European Civilization Headed for Extinction?

Oct 2013
14,088
Europix
Uncontested means unchallenged and uncriticized. ...
I know. Is CNN uncontested? Is Fox?

Yes. And no. What are their positions towards present POTUS?

So, what we're talking about?

... PC is like an old world forced pleasantries, it looking the other way lest one is offended, PC is pretentious sugar coating when it does not fit a desired pattern, it is unhealthy being said as healthy ...etc.
.
The commie Jews wasn't a hyperbole. I can send You links on it. Studies, documented, written by "academics" ....

BTW, in what the definition You gave doesn't fit a lot of anti-system, anti-immigration, anti-multicultural and other anti- ?
 
Oct 2010
4,985
DC
What we are talking about is that it is implied that somehow criticizing the media or even calling them names is somehow not democracy, unless I missed the meaning.

Can you clarify the last paragraph?
 
Oct 2013
14,088
Europix
What we are talking about is that it is implied that somehow criticizing the media or even calling them names is somehow not democracy, unless I missed the meaning. ...
Then we're parallel: I was talking about the bias in the critic.

Can you clarify the last paragraph?
Yes: in what "PI", "anti-PC" isn't new world forced pleasantries, isn't looking the other way, isn't pretentious pepper coating when it does not fit a desired pattern, isn't unhealthy being said as healthy ?
 
Oct 2010
4,985
DC
Then we're parallel: I was talking about the bias in the critic.
sounds good to me.
Yes: in what "PI", "anti-PC" isn't new world forced pleasantries, isn't looking the other way, isn't pretentious pepper coating when it does not fit a desired pattern, isn't unhealthy being said as healthy ?
the keyword is “forced” , PC is saying smoking is not that bad for health and getting outraged when told it can lead to lot of health problems.

We the non-european ethnically were fine celebrating Oktoberfest in our town until PC decided To call it “flavors of fall” , so I did not go.

You know what is PC, the rage over my son being stopped at airports because of his muslim sounding name combined with lack of rage when he, the same exact person is denied college/employment because he is classified as the privileged WHITE MALE
 
Feb 2015
111
south Slavic guy
No. I reject that premise entirely. Harmful speech should not be allowed(not offensive harmful). A democracy is only as good as the quality of information in that democracy. Honestly given climate change and the role free speech played in crippling humanity's response, free speech is likely to go down as the principle that destroyed the human race. Saying free speech protects harmful speech is like saying gun rights protects your right to go on a shooting spree. So no I reject that premise entirely, free speech extremists are dangerous.
free speech extremists. ))) So you mean that certain degree of freedom of speech is not good anymore. ))) Ok. But what is the limit then? ))
That means you want restrictions (limitations) on speech, which aumatically means it's not free speech anymore.
 
Oct 2013
14,088
Europix
People who advocate censorship always imagine that it is people like them who will be doing the censoring!
IDK, Lins.

Questioning how absolute can or should be the freedom of speech isn't necessarily asking censorship.

(the notion in itself is debatable and not universal: Europe has the concept of "freedom of expression", and the difference isn't simple semantics, but ok, we can remain in the "freedom of speech" as we're in an Anglophone site).

Absolute freedom of speech is in the same frame as libertarianism. As much as it is (both are) a very noble idea, as good as it looks on paper, it's failing to take a fundamental aspect into consideration: humans are a social species.

Both ideas arrive necessarily at a certain point into an insoluble contradiction: individual vs group.

As part of a group, one cannot have an absolute liberty. As part of a group, one cannot have an absolute freedom of speech, or more correctly, one cannot have an absolute iresponsabilty on his speech. There is a point were we become responsible of our acts, of our speech.

Ofcourse, it's walking on an extremely thin ice.

In the name of protecting freedom of speech and liberties, we have the temptation to accept "cautious" measures that are opening the door for censorship and totalitarism. We've seen it before, we see it today.

But in the name of the same principels, we can accept the unacceptable, we can open the door for the totalitarism. We've seen that also.
 
Aug 2010
16,071
Welsh Marches
Frankly I'm worried by the equanimity with which many people on the left nowadays seem happy to argue for censorship, and indeed take active and sometimes quite effective steps to impose it; I can remember when this was a battle that seemd to have been won, with the left being leading proponents of freedom of speech. I naturally don't think that there should be absolute freedom of speech or expression, allowing libel or the immediate inciting of violence, but beyond that I'm pretty much of an absolutist not for ideological but for practical reasons; for as soon as one agrees that people should not be allowed use, for instance, certain kinds of 'hate' speech, people will immediately assign the relevant term to people whom it does not properly apply. One thus finds classical liberals who criticize identitly politics being accused of being racists; in fact it is hard to find anyone outside the leftist bunker who is not accused of that and just about every other thoughtcrime.
 
Oct 2013
14,088
Europix
Frankly I'm worried by the equanimity with which many people on the left nowadays seem happy to argue for censorship, and indeed take active and sometimes quite effective steps to impose it; I can remember when this was a battle that seemd to have been won, with the left being leading proponents of freedom of speech. I naturally don't think that there should be absolute freedom of speech or expression, allowing libel or the immediate inciting of violence, but beyond that I'm pretty much of an absolutist not for ideological but for practical reasons; for as soon as one agrees that people should not be allowed use, for instance, certain kinds of 'hate' speech, people will immediately assign the relevant term to people whom it does not properly apply. One thus finds classical liberals who criticize identitly politics being accused of being racists; in fact it is hard to find anyone outside the leftist bunker who is not accused of that and just about every other thoughtcrime.
Very honestly, I think it has very little to do with left or right (generally speaking, left-center-right have more or less on the same line, it's more the extreme that have different positions).

I believe it's more about the deep mutation in the society we are experiencing. The notions we're accustomed to are challenged, the frame is less fitting the reality, the forms are different.

We have difficulties in adapting ourselves and our democratic system to the new societies we're living in.
 
Aug 2010
16,071
Welsh Marches
I was merely referring to the left because that is where most attempts at censorship are coming from nowadays, they used to come more from the right. As to the general unease, malaise, instability of thought at the moment, that indeed runs right across the spectrum, and I think we're unpredictable changes and a certain amount of chaos in the next twenty years or so.
 

Similar History Discussions