threats to free speech

[CarlManvers2019]

Just realized, biggest threat to Free Speech?

Possibly, civilization itself, down to the tribal level

The moment civilization becomes a thing, people almost all are "altruists" or willing to give up their sense of values or their ability to think and doubt if the majority says something is "for the good of X"

People fall victim to groupthink, they don't want to be left out or even hated for their dissent and fall in line even when it's impractical

And occasionally, they join some "revolution" or some guys who want "change" NOT because they actually believe their stuff or can see its necessity through much study & observation & perhaps experience, but BECAUSE it goes against the flow. Rebelling for its own sake, conforming for its own sake are two sides of the same coin.

They're not into it because they are loyal deep down, but because just want in on something or anything

 

[Zachowon]

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

They reason comic book companies if you mean the major ones, they had to stop as the one making the comics stopped (the printing facility) that is why things went down.
They will be making a comeback when it gets back up.
If you mean legit WOKE comics that are not mainstream they have always been on kickstarter making no money.

Video game companies, depending on the company varies greatly

 

[Abhorsen]

I don't think Iran is totalitarian.

I'd have to agree with you there (hence I purposely avoided referencing them). Other than Iran hating us, it is a much better society than Saudia Arabia. I'd dump the Saudis for the Persians in a hot second if I thought the US could get away with it.

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.

Okay, in that case, you are using a special definition of religion that, bluntly, isn't the definition of religion used by nearly everyone else. It annoys me when socialists do this, it annoys me when others do this. It makes it hard to converse, for one. My real issue is that all of these are theists, believing in an active god of some sort, and that they themselves are in some sense perfect. They then establish a theocracy, and that is totalitarianism, just in regards to god knowing all, and god acting thru the state thru them, instead of them knowing all, acting thru the state.

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

Could you back this up, or is this more of an axiom for you? What makes it fundamentally immoral?

Just realized, biggest threat to Free Speech?

Possibly, civilization itself, down to the tribal level

This is the worst take. You do understand that freedom of speech is not the normal state of man, right? People only recently stopped killing each other for differences of opinion, and only in some places.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

This is the worst take. You do understand that freedom of speech is not the normal state of man, right? People only recently stopped killing each other for differences of opinion, and only in some places.

Point there, still I think people being close together for prolonged periods of time can lead to active attempts at suppressing others

Then again, yeah, freedom itself has consequences.

 

[S'task]

They then establish a theocracy, and that is totalitarianism, just in regards to god knowing all, and god acting thru the state thru them, instead of them knowing all, acting thru the state.

Err... I think the core problem here is that you're making a leap that doesn't actually hold up.

A theocracy, by definition, is a state in which a single religion is synonymous to the state and receives its legitimacy from being the religion. Either that or an organized religion in some ways has final say over political matters within a state. In the modern world there's only two real theocracies that I know of: Vatican City under the Roman Catholic Church and Iran under the Mullahs. Neither one of those is actually a totalitarian state, and historically speaking, neither were historical theocracies such as the the Ancient Egyptian Empire, or the various highly religious American colonies like Plymouth on a smaller scale.

Theocracy and Totalitarianism are not mutually assured. A theocracy could certainly BECOME a totalitarian regime, but totalitarianism requires a desire not just to rule with absolute authority (which, if that was all it would take, numerous monarchies would technically count but... most folks don't count a monarchy as totalitarian though again, they CAN become totalitarian (see: North Korea, which is functionally a monarchy)). In order for a government to be totalitarian they must seek to order and control most every aspect of a citizen's lives, any regime that, say, allows free markets to operate mostly unregulated fails at being totalitarian. A society that allows people to pick and choose their careers rather than assigning them where they are needed or where they think they are most apt at also fail at being totalitarian. Theocratic regimes have never really sought to do either of those things, only placing restrictions on activities they dislike, just like other forms of government, usually just with the additional excuse of it enforcing a religious prohibition.

Sure, theocracies are likely not to be free in the modern sense of the word, likely having terrible standards of freedom of speech and the expression, but merely restricting those rights does not truly tread into totalitarian areas. Authoritarian, certainly, but authoritarian regimes have been the STANDARD form of regime in world history, it is the modern liberal democracy that is unusual.

 

[Abhorsen]

Theocracy and Totalitarianism are not mutually assured. A theocracy could certainly BECOME a totalitarian regime, but totalitarianism requires a desire not just to rule with absolute authority

You have a fair point here, but the person I am arguing with instead claims that no 'right wing government' (by their definition, which seems to mean religious in some sense) can be totalitarian. I'm claiming that a theocracy could be a totalitarian state, and would also be right wing.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

You have a fair point here, but the person I am arguing with instead claims that no 'right wing government' (by their definition, which seems to mean religious in some sense) can be totalitarian. I'm claiming that a theocracy could be a totalitarian state, and would also be right wing.

In-Terms of economics, just how much interference would Theocracies have with markets & the economy though?

