threats to free speech

[Deleted member]

I think it is accurate to call modem China fascist, it is in many ways. That doesn’t make it right wing though. You absolutely can have left wing fascism, in fact most fascism I believe is left leaning. Actually, some of the movers and shakers of the far left are more like fascists than traditional communists. A lot of big businesses - Hollywood, banking, internet/tech companies, mainstream media, universities - these are far left businesses that collude with the government to further their far left ideology as well as to improve their own bottom lines. A lot of left wing censorship actually happens along these lines, in a way which is very much fascist in behavior with ideologically left motivations.

I'd actually argue that following this definition, Mussolini's Italy was a left-wing regime, since the explicit aim of Totalitarianism is inherently left-wing, and a right-wing regime cannot be totalitarian, or else it would not be right-wing. Totalitarianism implies a belief in the ability of humans to be right, instead of God, on a breathtaking scale, and that's completely antithetical to the right-wing understanding of the cosmos.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Yeah, even the WOKE comicbook industry is in a panic, hell they’re even doing kickstarters online

Though, even then they can’t help but express their disdain for the customer and their obsession with WOKE politics

If even videogame companies still remain insane, well there’s eventually room for their replacement as with many other entertainment creations

Hey at least Nintendo remains sane and has vast reserves of cash to weather this storm

 

[Abhorsen]

I'd actually argue that following this definition, Mussolini's Italy was a left-wing regime, since the explicit aim of Totalitarianism is inherently left-wing, and a right-wing regime cannot be totalitarian, or else it would not be right-wing. Totalitarianism implies a belief in the ability of humans to be right, instead of God, on a breathtaking scale, and that's completely antithetical to the right-wing understanding of the cosmos.

It depends on what ideology the state proposes. Totalitarianism is a system with total state control, but sorta ideologically meaningless. If it supports a theocratic ideal, then that's pretty right wing, even by this standard.

In addition, I wouldn't say that god is a necessity to be right wing.

 

[Deleted member]

It depends on what ideology the state proposes. Totalitarianism is a system with total state control, but sorta ideologically meaningless. If it supports a theocratic ideal, then that's pretty right wing, even by this standard.

In addition, I wouldn't say that god is a necessity to be right wing.

So called “right-wing atheism” is just enlightenment classical liberalism in most cases you are thinking of.

Totalitarianism, by positing that humans can be sufficiently infallible to manage all aspects of society without restraint or uncertainty, is inherently atheistic.

You must realise that I don’t regard believing in God as sufficient to be a theist. Many so-called believers are really atheists in functional social terms and cosmology.

 

[Abhorsen]

So called “right-wing atheism” is just enlightenment classical liberalism in most cases you are thinking of.

Totalitarianism, by positing that humans can be sufficiently infallible to manage all aspects of society without restraint or uncertainty, is inherently atheistic.

You must realise that I don’t regard believing in God as sufficient to be a theist. Many so-called believers are really atheists in functional social terms and cosmology.

Tolitarianism, from what I'm aware of, is more that the government controls all aspects of life, not necessarily people. If the people in charge of the government really consider themselves to be divinely guided, that would give rise to a right wing totalitarianism.

But I also think your definition of right wing to be too narrow. Right wing and Left wing are relative terms, not absolutes. For example, a right wing democrat might be to the left of some left wing republicans. Here it is used as a modifier. Wanting limited government is a right wing position in modern times, but in the past, it was a left wing position.

 

[Deleted member]

@Abhorsen . My definition of right wing is anyone who believes that society should duplicate the moral order of creation as propounded in their religion or philosophy. It’s possible to be agnostic or deist and right-wing in that definition, say a Neoplatonist or a stoic, but not an atheist. My argument is meant to imply, in regard to the matter of totalitarianism, that religious totalitarianism is ipso facto a matter of heresy and degeneracy and a kind of practical atheism because it assumes a mortal can know precisely the intent of the Almighty or the Cosmos.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen . My definition of right wing is anyone who believes that society should duplicate the moral order of creation as propounded in their religion or philosophy. It’s possible to be agnostic or deist and right-wing in that definition, say a Neoplatonist or a stoic, but not an atheist. My argument is meant to imply, in regard to the matter of totalitarianism, that religious totalitarianism is ipso facto a matter of heresy and degeneracy and a kind of practical atheism because it assumes a mortal can know precisely the intent of the Almighty or the Cosmos.

But there are definitely religions where the leaders do believe they know god's intent. To you, these are heretics, but you would be a heretic to them. This seems like a no true scotsman fallacy.

As for your definition of right wing, it doesn't align with the usual definition. Maybe use 'Religious conservatism'? Also, by your definition, why couldn't an athiest who has a philosophy qualify as right wing?

 

[Deleted member]

But there are definitely religions where the leaders do believe they know god's intent. To you, these are heretics, but you would be a heretic to them. This seems like a no true scotsman fallacy.

It isn't about knowing or not knowing intent of God, it's about your system acknowledging that everyone implementing it is mortal and fallible, which is a necessary prerequisite of a legitimate religion in which God is the Creator of the Universe. So actually it means judging religion according to a strict and well-defined set of values which would have covered every religion in the world before 1800 or so.

As for your definition of right wing, it doesn't align with the usual definition. Maybe use 'Religious conservatism'? Also, by your definition, why couldn't an athiest who has a philosophy qualify as right wing?

Atheism is an ideology in which the universal can be explained entirely through empirical knowledge. That is not a strict definition, but it is the practical modern definition of modern atheism, so it's an appropriate comparison, since I absolutely reject the idea that empiricism is a valid way of explaining the universe.

 

[Abhorsen]

Atheism is an ideology in which the universal can be explained entirely through empirical knowledge. That is not a strict definition, but it is the practical modern definition of modern atheism, so it's an appropriate comparison, since I absolutely reject the idea that empiricism is a valid way of explaining the universe.

You could layer a moral philosophy on top of that though. I know Rand made an attempt at it.

So actually it means judging religion according to a strict and well-defined set of values which would have covered every religion in the world before 1800 or so.

I don't think so. There were god kings, and calvinists, and buddhas, and stoics, all of which held at least some people to be infallible to some degree. Also, your use of the term 'legitimate religion' really is proving my point about the no true scotsman. Regardless, I think this is getting off topic, but if you want to open a thread on this (maybe 'Tyanna's definition of Right wing'?) please tag me/quote me.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

You could layer a moral philosophy on top of that though. I know Rand made an attempt at it.

Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government—and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. Private citizens cannot use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone’s views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action.
“The Fascist New Frontier,”
The Ayn Rand Column, 106

The communists and the Nazis are merely two variants of the same evil notion: collectivism. But both should be free to speak—evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas.
The Objectivist Calendar, June 1978

I believe this is relevant, she knows you have to avoid becoming the very monsters you fight

Though, even non-government people can censor and force people to "agree"

 

[S'task]

Doesn’t anyone on the Left comprehend that restrictions to free speech will be used against them, too? Talk about being hoist on your own petard. The Left have historically been some of the most significant beneficiaries of free speech.

Do they imagine that free speech can just be locked down the moment they have power, to secure that power forever? No. It doesn’t work that way. The ones in positions of power won’t always be leftists. Sometimes, they’ll be right-wing ethno-nationalists. Like Xi Jinping. How the hell do you criticize them without free speech?

Nobody truly answered your core question, so allow me to take a bit of a shot at explaining it.

For the Left there is a core underlining belief in the idea of "Progress" (hence: "Progressives"), this is not just a branding idea either, they truly believe that society is, by fits and steps, moving towards what would be considered a specific ideal. The classic quote, usually ascribed to Martin Luther King but actually predating him, that sums up this ideals is "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." They support this idea by pointing to how the idea of "human rights" has expanded since first put forward in the 18th century, moving at first from only apply to "white landowning males" to "all white males" to "all males" to "all people", usually tracking via voting rights and the abolitionist movement. They also point to the Sexual Revolution as being part of the inexorable march of history towards their ideal world.

As such they fundamentally do not believe that they will lose ground and that once they manage to gain power and control and censor unwanted viewpoints and positions that those viewpoints and positions will die out, and thus be forgotten, much like, for instance, nobody today in the western world really makes a serious case for the Divine Right of Kings or supports Feudalism.

That is a large part of where the anger and outrage on the Left towards the Right comes from. Utopia, as they see it, is just over the horizon, and if the Right wingers would just shut up and go away, they could have their utopia. And once they HAVE that utopia they do not believe they will ever lose it, since nobody would want to tear it down.

Or, to put it another way, Leftists actually believe in societal level Fate and as such both do not ever see their own tools being used against them and rage against those who resist it. There is a reason many people on the right actually compare Left wing politics to a religion, this is one of the many reason why.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Nobody truly answered your core question, so allow me to take a bit of a shot at explaining it.

For the Left there is a core underlining belief in the idea of "Progress" (hence: "Progressives"), this is not just a branding idea either, they truly believe that society is, by fits and steps, moving towards what would be considered a specific ideal. The classic quote, usually ascribed to Martin Luther King but actually predating him, that sums up this ideals is "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." They support this idea by pointing to how the idea of "human rights" has expanded since first put forward in the 18th century, moving at first from only apply to "white landowning males" to "all white males" to "all males" to "all people", usually tracking via voting rights and the abolitionist movement. They also point to the Sexual Revolution as being part of the inexorable march of history towards their ideal world.

As such they fundamentally do not believe that they will lose ground and that once they manage to gain power and control and censor unwanted viewpoints and positions that those viewpoints and positions will die out, and thus be forgotten, much like, for instance, nobody today in the western world really makes a serious case for the Divine Right of Kings or supports Feudalism.

