We’re in the dawn of a high-tech, bloodless Cultural Revolution; one that relies on intimidation, public shaming, and economic ruin to dictate what words and ideas are permissible in the public square.
RT @prestonjbyrne: The hivemind is going to adapt quickly; the future of controversial speech will be anonymous. The next great wave of influencers will operate under pseudonyms and on free speech platforms like Minds, Gab, Parler, LBRY and Bitchute.
The hivemind is going to adapt quickly; the future of controversial speech will be anonymous. The next great wave of influencers will operate under pseudonyms and on free speech platforms like Minds, Gab, Parler, LBRY and Bitchute.
"Cotton’s critics are correct that not every dumb or radical idea deserves a debate or a place in the country’s biggest newspapers — although some of us believe editors should make room for contrarian and unpopular arguments. But this insistence masks their real objection: That Cotton’s column, which tonally and philosophically was well within the parameters of traditional editorial writing, might have found an audience. At root, our cultural revolutionaries are frightened of ideas. Do we honestly believe that had another paper published it, the same people wouldn’t have deemed that inappropriate, too?
None of the Times’ editors, all of whom are apparently comfortable with running fabulist histories or odes to Communist tyrannies, pushed back against the caustic notion that engaging in debate was act of violence. They bowed to the internal mob and pleaded for forgiveness."
Frightened of ideas? No. It's a question if values. Life over property. Living up to the promise of the constitution. The letter of the law and equal implementation of those laws. Higher standards for police.
Perhaps we need the national guard because at least they won't be as antagonistic to the police. That's what LBJ had to do.
what amuses me is that while the right is crying foul out loud for a ball game in a left leaning media court as ‘cultural revolutionaries’, while the right is totally ok of the ‘sieg heil’ on the fox court every night... oh wait maybe they do think they’re just really secret n-words by calling others as c-words...
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.
This subreddit is a pro-Trump subreddit for sharing information about the 45th President Donald J Trump and the 2020 Presidential Election, as well as related materials. While we encourage rational debate from all perspectives, we do not condone users engaging in hostilities, and expect that all participants follow the rules and remain civil at all times.
Surely a private business has the power to decide the type of content it publishes! You’re rights begin where mine end, am I right? Obviously the bakers don’t have to bake a cake ...ahem... the news organization doesn’t need to publish an opinion piece it doesn’t want to! Especially since conservatives are not a protected class and there are a many other bakers... ahem... news outlets to publish they’re opinions.
“the left ... controls all the corporations” Is this conspiracy theory from Alex Jones or Qanon? Maybe one of your FB friends?
If you believe that than there’s this really cool bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn that I’ll sell you. I also have some essential oils that will cure your son’s vaccine autism. Maybe some special cleaning products to prevent corona? Lmk!
The article has good points, but all of them summed up times 10 is still child’s play compared to the Cultural Revolution proper. I’m sorry, but this kind of sensational labelling is exactly the one thing Americans don’t need right now, and it’s a shame since, again, the article does have many good points.
I'm all for diversity in thought - typically though this kind of thing gets flagged on HN.
After 9/11, invasion of Afghanistan and both Iraq wars there were songs banned from the radio and people were thrown out of malls for wearing t-shirts that were anti-war. Conservatives were all for that or had little to say about stifling free speech concerns. The argument was its private property and companies can do what they want.
There were plenty of pro war advocates that brow beat anyone who disagreed with any of those military actions. There was very little anti war sentiment on any of the major networks in the run-up to Iraq 2003. The disparity of pro war to anti war advocates on all the major networks and cable news channels was heavily tilted towards being in favor of invading Iraq. I recall watching Nightline on ABC when it still did heavy and serious news, when Ted Koeppel hosted it. They had a very honest forum about both sides, it was very even handed and I felt like everyone in America should have seen it, as it may have had more influence on the country. No one was watching it at 11:30 EST, and quite frankly it was too late. Nobody at Nation Review complained. It was all too convenient for them.
And now that the mood of the country has shifted so much that even Rush Limbaugh has the hosts of a black radio program, and even the typical right wing blowhards concede maybe there's a problem with racism and policy brutality. And the National Review, which has trained the political and cultural attack dog, that typically goes after those on the opposite side of political spectrum, suddenly they are afraid that the monster they've helped create is coming back to get them. And the comparison is so weak its pathetic. Just because NYT subscribers (full disclosue I am one) didn't think they should have published is crappy editorial. Suddenly we're the Chinese Cultural Revolution. This is pathetic.
Tom Cotton, a senator who could have published his editorial anywhere, and the NYT, a barely center left newspaper got grief about publishing it. No one is shutting down Tom Cotton, the subscribers of the NYT could and would have heard about Senator Cotton's ideas anywhere. What a bunch of whiners.
Conservatives like to pretend that having their words taken down from a prominent platform, or getting pushback or harsh criticism, is the same as being sent to a re-education camp. Who's the snowflake now?
If this is really the problem conservatives claim it is, there's a simple solution: Get a backbone and delete your social media accounts. Most platforms (unlike HN) provide account deletion functions (though some keep them well-hidden).
> The Times can claim that a harsh tone and a small factual error in Senator Tom Cotton’s recent op-ed was the reason the entire paper had a meltdown, but the staffers who revolted initially claimed that Cotton’s argument for bringing the National Guard into cities put black lives in “danger.”
Cotton’s entire argument was that the military should be sent into the cities to crack protesters’ heads, which is something significantly more aggressive than “a harsh tone.”
If I were to take to the op-ed page of the Times with the argument that national stability requires that we send the military to crack the heads of everybody who writes for the National Review, I suspect they would waver somewhat in their commitment to unlimited free speech.
This is absurd. The New York Times opinion section is primarily for right-of-center opinions that support the ruling class. They let in center left and actually left ones from time to time to be able to claim it isn’t. They went a little too far right on this one for their readership.
Have you ever seen an op-ed in the Times with a communist perspective on current affairs?
To those who think I am being hyperbolic, here is an op-ed they published in 2018 to no backlash.
Why We Miss the WASPs:
Their more meritocratic, diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well.
The problem with this narrative is that it really doesn't fit. When you encounter situations like this, it's good to ground yourself as close to reality as you can get. Ie, ask questions such as: How has the guns? Who has the money? Who has the media? The clergy? etc.
In the case of the The Cultural Revolution, the answers were simple. Mao had it all and he cracked down hard. In the case of the Soviets, the answer is also the same - the party had all the guns, all the money, all the media and the clergy were irrelevant.
This situation is nothing like that. Conservatives control the guns, both officially (executive, half the legislature, most of the courts, most of law enforcement) and unofficially (the right-wing militias, which can show up anywhere and demand anything with guns and get treated deferentially). Money and Media are split, with everyone amassing on each side. The clergy is very heavily on the conservative side.
So no, this is much closer to the Prague Spring than it is to the Cultural Revolution.
Anytime someone equates private control of a private platform with an abridging of “free speech” rights I automatically think they have suffered a head injury that has damaged their ability to think and makes them take nonsensical positions.
If I flood Hacker News with TIMECUBE truth and they delete my posts are they infringing on my free speech rights?
> I am a Knower of 4 corner
>simultaneous 24 hour Days
>that occur within a single
>4 corner rotation of Earth.
If you disagree with that TRUTH you are a COMMUNIST from COMMUNIST CHINA, you DIRTY COMMUNIST.