• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctness?

Which is more effective in surpressing free speech?

  • Communism or authoritarian government speech enforcements.

    Votes: 11 61.1%
  • Political correctness.

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • I agree with whichever the majority of people say :0

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sometime I ponder our judgments of other peoples on a whole list of things that if you thing about it, we do ourselves, but just approach it differently. Are we REALLY that much more different than the groups we look down upon?

Today: suppression of speech through intimidation.

- Them: communism or other authoritarian government consequences on free expression on things they want you to keep your mouth shut about.

- Us: political correctness where social pressure is used to exact consequences on free expression often through employment security unrelated to the speech, the collective decides you must keep your mouth shut about. Especially troubling is when government seeks to codify political correctness.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

You can change your job and circle of friends much more easily than ousting a dictator. ;)
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

"Free speech" is not absolute, and curbing "free speech" is hardly the limited to communism and authoritarian government structures or political correctness. You missed out on religious grounds, so called moral grounds, self censorship and of course corporate attack on free speech.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

"Free speech" is not absolute, and curbing "free speech" is hardly the limited to communism and authoritarian government structures or political correctness. You missed out on religious grounds, so called moral grounds, self censorship and of course corporate attack on free speech.

What do you mean by "corporate attack on free speech?"
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

What do you mean by "corporate attack on free speech?"

Censorship because it goes against the corporate aka owners political view. Happens all the time.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

[/I]- Us: political correctness where social pressure is used to exact consequences on free expression often through employment security unrelated to the speech, the collective decides you must keep your mouth shut about. Especially troubling is when government seeks to codify political correctness.

Free speech does not mean "freedom from private repercussions". What kind of person thinks free speech means "no private citizen can disagree or take action against yours"? It's not "freedom from private repercussions".


Do you tell your girlfriend she's a bitch and then claim freedom of speech in attempt to avoid the consequences? Idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Clearly, authoritarian government dictates have a far greater chill on free speech than does a group of people exercising their free speech against your free speech.

In the first case, the government simply rounds you up and puts you away or as in Russia with uncooperative reporters, simply poisons or shoots you with little consequence. In the later case, if you don't care about the group speak against your comments, you can continue to share your views to your heart's content. It's what makes the famous and shameless so pervasive. When you have no shame, like an Al Sharpton, you can never be silenced by political correctness. The only people silenced by political correctness are those who have the capacity to feel shame as a result of collective disgust.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Clearly, authoritarian government dictates have a far greater chill on free speech than does a group of people exercising their free speech against your free speech.

Thank you.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Clearly, authoritarian government dictates have a far greater chill on free speech than does a group of people exercising their free speech against your free speech.

In the first case, the government simply rounds you up and puts you away or as in Russia with uncooperative reporters, simply poisons or shoots you with little consequence. In the later case, if you don't care about the group speak against your comments, you can continue to share your views to your heart's content. It's what makes the famous and shameless so pervasive. When you have no shame, like an Al Sharpton, you can never be silenced by political correctness. The only people silenced by political correctness are those who have the capacity to feel shame as a result of collective disgust.

Well said!


And while each "side" blames the other, singles out one group - notice the reference to "communism", the big trampler of free speech, allegedly in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The US saw this a fact at the time, while myself and my colleagues were being arrested in US cities for gathering together and reading anti-war literature and singing folk songs.

On any university campus, usually a haven for left of center philosophy, any pictures regarding a fetus relative to abortion is outright banned. \

It is not any 'ism' in existence that has a corner on limiting free speech, it is a rather universal concept employed by fear driven people; from fear of differences to a fear of judgement to the greatest motivator of humans, fear of a loss of our security. The latter being a favorite of governments since man chose his first tribal chieftan
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Sometime I ponder our judgments of other peoples on a whole list of things that if you thing about it, we do ourselves, but just approach it differently. Are we REALLY that much more different than the groups we look down upon?

Today: suppression of speech through intimidation.

- Them: communism or other authoritarian government consequences on free expression on things they want you to keep your mouth shut about.

- Us: political correctness where social pressure is used to exact consequences on free expression often through employment security unrelated to the speech, the collective decides you must keep your mouth shut about. Especially troubling is when government seeks to codify political correctness.

