Why is the Left so arrogantly intolerant of free speech and dissent to the theocracy they assume of themselves? Their willful blindness to any ideas outside their perceived truths means that even on any point they might be right, they are still wrong. At heart it's an emotional immaturity, arising from their truths being the product of emoting, not thinking. For example, every sane human being wants to see an end to poverty, the Left have no monopoly over compassion; but no reasoned solution will include theft, the destruction of rights and freedoms, and creation of dependency on the state that leads into a cycle of poverty which the cult of redistribution gives. Though what concerns me is, once free speech is gone, there is only violence left. More on that soon; first the latest litany of proof.
I am always respectful when commenting on other blogs, yet my comments seldom make it past moderation on most Left-centric sites. I've not tried to comment on The Daily Blog for six or seven months, but over the weekend decided a comment was warranted on a post talking about what a disaster Peter Dunne's Psychoactive Substances Act is, because I agreed with it. That Act is a disaster from the toxic, psychosis forming sludge it legalises, to the barbaric animal testing it authorises. My point to the blog post was, however, that due to the nanny state mentality of all our governing parties, and central to the Left ethic, we are treated as children, hence non-toxic, harmless, medicinal, even, cannabis remains criminalised. That comment never made it past moderation.
My blog is not moderated because I believe absolutely in free speech. The Daily Blog has every right to moderate their blog, but once they start choosing who is allowed to comment, and what they're allowed to say, that begins saying more about them, than their blog's content. Once you start moderating you may as well simply switch off comments, as No Right Turn does, and then you can pretend you are the alpha to omega of truth, while ignoring the illusory truth of the free lunch.
And moderated blogs also undermine themselves, as Mark Steyn makes plain in the climate debate:
The fact that 'climate change' is not secure enough to tolerate dissent, helps explain why it's going nowhere.'
This is not a post on climate change, I'm not sure enough about the science either way, (or overly interested), but the manner in which the 'alarmist' camp are playing roughshod over free speech, is putting me firmly in the camp of the deniers, even if they're wrong, given free speech is far more important than man-made climate change, if that is, indeed, occurring. There certainly seems to be a new era of McCarthyism:
At the heart of the current, poisoned debate about global warming lies a paradox. Thanks to the ‘pause’, the unexpected plateau in world surface temperatures which has now lasted for 17 years, the science is less ‘settled’ than it has been for years.
Yet, despite this uncertainty, those who use it to justify a range of potentially ruinous energy policies have become ever more extreme in their pronouncements. Their latest campaign is an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.
This reached a new and baleful milestone last week, with a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee saying BBC editors must obtain special ‘clearance’ before interviewing climate ‘sceptics’.
Yes, that. The advocates of global warming, as with too much of the blinkered, conservative Left politick, need to grow up. And don't pretend some type of compassionate, moral superiority that gives you a right to run my life: the reality is far removed from that. Plus like Steyn, my mind remains, always, firmly onside of the free society: I'm a free speech absolutist, because the alternative is only violence:
I've always been in favor of freedom of expression, but lately I've become a free-speech absolutist. It takes all sorts to make a world and I've met a lot of them over the years, and I can stand pretty much anything anyone says about anything — until someone says to me, "You can't say that." At which point my inclination is to punch his lights out. I do this not just because I'm a violent psychopath with a hair-trigger temper, but to make the important point that in societies where you're not free to speak your mind — to argue and debate — the only way to express disagreement is through violence.