Understanding social conservatism

[BC_chick]

They are both controlling...in their own way.

Leftists want to ban "hate" speech. Rightists want to ban "gay pride" marches.

Um, other than a near-naked man/woman falling of a float wearing a shiny costume, who gets hurt by a pride parade? If you don't like it, don't watch...

Hate speech, OTOH, well.... we all know how Mein Kampf ended.

For the record, there is, indeed, a fine line between offensive language and hate speech. I'm talking about the type that instigates violence. The type that is illegal - not just hurtful.

[White Doors]

Hate speech, OTOH, well.... we all know how Mein Kampf ended.

For the record, there is, indeed, a fine line between offensive language and hate speech. I'm talking about the type that instigates violence. The type that is illegal - not just hurtful.

Ironic that you mention that. Germany had hate speech laws in place.

Guess that didn't work out eh? They also banned firearm ownership..

Oops!

[Black Dog]

Ironic that you mention that. Germany had hate speech laws in place.

Guess that didn't work out eh? They also banned firearm ownership..

You know what else Nazi Germany had? Pants. Do you wear pants? If so, you must be a Nazi.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Black Dog

[White Doors]

You know what else Nazi Germany had? Pants. Do you wear pants? If so, you must be a Nazi.

Wow, you need to at least put some effort in your posts.

First, I never called anyone a Nazi.

Second, I never insinuated that you need to have those laws in order for fascism to succeed (although, they certainly don't hurt)

Finally, the legislation that is passed in a nation has far more relevance in regards to the type of society it is than does the fact that people enjoy wearing garments on their legs.

But thanks for the strawman and irrelevancies anyways.

[Black Dog]

Wow, you need to at least put some effort in your posts.

First, I never called anyone a Nazi.

Second, I never insinuated that you need to have those laws in order for fascism to succeed (although, they certainly don't hurt)

Finally, the legislation that is passed in a nation has far more relevance in regards to the type of society it is than does the fact that people enjoy wearing garments on their legs.

But thanks for the strawman and irrelevancies anyways.

I think my response, in tone and content, was commiserate with the post to which it was a response. Or, put another way, garbage in, garbage out.

[White Doors]

except mine had ironic relevance and yours was well... what was it?

oh right, a post that had nothing to do with anything.

You might as well have said "Hello, my name is Black Dog and today is Friday"

to whit, congratulations on being bored and having a keyboard.

[Black Dog]

except mine had ironic relevance and yours was well... what was it?

oh right, a post that had nothing to do with anything.

"Ironic relevance"? Really, Alanis? Do tell.

There's nothing "ironic" about pre-Nazi Germany's hate speech and firearms control laws failing to stop the Nazis from achieving power. It's faulty logic that conflates correlation with causation. And implying as much is the only way your post would have made any sense, otherwise, it was a relevant as the pants-wearing.

[myata]

No formal tool (law, organization, constitution) could prevent society from going bad if that's what society came down to. Laws and constitutions are only a snapshot of what society thinks about itself at the given moment of time. If that view changes, they can be easily bypassed, ignored and changed.

Independent, actively participating and free individuals are the only guarantee against abuses and excesses.

And of course, nothing limits (or should limit) the picture to only four quadrants, as the world is not limited to a plain (which however, is easier for us to see). But a model a la "Political test", perhaps with modified categories (I personally would prefer "Individual Freedom" vs "Social Participation") makes a good and useful visualization of political spectrum in a society.

[White Doors]

No formal tool (law, organization, constitution) could prevent society from going bad if that's what society came down to. Laws and constitutions are only a snapshot of what society thinks about itself at the given moment of time. If that view changes, they can be easily bypassed, ignored and changed.

Independent, actively participating and free individuals are the only guarantee against abuses and excesses.

And of course, nothing limits (or should limit) the picture to only four quadrants, as the world is not limited to a plain (which however, is easier for us to see). But a model a la "Political test", perhaps with modified categories (I personally would prefer "Individual Freedom" vs "Social Participation") makes a good and useful visualization of political spectrum in a society.

'Societies' don't all of a sudden 'go bad', governments do.

And if you really felt this way, you would argue against firearm registration legislation instead of being such a proponet of it.

consistency.

[White Doors]

"Ironic relevance"? Really, Alanis? Do tell.

There's nothing "ironic" about pre-Nazi Germany's hate speech and firearms control laws failing to stop the Nazis from achieving power. It's faulty logic that conflates correlation with causation. And implying as much is the only way your post would have made any sense, otherwise, it was a relevant as the pants-wearing.

There is when paired with BC Chicks post where she postulates that restrictions on the freedom of speech is a necessary thing to 'protect society'.

Please try to keep up.

[myata]

'Societies' don't all of a sudden 'go bad', governments do.

No, they do go bad, when people in them start living in ignorance and/or fear. Governments only follow the suit (or "express will of people"). Whether all of a sudden, or not, is a different question.

And if you really felt this way, you would argue against firearm registration legislation instead of being such a proponet of it.

Understanding. That even in a perfect society there may (will ??) be a few crackpots, and commonsense caution has nothing to do with undue restriction of freedoms. I think it's been pointed out somewhere (maybe even in this thread) that freedom isn't absolute and it can be limited where it starts encroaching on that of somebody else's. Of which I consider living free of fear one of the most important ones. For both individual, and long term health of the society.

[eyeball]

There's nothing "ironic" about pre-Nazi Germany's hate speech and firearms control laws failing to stop the Nazis from achieving power.

Speaking of implications, if Germans had possesed the 2nd Amendment-like rights to use force to stop their government from going bad, would they have done so?

How would they know when it was time to excersize this right, at what point does the line between a right and a responsibility start to blur?

[eyeball]

'Societies' don't all of a sudden 'go bad', governments do.

And if you really felt this way, you would argue against firearm registration legislation instead of being such a proponet of it.

consistency.

Where is the real line between a society and a government though? I would think at least some part of German society went bad, like the monied interests behind the fiscal conservatives who crossed the floor to give Hitler the majority he needed to defeat the socialist political parties to their's and Hitler's left.

[GostHacked]

'Right and left' should be tossed out.... it's like playing 'cowboys and indians'.... the important right/left struggles have been fought... we need to align along different parameters now.

Leading me to myata:

We have this internet thing now... which has arrived (like many technologies) right at the time it's needed.

It's binding us together and tracking what we're all doing without us even asking it to.

Divide and Conquere. Plain and simple. We are classified, grouped, sub-grouped and sub classified, till we have a plethora or little groups. The more we are divided the more that one group can be pitted against another, or several. Left, right, conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, ect ect..

The Internet is bringins us together, then commercialization took over the internet, and now it is just a large focus group. But we are not focusing on the same things.

[White Doors]

Divide and Conquere. Plain and simple. We are classified, grouped, sub-grouped and sub classified, till we have a plethora or little groups. The more we are divided the more that one group can be pitted against another, or several. Left, right, conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, ect ect..

The Internet is bringins us together, then commercialization took over the internet, and now it is just a large focus group. But we are not focusing on the same things.

O.o

[moderateamericain]

Governments go bad when society fails to check it. Through Firearms or other means. Governments should fear its citizens not the other way around.

[myata]

Yes firearms are a sure way for the government to be afraid of citizens. As citizens of each other. And fear leads to less freedom. As so often, we stumble on the same miracle rake that was supposed to safe us from all evils.

Except there's no panacea. Only active involved individuals can keep their society from going bad. While they do, no arms will be necessary. When they don't, nothing would help.

[moderateamericain]

Yes firearms are a sure way for the government to be afraid of citizens. As citizens of each other. And fear leads to less freedom. As so often, we stumble on the same miracle rake that was supposed to safe us from all evils.

Except there's no panacea. Only active involved individuals can keep their society from going bad. While they do, no arms will be necessary. When they don't, nothing would help.

Arms are always necessary to protect yourself. Governments have killed more of its own citizens than any war. Examples Russia, China, Africa anywhere, 1300-1800 Europe, Anyone close to turkey, Jews in Nazi Germany, etc etc etc, Civil War USA. Shall i go on? Words never stopped a tank from rolling over your children.

[myata]

I don't understand your examples how did individual gun ownership help in any of these cases? The state will always have more of more powerful guns whan your pocket popper, which which you can scare only a passerby or neighbour.

Confused, scared, close minded people are dangerous, and twice so if they had guns. Guns is a only thing. Dead thing. It does nothing.

[moderateamericain]

I don't understand your examples how did individual gun ownership help in any of these cases? The state will always have more of more powerful guns whan your pocket popper, which which you can scare only a passerby or neighbour.

Confused, scared, close minded people are dangerous, and twice so if they had guns. Guns is a only thing. Dead thing. It does nothing.

Its the lack of gun ownership that is the problem. The state may have more guns but to stand idly by and do nothing while your freedom is revoked is a worse evil. Better to die on you feet then live on your knees in fear of when the government is going to kick down your door and kill you anyways.

[myata]

Its the lack of gun ownership that is the problem. The state may have more guns but to stand idly by and do nothing while your freedom is revoked is a worse evil.

For that, one first needs to understand what freedom (and lack of it) means. A gun in the pocket won't give you that knowledge. More likely, the opposite.

[moderateamericain]

For that, one first needs to understand what freedom (and lack of it) means. A gun in the pocket won't give you that knowledge. More likely, the opposite.

True, but a gun in the pocket will preserve it if you know what freedom means. Because if you do profess to understand the value of freedom, then you will do anything to protect it.

[myata]

True, but a gun in the pocket will preserve it if you know what freedom means. Because if you do profess to understand the value of freedom, then you will do anything to protect it.

It won't preserve anything if things come to worst. Hadn't, ever. Only help to make a departure statement.

However, it does create the illusion that by itself, somehow it guarantees freedoms, and as such is an alternative to a free minded, active participation in the society. Which of course, is total nonsense.

If one had to name one instrument with the greatest role in the society's evolution (and preservation) of freedoms, I'd say, school.

[eyeball]

Governments go bad when society fails to check it. Through Firearms or other means. Governments should fear its citizens not the other way around.

Agreed, but its silly to imagine that firearms will ever fail to check a bad government that has entire regiments of heavy artillery, fleets of bombers and swarms of missles at its disposal.

So that only leaves other means. I suggest hard-wiring the government to the Internet, starting at the top and working down to the point where decency and honesty begin to trickle freely on their own.

[JerrySeinfeld]

They are both controlling...in their own way.

Leftists want to ban "hate" speech. Rightists want to ban "gay pride" marches.

Rightists don't want to ban gay pride parades. Some of us simply object to the term "marriage" being used to describe a union between two homos. That's about the extent of it.