Western countries are becoming more orwellian

[breadisfunny]

May I point you towards the great Ron Paul Revolution:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-...aul+revolution

When I read this the first time I was as cynical as you are that a no tax state would work, but slowly I have changed my mind after listening to the arguments. It does take a long time to change opinions. Which is of course why the leftists love to infiltrate schools so much, get them young.

Also Tom Woods was instrumental in me getting my head around some of the more difficult aspects of it all. He has a YouTube channel (can be hard going at times) but he explains things a lot better than me:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsg...AiFarZYl1u1l9Q


And a final thought - 200 years ago a lot of people had no idea how the world would work without slavery. Were they right?

ron paul revolution.....i'm done.

[Damajin]

No, unlike you, I've lived in actual totalitarian countries with lack of freedom. You grew up in the US and complain about total surveillance and such. How often is that surveillance used against you? How many times have the authorities restricted your freedom?

Go live here for a bit:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...d/2015/belarus
And here:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...015/uzbekistan

"Total surveillance" will be your last concern, buddy. While you are complaining about NSA watching you masturbate in front of your monitor, there are people having actual life-threatening problems, because they said a few words that offended the Big Brother. Nobody restricts your freedom in the US; in fact, I would argue that there is a bit too much freedom, leading to insanity like the Internet costing $90/m, or Trump running for president.

As someone whose job involves interacting on some levels with that surveillance, I can tell you that it's used against the citizenry every single day.

You're very naïve if you think that the surveillance side is my major concern in things, while extensive that's not the most concerning thing our lovely government does to and 'for' us.

Your bit on too much freedom is also contradictory, as neither $90/m internet not Trump running for President has anything to do with that. Both of those things you can say no to.

[Caolela]

How is it an oxymoron? Leftists can be good or bad people who regress or progress society. Right wingers can be good or bad people who regress or progress society. It isn't good vs evil, regardless of how much political groups market terminology.

Because AFAIK "regressive left" is a relatively recent term conjured up by certain pundits who seek to demonize Islamists in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left It also seems that lately, a few on the right-wing have glommed onto the term because it's convenient for their purposes as yet another inaccurate yet derogatory dirty word, like "socialist", that they've attempted to turn on its head.

The traditional definition of "regressivism" in political use is the same as "reactionary", as when you search the term in The Free Dictionary, for example, it will redirect to "reactionary", thus it is an interchangeable synonym. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Regressivism It has not generally been used to describe leftist politics.

[Fencers]

Surely I can't be the only one who has noticed this political trend in western countries?

A number of your notions are flat out incorrect. So yes, you are in the minority. And seem to be arguing for condoned bigotry- which requires social and cultural agreement.

Culture is changing faster in the last 30 years than previously. Even more so in the last 20 and 10 years comparatively.

People shape the society they wish to live within- Western countries are less coarse, more inclusive and reflective than at any previous point in history. What you are experiencing is a collapse of old establishments. So you are not even identifying culture correctly.

Just a poor quality post and argument you made here.

[derpkitteh]

Because AFAIK "regressive left" is a relatively recent term conjured up by certain pundits who seek to demonize Islamists in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left It also seems that lately, a few on the right-wing have glommed onto the term because it's convenient for their purposes as yet another inaccurate yet derogatory dirty word, like "socialist", that they've attempted to turn on its head.

The traditional definition of "regressivism" in political use is the same as "reactionary", as when you search the term in The Free Dictionary, for example, it will redirect to "reactionary", thus it is an interchangeable synonym. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Regressivism It has not generally been used to describe leftist politics.

don't fool yourself, regressive leftists do exist. richard dawkins and sam harris have come under attack from them constantly for their criticism of islam.

[Endus]

Because AFAIK "regressive left" is a relatively recent term conjured up by certain pundits who seek to demonize Islamists in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left It also seems that lately, a few on the right-wing have glommed onto the term because it's convenient for their purposes as yet another inaccurate yet derogatory dirty word, like "socialist", that they've attempted to turn on its head.

The traditional definition of "regressivism" in political use is the same as "reactionary", as when you search the term in The Free Dictionary, for example, it will redirect to "reactionary", thus it is an interchangeable synonym. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Regressivism It has not generally been used to describe leftist politics.

It's basically a slur, since liberals often self-identify as "progressive". So it's just a way for them to say "nuh uh, you're the opposite of what you think, man", but sounding less stoned while they do it.

It's pretty much rooted in the complete failure of those using the term to grasp the base principles in question. They think it's "hypocrisy" to stand up for women's rights and for the rights of Muslims, for instance. Even though Muslim women, are, like, a pretty big focus of women's rights, currently. And those women are exactly as Muslim as the men in the culture who are trying to oppress them. So attacking their Muslim faith is sort of missing the point.