Also, I'm of the belief, just so you guys know, that even a Theocracy can be Pseudo-Socialist or "Left Wing"

Look at our current Pope as an example, if he were in charge of world governments, he'd massively increase taxation in order to fund many programs to "help" people and would think private charity & tax-based welfare to be the same thing

 

[S'task]

You have a fair point here, but the person I am arguing with instead claims that no 'right wing government' (by their definition, which seems to mean religious in some sense) can be totalitarian. I'm claiming that a theocracy could be a totalitarian state, and would also be right wing.

Well, I would disagree that a theocracy is inherently right wing to begin with. A theocracy could end up just about anywhere on that spectrum depending on the teachings.

In-Terms of economics, just how much interference would Theocracies have with markets & the economy though?

Depends on the religion and the interpretation. Christianity and Islam actually have some prohibitions that can have significant economic impact as both prohibit "usury" which, depending on how you interpret it, can ban pretty much all forms of loans. That has significant economic impacts downstream.

That said, that's by far the most "economicy" thing theocracies tend to prohibit. I mean, you'd likely get bans on the sale of certain products (IE, a Muslim or Jewish theocracy may well prohibit the sale of pork. A Morman theocracy may prohibit the sale of products containing alcohol and caffeine, etc.). Otherwise, most religions actually seem to assume a certain level of free market economics as being the "natural" state of commerce. Christianity so much assumes private and personal property as the norm Christ Himself used economic investment as a parable.

To understand just how deeply implanted this is, let us look at the English word "talent" for a moment. "Talent" means those abilities and skills a person is good with, right? Well, no, actually. The word "talent" comes from the ancient Greek word "talanton" meaning "a balance, pair of scales," hence "weight, definite weight, anything weighed," and in later times sum of money (source. How did an ancient Greek term roughly equivalent to someone in modern English saying "a Grand" come to mean personal skills? Very simple, The Parable of the Talents" where Christ used the allegory of a landowner investing varying amounts of Talents (the money) into his servants to and rewarding those who invested them and grew them while being angry with those who did not. The talents in the parable were meant to be the skills and gifts God had granted individuals, and was meant to teach that God wished people to use their talents and that failing to do so was failing God.

Yes, property and investment are so assumed by Christianity that it literally hijacked a monetary term and turned it into a term for personal skills...

 

[LordsFire]

Well, I would disagree that a theocracy is inherently right wing to begin with. A theocracy could end up just about anywhere on that spectrum depending on the teachings.

Depends on the religion and the interpretation. Christianity and Islam actually have some prohibitions that can have significant economic impact as both prohibit "usury" which, depending on how you interpret it, can ban pretty much all forms of loans. That has significant economic impacts downstream.

I'm not familiar with any Christian scripture prohibiting this. Is it just another one of those catholic traditions?

I'm pretty well-read with the Bible, but I might have forgotten about some specific verse.

 

[Floridaman]

I'm not familiar with any Christian scripture prohibiting this. Is it just another one of those catholic traditions?

I'm pretty well-read with the Bible, but I might have forgotten about some specific verse.

It is a carry over from the Jewish traditions. They also justified it with the tale of the money changers at the temple.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

It is a carry over from the Jewish traditions. They also justified it with the tale of the money changers at the temple.

Yeah, I don't agree with that claim to be honest. Jesus lost his shit over the money changers defiling the temple by using it as a bank rather than the sacret place it was supposed to be. Had they stayed at their banks, he might've ignored them. The problem was that they put their material wealth over spiritual that they disrespected the Temple and thus the Lord.

 

[Floridaman]

Yeah, I don't agree with that claim to be honest. Jesus lost his shit over the money changers defiling the temple by using it as a bank rather than the sacret place it was supposed to be. Had they stayed at their banks, he might've ignored them. The problem was that they put their material wealth over spiritual that they disrespected the Temple and thus the Lord.

I don’t disagree, I am just saying why the tradition exists, given that I work in the finance sector it is pretty clear I don’t agree.

 

[Flintsteel]

It is a carry over from the Jewish traditions. They also justified it with the tale of the money changers at the temple.

Levitical Law specifically calls out usury. Given the limited knowledge of economics, most people ended up interpreting that as 'charging any interest, rather than usurious interest.

So, say, some credit card companies and definitely payday loans would probably count.

Yeah, I don't agree with that claim to be honest. Jesus lost his shit over the money changers defiling the temple by using it as a bank rather than the sacret place it was supposed to be. Had they stayed at their banks, he might've ignored them. The problem was that they put their material wealth over spiritual that they disrespected the Temple and thus the Lord.

It was even worse than that. There were strict requirements for physical qualities of animals brought for sacrifice, and these were judged by the priests. Well, the priests, being human, figured out a wonderful racket - they would be extra-strict on any animal brought, but offer pre-approved animals for sale, for a special temple money. That was the roll of the money-changers, to exchange regular coin for the special temple coin, which the people could then use to buy a pre-approved sacrifice animal.

People were... overcharged, and the priests would pocket the profit.. There was a reason Jesus went at them with a whip.