Our first Black president. Coincidence?)

      Trump didn’t create his voter base, but he has owned it outright for going on a decade now, starting way back with his entirely bogus claims against President Obama’s citizenship. It didn’t matter that the claims were bogus – all that mattered is that they were against Obama, in an outright demeaning (and overtly racist) way. Dittoheads and O’Reilly fans ate that shit up.

      Now here we are, eight or nine years later, and Trump still owns it. Only now, instead of feeding that voter base, and growing it with strongman posturing and punitive policy, he’s using it exclusively to try to save his own skin. And at this point, the only way Trump saves himself is in an alternate reality, with alternate facts.

      Now Trump lies to save himself, and half of congress has to play along or risk losing their own reelections. Thanks Obama.

  • trainsaresexy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    Take note that this is an engaging title. I’d like to see more political science discussion in this community. These opinion pieces are part not a good part of the internet. They’re made for sharing and being consumed on social media.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      One does not need to invoke or debate political theory to understand the end game of Conservatives and Republicans. It’s part of their ethos, and it’s well defined.

  • nomadjoanne@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    What? No. The authoritarian right and left are all about free speech when out of power and all about clamping down on it when they are in power. Both are the same. Both are nasty and authoritarian.

    • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

      Jean-Paul Sartre

    • Kornblumenratte@feddit.de
      0·
      2 years ago

      As a non native speaker, I do not get the meaning of this post? And a lot of others. The word entitlement seems to have changed it’s meaning. What does it mean today?

      according to wiktionary:

      entitlement (countable and uncountable, plural entitlements)

      • The right to have something, whether actual or perceived.
      • Power, authority to do something.
      • Something that one is entitled to.
      • (politics) A legal obligation on a government to make payments to a person, business, or unit of government that meets the criteria set in law, such as social security in the US.