Rick: Well, that makes more sense. At least now I understand that this is yet another case of
apparent discord, when the real source of disagreement is the fact that we are talking about different things, but calling them by the same name. Such semantic imprecision is the source of much conflict. I'm fessing up to my part in the mess.
Translation: You're not wrong, and I'm not either. But I'll take your part first. If I'm wrong about why you're not wrong, I trust you'll straighten me out.
Why you're not wrong – I know perfectly well that the Founders knew of the dangers of direct democracy. I also know that "democracy" has become a sanctified shibboleth that actually stands for little more than mob rule—the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Or in the case of Pat Condell's point in the OP video, it's the reverse — the tyranny of a small but malicious minority trying to force everyone else to conform to their ideology through the criminalization of the "offensive" speech.
The
manipulation of speech is simply the outward manifestation of this insidious attack on freedom. Their real, underlying goal is the
manipulation of the thoughts and ideas that the forbidden speech expresses, and their means to that end is the political process that makes laws against "hate speech", "blasphemy", and anything else that offends the fragile sensibilities of the poor, oppressed whiners who clamor for them.
Evidently, they have so little self-esteem and so little psycho-emotional security about their beliefs that they need the state to turn the whole of society into a safe little bubble to protect their world-view. It's as though legislating politically correct speech and behavior somehow sanctifies it with the presumably irreproachable imprimatur of Democracy<img class="emojione" alt="
" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>.
There's precedent for that kind of upside down thinking. It was cast in iron above the gates at Auschwitz:
Arbeit macht frei ("Work makes you free")...and in a sense it was true. Ultimately it freed the thousands who were its victims of their very existence.
You're not wrong that the Founders presumed their republic would be populated by educated, literate citizens who knew how to reason, and thus would be able to connect the dots between laws that incrementally encroach upon their freedoms and the tyranny that cumulatively results from such insanity. Obviously, the morons (and their numbers are legion) who say, "I'm for free speech, BUT..." have lost that reasoning ability...if they ever had it in the first place, which I doubt.
So, yeah...in the sense that the Founders
intended something very different to happen when they framed the Constitution, you're not wrong. What you were wrong about is the presumption that I think they were a bunch of "hallucinating fools" for not realizing that the system they created would morph into the current mess. I think no such thing.
Anyhow, the semantic confusion that I mentioned at the head of this post is this: We mean different things by
"the system". You mean (at least, I think you do)
"the system as the founders intended it to work". I should have recognized that and accommodated it. Conversely, when I say "the system", I mean
"the system the way it actually ended up working".
Actually, I did anticipate that someone would object...remember? I said:
Vito":l0zeiw7i said:
...I won't dodge your questions, although I'm certain most folks won't like the answers.
...by which I meant that there would be folks who didn't understand what I meant, even though I tried my best to exculpate the Founders. But I didn't make it clear that the mess we have now was clearly
not part of their intent, so in that sense I understand why you think I gave them short shrift. My bad.
Anyhow, that's why I think you're not wrong. I have to stop writing now. If you want to take a stab at why I'm not wrong, go for it. Otherwise, I'll come back with clarification on that point when I get a round tuit. :mrgreen: