Free speech does not really exist in America.
Or at least, it might, but woe to one who offends the political or social sensibility of another group.
The degree by which people are trying to coerce and limit what one can say and believe is becoming tantamount to infringing on free speech. It is becoming a de facto limitation on the First Amendment right.
The traditional teaching we give kids in school is the First Amendment was written in the Bill of Rights by the Founding Fathers to protect the press, religious groups, the public in their desire to say what they held dear without fear of persecution, and so forth.
Supreme Court findings since set limits only so far as a person may not jump up in a crowded theater and shout "Fire!" when there is none, causing fear and panic. Nor may one willfully slander or knowingly make untrue or malicious statements.
But what we are finding today is that because of the ideological diversity in this country, groups and individuals are developing sensibilities so exclusive, that they judge other groups utterly offensive and intolerable.
I speak of so-called political correctness.
The term describes people with either an overt, or inadvertent social sensibility and essentially, an agenda to attempt to legislate morality. It is a mental paradigm that in recent decades – if not merely recent years – has developed outside the traditional Judeo-Christian heritage, or at least beyond traditional long-held American values.
Without getting into specific case examples here, let me just make reference to the fact that people cannot say certain things they may believe without fear of repercussions.
Even if their intent is unmalicious, and they mean no harm, they may be forced to keep silent.
The thought police – i.e., politically correct people – are making this the case by manipulating this society by every means available.
Conditions today:
You can be fired from a job for expressing certain views.
You can be censured by co-workers for expressing certain views or values.
You can lose your girlfriend or wife as the case may be. Or women may have their man leave them too.
This is really a subset problem, if you will, of the greater overall divisiveness in this country.
We are in a shake-out, and who knows where we are really heading ideologically.
Never mind politically, or economically or militarily.
Sticking just with ideology, we are at a point where Big Brother is watching you.
If you have values that find the lifestyle or beliefs of someone else in your community as abominable (and I do not overstate the case), or otherwise wrong, then you had just better keep it to yourself.
This is the lesson being learned – and enforced here in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
There are those out there who make it their aim to accept and make way for that other person's lifestyle or beliefs you find personally offensive and against your values, and they will go after you if you say otherwise.
It is getting so we cannot agree on any values.
All values are ultimately OK. Or are they?
Sure, as long as you kowtow, and make yourself as benign and non-controversial on key sensitive subjects as possible.
In other words:
If a person wants to hold office, they better line up.
If they want to keep their job, they better not buck the trend.
If they want to continue to do business, they better shut up.
This is a description of a coercive state of affairs; a chilling effect on true liberty.
It may not mean to be that way, but the tremendous irony is that the so-called "love everyone, exclude no-one" types are in fact excluding and shutting down others who may not feel the way they do.
Their actions go beyond "invalidating" people on the other side of the ideological fence. They are actively pushing their right-think agenda in an effectively brutal manner.
Keep going on this track, and you have a recipe for a totalitarian society.
When you start writing laws to enforce one brand of morality at the expense of perhaps an equally viable, but unpopular morality, that is where we are heading.
Now that is, ironic, folks!
Could mental subservience result from the misguided enforcers of freedom?
The ones proclaiming acceptance are doing it in a way that is approaching thought control by definition, and the trend is not reversing, it is gaining momentum.
The message: free speech is free, so long as you agree with me.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Words "Liberal" and "Conservative"
These words are very misleading.
"Conservative." What does it imply? That a person is slow to make changes, maybe has traditional values, that he or she wishes to conserve that which is?
How about "Liberal?"
This word speaks of a more new age thinker, or perhaps a person who ascribes to a new moral and ethical and political mental paradigm.
I realize these are far from comprehensive definitions for these political buzzwords, but as a word person I am struck by the broad connotations of these terms and that in a real sense they are utter misnomers.
Why?
Because in a so-called conservative person, there are often clearly defined examples of liberalness in their sensibility more so than a so-called liberal.
And vice versa, in a so-called liberal, there may be clearly defined elements of a conservative sensibility in their so-called liberal personality.
