The rhetoric of freedom

How and why did the right manage to position itself in near-complete ownership of the rhetoric of freedom and the concepts of free expression and association? Why has the left abandoned these rhetorical tools?

Even as recently as recently as the Bush years when leftists and left-liberals were butting heads with evangelicals over gay marriage, these language and concepts were a battleground. I remember how frequently we used to say things like "you have no right to not be offended" in response to religious objections to gays in the media or that freedom of religion and freedom of speech also meant the freedom to criticise religious and conservative views without the right being able to use the state to shut it down.

Now I'm seeing people unironically saying that "Free speech is code for anti-trans" and otherwise abandoning the language of freedom and liberty. I know the right loves to use these things, but they love to use them because they still resonate with people and especially in western democracies, these words and concepts are still very important to your average "apolitical" person on the street. They are still powerful. So why has the left abandoned these things? Why do we take the bait into appearing "anti-freedom" when right wingers try to associate freedom with bigotry? Why aren't we challenging them on these grounds again instead of just ceding 'freedom' to the right and letting them own it unopposed? And, if we should be, how do we do it and how do we convince others on the left that it's a battle worth fighting?

Other urls found in this thread:

theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers-in-five-states-propose-bills-to-criminalize-peaceful-protest/
cbsnews.com/pictures/rise-in-hate-crimes-following-donald-trump-election-win/3/
gomn.com/news/familys-dream-home-tagged-with-racist-graffiti-and-get-out-message/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

the whole "free speech" thing is retarded really. free speech has no meaning when you can't act on your words, and both fascists and antifa have been acting since the election of Donald Trump. you really cant let fascist organization grow and its already dangerous to confront them irl without high chance of getting doxxed.

I'm not sure about this issue cause it's so nuanced and abstract. On the one hand I'm staunchly opposed to governments or any other institution of power being able to excercise control over people, particulary to the point where a clique of bosses have the power to regulate speech. On the other hand, punch Nazis and other bigots all you want, they deserve it.

OK, but this is not really related to what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that "freedom", in the sense of basic stated values of liberal democracies (regardless of whether they can really be said to exist for the majority of people) of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and all the rest are still rhetorically and conceptually powerful and useful. People, especially in America but also in most western countries, value these things and are attached to them, even if they're murky on what they mean in practical terms.

Yet, especially in recent years, the left has largely abandoned them. We've almost completed vacated the field and I don't think it's unfair to say that the right now owns "freedom" as a propaganda tool and that puts us at a huge disadvantage with reaching people. More than that, some on the left seem to take a lot of pleasure in being contrarian and embracing the image of authoritarian thugs that many have of "communists".

I'd like to know what people think about why that is. Also whether it's worth trying to reclaim it and how we might go about it.

Free speech is more than that, it is the absolute bedrock our culture is founded on.

The SJW's gave it up because their ideology is not based on truth, so its greatest threat comes from free discourse attacking it. They have to censor speech using mob rule, government legislation or violence in order to prevent their entire belief structure from being publically undermined, discredited and destroyed.

And the right is currently championing free speech because it's become apparent that an ideology based on lies is attempting to undermine and destroy their culture, and that the best means of defense against that is the same as the best defence against bad ideas always has been, freedom of expression and articulated truth.

I think it's because the left has ultimately been coopted by liberals obsessed with feels > reals, specifically the feelings of minorities, and that their feelings are more important than someone else's freedom. Combined that with liberals fear of gun and their opposition to religion basically means they don't really value any stances typically associated with "freedom".

Literally in what meaningful way, that's not just typical crazy people doing crazy shit? Besides, you don't prevent people from becoming Fascists by silencing them, that only radicalizes them, not like Fascism is an actual concern, especially when the state is perfectly capable of being oppressive without them.

Spooked tbh. Attacking people for their opinions and words is counter-productive liberal anti-freedom nonsense the OP is talking about.

