This entry had originally been called "Political Protest and the Rule of Law" because it was supposed to be some long piece about how, given our weakness, the Left ought to exploit every freedom that liberalism has made available in order to promote "liberal-socialism" or "liberal-anarchism," and this means having a mature respect for the rule of law. If we consent to play the game then if we win, we get to expect that our opponents will consent to listen to us. At the same time I wanted to argue that there are many instances where illegal acts are necessary to communicate "non-negotiable demands" to power, especially to neo-con and neo-liberal vermin who believe that democracy is only operative (if ever) during elections. We can protest extra-legally and so can our opponents should we win. But there are consequences for these actions, and we should be prepared to accept them.
I'm a free-speech fanatic. I'm opposed to Canada's "hate-speech" laws. I think Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn should be free to print every fool thing that pops into their stupid little heads, short of slander or direct calls to violence. I think it's extremely short-sighted for the Left to give the system one more club to beat us with. When our pointed criticisms of US or Israeli imperialism are then labelled as 'hate-speech" then we see how convenient our own attempts to protect persecuted minorities are for more amoral enemies of freedom.
Obviously, the state, the corporations and their legal functionaries are not going to respect absolute freedom of speech in any case. Their silence on censorship issues that don't threaten them, their silence in the extreme violations of civil liberties in the idiotic "War on Terror" attest to this. Silence? More like enthusiastic complicity in the suppression of freedom!! Obviously they're going to be hypocritical about freedom of speech and everything else.
On the other hand, as I said, why give them another weapon? On top of their blatant, shameless hypocrisy on civil rights, we can give them more hypocrisy ammunition in the form of anti-hate-speech laws? With free speech absolutism we can at least point to their violation of a sacred, hugely important freedom. With hate-speech laws they're able to cynically exploit the possible damage to the tender feelings of USians, the police, the military, white males and etc., as a result of our "mean-spirited" criticisms.
The only defences I've heard when this danger has been pointed out have been incomprehensible sophistries.
I've run out of time for writing my shit today. I'll write more tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I've run out of time for writing my shit today. I'll write more tomorrow.
Please do NOT write anything tomorrow. I beg of you.
Do you really think we've NEVER seen this kind of "yeah, but" condescension to the ideas of free speech before. How many thousands of bloggers from the Left have said such?
Said, that is, to the effect of (and I always am SO pleased that the Stalin Lite Left finds a moral position pulled from the wreckage of their other notions) "yeah--we EVEN have to allow speech we don't care for!"
Well...yeah...else, what's the big deal and then what's the point?
As to the Dark Night of Terror under the Chenian/Rovian White House minions doing wiretappings on the Allah Knows Best crowd, of which the North Canukistanians are more amply supplied than we Yanks, we are in fact sorry that MILLIONS of people got listened to while baking chicken and were enslaved in internment camps for liberals, then shot dead by the truck load and shoved into shallow pits.
On second thought, spare us any continuation of such hyperbole.
US and Israeli Imperialism?
I wish that were so. For the moment, it seems more likely that for the big nation, it looks more like a reluctant paper tiger afraid of getting it's nails wet on the world front. For Israel, a nation almost bisected down the middle and in constant battle for mere survival, it IS an interesting notion that it's fighting back represent...."imperialism" in some minds.
Wow.
OMFG
Well now I simply HAVE to write more tomorrow!
Taking apart that steaming helping of utter stupidity that you served up here is going to require a post all its own!
Thanks for providing fresh evidence of the total intellectual bankruptcy of the right-wing!
You remind me of someone ...
I doubt you have the ability to take apart Tinker Toys.
The very fact that you mention "imperialism" regarding a paper tiger (at least under the new Bambi administration) and a nation fighting for its very existence amidst the Allah Knows Best crowd (of the variety that Canada seems to coddle) is evidence enough that liberalism itself is a mental disorder.
But we DO appreciate the Left's reluctant recognition of the rights of free speech, even if you don't know what the phrase means, or worse, how and when it can be applied.
This is hilarious coming from the Queen's chilly dominion lands like Canada and Britain (and bless Her Majesty), where speech can land you in court.
Cheerio, chillbilly.
I think Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn should be free to print every fool thing that pops into their stupid little heads,
Yes, well I'm looking for more fools with little heads who'll make distant, early warning commentary regarding the head-rip crowd's usage of Western legal norms to shield themselves, the fomenting of jihad and Sharia law in places like Britain (for the love of God), as well as some rather fertile demographic profiles.
Give us the knuckle-draggers from the Deep South and from what used to be called Yorkshire and Calgary.