For example (and this is only one): I have observed those who consider themselves of a liberal mindset to be extremely conservative in areas of safety and security. i.e., they may lock their doors everywhere they go. They may concern themselves with conserving (or ensuring) their safety with seat belts and helmets and air bags in vehicles, as they may be perceived as needed. They may agree with government legislators who would force all to think the same way they do under penalty of law. Further, they may be more averse to risk in their personal investment style. They may seek out a secure job, rather than take risks in an entrepreneurial self-employed endeavor in business. Such people – whoever and where ever they may be – do not want to lose all. Is theirs a somewhat fearful mentality? I'll leave that point alone, but in any case, such people are not high risk takers.
I will say their behavior sounds kind of, well, "conservative" to me. It is conservativeness by definition being touted by liberals.
So, are they really "liberal?"
Now naturally, this is no universal, unequivocal statement I am trying to put forth. I am well aware there are counter-examples. I am not stereotyping, but observing some trends.
Just bear with me here ...
Conversely, so-called "conservatives" may be far more liberal in their willingness to take the chances just mentioned.
You find a lot of conservatives willing to risk their money, health, safety and welfare on a well-considered educated chance or hunch ...
Again, this is some people, not all. This is not comprehensive. Indeed, I am resisting comprehensive terms, which is exactly what "conservative" and "liberal" tend to be ...
But why is it that conservatives, as just mentioned, may be liberal in the areas of risk?
Maybe – just maybe – it is the "faith factor," if you will.
Those conservatives – be they of any religious orientation – may have thought patterns already accustomed to basing action on unseen results.
If you are a believer in a higher power, that says a lot about your perception of reality, and risk tolerance.
Some people – people of faith – are "banking" their entire lives, and that of their families on unseen data: the words of a book by a God ...
I am speculating here – and quite willing to consider other possibilities – that a person who may believe that there is an "eternity" and a "God" is used to "seeing" that which is not seen – by faith of some measure.
They also may believe that people have the right to not wear seat belts as long as it's their lives they are risking.
Or less controversially, they may be willing to take risks for what ever reason. Maybe if they risk death, they are less afraid of where they will go. Maybe they believe they are protected from injury by someone bigger than them looking out for them?
Maybe they just accept risk, and are not sure why, but are the beneficiaries of a sensibility derived through millennia of human thinking.
That is, maybe, overall, their sense of how things ought to be comes from the thinking of an era before today's where it is felt by some that they must legislate what to others is common sense. Maybe they have adopted remnants from a once commonplace way of viewing life that was considered to be sound thinking in a time before today's most modern suppositions on how things ought to be?
It is a complex question. I do not pretend to put forth the answers here, but will just say, we try to call someone a "conservative" or "liberal" and the linguistic effect and implications are that somehow this person is dyed in the wool as one or the other.
The effect in this fast-paced world where everyone needs to feel like they have a handle on their reality is: "That person is a "liberal," or "that person is a conservative," or for that matter, "libertarian," or "anarchist" or "socialist," or "fascist," or "religious extremist..."
I wish to debunk these myths using a simple liberal vs. conservative divide as an example..
It is a disservice and inaccurate to classify a person according to a pigeonhole term.
It makes it sound like they are unilaterally or unequivocally "conservative" in all that they do, or conversely, "liberal" in all that they do.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Now I realize these are primarily political terms used to describe a political frame of mind and way of viewing things.
Nevertheless, I object to their use in such an unqualified sense because they have a strong effect, and are ultimately misleading.
This is one reason I strongly resist being categorized as one or the other.
I am neither. And I am both.
As a free thinker, I may be subject to other people's influences and sentiment, but I am not necessarily in the herd with them.
I think this may be the case for lots of people.
Problems arise, however, when someone opens their mouth on a subject and immediately they are cast in a "liberal" or "conservative" mold (or something else).
In some cases, if the person is just echoing someone else's trumpet call, then maybe they do deserve no better than to be typecast.
But these are loaded terms.
"Conservative." What does it imply? That a person is slow to make changes, maybe has traditional values, that he or she wishes to conserve that which is?
How about "Liberal?"
This word speaks of a more new age thinker, or perhaps a person who ascribes to a new moral and ethical and political mental paradigm.
I realize these are far from comprehensive definitions for these political buzzwords, but as a word person I am struck by the broad connotations of these terms and that in a real sense they are utter misnomers.