[PC2]

Because AFAIK "regressive left" is a relatively recent term conjured up by certain pundits who seek to demonize Islamists in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left It also seems that lately, a few on the right-wing have glommed onto the term because it's convenient for their purposes as yet another inaccurate yet derogatory dirty word, like "socialist", that they've attempted to turn on its head.

The source of the term doesn't matter at all. It's accuracy is what matters.

It's only inaccurate if you think that all leftists are entirely above regressive illiberal principles. You would have to be ultra naive to think that somehow the left is just too pure to ever include anyone who is morally confused or a hypocrite.

[Fojos]

So far you´re the only one that is coming up with those terms every other time.

Of course, everyone who is willing to wait for actual facts is a blind leftist, right?

OT, not really, no. The laws would need to be changed to do those things and so far nothing of that kind has happened as far as i know.

Right. Even when more than 90 percent of the criminals (documents from the police) at festivals in Sweden are immigrants the left denies the truth and even dare say - just like you - that they are waiting for the real facts.

[May90]

that's the type of speech you people want. that's what it comes down to, being allowed to say more vs. being allowed to say less.

my vision of freedom of speech is correct and morally right, yours is wrong and a path to fascism. because mine allows more freedom, and yours allows less.

No, it is not that. It is being allowed to express any opinion decently vs being allowed to express any opinion in any way. The latter is not "free speech", it is anarchy of speech.

As someone whose job involves interacting on some levels with that surveillance, I can tell you that it's used against the citizenry every single day.

You're very naïve if you think that the surveillance side is my major concern in things, while extensive that's not the most concerning thing our lovely government does to and 'for' us.

Your bit on too much freedom is also contradictory, as neither $90/m internet not Trump running for President has anything to do with that. Both of those things you can say no to.

Okay, tell me: how is the US government restricting my freedoms? The only time I remember interacting with the government directly at all is when I fill my tax return. I do not feel my freedoms restricted in any way, and trust me, I detect restriction of freedoms pretty easily. The US is far from perfect in this regard, but it is much better than the vast majority of other countries - and it is definitely better than the US or the UK at the time Huxley lived.

don't fool yourself, regressive leftists do exist. richard dawkins and sam harris have come under attack from them constantly for their criticism of islam.

Those attacks do not have anything to do with people being leftists, they have to do with them being usual bigots.

[Endus]

The source of the term doesn't matter at all. It's accuracy is what matters.

It's only inaccurate if you think that all leftists are entirely above regressive illiberal principles. You would have to be ultra naive to think that somehow the left is just too pure to ever include anyone who is morally confused or a hypocrite.

That would be reason to target an individual person and call them out for being hypocritically regressive.

Not a call to label typically all left-wing types as "the Regressive Left", as a whole, which is how I've always seen the term used. Where "regressive" is an adjective describing "the left" as a whole, in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Fojos]

It's basically a slur, since liberals often self-identify as "progressive". So it's just a way for them to say "nuh uh, you're the opposite of what you think, man", but sounding less stoned while they do it.

It's pretty much rooted in the complete failure of those using the term to grasp the base principles in question. They think it's "hypocrisy" to stand up for women's rights and for the rights of Muslims, for instance. Even though Muslim women, are, like, a pretty big focus of women's rights, currently. And those women are exactly as Muslim as the men in the culture who are trying to oppress them. So attacking their Muslim faith is sort of missing the point.

The established feminists in he west actually hinder the feminists from Africa and Arabia. When feminists from regions (where the feminism is actually needed) bring up the real extent of honor issues, the western feminists keep denying them funding stating bullshit like: "It' a man--problem, not a cultural one." Even being ridiculous enough suggest that women here are being treated as bad as in islamic countries.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TOnxYTLI5oQ clip from Sweden with english texting.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No, unlike you, I've lived in actual totalitarian countries with lack of freedom. You grew up in the US and complain about total surveillance and such. How often is that surveillance used against you? How many times have the authorities restricted your freedom?

Go live here for a bit:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...d/2015/belarus
And here:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...015/uzbekistan

"Total surveillance" will be your last concern, buddy. While you are complaining about NSA watching you masturbate in front of your monitor, there are people having actual life-threatening problems, because they said a few words that offended the Big Brother. Nobody restricts your freedom in the US; in fact, I would argue that there is a bit too much freedom, leading to insanity like the Internet costing $90/m, or Trump running for president.

Yeah, I've been to countries like this as well. Gotta love the edgy "WE LIVE IN A TOTALITARIAN STATE, YOU'RE A SHEEPLE IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THE GOVERNMENT," types.

People in actual totalitarian states don't have the luxury of whining on forums about totalitarian states.

[PC2]

That would be reason to target an individual person and call them out for being hypocritically regressive.

