The claim that the left isn't censored because their message is "pounded down our throats" in media and education... that's a really interesting perspective. While it's true that progressive viewpoints might be more prevalent in certain areas, to say there's no censorship or that dissenting voices aren't heard at all... that's probably not entirely accurate. The media landscape is so diverse now, with so many different outlets and opinions out there, it's hard to argue that one single narrative completely dominates and silences everyone else. And the idea of "the left" being a single, unified entity that always agrees on everything is also a bit of a simplification.
Then there's the whole Fairness Doctrine and Rush Limbaugh thing. It's true that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine did change the media landscape, and it certainly contributed to the rise of more partisan talk radio. 1 But to solely blame the Democrats' prior use of it for the current state of affairs... it's a bit too neat of an explanation. The media has evolved in so many ways since then, and audience preferences and technological changes have also played a huge role.
And finally, the pronoun thing... that's a really sensitive area, and it brings up a lot of different viewpoints. The idea of being "forced" to use someone's pronouns versus the idea of basic respect for someone's identity... it's a tricky balance. While some might see it as an infringement on free speech, others see it as a fundamental aspect of acknowledging and validating someone's existence. And the dismissal of gender identities beyond the binary as "fabricated"... well, that's a viewpoint that many people who identify differently would strongly disagree with, as it's a deeply personal and lived reality for them.
Ultimately, this whole statement boils down to a very specific view of freedom and how it's being impacted. It's a perspective that sees a strong government and certain social changes as a direct threat to individual liberty. While it raises some valid points about the role of government and the importance of free speech, it perhaps oversimplifies a lot of complex issues and paints a rather broad and critical picture of one political party. It's definitely a conversation starter, though, and it makes you think about what freedom really means in our modern world.
And the idea that classical liberalism is now mostly in the Republican party and even more so in the Libertarian and Constitution parties... that's a pretty specific definition of "classical liberalism" that not everyone might agree with. Political labels can be tricky things, and what one person considers a "classical liberal" might be different for someone else.
Then we get to this idea that Democrats are somehow "classical conservatives" now, wanting a strong controlling government that takes power away from individuals. Again, it's a bit of a broad brush, isn't it? While it's true that the Democratic platform often emphasizes a role for government in things like social safety nets and regulating certain industries, to say that's the same as wanting to strip all political power from individuals... that feels like a bit of a stretch. They also tend to champion things like voting rights and civil rights, which are pretty fundamental to individual political power, wouldn't you say? It's more about different philosophies on what the government's role should be, rather than a complete power grab.
And the speech thing... that's a hot topic, for sure. The idea that Democrats want to control speech so only their narrative is accepted, and that any deviation is "misinformation"... well, that's a pretty serious accusation. While there are definitely debates about how to combat misinformation and disinformation, and what the role of platforms and even government should be in that, to say it's solely a Democratic agenda to stifle all other viewpoints... it doesn't quite ring true. Freedom of speech is something that both sides of the political spectrum generally say they support, even if they might have different ideas about its limits and responsibilities.
This idea that we're somehow less free now than when England was in charge, and that it's all down to the Democrats and their policies over the last century. It's a pretty strong claim, isn't it? And it definitely sparks a lot of thoughts, even if you don't necessarily agree with all of it.
First off, the whole "less free than under England" thing... well, that's a pretty bold statement, isn't it? I mean, when you really think about it, the whole reason for the American Revolution was because people wanted more freedom, the right to govern themselves, to have a say in their own lives. Sure, maybe there were certain structures and maybe even a sense of order under British rule, but the fundamental lack of self-determination, the whole "taxation without representation" thing – that was a pretty big deal for a lot of folks back then. To say we're less free now seems to completely ignore that core desire for independence and the ability to shape your own destiny.
And then the finger-pointing at the Democrats... it's a bit simplistic, wouldn't you say? To pin all the changes in our society and the perceived erosion of freedom on just one political party over a whole century? That's a long time! Things change, society evolves, and a whole bunch of different factors – economic shifts, social movements, technological advancements – all play a part in how things end up looking. It's not like the Democrats have been the only ones making decisions for the last hundred years, right? There have been plenty of Republicans in the mix too, and policies often have support from both sides, even if they might disagree on the details or the ultimate goals.
The whole bit about the Democrats not understanding they're not Jeffersonian liberals anymore... well, that's an interesting point. It's true that political ideologies shift and evolve over time. What Jefferson stood for in the late 18th century might look a bit different from what the Democratic Party stands for today. But to say they don't understand their history? That's a bit dismissive, isn't it? They've got their own interpretations and their own reasons for the direction they've taken.
This anti-fascism expressed itself in support for policies to aid those resisting fascist aggression in Europe. And it’s important to remember that a big chunk of the American public, on the left and right, was isolationist—wanted to stay out of European affairs. This isolationism, driven by a desire to avoid another war, should not be confused with support for dictators. The later rise of the popular front and the increasing understanding of fascism would further drive the American left away from these dictators, that is why they called them men of the future before they saw the true side of all of them, and never men of the present.
why has the left only became a problem since trump got elected? because the left hasn't really changed and was never a serious problem before, it's just since trump's began making it a problem as it threatens his power that you get so dramatic about it. The left have actually expanded constitutional protections and the bill of rights, particularly for historically marginalised groups. I completely agree with free speech, but you can't say the right don't silence a lot of it, just look at all the left-wing content on X that has been removed, doesn't sound like free speech does it? And just from messaging you, you seem like a pretty closed-minded guy who doesn't have any actual points and didn't even answer my initial question as how to masculinity relates to right wing. And again, you're misconfusing the majority of left-wingers with a small percentage of extremists (which there are on both sides) who I disagree with a lot of their views like calling all right wingers racist, but there have always been these small groups of extremists, it has not just became a massive problem out of the blue since Trump was elected, you are now getting taught that they are a serious issue affecting the country which is ludicrous. I completely agree with you on judging someone only after you get to know them (that should be the only factor involved), which at least shows you are human. Your statement on fascists and nazis being far-left is incorrect as these movements both had the main characteristics of far right ideologies: Ultranationism, Authoritarianism, Militarism, Anti-communist, anti-socialist, Anti-democratic and an extreme emphasis on a hierarchical society (if you don't know what any of these words mean, I'll be happy to explain them to you). Your last statement is such a highly misleading oversimplification of such a complex historical period, it's actually embarrassing you are trying to use it as a point. Yes, a few isolated individuals and small groups within the various parts of the American left—socialists, communists and liberals—expressed initial and often short-lived curiosity or misinformed opinions about these foreign leaders. But this was not representative of the larger left and cannot be used as an arguement against them. As the decade went on and the fascist regimes became more and more brutal, the great majority of the American left turned sharply against Hitler and Mussolini.
