Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bill
    Champion of the Balance
    • Feb 2004
    • 1063

    #31
    Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
    As a leftie -- and this is certainly not meant as bragging -- I try to make my ads as honest as possible. I battle the option to mislead the customer because I feel it only hurts things in the end. I don't want customers to feel they've been duped by our ads, so I keep it real. I promote what's good about the product rather than hide what's bad.

    Being in the advertising industry, however, has not made it easier for me to palate corruption and unethical behavior.

    I cannot speak for how being in the ad industry would affect a right-winger. I suspect, in that case, you'd be right.
    What are you saying? Are you relating ethical standing with party affiliation? If one wants to reduce one's political position to an ethical decision - which I am loathe to do - there are compelling ethical arguments for much of the political spectrum, at least in the US. After all, is it more or less ethical to buy a fish and give it to your fellow man, or to teach your fellow man to catch his own? I am asking this question in the framework of ideology, not in terms of the current representatives of any particular ideology.

    Comment

    • Bill
      Champion of the Balance
      • Feb 2004
      • 1063

      #32
      Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
      Awesome, devilchicken. The next Republican Paradigm?
      [AND]
      Ha, yeah. The same people who held thong sandals on their hands and shouted "Flip! Flop!" repeatedly at the RNC conveniently ignored Bush's flip-flops:

      ▪ Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
      ▪ Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
      ▪ Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
      ▪ Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
      ▪ Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

      And on and on and on...
      Way back when I used the word "rhetoric" in a positive sense, not in the current dismissive sense, that is, in the sense of the language used to communicate and persuade. Developing a rhetoric in this context is not only a positive thing, but a necessary thing. Regardless of whether we like it or not, ALL political systems require this type of rhetoric to operate. I am not talking about spoon-feeding or sound-biting, I am talking about unification. And, though I was fully intending to keep my side of the discussion free of any direct reference to any specific political party, this is precisely the failure of the Democrat party. They do not have the cohesive vision at this time that is necessary to be effective at the national level. In a real sense, the voice of the Democrat party is the voice of the disenfranchised, but that commonality only works for so long. There is no commonality between the various constituents of the party to maintain any momentum once the disenfranchisement is removed.

      Quite frankly, I don't think the flip-flop argument was the key to the election. It didn't hurt Bush, but like the National Guard incident, it was a tempest in a teacup. I remember talking with two of my friends - who are a lesbian couple - and they made the comment that they were "thankful they had no desire whatsoever to marry", so they could vote for Bush with a clear conscience. They had nothing in common with any component of the Democrat party other than one issue that meant nothing to them. My former boss, an extremely powerful black man (has been on the cover of Fortune Magazine) voted Republican. Why? He has the money and the power to overcome the prejudices that may otherwise affect him, and can (and does!) implement initiatives in his corporation to further diversity aims. He is no longer disenfranchised, and therefore has no other commonality with the Democrat party. These are people that Kerry was counting on to make the difference, and they didn't.

      Comment

      • Bill
        Champion of the Balance
        • Feb 2004
        • 1063

        #33
        Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
        As it stands now, Bush and his cronies get to make that determination, and I'm not convinced any of them are worthy to think for me.
        Psychic, let's be fair. Most recent censorship (or, I guess they call it "moral standards") legislation has been sponsored by Democrats, and Joe Leiberman, D Conn, made it almost the cornerstone of his aborted Presidential run. Censorship is limited to neither the Bush Administration or the typical Christian Right targets, though they both support it, obviously. This is a fundamental, bipartisan issue indepen

        Wonder if Clinton is proud of appointed Michael Powell to the FCC now?

        Comment

        • PsychicWarVeteran
          Flesh Bag of Mostly Water
          • Mar 2004
          • 2554

          #34
          Okay.

          But we were talking about the article Mike posted [broken link]here

          "In an apparent reversal of decades of U.S. practice, recent federal
          Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations bar American companies
          from publishing works by dissident writers in countries under sanction
          unless they first obtain U.S. government approval."


          Censorship in the name of national security. That's Liberty for ya.

