US Russian Hoax

[RandyPNW]

We have a political solution called the ballot box

I'm not going to question whether Trump won or lost the last election. But I do question whether elections are truly fair. It is a fact people are easily manipulated. And the influences in our society, eg the Media, Hollywood, Sports, Education, and yes--political parties--do select what speech can be heard.

Cancel culture is on full display, so how valid is "the ballot box?" Does Congress represent a people drugged by some kind of propagandistic opiate?

And my whole point was about Seditious Speech becoming Activist Speech, leading to organized acts of sedition. Does anyone truly believe that BLM riots in cities across America were "peaceful protests," or acts of "free political speech?"

I think it was indeed an attempt to use free speech to challenge and to subvert conventional American philosophy, to use race as a method to change our Constitution. Opening the door to foreigners without a border wall is an example of changing our Constitution, I should think?

Of course changing our Constitution is itself legal and American. But at what point is the culture being changed? It may be legal, but I would argue that at some point it stops being American.

Legitimate free speech may lead to this, and I wouldn't argue against it as a matter of law. But I would argue against it based on my own religious and political beliefs.

Where something becomes against the law depends on our present state of our Constitution. But I was arguing from the point of view of my ideal Theocracy, the Kingdom of God.

The argument that different religious people have different views of God's Kingdom and that therefore speech must tolerate the majority view in a society itself is a form of "theocracy." It is an argument for the adoption of religious, cultural, and legal standards by a large majority in a country, and not for "free speech."

If we postulate that there is truth that must override a majority view of values for a society, then we're back to arguing for "theocracy." I may actively speak against the legalization of sodomy, but at some point the majority and the courts may decide that my speech is discriminatory, and I may be silenced or jailed.

[CadyandZoe]

We have a political solution called the ballot box

Not Yet. Hopefully soon.

[Athanasius]

You also don't seem to understand the mistake Fenris made and why it matters. The issue is NOT disagreement. Republican Americans and Democratic Americans disagree all the time and I have no problem with that. I never even suggested that disagreement was an issue. I never said that we should ban the speech with which we disagree.

Randy posited that the Democratic Party "has become . . . something different." How can anyone not have noticed that the Democratic party has been subverted by a cabal of treacherous people who are attempting to destroy America?

What is a country if not a group of people who all share the same assumptions and in our case, the bill of rights? What is a country if not a society of shared values, shared history, shared culture, and loyalty among citizens?

Whose speech is being censored today? And by whom?

Do you believe that people attempting to destroy American should hold office? I don't.

No, I'm not failing to comprehend the point you're making, and I suspect Fenris didn't either. As Fenris said: "People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans"." [sic] The politics are different, not merely or just the opinions of those who hold to this or that politic. The argument you're making is that yes indeed, disagreement can become such that it leads to a different politic that in your view, constitutes an attempt to destroy America.

So, you would ban people from holding office who express a sufficiently different politic from your own that you view it as dangerous to the identity of America. You would consider these people traitors, implying that their views, opinions, politic, etc., are so different so as to be un-American, perhaps. But then yes, the issue is disagreement, namely, how much disagreement can be tolerated before restrictions are applied? Fundamentally we have in view differences of opinion and value.

Now I'm not American, so you'll have to excuse me for failing to appreciate the importance of the sleight of hand that are the Democrat and Republican parties.

The authoritarians want to censor everyone's speech, whether on the right or the left. And that I know very well, for the postmodernist language gamers are 'my people', or so I've been told. Mond and I will have the world fixed in no time.

[Fenris]

Absolutely, and the stock market is set to stay closed until at least the 5th. But in the long-term, if Putin gets Ukraine what's it going to matter so long as he's sitting comfy? There are plenty of pariah countries, and hey, the height of the USSR was breadlines and dead Ukrainians, right? Looks like he's getting exactly what he wanted.

Sigh. Yes. You are correct. And the Russian army appears to be making progress, however slowly. And so far as pariah countries go, Iran should be one. Yet it appears that we're going to put 100 billion dollars in their bank account and allow them to build nukes. And guess who's mediating between us and them? Russia.

[Fenris]

You also don't seem to understand the mistake Fenris made and why it matters.

I haven't made any mistake. We have free speech in this country. Your desire to criminalize speech or political parties because you disagree with it or find it dangerous is not an American value.  I don't see how destroying America protects America.

[Fenris]

I may actively speak against the legalization of sodomy, but at some point the majority and the courts may decide that my speech is discriminatory, and I may be silenced or jailed.

I find this statement amusing. You're arguing for the criminalization of speech (in your ideal theocracy), while simultaneously expressing fear of your speech being criminalized.

So censorship is ok- so long as you're the one who decides what gets censored.

[RandyPNW]

I may actively speak against the legalization of sodomy, but at some point the majority and the courts may decide that my speech is discriminatory, and I may be silenced or jailed.

I find this statement amusing. You're arguing for the criminalization of speech (in your ideal theocracy), while simultaneously expressing fear of your speech being criminalized.

So censorship is ok- so long as you're the one who decides what gets censored.

What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality. Of course I believe that my idea of a Theocracy is right, and should enjoy protected speech, whether in a Christian Theocracy or in an atheistic Communist country!

But to be consistent, I would not, in my ideal Theocracy, tolerate things that my God says is evil and destructive in a Christian Society. As God said, if we do not keep His holy word, He will curse our society.

And so, yes, to be consistent, I would censor speech in my ideal society, allowing for the inevitability of human flaws. Grace should always be made available in areas where truth has been lost and people can no longer be held accountable. And grace should always be extended to the repentant.

[Athanasius]

What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality.