Why?
Because in a so-called conservative person, there are often clearly defined examples of liberalness in their sensibility more so than a so-called liberal.
And vice versa, in a so-called liberal, there may be clearly defined elements of a conservative sensibility in their so-called liberal personality.
For example (and this is only one): I have observed those who consider themselves of a liberal mindset to be extremely conservative in areas of safety and security. i.e., they may lock their doors everywhere they go. They may concern themselves with conserving (or ensuring) their safety with seat belts and helmets and air bags in vehicles, as they may be perceived as needed. They may agree with government legislators who would force all to think the same way they do under penalty of law. Further, they may be more averse to risk in their personal investment style. They may seek out a secure job, rather than take risks in an entrepreneurial self-employed endeavor in business. Such people – whoever and where ever they may be – do not want to lose all. Is theirs a somewhat fearful mentality? I'll leave that point alone, but in any case, such people are not high risk takers.
I will say their behavior sounds kind of, well, "conservative" to me. It is conservativeness by definition being touted by liberals.
So, are they really "liberal?"
Now naturally, this is no universal, unequivocal statement I am trying to put forth. I am well aware there are counter-examples. I am not stereotyping, but observing some trends.
Just bear with me here ...
Conversely, so-called "conservatives" may be far more liberal in their willingness to take the chances just mentioned.
You find a lot of conservatives willing to risk their money, health, safety and welfare on a well-considered educated chance or hunch ...
Again, this is some people, not all. This is not comprehensive. Indeed, I am resisting comprehensive terms, which is exactly what "conservative" and "liberal" tend to be ...
But why is it that conservatives, as just mentioned, may be liberal in the areas of risk?
Maybe – just maybe – it is the "faith factor," if you will.
Those conservatives – be they of any religious orientation – may have thought patterns already accustomed to basing action on unseen results.
If you are a believer in a higher power, that says a lot about your perception of reality, and risk tolerance.
Some people – people of faith – are "banking" their entire lives, and that of their families on unseen data: the words of a book by a God ...
I am speculating here – and quite willing to consider other possibilities – that a person who may believe that there is an "eternity" and a "God" is used to "seeing" that which is not seen – by faith of some measure.
They also may believe that people have the right to not wear seat belts as long as it's their lives they are risking.
Or less controversially, they may be willing to take risks for what ever reason. Maybe if they risk death, they are less afraid of where they will go. Maybe they believe they are protected from injury by someone bigger than them looking out for them?
Maybe they just accept risk, and are not sure why, but are the beneficiaries of a sensibility derived through millennia of human thinking.
That is, maybe, overall, their sense of how things ought to be comes from the thinking of an era before today's where it is felt by some that they must legislate what to others is common sense. Maybe they have adopted remnants from a once commonplace way of viewing life that was considered to be sound thinking in a time before today's most modern suppositions on how things ought to be?
It is a complex question. I do not pretend to put forth the answers here, but will just say, we try to call someone a "conservative" or "liberal" and the linguistic effect and implications are that somehow this person is dyed in the wool as one or the other.
The effect in this fast-paced world where everyone needs to feel like they have a handle on their reality is: "That person is a "liberal," or "that person is a conservative," or for that matter, "libertarian," or "anarchist" or "socialist," or "fascist," or "religious extremist..."
I wish to debunk these myths using a simple liberal vs. conservative divide as an example..
It is a disservice and inaccurate to classify a person according to a pigeonhole term.
It makes it sound like they are unilaterally or unequivocally "conservative" in all that they do, or conversely, "liberal" in all that they do.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Now I realize these are primarily political terms used to describe a political frame of mind and way of viewing things.
Nevertheless, I object to their use in such an unqualified sense because they have a strong effect, and are ultimately misleading.
This is one reason I strongly resist being categorized as one or the other.
I am neither. And I am both.
As a free thinker, I may be subject to other people's influences and sentiment, but I am not necessarily in the herd with them.
I think this may be the case for lots of people.
Problems arise, however, when someone opens their mouth on a subject and immediately they are cast in a "liberal" or "conservative" mold (or something else).
In some cases, if the person is just echoing someone else's trumpet call, then maybe they do deserve no better than to be typecast.
But these are loaded terms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