The liberals have their own version of soviet oppression: it's called shame. Then of course there are elements of them in media that perpetuate that politically correct nonsense.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Well said!


And while each "side" blames the other, singles out one group - notice the reference to "communism", the big trampler of free speech, allegedly in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The US saw this a fact at the time, while myself and my colleagues were being arrested in US cities for gathering together and reading anti-war literature and singing folk songs.

On any university campus, usually a haven for left of center philosophy, any pictures regarding a fetus relative to abortion is outright banned. \

It is not any 'ism' in existence that has a corner on limiting free speech, it is a rather universal concept employed by fear driven people; from fear of differences to a fear of judgement to the greatest motivator of humans, fear of a loss of our security. The latter being a favorite of governments since man chose his first tribal chieftan

I think what you point out here is the difference between "free speech" as a legal concept and the less protected "freedom to speak". In the former, it is a protection against a government suppression of speech where in the latter, it's the ability of private individuals and/or businesses to deny you a vehicle by which to publicize your speech.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Sometime I ponder our judgments of other peoples on a whole list of things that if you thing about it, we do ourselves, but just approach it differently. Are we REALLY that much more different than the groups we look down upon?

Today: suppression of speech through intimidation.

- Them: communism or other authoritarian government consequences on free expression on things they want you to keep your mouth shut about.

- Us: political correctness where social pressure is used to exact consequences on free expression often through employment security unrelated to the speech, the collective decides you must keep your mouth shut about. Especially troubling is when government seeks to codify political correctness.

As far as I know, nothing about the theories of Communism is opposed to free speech. In practice, though, as every attempt to implement Communism goes rather badly astray, and as the government in power becomes increasingly desperate to stay in power, it invariably resorts to all manner of abuses in order to suppress dissension, including the suppression of free speech.

Political Correctness, on the other hand, is entirely about suppressing free speech and free thought. That is its purpose, that is its intent, and that is its desired effect.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

The liberals have their own version of soviet oppression: it's called shame. Then of course there are elements of them in media that perpetuate that politically correct nonsense.

I'm no liberal or shill for liberals, but this is not a liberal phenomenon and no one can make you feel shame unless you actually feel shame. What I call "collective disgust" is not a left wing/right wing concept, in my view. It is more reflective of a herd mentality that social media promotes and gins up. Sometimes it's valid but often it isn't.

As a result, I'm inclined to think that the "collective disgust" phenomenon we now experience takes away freedom of expression from those who participate in the herd more so than the target for fear that you may become a target of the herd as well.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

PC is isn't just social pressure - it is enforced by law. Just ask the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for that disgusting gay couple.

The baker did nothing wrong - it's his business and in a supposedly free country he should be able to run his business as he sees fit. What was disgusting was the gay couple appealing to governmental force to bully someone who simply didn't want to do business with them.

They could very well have gone to another baker who would have gladly accepted their business, but that wasn't enough for them... they're bullies, and did what bullies do, they turned to force - governmental force, to impose their will upon another.

At the end of the day - that is what PC is all about - force. Force wielded by an unconstrained and unaccountable government... PC is communism lite; at least for now. Eventually the need for pretense will be gone entirely, and governmental force will become increasingly more widespread and arbitrary... be it PC police, or the IRS that attacks a business owner; or the EPA that essentially puts an end to private property, etc.

Freedom in America is all-but dead, and PC is a huge part of that.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

The liberals have their own version of soviet oppression: it's called shame. Then of course there are elements of them in media that perpetuate that politically correct nonsense.

You're such a victim!

So oppressed by society. Let's have a pity party.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

I'm no liberal or shill for liberals, but this is not a liberal phenomenon and no one can make you feel shame unless you actually feel shame. What I call "collective disgust" is not a left wing/right wing concept, in my view. It is more reflective of a herd mentality that social media promotes and gins up. Sometimes it's valid but often it isn't.

As a result, I'm inclined to think that the "collective disgust" phenomenon we now experience takes away freedom of expression from those who participate in the herd more so than the target for fear that you may become a target of the herd as well.

