Authoritarians Still Need Free Speech Advocates

originally posted by: pthena

Good deed for the day
I was afraid of making a Mis identification.

The asinine viewpoint is a dead giveaway.

a reply to: pthena

Gandalf the wise recently acted very misanthropic as well.....now nowhere to be seen....


A tartufo for you

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not to mention writing style

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Tell him that when he returns.

"Magical Thinking", he'll say.
I don't have the rhetoric to answer that in rhetorical terms yet.
Maybe if I had a Master's Degree in Psychology with specialty in Communication...

Maybe I'll read this book

People used to talk about it a lot back in the day.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The Gandalf character sort of liked men. Elrond, not so much.

Gandalf: It is in Men that we must place our hope.

Elrond: Men? Men are weak. The Blood of Numenor is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten. It is because of Men the Ring survives. I was there, Gandalf. I was there three thousand years ago. I was there the day the strength of Men failed.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

They both went off to the West from the Grey Harbor, that's why he's not seen around.

That tartufo looks good. Thank you

Gandalf as a member never posted. I must not have encountered a misgandalfiantartufo. But I don't get around the forums as much as others do.

a reply to: Tartuffe

II suppose we have a different view of government. Government, to me, must defend the rights of its citizens, not enforce the "will of the people", which could easily lead to a oppression of minorities.

A couple of interesting points of view. Yes, government, ''our government'' must defend the rights of us citizens, not ''it's citizens. I know, just a semantic thing but interesting none the less. Right there is part of how we might see government differently. Now I know that likely you did not mean to place our relationship in a ''owner and owned'' relationship, I"m not making charges here just pointing out a subtle point.

If we hold the US, or any government as a foreign entity, one that is by nature separate from ourselves then all our hopes are gone. That leaves only pleading or rebellion as a means of resolving grievances. But you know this I am sure. It is just that I see in many this notion that we are at war with our government, or rather it is at war with us. That once again, to me at least, admits that all is lost.

So yes, our government should defend the rights of citizens which by extension really is us defending our own rights. Because our government is an extension of ourselves. But ''not enforce the will of the people''? Do you mean that? Again I have to wonder if you do.

Is not the nature of a democracy, a nation founded on governance by the people and for the people that very thing? That the people, us, use our will to create a social environment as we see fit, one that serves and allows for the freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights to be realized for the greatest number?

And certainly you are right when you point out that this very thing ''might easily lead to the oppression of minorities'' Oh boy is that true. The founders knew this and did what they could to keep that to a minimum in their crafting of the Constitution because they also know that we, their ancestors would be a lot like they themselves, people of different persuasions with different goals and desires and with a willingness to use various means to achieve personal advancement.

One of the vague things the founders laid down was what exactly was to be the nations stance on slavery. There, the ''will of the people was not strong enough to make it clear that slavery should not be allowed, because there were other people whose will was so strong that their position that it was to be allowed was stronger. So yes, this is one of the finer points purposely left vague so that future generations might deal with it as those blocks of power and will changed.

a reply to: pthena

ahh...then there are trolls that show repeated traits.

www.psychologytoday.com...

8. Perceived lack of consequences. Social exchange theory suggests that we analyze the costs and benefits in our communication and relationships. All in all, these factors precede the belief that the benefits of expressing oneself outweigh any costs. Anonymity and obscurity suggest you won’t be personally responsible.

Perceived majority status, social identity salience, or being surrounded by friends means you believe that even if some people are upset or angry, you have more (or more important) people on your side, so you are winning more friends than you’re losing.

Personality traits and desensitization may making offending or losing friends not seem like a real consequence, because those friends aren’t really "worth it" if they can’t handle the “truth,” or they aren’t really friends if they don’t agree with or tolerate you.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

or any government as a foreign entity, one that is by nature separate from ourselves then all our hopes are gone. That leaves only pleading or rebellion as a means of resolving grievances. But you know this I am sure. It is just that I see in many this notion that we are at war with our government, or rather it is at war with us. That once again, to me at least, admits that all is lost.

Man is born with unalienable natural rights.

Perhaps "not all is lost", but I see that most western so called democratic republics or constitutional monarchies are anything but free.

The State has taken evermore freedoms away from its citizens and curtailed their right to protest.

You are "regulated" by having to obtain permits to protest or congregate within certain zones all under the watchful eye of the black shirt balaclava'd fascist militarized "police force".

We never began having a war with our Governments - they started the battles by being defacto enforcers for Big Business and their lackeys in Government.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


I think it kinda started out with the founding fathers. There were those who thought that we are capable of governing ourselves and others who believed that we needed big doses of guidance. We needed to be lead because we were not smart enough to do it ourselves. Slowing this morphed into market cultivation and worse, consumer cultivation, making sure the climate for business making always took precedence over our own nature.

Then of course, those businesses got to big and took over everything. I don't think they think we are at war, more that we are cultivated as part of their profit gardens.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

others who believed that we needed big doses of guidance. We needed to be lead because we were not smart enough to do it ourselves.

Yeah I get that a lot of people like to be led & guided. However historically there would be the big kahuna who waged war for resources or defence. Then it morphed into the "divine right of Kings to rule", then a so-called democracy by the people - but always under the watchful eye of the State & their armed enforcers.