          And put your Clinton Bop-Bag away, Bill; I don't care who appointed who, censorship sucks no matter who champions it.
          Last edited by Rothgo; 04-09-2010, 11:55 AM.
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment

          • devilchicken
            We'll get to that later
            • Nov 2004
            • 2814

            #35
            I wonder if censorship is perhaps one of the reasons we have such an happy-clappy 'soundbite' obsessed culture. If people are not allowed to develop complex political opinions from all ranges of the spectrum - is it surprising that so many people are relatively uncritical of government actions that they should rightly be appalled by?
            Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

            Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

            Comment

            • Doc
              Doc
              Eternal Champion
              • Jan 2004
              • 3630

              #36
              I have to condense a few arguments into one post, so forgive me for bouncing around...

              There is a difference between having and expressing a point of view and propaganda, but the US, as a nation, has forgotten the difference. This is especially egregious given the often-crossed line between news, editorializing, and propoganda. I point to the Republican media pundit and the "reporter" who were paid by the party for advancing a point of view to the point of propaganda. No one seems to care because they don't know the difference, or don't care about the difference.

              Censorship is not a partisan issue, inherently, but this administration certainly has made it one. We've compromised more of our ideals in the name of safety, and, ironically, freedom, in the past three years than I care to recount. Most importantly, this administration has restricted the right to speak--and not just in print--legislatively, politically, and culturally. When having a challenging idea somehow becomes twisted into civil disobedience, or worse, unpatriotic, threatening, or terrorist, we need to check what is really important. Franklin was serious when he said that people who give up freedom for safety have neither.

              As a related sidenote, it seems that we care about freedom in Iraq more than freedom on some streets in the US.

              In today's political climate, Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine would be silenced. That is what is most sobering to me.

              Silencing propaganda is a slippery slope. Silencing a point of view is repression and authoritarianism. When people believe either is a good thing, we're certainly not paying attention to recent history.

              Comment

              • Mikey_C
                Champion of the Balance
                • May 2004
                • 1511

                #37
                The term 'propaganda' often refers to the manipulation and distortion of truth for political ends. In this sense its close ally is censorship. In times of war it is imperative to control information that may undermine the official message, such as publicity produced by the enemy, unwelcome news, militarily sensitive information and potentially unsettling opinion. To do this effectively requires censorship at the point at which information is gathered. To this end British military authorities heavily curtailed the activities of press photographers, artists and cine-camera operators at the start of both World Wars. However the gradual realization of the value of positive propaganda resulted in a relaxing of this attitude and development of 'official' (and still highly controlled) information gatherers. The control of information also affects military personnel on active service - the censorship of private correspondence being one of the most well known (and resented) examples of this.
                Interesting article on 'Propaganda' too: [url]http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/truth/essay.asp
                \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                Comment

                • Kapri_Korn_Klyde
                  Wanderer of the Mittel March
                  • Jan 2005
                  • 19

                  #38
                  HahA!

                  Some user (probably from the u.s.) wrote....


                  "I believe the 'little Eichmanns' analogy was wrong..."


                  ....there is the point, my friends, there is the WHOLE point.


                  K_K

                  Comment

                  • Sa-lul
                    Nomad of the Time Streams
                    • Feb 2005
                    • 26

                    #39
                    censorship and the Left

                    It is inspiring to discuss these issues and, being a novice to the site, I wish to thank all for constructing these conversations.

                    Re the issue of censorship, Right and Left, I should like to throw a spanner in the works, as it were. Often we take for granted (and the tone of much of this topic seems to point that way) that the effects of censorship and dismissal are generally felt with greater strength by liberal or Left-minded individuals.
                    Being one myself, I want to take you, for a minute, away from the context of Anglo-American and Anglo-European political commentary and introduce you to the world of the New Left in Latin America. Specifically, of the new and victorious Left in Mexico City, where I currently make my hideyhole.
                    Ten years ago we concerned citizens exulted as the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas exposed the false dream of hypermodernity and neoliberalism for what it was. We (enlightened metropolitan denizens of the Greatest City on Earth...although, aren't they all?) then exulted when, in the first free and fair mayoral elections of the City, we overwhelmingly voted in a progressive New Left government (the party known as PRD in Mexico).