I feel no shame at all: the liberals try and shame you, and if you're a public figure, you often wind up walking back comments.

It's always been a chairman to me.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

I think what you point out here is the difference between "free speech" as a legal concept and the less protected "freedom to speak". In the former, it is a protection against a government suppression of speech where in the latter, it's the ability of private individuals and/or businesses to deny you a vehicle by which to publicize your speech.



You are correct there. It is increasingly difficult for people to understand the concept of "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to my death your right to say it.

From being attacked physically because I ran a comment from an abortionist to street protests over a dinner speech by General Alexander Haig it's all there. In the 70's and 80's Canada's so-called Peace Movement was being told what to say by the KGB, while the CIA was lobbying Ottawa to shut them up.

But I disagree with the phrase "freedom to speak" as it is not being able to speak that is at risk, but the content.

No one in Canada would ever say I have no right to talk about seals anywhere. However, in may areas, a discourse on the benefits of clubbing baby seals will likely meet with protest designed to kill the message if not the messenger.

Governments, corporations, NGO's trade unions and political parties are all guilty...Try saying anything bad about Monsanto or the United Auto Workers
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Clearly, authoritarian government dictates have a far greater chill on free speech than does a group of people exercising their free speech against your free speech.

In the first case, the government simply rounds you up and puts you away or as in Russia with uncooperative reporters, simply poisons or shoots you with little consequence. In the later case, if you don't care about the group speak against your comments, you can continue to share your views to your heart's content. It's what makes the famous and shameless so pervasive. When you have no shame, like an Al Sharpton, you can never be silenced by political correctness. The only people silenced by political correctness are those who have the capacity to feel shame as a result of collective disgust.

Tell that to Brandon Eich or Frank Turek.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Tell that to Brandon Eich or Frank Turek.

Are those your victim idols?

I bet you're just like them, huh? A helpless victim.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Whenever I see these types of free speech arguments I can't help think of Marco Rubio, "the tea party crown prince" and his sudden fall from grace over immigration. Free speech only seems to work if you speak the right language.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

Free speech does not mean "freedom from private repercussions". What kind of person thinks free speech means "no private citizen can disagree or take action against yours"? It's not "freedom from private repercussions".


Do you tell your girlfriend she's a bitch and then claim freedom of speech in attempt to avoid the consequences? Idiocy.

I'm not referring to private repercussions. What I'm talking about are organized campaigns to create adverse consequences for the speaker the are expanded to include people who never heard the speech initially and even some who otherwise wouldn't care except those people would also suffer consequences if they do not comply with the political correctness campaign in punishing the speaker.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

I'm not referring to private repercussions. What I'm talking about are organized campaigns to create adverse consequences for the speaker

You don't believe in private organizations?
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

You don't believe in private organizations?

I'm all for private organizations. This does not necessarily mean I support every activity a private organization might engage in.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

I'm all for private organizations. This does not necessarily mean I support every activity a private organization might engage in.

What about their freedom of speech? How dare you speak badly of them.
 
Re: Which is more effective in supressing free speech:communism or political correctn

PC is isn't just social pressure - it is enforced by law. Just ask the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for that disgusting gay couple.

The baker did nothing wrong - it's his business and in a supposedly free country he should be able to run his business as he sees fit. What was disgusting was the gay couple appealing to governmental force to bully someone who simply didn't want to do business with them.

They could very well have gone to another baker who would have gladly accepted their business, but that wasn't enough for them... they're bullies, and did what bullies do, they turned to force - governmental force, to impose their will upon another.

At the end of the day - that is what PC is all about - force. Force wielded by an unconstrained and unaccountable government... PC is communism lite; at least for now. Eventually the need for pretense will be gone entirely, and governmental force will become increasingly more widespread and arbitrary... be it PC police, or the IRS that attacks a business owner; or the EPA that essentially puts an end to private property, etc.

Freedom in America is all-but dead, and PC is a huge part of that.

I don't see how the incident with the baker involved the freedom of speech. I'm not persuaded that anything in the Constitution prevents discrimination by private persons, although I think you'll find any federal law preventing it would be based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. It should be up to each state to decide if it wants to prevent private discrimination, which states have authority to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom