Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
A friend of mine suggested that Robert E. Lee objected to confederate monuments being erected after the civil war, and this PBS article confirms (and is an interesting read). Lee felt that such displays would slow the healing and reconstruction of the nation.
Perhaps it is time we heed his advice. It’s not necessary (or advisable) that we forget our history, but maybe we can present it in a light more respectful of the circumstances.
Reason’s Cathy Young interviews James Damore.
Today, being pro free speech will get you branded a racist. Soon (if not already), simply being a conservative will do. By the end of the next week, all Republicans will be racists, to be attacked at will by roving squads of Antifa. Sound familiar? You might see parallels in the rise of just about any south American dictator…
It is important to guard our constitutional rights to free speech, no matter the subject under discussion. Don’t let these “counter-protesters” shame you out of your cherished right to be heard.
We should all be concerned about the precedent Google has established by firing an employee for holding an independent opinion contrary to that of Google, irrespective of the actions of the employee. The message is clear – your opinions alone can get you fired, particularly if you are not a liberal.
Google’s action will have a chilling effect on free speech, not only at Google but at other left-leaning employers, too. I’m appalled at this blatant attempt to silence speech, but not surprised that this form of oppression has originated in Silicon Valley. Nonetheless, it has worked. I, too, am now afraid to express my opinion for fear that my left-leaning employer will silence me by eliminating my job.
I fear that free expression will not survive under these conditions.
In today’s digital world, free speech is largely dependent on services provided via the WWW marketplace – services such as those available through social media sites, web hosts, search engines and Internet name registrars. When those who control the ability to speak via these means put their thumbs on the scale in an effort to silence those with whom they do not agree, we should consider it an attack on free speech and act accordingly. I’ve warned about this possibility before here and here, but it seems to have reared its head on a massive scale much faster than even I thought possible.
We cannot allow this type of viewpoint discrimination and censorship to stand. Where would it stop? Today it’s so-called white supremacists; next week it might be conservatives, and the week after Republicans in general. Fifty years ago it was Socialists; fifty more from now it might be Democrats. The point is that even if you agree with these actions today because they are taken against your enemy, one day it might be you on the other side of this debate. What would you do if it was your opinion being censored?
When social media moguls want their platforms to become the primary, necessary means of communication for the masses, their effective censorship of specific speech can be troublesome. If they want to act as political operatives and lobbyists, so be it – but then let’s regulate them as such.
(And you were worried about Russian interference in our elections? Wait till you see what a social media censorship campaign can accomplish…)
With all this talk about alt-right incited violence, maybe we should take a quick look at the provocateurs of the alt-left. After all, it takes two to tango. Both groups should be held accountable for the violence resulting from their actions.
Note, too, that both of these groups are at the fringes of society; they have only gained mainstream support by bashing (sometimes literally) the other. If you look closely at some of the organizations behind these protests/counter-protests, you’ll see that any support you offer may be misguided.
For instance, on the so-called alt-right, the Traditionalist Worker Party: a socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-immigrant group reminiscent of neo-Nazi nationalism. On the alt-left, the Worker World Party: a socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-American group reminiscent of revolutionary Marxism. Are either of these groups really ones that you want to support?
So if violence occurs when groups like these clash, don’t fall victim to the rants of some who place blame on one side or the other. Instead, place blame squarely where it belongs: on the shoulders of all involved parties.
For those who bash America for intolerance:
German politician rails against ‘lunacy’ of natives speaking English
While in America:
California produces election material in 10 languages
Go figure….
…that this would be the case in Detroit? I mean, that half of the candidates would NOT have felony convictions…
Half of the candidates for Detroit mayor are convicted felons
The cautionary tale of Venezuela:
First, disarm the citizens. Second, arm your supporters. Third, have a sham election that bestows upon you unlimited power. Wallah! your own little dictatorship.
This should be a warning to all those who are pushing for extreme gun control, or – like Venezuela – an outright ban. One of the original ideas behind the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the power remained ultimately with the people. It guarantees the people the means to overthrow a despotic ruler, and as a result acts as a strong deterrent against such a possibility.
Many believe such a despotic ruler could never come to power in America and, since no such event has occurred in our more than 200 years of existence, that gun ownership by private citizens should be abolished. However, I would argue that the reason we haven’t had such an event here is precisely because of our right to bear arms. Without this right, things could change very quickly. Mark my words: When the people’s consent to be governed is no longer needed, don’t expect their consent to be sought.
Think not? Ask any Venezuelan.