Not a call to label typically all left-wing types as "the Regressive Left", as a whole, which is how I've always seen the term used. Where "regressive" is an adjective describing "the left" as a whole, in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah generalizations happen a lot on both sides. The same thing happens for right wingers.

[derpkitteh]

No, it is not that. It is being allowed to express any opinion decently vs being allowed to express any opinion in any way. The latter is not "free speech", it is anarchy of speech. Those attacks do not have anything to do with people being leftists, they have to do with them being usual bigots.

then anarchy of speech is what we should have, as it is the most free expression of ideas. it is the correct way, all other ways are a path to fascism.

and i don't quite get what you said, are you calling sam harris and dawkins bigots?

[May90]

Yeah, I've been to countries like this as well. Gotta love the edgy "WE LIVE IN A TOTALITARIAN STATE, YOU'RE A SHEEPLE IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THE GOVERNMENT," types.

People in actual totalitarian states don't have the luxury of whining on forums about totalitarian states.

To be fair, it is a common human trait: people don't value what they have, until they've been deprived of that. Would be interesting to conduct an experiment: to transform the US into a totalitarian state for a month. Then revert back. I guess the number of doomsayers will suddenly go down.

then anarchy of speech is what we should have, as it is the most free expression of ideas. it is the correct way, all other ways are a path to fascism.

and i don't quite get what you said, are you calling sam harris and dawkins bigots?

Anarchy is a pretty naive concept, for it to work the society should have developed a very high culture of human interaction. It hasn't happened yet. As such, anarchy would allow the level of abuse impossible to comprehend.

No, I'm calling those who attack Dawkins (don't know much about Harris) bigots. He doesn't even say that religion is wrong, he just points out logical flaws in certain religious reasonings - yet people get upset over it and resort to petty attacks in response. I really like watching Dawkins' debates, he is one of the best at exposing hypocrisy!

[PC2]

Anarchy is a pretty naive concept, for it to work the society should have developed a very high culture of human interaction. It hasn't happened yet. As such, anarchy would allow the level of abuse impossible to comprehend.

It already works, free speech is going great. Each time Twitter or Facebook bans someone based on feelings, we criticize them constantly. There is really no way for them to win a long term debate with silencing tactics when the truth still gets around, unless most of Congress and the president all conspired to destroy free speech. As far as I know there are no plans to do that, not that we would allow it anyways.

[Endus]

It already works, free speech is going great. Each time Twitter or Facebook bans someone based on feelings, we criticize them constantly. There is really no way for them to win a long term debate with silencing tactics when the truth still gets around, unless most of Congress and the president all conspired to destroy free speech. As far as I know there are no plans to do that, not that we would allow it anyways.

You realize that the "criticism" you're talking about is nothing more than an assault on property rights and association rights, right? It isn't some defense of freedom, it's an attack on it.

If you don't like their actions, produce an alternative, and let the market decide. Don't try and bully them into giving up their own rights, and act as if you're the noble one.

[Saucexorzski]

It's basically a slur, since liberals often self-identify as "progressive". So it's just a way for them to say "nuh uh, you're the opposite of what you think, man", but sounding less stoned while they do it.

It's pretty much rooted in the complete failure of those using the term to grasp the base principles in question. They think it's "hypocrisy" to stand up for women's rights and for the rights of Muslims, for instance. Even though Muslim women, are, like, a pretty big focus of women's rights, currently. And those women are exactly as Muslim as the men in the culture who are trying to oppress them. So attacking their Muslim faith is sort of missing the point.

Idk its more the left has bashed on Conservative for the last 30 years to not be racist, sexist, or homophobic..then you tell us to be friends with...a religion that pretty much encourages all of those things. For those of us who grew up thinking your message made sense, to see you cuddling up with Islam is the same as watching a friend engage in an abusive relationship. You say attacking their faith is missing the point? Its how the left put Christianity in its rightful place, out of the lives of those who don't want it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

How you know you don't live in an Orwellian society: You're educated enough to know what Orwellian means.

Besides, I'd say Western society is FAR closer to Huxley than Orwell. Just look at the Trump campaign.

[Caolela]

The source of the term doesn't matter at all. It's accuracy is what matters.

It's only inaccurate if you think that all leftists are entirely above regressive illiberal principles. You would have to be ultra naive to think that somehow the left is just too pure to ever include anyone who is morally confused or a hypocrite.

I would say the source does matter in this kind of thing. It shows motive and intent, and words matter. Like naming a disgusting and unconstitutional piece of legislation the "Patriot" Act, when it's the opposite of anything patriotic.

Again, the right has learned to use Orwell for its own purposes. Just do your worst, then name it something turned completely upside down or hypocritical, and some people will buy it.