Generational Dynamics World View

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-25-2020, 01:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-22-2020, 07:33 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: At any rate, the drift toward Stalinist Communism will be stopped at that point, and the country will unite to face the existential threat.  

(12-23-2020, 03:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: You seem very confident that the Stalinist Communism won't itself
be the threat?

This is an interesting question because it's a question about American culture.

The freedoms guaranteed by the first and second Amendments to the Bill of Rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own a firearm -- are all repugnant to the Democrats.  This is manifest in
their hatred of Tea Partiers and Trump supporters, as when Obama contemptuously referred to them as "clinging to their Bibles and guns."

The problem for the Democrats is that these freedoms are deeply embedded in the American culture.  They're implied by the Declaration of Independence, and incorporated into the Constitution.  The Democrats right now are at the peak of their power in Stalinist censorship.  However, even Democrats are opposed to curtailing the basic rights.

I would agree somewhat with the Second Amendment.  In urban areas, reducing the problem of gun deaths is something you could want, but less so in rural areas.  I am with the reds in understanding of why the Founding Fathers wanted people carrying arms, but understand why the blues want to change it.  I think some compromise is possible, but it has been too politicized that right now it isn't worth trying.  Both sides still see a total victory in sight.  The blues have a century plus of precedent, and seem to have not noticed it was started in the Jim Crow south as they eliminated all rights for blacks.  The reds have what the founding fathers wrote into law and the recent court cases have reinforced.  Meeting in the middle is unlikely for now.

I don't agree that there is any hostility towards freedom of speech and religion.  Both the red and the blue major news organizations have agendas.  They are not shy about presenting them.  You could argue that Trump censored the scientists, and argue that he has the power to do so.  I'm dubious.  Other than that, in these days of the internet it is really hard to keep information contained.  I personally think both sides are currently too obstinate and untactful.

Also, no one wishes to tell someone else how to worship, but many object to the use of government force to make others follow their own religious beliefs.  That is objected to, and rather loudly and rightly.

But one who uses the power of the moderator to block criticism of his opinion has no right to grumble about censorship.