At least they fight back once in a while. Not sure, however, why Steyn keeps linking to the "I'm a Lumberjack with pink panties" types of Canadian sites.
Not very flattering.
thwap said:
"With hate-speech laws they're able to cynically exploit the possible damage to the tender feelings of USians, the police, the military, white males and etc., as a result of our 'mean-spirited' criticisms"
Even when they pull this, it's possible to break through it to point out their faulty thinking, show how they arrived at such a "logic of victimization" and challenge them on it.
I don't believe the problem is the hate-speech laws themselves but rather the context in which they were deployed (to reinforce a liberal ideology of pluralism in society). They should be taken and used (certainly refined as needed) to their full extent as much in "correct" (if not creative) service as possible (for something that we didn't have a hand in creating).
It's not our fault if our opponents have learned from us; it pushes us to develop new tactics (not to mention that stuff happens that we can take advantage of).
WT said:
"For the moment, it seems more likely that for the big nation, it looks more like a reluctant paper tiger afraid of getting it's nails wet on the world front."
"of the variety that Canada seems to coddle"
"under the new Bambi administration"
You really should stop treating Freepers as a source for intelligent commentary.
"Israel, a nation almost bisected down the middle and in constant battle for mere survival, it IS an interesting notion that it's fighting back represent....'imperialism' in some minds."
Historically-minded minds, at any rate . . . .
Mere survival? As what? A racist state helped by your tax dollars?
Surely you can find some better project.
"Yes, well I'm looking for more fools with little heads who'll make distant, early warning commentary regarding the head-rip crowd's usage of Western legal norms to shield themselves, the fomenting of jihad and Sharia law in places like Britain (for the love of God), as well as some rather fertile demographic profiles."
Parroting someone you seem dislike isn't conducive to my being impressed.
>yawn<
Come up with something more original, and I might take more notice.
I may be a rightwing conservative Christian knuckle-dragging gun-owning wingnut, but I applaud you, sir, for acknowledging the importance of free speech. I know that you should have the right to print and say what you want (short, as you so cogently noted, of actual incitement to violence, etc), as should I, and Steyn, and anyone. Put it all out there in the marketplace of ideas.
Similarly, I should have the right to teach my children as I see fit, and to have as many as I care to. Progressives/liberals/atheists/etc tend, on average, to have 2 or fewer children, while we rightwing wackjobs tend to have more. My 3 older brothers, atheists all, have 2 kids amongst them, both grown, ultra-lib atheists, no sign of producing any grandkids. I'm the 'black sheep' of the family; I rebelled against my atheist parents by becoming a rightwing Christian. I have 4 kids, my oldest says he's going to have 6. Since I homeschooled them, not allowing the gov't-approved brainwashers access to them, they're even more conservative than I am. Guess who's going to win the grandchild wars? Whoses 'memes' will be propagated into the generations to come? Just think of it as 'evolution in action. Survival of the fittest. Last man standing.'
I am no great fan of Noam Chomsky's moonbat view of the world but he did put everything you're grasping to say here neatly into a single straightforward and honest sentence:
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
JJM
Dominion of Canada
>rolls eyes<
Right. Nuance, historical accuracy, and detailed knowledge is "moonbat" . . . .
I see a potential Darwin award-winner . . . .
"Guess who's going to win the grandchild wars?"
Depends on how long your wife can put up with your treating her like your own personal cloning vat:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/loopytube/videos/618/
Anonymous 2:
"Noam Chomsky's moonbat view of the world"
Right there you've lowered yourself to where you don't deserve to be taken seriously.
You could attempt to substantiate that stupid drive-by but I'm already certain that nothing you typed would be worthwhile.
Bye moron.
Anonymous 1:
"I may be a rightwing conservative Christian knuckle-dragging gun-owning wingnut,"
If you say so ...
"but I applaud you, sir, for acknowledging the importance of free speech. ... Put it all out there in the marketplace of ideas."
Okay ...
"Similarly, I should have the right to teach my children as I see fit, and to have as many as I care to. "
I guess so ...
"Progressives/liberals/atheists/etc tend, on average, to have 2 or fewer children, while we rightwing wackjobs tend to have more. My 3 older brothers, atheists all, have 2 kids amongst them, both grown, ultra-lib atheists, no sign of producing any grandkids. I'm the 'black sheep' of the family; I rebelled against my atheist parents by becoming a rightwing Christian. I have 4 kids, my oldest says he's going to have 6. Since I homeschooled them, not allowing the gov't-approved brainwashers access to them, they're even more conservative than I am. Guess who's going to win the grandchild wars? Whoses 'memes' will be propagated into the generations to come? Just think of it as 'evolution in action. Survival of the fittest. Last man standing.'"