I'm not the user you're replying to, but it seems, at least from my experience, that the modern right's so-called love of "freedom of speech" is just the "freedom to say whatever bigoted shit I want without repercussion." They are in no way standard bearers for the freedoms you're talking about. We have seen in the wake of the election that Republican politicians have pushed for legislation that would make protest illegal, allow drivers to commit manslaughter against protesters, and force protesters to lose their homes for protesting. Right-wingers want to quell any ability for people to express their dissent.

As for the socjus liberal crowd, they seem to realize the hypocrisy of the right-wing crowd's false notion of "freedom of speech" without realizing their own hypocrisy.

Couldn't this analysis also be applied to the right-wing centrists and the far-right in general?

Freedom not freedumb.
Rights have responsabilities and freedoms have limits. Rightists are fighting to not be held accountable and to escape social responsabilities.

how? what speech is the right currently trying to silence?

All of the anti-protest legislation that they have been proposing post-election.

It seems like SJWs are a strawman for the left in general. SJWs themselves are a strawman for social justice type leftists everywhere.

I think the reaction to freedom is sort of an ironic one because the left is responding to itself. As in, leftists ridicule the right's usage of "freedom" because leftists know this is hollow. It isn't outward facing, it isn't particularly conscious of persuasion.

I don't know about this whole co-opting freedom thing though. I think demsocs are trying to show it for what it is, it just takes a while to make an impact. Like when Bernie debated Cruz and made a show of talking about how "access", or basically "freedom to choose" is nonsense because you have the "freedom to choose" an amazing health care plan right now, but you can't afford it. Similarly with other goods and services. Similarly with jobs. You have the "freedom" to go out and get a 200k/yr job, but can you really get it? Maybe some can, but obviously not everybody. Access is meaningless to most people.

I'm not sure how, since rightists aren't usually concerned with minorities or their feelings. The closest thing I can think of is the religious-right and their crusade against gay marriage and (the wrong kind of) indoctrination in schools.

No they fucking don't, that's why they're rights and freedoms. In Enlightenment thinking they are inalienable from the individual and it is supposed to be the duty of society to protect them; they aren't granted by them.
Spooks.

Idpol is idpol regardless of who is the majority or minority identity.

I know they're not - that's the point. But they have (successfully, imo) positioned themselves as owning the concept in public discourse, misused apocryphal Voltaire quotes and all. They are able to construct an image of the left as wannabe Stasi just waiting for their chance to take you away for using the wrong word for homosexual. And leftists have a habit of acting in ways that makes this seem plausible instead of proposing a plausible alternative view of what freedom is and how it would look.


Good post, thanks user. This is exactly what I want to see more of, but explicitly using the language associated with the right to articulate it and take away some of their toys.

like what?

We want free'd speech not free speech ok??

You have the freedom to say whatever you want and I have the freedom to defend myself if you are being offensive or violent

I know, but the poster was asking if the analysis couldn't also be applied to rightists, and I showed how it couldn't. Rightist idpol is usually based upon preserving or recreating the current or previous status of their identity group. It's rooted in the same persecution complex and feeling based reasoning as liberal idpol, the difference being rightist idpol wants things to stay the same or return to the past where the majority was typically advantaged, or so they think, while liberal idpol wants to create a new state of things where the minority is advantaged.

There's a difference between liberal and Enlightenment ideals.

It's kinda been that way for decades?

Also, I agree with your OP by and large. But don't you think the right often deploys free speech politics cynically and opportunistically? You're giving them wayyyyyyy too much credit. A lot of the time it literally boils down to "why can't I can't do/say repulsive shit and face zero interpersonal social consequence?"

If they had any commitment to consistent application of free speech, they wouldn't have collectively pissed themselves and screeched at Kaepernick and other football players kneeling during the anthem. It wouldn't be impossible in this country to discuss the disgusting, bloated ass military budget without them crying "OUR TROOPS!" American exceptionalism/mythology in general is another big space where they will you shout you down just as quick as any belligerent lib if you even tamely challenge the idea. There are literally states in the south that are rewriting/have re- written textbooks to whitewash slavery and native genocide. There was a bill introduced in the Arkansas legislature two weeks ago to ban Howard Zinn's books from public schools.

