The growing left-wing authoritarianism among Millenials

[ronburgundy]

Censorship of speech has always been empirical and theoretically central to the concept of authoritarianism.

It has mostly been tied to right-wing politics to the point where many (wrongly) assume that authoritarianism and right-wing are largely synonymous. Classical liberalism values liberty at least as much as equality of opportunity and treatment under the law, which prevents true liberalism from endorsing authoritarian controls aimed at forcing equality of outcomes.
But the US is seeing a rapid rise in left-wing authoritarianism in which the liberty part of liberalism is being discarded.

The rise in support for censorship among the left is among its telltale signs, and is shown by this recent PEW survey.


33% of Americans do not agree that "People should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups"

40% of "millennials" (ages 18-35) agree that "Government should be able to prevent people from making statements that are offensive to minority groups."

This latter number is up a good deal from the 27% of 36-50 year olds, and 24% of 51 to 69 year olds.

When you consider that only about half of Millennials lean "Dem". That means that among the next generation of Democrats and so-called "liberals", the vast majority of them support government censorship of speech that offends minority groups. In fact, white Dems (who wrongly label themselves "liberal") support such censorship moreso than the non-white minorities who are usually the one's supposedly being offended.

That should frighten any reasonable person that values liberty (all which requires strong free speech protection), even moreso than the speech that rightly offends minority groups.

 

[Trausti]

That's why they're called the regressive left. Scratch a social justice warrior, reveal an authoritarian.

 

[Metaphor]

Censorship of speech has always been empirical and theoretically central to the concept of authoritarianism.

It has mostly been tied to right-wing politics to the point where many (wrongly) assume that authoritarianism and right-wing are largely synonymous. Classical liberalism values liberty at least as much as equality of opportunity and treatment under the law, which prevents true liberalism from endorsing authoritarian controls aimed at forcing equality of outcomes.
But the US is seeing a rapid rise in left-wing authoritarianism in which the liberty part of liberalism is being discarded.

The rise in support for censorship among the left is among its telltale signs, and is shown by this recent PEW survey.


33% of Americans do not agree that "People should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups"

40% of "millennials" (ages 18-35) agree that "Government should be able to prevent people from making statements that are offensive to minority groups."

This latter number is up a good deal from the 27% of 36-50 year olds, and 24% of 51 to 69 year olds.

When you consider that only about half of Millennials lean "Dem". That means that among the next generation of Democrats and so-called "liberals", the vast majority of them support government censorship of speech that offends minority groups. In fact, white Dems (who wrongly label themselves "liberal") support such censorship moreso than the non-white minorities who are usually the one's supposedly being offended.

That should frighten any reasonable person that values liberty (all which requires strong free speech protection), even moreso than the speech that rightly offends minority groups.

This support for the abridgment of free speech isn't just a phenomenon in America -- sky-is-falling hystericals in Australia ensured the failure to repeal section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

 

[Trausti]

Censorship of speech has always been empirical and theoretically central to the concept of authoritarianism.

It has mostly been tied to right-wing politics to the point where many (wrongly) assume that authoritarianism and right-wing are largely synonymous. Classical liberalism values liberty at least as much as equality of opportunity and treatment under the law, which prevents true liberalism from endorsing authoritarian controls aimed at forcing equality of outcomes.
But the US is seeing a rapid rise in left-wing authoritarianism in which the liberty part of liberalism is being discarded.

The rise in support for censorship among the left is among its telltale signs, and is shown by this recent PEW survey.


33% of Americans do not agree that "People should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups"

40% of "millennials" (ages 18-35) agree that "Government should be able to prevent people from making statements that are offensive to minority groups."

This latter number is up a good deal from the 27% of 36-50 year olds, and 24% of 51 to 69 year olds.

When you consider that only about half of Millennials lean "Dem". That means that among the next generation of Democrats and so-called "liberals", the vast majority of them support government censorship of speech that offends minority groups. In fact, white Dems (who wrongly label themselves "liberal") support such censorship moreso than the non-white minorities who are usually the one's supposedly being offended.

That should frighten any reasonable person that values liberty (all which requires strong free speech protection), even moreso than the speech that rightly offends minority groups.

This support for the abridgment of free speech isn't just a phenomenon in America -- sky-is-falling hystericals in Australia ensured the failure to repeal section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Thank those dead white guys that we have a bill of rights. Your section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act has no chance here; yet.

 

[ronburgundy]

Censorship of speech has always been empirical and theoretically central to the concept of authoritarianism.

It has mostly been tied to right-wing politics to the point where many (wrongly) assume that authoritarianism and right-wing are largely synonymous. Classical liberalism values liberty at least as much as equality of opportunity and treatment under the law, which prevents true liberalism from endorsing authoritarian controls aimed at forcing equality of outcomes.
But the US is seeing a rapid rise in left-wing authoritarianism in which the liberty part of liberalism is being discarded.

The rise in support for censorship among the left is among its telltale signs, and is shown by this recent PEW survey.


33% of Americans do not agree that "People should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups"

40% of "millennials" (ages 18-35) agree that "Government should be able to prevent people from making statements that are offensive to minority groups."

This latter number is up a good deal from the 27% of 36-50 year olds, and 24% of 51 to 69 year olds.

When you consider that only about half of Millennials lean "Dem". That means that among the next generation of Democrats and so-called "liberals", the vast majority of them support government censorship of speech that offends minority groups. In fact, white Dems (who wrongly label themselves "liberal") support such censorship moreso than the non-white minorities who are usually the one's supposedly being offended.

That should frighten any reasonable person that values liberty (all which requires strong free speech protection), even moreso than the speech that rightly offends minority groups.

This support for the abridgment of free speech isn't just a phenomenon in America -- sky-is-falling hystericals in Australia ensured the failure to repeal section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

I know, but the US has been much stronger in its support of free speech than the rest of the "West". Plus, the fact that we have only two real parties makes it especially frightening that both are becoming more authoritarian but in different ways.

 

[untermensche]

Speech is just behavior.

It's insane to think that harmful speech can't be as controlled as any harmful behavior.

The second Amendment is about the federal government limiting speech. It is not about institutions, that have limited and limit all kinds of speech.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll get some Kleenex for you.

 

[Trausti]

Speech is just behavior.

It's insane to think that harmful speech can't be as controlled as any harmful behavior.

So you favor blasphemy laws?

 

[untermensche]

Speech is just behavior.

It's insane to think that harmful speech can't be as controlled as any harmful behavior.

So you favor blasphemy laws?

How is that specifically harmful?

 

[Nexus]

So you favor blasphemy laws?

How is that specifically harmful?

Its hurts the religious peoples feelings. Just like offensive speech about minorities hurts millennial's feelings.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Speech is just behavior.

It's insane to think that harmful speech can't be as controlled as any harmful behavior.

The second Amendment is about the federal government limiting speech. It is not about institutions, that have limited and limit all kinds of speech.

This is a difficult question. The UK has laws regarding incitement to violence but then even this type of legislation has to be used on a case by case basis. Satire about Mhd is regarded as free speech, though some of the cartoons seemed childish so that is my own view. It is not offensive to do childish cartoons. However we try to draw the line at things like inciting people to bomb someone else's house would be normally regarded as mobilising hatred. Even then the courts will look at the wording and evaluating the actual intent and the effect on others (who could be incited).

 

[untermensche]

How is that specifically harmful?

Its hurts the religious peoples feelings. Just like offensive speech about minorities hurts millennial's feelings.

Speech directed at individuals can harm them.

But blasphemy is not speech aimed at individuals. It is speech concerning alleged gods, and gods can take care of themselves.

 

[Trausti]

Its hurts the religious peoples feelings. Just like offensive speech about minorities hurts millennial's feelings.

Speech directed at individuals can harm them.

But blasphemy is not speech aimed at individuals. It is speech concerning alleged gods, and gods can take care of themselves.

You realize that there are ~billion Muslims who disagree with that, right? Which is why free speech must be free speech. If you allow a decider to choose what is acceptable speech and what is not, you get tyranny and oppression. Or maybe that's what you want?

 

[untermensche]

Speech directed at individuals can harm them.

But blasphemy is not speech aimed at individuals. It is speech concerning alleged gods, and gods can take care of themselves.

You realize that there are ~billion Muslims who disagree with that, right? Which is why free speech must be free speech. If you allow a decider to choose what is acceptable speech and what is not, you get tyranny and oppression. Or maybe that's what you want?

There is no such concept as "free speech". It's like "free trade", a fairy tale for children.

All kinds of speech that can reasonably be seen to cause harm is prohibited.

Fraud is an example. A crime can be committed with just speech if speech is used to commit fraud.

Lying to a police officer is criminal.

 

[Nexus]

Its hurts the religious peoples feelings. Just like offensive speech about minorities hurts millennial's feelings.

Speech directed at individuals can harm them.

No, it simply hurts their feelings.

There is no such concept as "free speech".

We have centuries of philosophical and legal though explaining what "free speech" is. Your semantic games won't contradict that.

 

[untermensche]

Speech directed at individuals can harm them.

No, it simply hurts their feelings.

It can intimidate, and frighten, and cause anxiety and even depression. Humans have a psychology. They are not robots.

There is no such concept as "free speech".

We have centuries of philosophical and legal though explaining what "free speech" is. Your semantic games won't contradict that.

Who is this "we" and what the hell are you talking about?

There are many legal restrictions on speech, even political speech.

There is no such thing as "free speech".

 

[bigfield]

Speech directed at individuals can harm them.

No, it simply hurts their feelings.

Slander and libel can do damage to a person, socially. You can ruin a person's life and livelihood with speech.

 

[Derec]

No, it simply hurts their feelings.

Slander and libel can do damage to a person, socially. You can ruin a person's life and livelihood with speech.

Which is why slander and libel, and also threatening speech are not protected by the First Amendment.

But merely offensive speech should not be banned. Especially if you try to ban speech offensive to only certain groups ("minorities") but not others.

 

[Derec]

It can intimidate, and frighten, and cause anxiety and even depression. Humans have a psychology. They are not robots.

There are many legal restrictions on speech, even political speech.
There is no such thing as "free speech".

You seem to labor under the misapprehension that "free" means no restrictions whatsoever.
And besides, I don't see how any of what you are saying justifies banning speech offensive to "minorities".

 

[untermensche]

You seem to labor under the misapprehension that "free" means no restrictions whatsoever.
And besides, I don't see how any of what you are saying justifies banning speech offensive to "minorities".

I see no argument about anything.

People can be reasonably harmed by speech.

Harmful behaviors should have prohibitions.