So, let me see if I understand you.
You're crowing about how there'll be more Christian-conservatives than liberal-atheists? But if you're as dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, why the fuck should I care if you guys outnumber us eventually? You're not intending to go back on your word and actually try to impose your values on the rest of us are you?
And what's this you're saying? Your whole Christian faith was just a way to rebel against your parents? and now you're filling your kids' heads with that crap? You're one sick puppy.
But have you considered this? One day, your kids might wise up and rebel against YOU and dump your Christianity-rebellion? All four of 'em and then your 6 grandkids? You'll be breeding your own extinction!
One can only hope.
See you in the funny papers Chuckles!
Can anyone hear tell me what a "USian" is?
"here"
A resident of the United States.
Technically, all North and South Americans are "Americans."
Technically, a NATIONAL (not "resident") of the United States of America is called an "American" in the English language. Full stop.
"USian" is a made-up word, coined and used by anti-American bigots. That you have a mental block against calling Americans "Americans" tells us more about you than about nationals of the USA.
"USian" is hardly grammatical. It's awkward, it's ridiculous, and it's offensive. Americans have been called Americans since before the founding of the United States of America. Your current masters in Great Britain called them that long before 1776. It is arrogant and insulting in the extreme for you or anyone to tell Americans what they can or cannot call themselves. Do it to one’s face and he by right should punch you in the nose as if you called him a son of a bitch.
How about I call Canadians "NAsians," "Iglookians," "American-lights," or “Copycats”? Why can't the world just call the national of another country whatever name they damn well please? I hate having to call residents of the Netherlands the "Dutch." Why don't we all start calling them "Lowlanders," which is far more "technically accurate" than "Dutch," which is a Anglicized conflation of the German "Deutsch"
Technically, North Americans north of the USA border are called in the English language "Canadians," for your information. South of the border, they are "Mexicans," "Guatemalans," "Hondurans," "Colombians, "Venezuelans," "Argentinians," etc.
You don't like this state of affairs? Too bad. You are not an American, and you can't change what they call themselves.
Furthermore, it borders on fantasy to say that North America and South America -- two separate continents -- are a place called "America." So, this BS excuse that USian is more "technically" accurate than American is just that: BS. No one -- but NO ONE -- has ever referred to a non-USA resident of the continents of North America or South America as an "American." If you did, you would confuse the reader or listener. Call a Canadian an American and you get a very indignant "I am NOT an American; I am a Canadian!" You can call a person from the continent of North America a "North American," or a person from the continent of South America a "South American," but an "American"? Never. Been. Done. And it's never been proposed either. This "USian" thing is not a positive attempt to call North Americans and South Americans "Americans"; it is a negative attempt to take away the title "Americans" from people who call themselves that and have been called that for centuries.
And further furthermore, USian could "technically" be applied to nationals of the United States of Mexico (Mexico's "techinical" name). So, your nomenclature is not more accurate -- technically or otherwise.
Consider furhter: The nationals of the United States of Mexico are "Mexicans." Do you agree? Of course you do. Does it not follow, as night follows day, that the national of the United States of America is an "American"? Of course it does. Logic, convention, the English language, and basic good manners all demand this result. Surely, you are not suggesting renaming the United States of America. Are you?
So, given all that, am I right to assume that you won't change your practice, and that you will continue to act like an ill-mannered bigot?
Dear Anonymous, you are free to call yourself what ever you please. If you think that you are an American, fine. You do not get to dictate how others refer to you and your fellow nationals. We too are of the Americas. As Canadians we are often called Canucks, sometimes with affection, sometimes not.
Given the USian citizens' propensity for demonizing those of other nations, it is a far and funny reach to witness you climb up on your hind legs to protest with such vigour. Your fabled White House served "freedom fries" when the good people of France refused to take part in your illegal war of aggression. The pettiness of USian pique extended to the naming of popular, starchy foods. Classy.
In fact, the USian taste for inventive nomenclature is perhaps rivalled only by that of the British, the Brits, the Limeys. My forefathers were expert in the curt and dismissive, witness Wogs, Frogs and Wops. Our southern neighbours, lacking somewhat in brevity of wit, prefer the bludgeon and aren't afraid to spend syllables to achieve effect, hence, surrender monkeys, rag heads, godless commies and islamofascists.