I didnt sign shit

As I said, talk shit get hit 💪💪💪

You may be right, but I feel as though those who are convinced by the right's posturing are those who are predisposed to agreeing with the right on everything. Fox News addicted grandpas, for example. Meanwhile, leftists and left liberals already see through the right's posturing. Effectively nothing changes, those who believe the right are protectors of freedoms and those who do not were already thinking these things.

The concern is the politically disengaged and how they view these issues. I'd like to think many of them see it as a "both sides" kind of thing, but I can't be sure.

theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers-in-five-states-propose-bills-to-criminalize-peaceful-protest/

I never mentioned the social contract. I was just arguing against your liberal-tier reasoning. If you want to attack people for saying stuff you don't like don't try to justify if by saying it's "offensive".

You're arguing with an ancap. Save your time, user.

(checked)

hate crimes such as shooting up mosques and vandalism

cbsnews.com/pictures/rise-in-hate-crimes-following-donald-trump-election-win/3/

gomn.com/news/familys-dream-home-tagged-with-racist-graffiti-and-get-out-message/

and im sure you know what im referencing in "shooting up mosques"

The social contract is one of the main pillars of the enlightment era, which is actually peak liberalism

There is no reason to respect free speech, the movement against hierarchy has to be based on force, not morality, anarchy does not only mean the abolition of as many hierarchies as possible (which includes private property, ignore that butthurt retard), but also the support of any form of fight against them

Since language can be used to impose hierarchy, it is understanable why we should support the idea of free'd speech, why is not only free from ideological dogmas, meaning we adress an issue from a purely dialectical position but also free from any role as a sacred liberty

There is a difference between adressing the issue of black violence and just screaming about lynching niggers, for example


And then we have this dumb, butthurt faggot

He is doing society a service

purely anecdotal, but my experience irl has been the exact opposite. I know so many people now who were rapidly anti-right wing just a few years ago who have softened their views to the extent that they see "the far-left" (as they understand it) to be functionally equivalent to the religious right of the Bush years. Meanwhile, these same people see the "moderate right" - ie. the ones who base most of their rhetoric around defending "liberal values" and all the rest - seem so reasonable on this topic that they are willing to entertain their ideas in other spheres.

Nah, attacking someone for what they said is against the NAP.

Unless what they said broke the terms of the contract with the employer/landlord/store owner.

These aren't the fucking Brownshirts which is exactly my point.

No, humans can be used to impose hierarchy. Saying shit doesn't do anything. Violence either creates hierarchies or destroys them; words do neither. By attacking someone for what words they've used or by having the wrong opinions you are effectively creating a temporary hierarchy over them.

since when is that ever okay unless the institutions have been proven to house extremism/reactionary tendencies?

The right never belived in materialism though, so it doesnt matter. The dominant ideology is one of free expression and restricted action so free speech does not challenge this.

Morality is a spook


Lel, so the subject imposing hierarchy is no a human now?? Is there some alien out there (subject) using humans (object) as a tool?

You are arguing in bad faith here, a subject imposes hierarchy indeed, however the subject needs the tool, the object, the means to impose it, language is one of them, as it is used by the subject to impose hierarchical situations. If I tell you "I am better than you, do what I want you to" I am imposing hierarchy on you, there is no reason to belive otherwise

Violence doesnt create hierarchies, again, violence is a tool, the subject imposes hierarchy

If you dont want to get hit, dont talk shit, If you have an opinion, you are welcome to express it under the idea that you understand the power of language

The intentions behind an act can be expressed with language, so it makes sense how your words can represent hoerarchical imposition

Liberal garbage

Liberalism promises free speech but can't preserve it - if you wind up on an employment blacklist or banned from monopolistic platforms for your political views it's fine with liberals.

Only socialism can preserve a meaningful right to free speech; there's a reason liberals try to define it away as "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" or "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" whenever speech starts to threaten the status quo.