That is a large part of where the anger and outrage on the Left towards the Right comes from. Utopia, as they see it, is just over the horizon, and if the Right wingers would just shut up and go away, they could have their utopia. And once they HAVE that utopia they do not believe they will ever lose it, since nobody would want to tear it down.

Or, to put it another way, Leftists actually believe in societal level Fate and as such both do not ever see their own tools being used against them and rage against those who resist it. There is a reason many people on the right actually compare Left wing politics to a religion, this is one of the many reason why.

I think ironically, even the Right believes in said progress

It’s just that they do NOT think or approve of things like “diversity hiring” or “affirmative action” as they both ignore actual merits, don’t actually treat minorities as any other person and actually strangely enough HURTS the positions of minorities

The Left believes that it’s a progress that must be enforced to extreme degrees

Whilst the Right believes it will “just happen” over time as it is pragmatic for individuals to do it

 

[Floridaman]

I think ironically, even the Right believes in said progress

It’s just that they do NOT think or approve of things like “diversity hiring” or “affirmative action” as they both ignore actual merits, don’t actually treat minorities as any other person and actually strangely enough HURTS the positions of minorities

The Left believes that it’s a progress that must be enforced to extreme degrees

Whilst the Right believes it will “just happen” over time as it is pragmatic for individuals to do it

Not universally, some on the right for instance myself adopt the viewpoint that there is no fate, and any change can make the world better or worse, and we demand actual evidence that some changes would help, and not harm people.

 

[Terthna]

I think ironically, even the Right believes in said progress

It’s just that they do NOT think or approve of things like “diversity hiring” or “affirmative action” as they both ignore actual merits, don’t actually treat minorities as any other person and actually strangely enough HURTS the positions of minorities

The Left believes that it’s a progress that must be enforced to extreme degrees

Whilst the Right believes it will “just happen” over time as it is pragmatic for individuals to do it

I don't think the mainstream left believes in "Progress" at all though; they're just authoritarians who've found that co-opting your conscience was an easy path to power. They will label anything "Progressive" if they can convince people to give them more power by doing so. This is why I call them the "Regressive" left; because ultimately, they undermine and discredit by association all the progress we've managed to make thus far.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Not universally, some on the right for instance myself adopt the viewpoint that there is no fate, and any change can make the world better or worse, and we demand actual evidence that some changes would help, and not harm people.

Still, I think there’s a belief that the world can and will get better

The question is HOW, which will be asked constantly as people become skeptical of change to a healthy degree, accept it and move on and occasionally have to realize that some things were less practical than first thought and so on

Otherwise, a lessening in “moral” busybodies and nobody cares if you’re gay or not, they just care if you’re gonna do the job right without any problems

I don't think the mainstream left believes in "Progress" at all though; they're just authoritarians who've found that co-opting your conscience was an easy path to power. They will label anything "Progressive" if they can convince people to give them more power by doing so. This is why I call them the "Regressive" left; because ultimately, they undermine and discredit by association all the progress we've managed to make thus far.

Yeah, being willing to allow so many things that go against what they say they believe in, is one horrific show of hypocrisy

The PRC & Islamic Theocracies get scott-free again and again as an example

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

I believe this is relevant, she knows you have to avoid becoming the very monsters you fight

Counter argument: Helicopter rides are fun.

Though, even non-government people can censor and force people to "agree"

Big government doesn't stop being a threat because it calls taxes "rent", and brands itself as GovCorp. It's a matter of concentration of power vs separation of power.

 

[Lanmandragon]

So called “right-wing atheism” is just enlightenment classical liberalism in most cases you are thinking of.

Totalitarianism, by positing that humans can be sufficiently infallible to manage all aspects of society without restraint or uncertainty, is inherently atheistic.

You must realise that I don’t regard believing in God as sufficient to be a theist. Many so-called believers are really atheists in functional social terms and cosmology.

Even a straight up theocracy like say Iran?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Even a straight up theocracy like say Iran?

Religion has been lumped in with Fascism & Conservatism before

Though, I think they're hesitant to apply that to Islam

 

[Deleted member]

Even a straight up theocracy like say Iran?

I don't think Iran is totalitarian.

 

[Deleted member]

You could layer a moral philosophy on top of that though. I know Rand made an attempt at it.

My assertion is that an empirical cosmic order is fundamentally immoral.

I don't think so. There were god kings, and calvinists, and buddhas, and stoics, all of which held at least some people to be infallible to some degree. Also, your use of the term 'legitimate religion' really is proving my point about the no true scotsman. Regardless, I think this is getting off topic, but if you want to open a thread on this (maybe 'Tyanna's definition of Right wing'?) please tag me/quote me.

You are, respectfully, failing to understand what a "no true scotsman" is, because I have a very clearly defined concept of religion which I am fairly applying: Religion must be possess an esoteric, initiatic lineage. A mere exoteric religious custom is not truly connected to the Almighty or capable of providing a path to enlightenment.