Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
It used to be the case that a higher education was good for exposing young minds to challenging ideas, and thereby teaching them to stare with resolve into the deep abyss that is existence, and to rebut bad arguments with good arguments.
However, collectivist authoritarians (namely Marxists) began their "long march" through the Institutions of the West; in the Universities, they started curbing speech by setting up "safe spaces", and then once the "safe" space spread across most of a campus, they started des
Meh, conservatives and nationalists are just pissed off that the world is no longer their exclusive 'safe space' and that they are no longer free to indoctrinate however they see fit with no competition. Isn't it funny how they tend to accuse 'marxists' of doing exactly what they want to do and are upset at resistance?
I mean, the United States was explicitly founded on the idea that people should be allowed to hold and to express religious ideas (read: even the most bizarre ideas) without constraint by the government.
So, what are you talking about? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
The problem is that there is an asymmetry: Conservatives (in the U.S. at least) are trying to conserve the idea of a small, limited government that explicitly protects free speech; the conservatives (in the U.S. at least) have always invited into the
Most politicians who call themselves "conservative" in the United States are not, in reality, conservative.
Look for the ones who oppose medical abortion, legislate about where people can shit, put up religious monuments outside court houses, try to "protect" marriage from consenting adults who want to get married... these people exist. This is not a straw man. And they have the gall to call themselves "conservative".
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:30PM (#58374042)
Maybe.
* The taxpayer shouldn't be paying for your abortion; limiting abortion is the quickest way to free the taxpayer. Also, a healthy society would basically never need abortions; if you're promoting abortion, then there's something rotten at the core of your philosophy.
* The only problem with putting up religious monuments is that taxpayers must fund it; such an act is forced speech (well, all taxation is forced speech, because money is speech, but that's a wider discussion). Otherwise, erecting a religious monument is not forbidden—the Founders had no intention of forbidding the expression of religious ideas in public life.
* Marriage between 2 individuals is a religious institution; it always has been. It became a political concept first because the Democrats wanted to outlaw mixed-race marriages back in the day, and then later because it was an easy way to pander to the voters in a family (e.g., by giving them tax breaks or special rights, etc.). In reality, marriage is a personal matter that should be considered a contract between 2 individuals, and the government shouldn't be involved at all in defining it.
Authoritarianism is bad, mkay? It doesn't matter that you want to steal from the rich to help the poor, or help 2 men pretend like they make a legitimate couple for whom others must bake wedding cakes. Get out of people's lives. GET OUT!
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:2, Interesting)
It used to be the case that a higher education was good for exposing young minds to challenging ideas, and thereby teaching them to stare with resolve into the deep abyss that is existence, and to rebut bad arguments with good arguments.
However, collectivist authoritarians (namely Marxists) began their "long march" through the Institutions of the West; in the Universities, they started curbing speech by setting up "safe spaces", and then once the "safe" space spread across most of a campus, they started des
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
False premise (Score:0)
I mean, the United States was explicitly founded on the idea that people should be allowed to hold and to express religious ideas (read: even the most bizarre ideas) without constraint by the government.
So, what are you talking about? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
The problem is that there is an asymmetry: Conservatives (in the U.S. at least) are trying to conserve the idea of a small, limited government that explicitly protects free speech; the conservatives (in the U.S. at least) have always invited into the
Re: (Score:0)
Most politicians who call themselves "conservative" in the United States are not, in reality, conservative.
Look for the ones who oppose medical abortion, legislate about where people can shit, put up religious monuments outside court houses, try to "protect" marriage from consenting adults who want to get married... these people exist. This is not a straw man. And they have the gall to call themselves "conservative".
Re:False premise (Score:0)
Maybe.
* The taxpayer shouldn't be paying for your abortion; limiting abortion is the quickest way to free the taxpayer. Also, a healthy society would basically never need abortions; if you're promoting abortion, then there's something rotten at the core of your philosophy.
* The only problem with putting up religious monuments is that taxpayers must fund it; such an act is forced speech (well, all taxation is forced speech, because money is speech, but that's a wider discussion). Otherwise, erecting a religious monument is not forbidden—the Founders had no intention of forbidding the expression of religious ideas in public life.
* Marriage between 2 individuals is a religious institution; it always has been. It became a political concept first because the Democrats wanted to outlaw mixed-race marriages back in the day, and then later because it was an easy way to pander to the voters in a family (e.g., by giving them tax breaks or special rights, etc.). In reality, marriage is a personal matter that should be considered a contract between 2 individuals, and the government shouldn't be involved at all in defining it.
Authoritarianism is bad, mkay? It doesn't matter that you want to steal from the rich to help the poor, or help 2 men pretend like they make a legitimate couple for whom others must bake wedding cakes. Get out of people's lives. GET OUT!