GET OFF MY SITE YOU NIGGER

Being - Identity
Essence - inconsistency between capitalist ideal and material expressions ("freedom of x")
Identity is created in the discontinuity of material and ideal within exploitative mode of productions. In history attacks on the material have always taken the material form of attacks on the ideal. "No divine rights of kings" "people cannot be property" etc. Identity exposes discontinuity of "freedom of speech" by exposing discontinuity of real and ideal freedom. Free speech is idealism to the point of expressing the total essense of the dominant materially existing ideology. At the same time, the restriction of free speech is again based in the ideal rather than the material. The restriction of free speech in both the ideological form and in the material form is based in idealism. The free/unfree speech relation is strictly ideal and bourgeois. The injection of this struggle into the left, in either form, is simply one symptom of the bourgeoisification of the left. :( Free speech is essentially good but cannot be realized in existing material circumstance. The bourgeois left attacks this by attacking the ideal "free speech" rather than the material "exploitation" so attacks on free speech must be rejected on the grounds of materialism.

By this reasoning, though, the only way to have "true" free speech is if we remove the meaning from words altogether. In cases like the old fire analogy, there isn't a clear line between speech and action.

Glad

To

Know

I

Triggered

Your

Holla Forumsyp

Autism

Fucking

Faggot

Upboated xD

Edit: thanks for the gold kind stranger :^)

Get out of here, Holla Forums.

The old fire analogy was an invention of liberal judges to suppress socialist resistance to conscription.

In practice, the line between speech and action (at least, the sort of action we have any right to retaliate against) is pretty clear, but liberals and tankies insist on blurring it to justify political repression.

No, that's nonsense. Language isn't capable on anything on its own. It always needs humans to act on the words.
No, you're not, that's absurd. Hierarchy needs force to create it, words don't create anything.
The subject must use force to impose hierarchy. It is impossible any other way. Without force hierarchy cannot exist, since the individuals at the bottom have no reason to obey the people at the top.
You can think that but you justification for it is unfounded.
The intentions yes, but the act actually has to be acted upon. Words cannot act upon anything other than you're feelings.

What this tells me is that the mainstream concept of "free speech" is pretty idealist to begin with. Like said, it is not going to exist in a capitalist society, simple as that.

And neither is the subjecct you idiot, the subject cant impose physical hierarchy without physical force, physical force being the tool, the subject needs the rational power and the physical power to impose hierarchies, and the hierarchy can be imposed on the physical and rational self

Yet there are medical cases of people being subjugated by mere words by psyco partners, or torture methods using mere words

If you belive the only hierarchy is physical, in the sense that "physical" only means action against the physical self (using the bourgeois distinction of body-mind) then you are retarded, as the physical self is one in itself, first because the distinction is a false one, as the subject being separated from the body is impossible (there is no body without consciousness and vice-versa), therefore hierarchy in the physical form affects both the body and the mind, as they are one, and second because even when speaking in your realm of bourgeois distinction of the self, when you claim that the mindful self, the conscious being sort to speak, cannot be subject of hierarchy is also retarded, as the mindful self, who is the opposite of the physical self, can also be a victim of hierarchies, of course this hierarchy not being a physical one but one that acts in the realm of the mind, as it would not be a physical self since we are following your bourgeois false dichotomy

Basically you are fucking retarded, and I am looking forward to the moment someone breaks your jaw for talking shit

Read hegel

Which of his wizardly tomes?

Google about the hegelian subject, aswell as the subject under heideggerian thought

When you control the narrative, you don't want free speech to challenge the narrative.

It doesn't matter who is in control, it's just what happens.

No, there isn't. Political liberalism is the very core of the Enlightenment.

There's a difference between Classical Liberalism and colloquial liberalism.

D I A L E C T I C S

This is very Jim Proftian, well said

Goodness gracious y'all are far too nuanced and abstract for me. You guys choose the most creative hoops to jump through. Do you really hate Occam's Razor this much? You guys hate free speech and will come up with any pseudo-articulate excuse to defend censorship….

What the fuck is this apriorist nonsense

You replied to me saying I have some abstract problem with free speech, i dont its good trying to restrict it is a bourgeois deflection worth resisting or ignoring