<Materialist explanation for libs both supporting censorship and constantly lying?https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/poll_is_censorship_a_partisan_issue_149790.html>The concept of free speech dates to the 5th century B.C.

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Email
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Captcha Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1695698345591.jpg ( 711.8 KB , 1080x1326 , Screenshot_2023-09-26-10-0….jpg )

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 03:19:06 No.474710

<Materialist explanation for libs both supporting censorship and constantly lying?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/poll_is_censorship_a_partisan_issue_149790.html

>The concept of free speech dates to the 5th century B.C. in ancient Greece and was codified in America’s founding documents on Dec. 15, 1791, with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The 45-word First Amendment prohibited Congress from “abridging freedom of speech, or of the press,” and has been long understood to include any branch of government….

>Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%.

>Also, a gender gap reveals itself, one that dovetails with the discrepancy in party registration between men and women — but which is more pronounced. Asked whether they support free speech even if it’s “deeply offensive,” 78% of men answered affirmatively, compared to 66% of women.

>But the most glaring gap is between conservatives and liberals, i.e., between Republicans and Democrats. On the issue of free expression, at least, Republicans are not the authoritarian party…

>•Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”
>•Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.
>•Although majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree the news media should be able to report stories they believe are in the national interest, this consensus shifts when it comes to social media censorship. A majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the government censoring social media content under the rubric of protecting national security. Among Republicans and independents, this percentage is only one-third.
>•Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51% of Republicans.
>•Fully three-fourths of Democrats believe government has a responsibility to limit “hateful” social media posts, while Republicans are more split, with 50% believing the government has a responsibility to restrict hateful posts. (Independents, once again, are in the middle.)
>•Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to favor stifling the free speech rights of political extremists. Also, Republicans don’t vary by the group: Only about half of GOP voters favor censorship — whether asked about the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, or the Communist Party.

>The study posited three likely explanations: (1) Liberals are convinced of the presence of a “fact gap” in the current political environment, which is to say that liberals’ desire to clamp down on misinformation stems from a certainty that conservative content is, objectively speaking, less factual than liberal media content. (2) Instead, conservatives’ reluctance to censor was based on a “values gap,” i.e., a genuine belief in the free marketplace of ideas, regardless of the media content. (3) What’s really at play are “party promotion incentives,” which the authors defined as “a desire to leave misinformation online that promotes one's own party by flattering it or denigrating the other party.”

>To try and assess what is going on with censorship, the authors showed the 1,120 people in their study fake news headlines, such as “Hours after signing an executive order on Jan. 20, 2021, President Joe Biden violated his own mask mandate” or “In Sept. 2016, Ted Cruz tweeted, ‘I’ll believe in climate change when Texas freezes over.’”

>The poll respondents were then told the headlines were invented and solicited the respondents’ views as to whether they should be censored. The results were stark. “Even when Republicans agree that content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship,” the authors wrote.

>You can see what happened here: For purposes of this study, the authors took Door No. 1 (the notion that liberal news is more reliable) off the table. So that left Door No. 2 (values gap) and Door No. 3 (partisan advantage) still in play. If Republicans’ aversion to censorship was transactional, they would have identified Democratic-friendly misinformation for removal. But they didn’t. “Regardless of the partisan slant of the content, Democrats are more likely to support the removal of content, while Republicans are more likely to oppose removing content,” the study noted.

>It was Democrats who more often employed situational ethics, giving a pass to misinformation that helped their side. Most Republicans didn’t differentiate based on which way the false headline cut.

>A comprehensive Cato Institute poll done in 2017 documented a similar phenomenon. Asked a series of questions about what kind of speakers should be barred from college campuses, Democrats more often based their decision on the political slant of the speaker (canceling conservatives, but not liberals) while Republicans were chary of the whole censorship enterprise.

My thoughts in the next post

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 03:26:51 No.474716

In my estimation, there are two causes for this.

1) Conservatives are retarded. They don't understand that politics is a game of power. Instead they rely on static principles and values, including freedom of speech. Liberals, at least the smarter ones, understand that static values and static principles are absolutely useless. Instead they will do anything possible to increase their power while decreasing the power of their opponents. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for them to censor others while lying. This explains the stance of perhaps 20% of liberals.

2) The second explanation is that most liberals have what I call 'fragile personality syndrome.' They are ego attached to their own opinions and ideas. And whenever anyone contradicts them they lash out like a toddler at a grocery store that can't get candy. That is to say they are apex faggots.

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 03:37:25 No.474720

Useful reading on the subject

https://www.docdroid.net/2CAjIrK/sjws-always-lie-vox-day-2015-pdf

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 04:00:30 No.474721

File: 1695700830396.jpg ( 140.43 KB , 1440x1232 , 20230926_105516.jpg )

Remember when liberals lied and said hydroxychloroquine wasn't effective in treating the coof and tried to censor/cancel anyone who spread this 'dangerous misinformation'

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.03.23287649v1.full

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 04:58:39 No.474730

File: 1695704319039.jpg ( 49.47 KB , 720x603 , 20230926_104929.jpg )

Malcolm knew all about it

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 09:15:09 No.474749

>>474721
Has this passed peer review and been published in the journal it was targeting yet? I really wish people would stop using pre-prints from rxiv as justification for important scientific developments, it's a very bad habit.

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 18:02:15 No.474760

<Materialist explanation for libs both supporting censorship and constantly lying?
>A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 18:11:23 No.474761

>>474716
This reads like a right-wing fantasy of what conservatives are like. There's a weird optimism here about right-wingers which fails to grasp how full of shit most of them are. They aren't consistent - if anything, they pay lip-service to ideals like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and then betray them even harder than the "left" libs. Propertarians are the only exception, way more right-wingers will say "how dare the government tell me how to raise my kids, run my business, how to practice my religion" and then turn right around and tell other people how to raise their kids, run their business, and practice their religion. The difference is that more centrist libs admit to doing this.

Anonymous 2023-09-26 (Tue) 18:59:32 No.474767

File: 1695754772095.jpg ( 91.17 KB , 796x663 , glow_detected_jidf.jpg )

>>474710
>Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression.

100% glowies trying to manufacture consent.

If you asked people: Should the government be able to trample you rights simply by evoking a concept like "national security" Virtually everybody would say "Fuck NO".

If you asked people would you rather live have free expression or would you like to live under a censorship regime. Virtually everybody chooses free expression over censorship

If you asked people about whether they want their lives to be opaque enough that they have privacy, or whether they want to be spied upon the entire time. Virtually anybody would choose privacy.

There is no consent for privacy violations and violations of free speech.

Unique IPs: 4