The point dear Anonymous, is that neither Thwap, myself or any other of your betters are trying to change how you and your countrypersons self identify. But you and your fellows are fair game for criticism, mockery and a gentle jibe or two. USian is an intentionally awkward assembly and is not used in any seriousness, your daft and drooling protestations serve as proof of effect. You take your jingoism and fables as truths that all should recognize and adhere to. With not a lick of irony you truly seem to expect that the rest of the world should fully believe the self deceptions and retarded patriotism you lot sing to the tune of yoo ess ay. Sorry. your national pride isn't a viable export.
For the record, I stopped reading anonymous's whinings after the first line.
What a delicate little dweeb.
"Anti-American!" Poor baby!
Oh, poor Lindsay, that was incoherent and sad. Were you trying to disparage and humiliate me and my country? Your silly and pretentious writing ("Fabled White House"?), desperately striving for grandeur but achieving nothing more than comedy (you and Thwap (!) are my "betters"?) and feeble fiction ("USian is an intentionally awkward assembly"). You really are trying too hard. What are you trying to prove?
Ah, this: typical Canadian, insecure, provincial, stupid … but smug.
And Thwap: you lie. You read the whole thing.
Thwap, do you agree with Lindsay, artist, composer, writer, and best damn enunciator of "you want fries with that?" in all of Upper Canada, that "USian" is "not used in any seriousness"? I ask this, Thwap, because you, of all the bloggers that I have come across in the English-speaking world, most lack a sense of humor.
“You do not get to dictate how others refer to you and your fellow nationals.”
Interesting rule. Does it apply universally, Lindsay? Or just to Americans? Or just to me?
If just to me … well … that makes no sense. So, let’s throw that one out. If just to Americans, I think you are destined to be disappointed, but this is exactly what I think you, Thwap, and the other bigots really intend ... or, more precisely, wish. But where is your sense of fairness and equality? Oh well, the left has no problem with inequality in the right circumstances, just as they will excuse bigotry in the right circumstances, if it serves their ends.
That leaves us finally with universal application, which, I admit, has its charms. It leaves everyone free to call anyone anything they please. So, you, Lindsay, are a supercilious putz from Loserland, a failed artist from a pathetic tribe of boring and supine scolds, and a dim bulb from a rightfully overlooked nation of plaid-clad non-entities, a nation so insecure in its position in the world that it has defined its lack of ability as a moral good, elevated its deficiencies to a position of a shining example to the world, and defined itself as the negation of that which it too closely resembles.
And Thwap … Thwap is just plain nuts.
You seem a tad obsessed. If you were personally less insecure my use of the term "USian" probably wouldn't compel you to such a flurry of typing.
For the record, I got "USian" from the rabble.ca discussion board.
There was a time when I thought Miss Teen North Carolina's "US-American" was better. I suppose I still do but type "USian" out of habit.
It's not meant to be an insult though. I don't give a rat's-ass for patriotism but I also don't go out of my way to insult other people's countries.
Which doesn't mean that one can't characterize a country. I have a lot of criticism for the USA, as well as my own country, as well as other countries. But I don't base them on any supposedly inherent characteristics.
"I ... don't go out of my way to insult other people's countries."
I stand corrected. You DO have a sense of humor.
Whatever. As long as you stop your pitiful weeping over my use of the word "USian."
I believe Anonymous could use a tissue or perhaps a pre-moistened towelette at this juncture. Evidently, the respect Anon demands for his/her nation is not something he/she feels compelled to return in kind. We, the good residents of Loserlandia do at least have a sense of humour about ourselves. It is fun to watch an apoplectic fit now and then, well over-reacted, bravo.
It's "Loserland."
And as far as senses of humor about yourselves go, you haven't got them so much. Sorry; it's from taking yourselves so seriously and having an oversized sense of your worth. This occurs a lot, you know. You just happen to have it in spades. ("You" includes you in particular, Lindsay. You continue to try too hard to impress with your feigned insouciance. It doesn't work. It comes across as a particularly puerile form of passive-aggression and stupid adolescent sarcasm. It falls too far short of wit to even crack a smile over.)
Your tantrums are funnier than your mawkish pretense of superiority. But by all means, continue the wounded sniffing.
Me, I'll just ignore him. He'll eventually get bored and go away.
I hope.
"... mawkish pretense of superiority."
I'd like to say you were engaging in a tu quoque argument (as I think you want to), Lindsay, but this phrase actually makes no sense. For the third time: You are trying too hard.
"I'll just ignore him. He'll eventually get bored and go away."
You are off to a poor start, Thwap. I recommend, you know, actually ignoring me if you want to ignore me.
Thwap, do you EVER read what you write?
Post a Comment