This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Yazi ago (edited ago)
Y'know, a lot of people just wouldn't be able to get by without this. Not everybody is an intellectual. Not everybody is able or willing to reshape themselves. That's fine. You shouldn't expect them to, because they're the rabble, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The question of free speech is something I hadn't previously put much time into thinking about. I just assumed it a good thing because freedom, but now I just don't know. A common line of reasoning in this department is that people should be allowed to say what they want to say, but that I'd be right to punch a guy in the nose for saying the wrong thing. But then there isn't a huge distance between that and prosecuting people for saying the wrong thing, is there? Either way, you're punishing somebody for their speech.
But then there's the fact of nature. If one man insults another man's wife, is the married man not right to punch the guy in the nose? I don't think it's in most peoples' nature to passively allow one's self or family to be abused. To impose consequences for wrongdoing is only natural, so need the freedom of speech apply?
In the same way, is it not then a denial of free speech to withdraw one's consumership with a business due to the ideas they espouse? Where do we draw the line? Clearly this is a highly complex issue.
Ultimately, I think the desire for free speech has to do with the desire for the freedom of the human spirit. The freedom of the human spirit is the freedom for an individual or group to be what they are. God tells us very clearly what we are. He has told us the limits within which we must remain lest we should regress into something lesser than what we are or destroy ourselves utterly. So is freedom just about tearing down limits? If so, then freedom would inherently be a regression, because to defy God's instruction is to deny one's self and to engage in self-destructive behaviour. I don't think that's what liberty is, though. I don't think it's simply the freedom to do whatever, because absolute freedom wouldn't be liberating by any means.
So what does this mean with respect to freedom of speech? Are there certain kinds of speech which spell our destruction? That lay the preconditions for us to annhiliate our own existence as a people? There are such kinds of speech. The ideals of the atheistic philosophies—objectivism, marxism, utilitarianism, anarchy, etc— though sometimes in good faith, pose an existential threat. Atheistic philosophy inevitably leads to existential nihilism and the destruction of society, not to mention that it essentially spits in God's face. So for liberty's sake, should we censor these ideas? If so, then to what extent? In what institutions? In schools? In media? Social media? Where do we draw the line between insuring our existence and totalitarian regimes?
Maybe I shouldn't bite the hand that feeds me. Freedom of speech is the only reason I'm allowed to say the things I say. But does that fact negate what I've said? And to what extent am I able to say this? Considering the points I've raised, would this be free speech if I said this sort of thing in real life? I'm unsure, because undoubtedly, I'd meet social ramifications.