John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune, has an interesting suggestion.
History is important, but history can also be quite offensive.
But there's one thing wrong with Sharpton. It's not that he goes too far. It's that he doesn't go far enough.
Because if he and others of the Cultural Revolution were being intellectually honest, they'd demand that along with racist statues, something else would be toppled.
And this, too, represents much of America's racist history:
The Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party historically is the party of slavery. The Democratic Party is the party of Jim Crow laws. The Democratic Party fought civil rights for a century.
And so by rights — or at least by the standards established by the Cultural Revolutionaries of today's American left — we should ban the Democratic Party.
Not only get rid of it in the present, but strike its very name from the history books, and topple all Democratic statues of leaders who benefited, prospered and became wealthy by cleaving to the party. And shame Democrats until they confess the truth of it.
There's more at the link. Recommended reading.
As a matter of fact, I don't support banning the Democratic Party, or any other (including the Republican Party, the Nazi Party or the Communist Party). I believe in free speech. Each and every party should have the opportunity to make its case to the electorate, and let the people express their opinion of its worth with their votes. If the speech used is intemperate, violent or abusive, by all means let those who find it so sue the offending party(ies) in court - but don't ban or try to prevent their speaking. Once you go down that rabbit hole, there's no way back. If you ban one kind of speech, you can ban another kind - which inevitably happens. Before you know it, free speech as such no longer exists.
That's why I'm so concerned about attempts by private individuals and organizations - Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. - to impose their own version of censorship on those with whose views they disagree. They see no problem with 'de-platforming' Nazis, right-wing extremists, etc.: but they continue to provide a platform to sexual predators, terrorists, jihadists, and other extremists who are infinitely more of a clear and present danger than right-wingers. There's a disconnect there that's mind-boggling in its ethical and moral blindness.
If you ban one offensive symbol, you have to ask: offensive to whom? Are we only to ban what they find offensive, or can we also ban what their opponents find offensive? If so, we'll end up banning almost everything. If not . . . then we'll no longer live in a free society - and I'll be damned if I let anybody take away from me the free society for which I literally fought and shed my blood. That's not going to happen. No way, no how, no matter what it costs.
It has been said:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
One might as well amend that to read:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to censor."
Note, too, who will not allow you to criticize or censor them. It's not just the government. It's also Google, Twitter, Facebook and their ilk . . . and that means they're taking upon themselves the role of Big Brother. Be duly warned - and alarmed.
Peter
8 comments:
It is bad enough when the social media or news sites delete or remove access to people.
What is worse is when they openly threaten or actually attack individuals, as seen in the heinous actions of CNN towards a cartoon maker.
And to do it so one-sided. How long has YouTube been basically a muslim-terrorist recruiting site, and yet they remove or demonetize gun videos, woodworking videos, car repair videos?
It is a very strange and dangerous time we are living in.
How does what we live in now in the USA compare to your time in post-colonial Africa? Are there many similarities?
As a matter of fact, I don't support banning the Democratic Party, or any other (including the Republican Party, the Nazi Party or the Communist Party).
I agree, but also observe that if they weren't in power, both the Republican and Democratic party would have been investigated on RICO grounds long ago. There's too much power concentrated in too few hands; the fact that those same hands make the rules that keep them in power is dangerous. Remember Kinsley's Law, stated by journalist Michael Kinsley in the 1980's: “The scandal isn't what's illegal, the scandal is what's legal.”
Yep, strange times are here... Another reason to look for 'other' avenues of free speech.
Andrew, I used to participate in what was called the You-Tube Smackdown, where we'd watch jihadi vids (because you had to be specific about what part of the vid violated the ToS and Community Standards) and get them taken down, unless our organizer said "Leave this one alone. Someone else is monitoring it." That lasted for two years or so, until 1) the content monitoring got shifted to Pakistan and 2)You-Tube reversed it, so the original vids were left up and those who linked to them saying "This is really bad, please complain" got blocked. And You-Tube started blocking anti-jihadi vids. That goes back to '05-06 or so.
LittleRed1
LittleRed1
I know. I worked in law enforcement (as a staff assistant and unpaid crime analyst) and used to report all sorts of videos to the local FBI/DEA/PD/SD whatever. Finally got told by my chief to knock it off as no one cared, especially when I started seeing commenters getting knocked off and I reported that to Yawn Enforcement, also.
All those social networks required a republican/libertarian government to be allowed to even exist, yet as soon as they get big, they want a Soviet Socialist/Chinese Marxist form of government with them as an informal part of the government.
And when I try to show, very carefully, what was and is going on, to my circle of physical acquaintances, they all look at me like I was Glen Beck's and Alex Jones' bastardized test-tube love child.
At least I stopped my (unofficially adopted - basically my wife and I acted like parents as she was growing up) daughter from getting a friggin Sanders tattoo. Though she voted for the commie party instead.
Kids these days. Can't tell them nothing.
(Then again, I can't say anything bad about Wilson, FDRoo.. and the whole Kennedy dynasty to my mother. She thinks that FDRoo.. singlehandedly saved the USA from the Depression using his own money (a white Obummer, basically.))
I find banging my head against the wall more satisfying than talking to most people these days.
Meh, the D party will indeed be banned at some point, but for now they are the "useful idiots". As soon as the opposition is sent away for re-education then they can turn on the dems.
satan never sleeps and he is working overtime now.
the internet is just the cup of tea that satisfies evil doers.
more or less a captive audience, and a cooperative one.
The Democratic party is basically a support group for the scum of the earth who tell us they're doing whatever they do for our own good. If it were banned, it would be reconstituted the day after with a new name and the same agenda, which is fine. As long as the scum have a big umbrella to stand under, they are easy to spot and easy to keep an eye on.
The hard part is teaching the general public not that what they're doing is bad, but why it's bad. Unfortunately they currently control the educational system. Until we get this back, it'll be an uphill fight.
Post a Comment