                    Almost eight years hence, after having been treated to a grotesque procession of scandals in which most Left delegates in the City government have been and are still habitually being caught (literally) with their hands in dirty money...we are now being treated every day to a cascade of words by the Left-leaning mayor and his team of Left (university-educated) intellectuals and assorted sycophants, who are working overtime to bury our senses in doublespeak, as they deny, squirm and wiggle their rhetorical way out of all perceived wrongdoing. The New Left, it seems, is above criticism. And the Law.

                    Significantly, any attempt at bringing self-criticism into the open is greeted with denunciation, quite ugly forms of censorship and denigration of the concerned interlocutor (such as myself...I was actually screamed at for being a CIA mole at a gathering in the National University the other day!)
                    The Left in Mexico today...as in much of Latin America historically, seems to be making quite good progress, on its own, towards a new return to uncritical, populist and dumbed-down Utopia.
                    Censorship comes in many forms, but the worst, I posit, are those which are self-inflicted and self-imposed. Look not to the Right for that which you most fear.
                    Any thoughts?

                    Comment

                    • Pietro_Mercurios
                      Eternal Champion
                      • Oct 2004
                      • 5801

                      #40
                      Re: censorship and the Left

                      Originally posted by Sa-lul
                      ...

                      The Left in Mexico today...as in much of Latin America historically, seems to be making quite good progress, on its own, towards a new return to uncritical, populist and dumbed-down Utopia.
                      Censorship comes in many forms, but the worst, I posit, are those which are self-inflicted and self-imposed. Look not to the Right for that which you most fear.
                      Any thoughts?
                      Tony Blair and his 'New Labour' chums. :(

                      Comment

                      • L'Etranger
                        Veteran Moorcockista
                        • Dec 2003
                        • 4772

                        #41
                        One question, Sa-lul, are Azcarraga and his Televisa empire still as powerful as I remember it from the 80's and 90's, or have alternative media and TV entities gained a significant hold? The elder Azcarraga was compared to a tiger, but the younger to a giant octupus ...
                        Google ergo sum

                        Comment

                        • Sa-lul
                          Nomad of the Time Streams
                          • Feb 2005
                          • 26

                          #42
                          Octopus indeed.
                          Sadly, I must report that Televisa has greatly expanded both its power and its riches. Throughout the 90s it pretty much gobbled up Univision, the largest Latino TV and Media conglomerate in the Southern US, and was only prevented from gobbling up even more Cable TV and other US-based Media outlets because the US Congress realised that this would be violating all sorts of anti-monopoly laws.
                          So they moved to Latin America, and now have something like the second largest share of the South American market after O Globo (Brazil)...who in turn signed some sort of joint venture agreement with them.

                          As for Media in Mexico? It privatised, dumbed-down, and began to raise its ratings by glorifying extreme, live graphic violence (Big Brother in the Mexico City slums works, it seems...they've gone as far as handing out digital cams to would-be assailants. I kid you not)

                          The print media's little better, but there are one or two places left where Reasoned Debate can take place.

                          Comment

                          • Jagged
                            A confused voice within
                            • Mar 2004
                            • 760

                            #43
                            Re: Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

                            Um... ehr, well because people have become extremely selfish.

                            Not that I like to say that, but it seems to be the credo of Western "Civilisaztion" these days: "Grab what you can and run."

                            The fact, of course, is that rich and poor people are pretty similar, bascially, but they learn to hate each other during upbringing. I say tomeito and you say tomarto.

                            When we learn to celebrate diversity, we'll have a future. Until then we just have economical growth.
                            "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                            Comment

                            • Klyve
                              Multiversant
                              • Jul 2005
                              • 28

                              #44
                              The Right? The Left?

                              It's strange that supposedly intelligent people fall for this false dichotomy. Why do we suppose that is? I still haven't figured it out.

                              Comment

                              • Jagged
                                A confused voice within
                                • Mar 2004
                                • 760

                                #45
                                Re: The Right? The Left?

                                Originally posted by Klyve
                                It's strange that supposedly intelligent people fall for this false dichotomy. Why do we suppose that is? I still haven't figured it out.
                                I think it's called "Social intelligence". Our descendants may call it The Lemming Syndrome, but let's not split hairs...
                                "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X