He's not arguing for relative morality. He's pointing out the inconsistency of whining about the possibility of censorship (and cancel culture, as you have previously) alongside the acknowledgement that you would engage in this very censorship in your ideal theocratic state. If you're fine with not tolerating things "that my God says is evil and destructive" then you should have a bit of empathy for those in a similar position, and accept whatever censorship they place on you. After all, they're only trying to do what they think is best.

Besides, this doesn't even touch on the different understandings of what exactly it is that God finds "evil and destructive". You say one thing, but other Christians say other things, and I don't know about you, but I've personally had little luck with Christians who are overly concerned with being Conservative, or on the Right, or as imagining themselves as stalwart opponents of those on the Left. Many of the Christians I know would, and have indeed, been quite unkind to me. Why should anyone accept what you think, and not what another Christian thinks?

[Athanasius]

Absolutely, and the stock market is set to stay closed until at least the 5th. But in the long-term, if Putin gets Ukraine what's it going to matter so long as he's sitting comfy? There are plenty of pariah countries, and hey, the height of the USSR was breadlines and dead Ukrainians, right? Looks like he's getting exactly what he wanted.

Sigh. Yes. You are correct. And the Russian army appears to be making progress, however slowly. And so far as pariah countries go, Iran should be one. Yet it appears that we're going to put 100 billion dollars in their bank account and allow them to build nukes. And guess who's mediating between us and them? Russia.

That's one of the mistakes the West is making, I think. This idea that Russia's advance has been slow, so it's failing. How long did it take the US to take Baghdad? It's not like Putin is going to think to himself, "it's slow, well, better give up". We're hoping that's what sanctions will do, but I'm not convinced. The dude is threatening nuclear war and space station sabotage. Like, what?

I'm thinking there's enough corruption and planned incompetence in this push that it's clear the Russian army isn't what it could be. I'm almost convinced at this point that there are those in the Russian army sabotaging the effort, but it's only going to help for so long, and the push won't stop. Russia has been planning this for years, and I just wonder...

...is my peace of mind worth the cost of an annihilated Ukraine? I'm afraid that it might be, and Ukraine dies so the world can go on. But will it go on? Putin clearly isn't going to stop unless he's stopped. You ever wonder if there are Russians in the army who have thought to themselves, "If I were in Nazi Germany I wouldn't have followed Hitler?" I wonder what they're doing now.

[Fenris]

What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality.

As Athanasius has pointed out, I am not speaking about morality at all. I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about the fear of you being censored while at the same time calling for censorship of others with whom you disagree.

You have fear that free speech will lead to a country that is no longer America, and your solution is to ban free speech; you don't seem to understand that will lead to this country no longer being America.

[Fenris]

Why should anyone accept what you think, and not what another Christian thinks?

And when religion and politics have been too intertwined, it has led to things like the Inquisition where the "correct" Christian thinking has been imposed on other Christians. By force.

Or if a modern day example is needed, think of the Taliban.

No theocracy is going to create a functioning state in the modern world. Certainly not in the west, where personal freedom is foundational.  In the messianic era, when the world is united under God's rule, that's a different story.

[Fenris]

...is my peace of mind worth the cost of an annihilated Ukraine? I'm afraid that it might be, and Ukraine dies so the world can go on.

This is a problem that all states suffer. Smaller states most of all. It is a sad truth.

[CadyandZoe]

So, you would ban people from holding office who express a sufficiently different politic from your own . . .

How can I get you to understand that I have not adopted a subjective standpoint? Whether someone disagrees with me or not isn't the issue.

Do you realize that elected officials, including the president, swear an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? The talk here concerns domestic enemies. Surely you can see that an elected domestic enemy suffers under a huge conflict of interest? Don't you? How foolish it would be if we allowed domestic enemies to hold office.

If you want to talk in terms of disagreement, then explain how a domestic enemy should have any say over domestic affairs? Just as you would not allow a foreign enemy to dictate foreign policy?

The talk is NOT about the quantity of disagreement. It's over the type of disagreement. I certainly would not allow debate over defunding the police. The fact that such debate is allowed is clear indication of mass hysteria. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is clearly an enemy of the people and should not be allowed to hold office.

Now I'm not American, so you'll have to excuse me for failing to appreciate the importance of the sleight of hand that are the Democrat and Republican parties.

The authoritarians want to censor everyone's speech, whether on the right or the left. And that I know very well, for the postmodernist language gamers are 'my people', or so I've been told. Mond and I will have the world fixed in no time.

I don't want to censor anyone's speech. But I would like to limit our elections to those who are citizens of this country AND clearly not an enemy infiltrator.

[Fenris]

Do you realize that elected officials, including the president, swear an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? The talk here concerns domestic enemies. Surely you can see that an elected domestic enemy suffers under a huge conflict of interest? Don't you? How foolish it would be if we allowed domestic enemies to hold office.

By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?

The talk is NOT about the quantity of disagreement. It's over the type of disagreement. I certainly would not allow debate over defunding the police. The fact that such debate is allowed is clear indication of mass hysteria. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is clearly an enemy of the people and should not be allowed to hold office.

Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.

I don't want to censor anyone's speech. But I would like to limit our elections to those who are citizens of this country AND clearly not an enemy infiltrator.

Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?

[Athanasius]

And when religion and politics have been too intertwined, it has led to things like the Inquisition where the "correct" Christian thinking has been imposed on other Christians. By force.

Or if a modern day example is needed, think of the Taliban.

No theocracy is going to create a functioning state in the modern world. Certainly not in the west, where personal freedom is foundational.  In the messianic era, when the world is united under God's rule, that's a different story.

Yes, and as someone who many Christians are quite unloving towards, I'm probably hyper-aware of this fact. The Messianic era, the New Creation, whatever -- that's cool, that's when all will be well. But that's then and this is now.