Some thoughts for the fanatics among us

[Moonbeam]

Right-Wing Activist Christopher Rufo Became the One Thing He Claims to Hate

In his new book, Rufo says he’s “laying siege” to leftist critical theory. But he flatters his opponents by imitating their pro-censorship methods.

www.thedailybeast.com

We become what we fear.

It’s hard to trust that the truth will out. Are you one of little faith?

 

[Jaskalas]

It’s hard to trust that the truth will out. Are you one of little faith?

What is this phrase, and the concept behind it?
"The truth will out".

Do we believe the truth will prevail? No, it will not. That was a notion among brothers who shared a common identity and a common purpose. Who believed in truth, reason, and logic. It is for peace between friends, to argue over trivialities and joyfully accept the outcome of civil discourse. Such sentiments were never going to last forever. Human nature is not one for seeking truth, we will take our comfort foods and gorge ourselves upon the lies. Examine religion and you will know the true modus operandi of humanity.

It is a delusion to believe we are any better than the Taliban.
Our institutions can be, but the people who comprise them are not any different.
Thus it will ever be our struggle to maintain our institutions against dark, intrusive, thoughts.

Hypocrisy be damned, these people have a righteous cause to pursue until whatever bitter end is necessary to secure power for themselves.

To that end, I too "become what we fear", in that I no longer believe America's institutions were ever built to withstand human nature. Not truly. We left ourselves open to populists, propaganda and worse. It is not illegal for a political party to openly declare elections a fraud or that we need second amendment solutions. There is no filter to ward against misinformation intended to harm us. Many of the actions taken to divide us and create inner conflict should be illegal. In that, I oppose our Bill of Rights as we currently view it.

While the ideals are sound, the implementations are not. The idea that you cannot "yell fire in the crowded theater" should be upheld, and expanded upon. Our people need a structured guidance to maintain civil discourse. To not fan the flames of our own division. This is not to outlaw disagreement, rather, we need to protect from violent conflict. And I only see that being possible if we maintain our bonds of fellowship. By becoming a stronger melting pot, by reaching out in education and using indoctrination to cement a search for truth. To teach critical thinking skills and to cast down misinformation and propaganda.

It is not free speech as we know it today, and for that I am sorry. But humanity has fallen far in my esteem, the happy childhood images shattered and replaced with the bitter history of humanity. To watch us slide backwards into a less civil society is a movement I would see corrected if we could. Not that I grant much hope to that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not that I grant much hope to that.

Do you believe that we are the world, that what we see is what be believe and that what we believe is programming we assume unconsciously to be true because to remember when and how we acquired those now unconscious assumptions would cause terrible pain?

If you do see that as a possibility would it not follow that what you see in your fellow human beings are just the products of their also unconscious programmed assumptions and that thus what you may never have seen, unaware that such people might exist, is a real authentic human being who is not a programmed believer but is something beyond your understanding, something you would also be absent your own assumptions?

 

[ivwshane]

What is this phrase, and the concept behind it?
"The truth will out".

Do we believe the truth will prevail? No, it will not. That was a notion among brothers who shared a common identity and a common purpose. Who believed in truth, reason, and logic. It is for peace between friends, to argue over trivialities and joyfully accept the outcome of civil discourse. Such sentiments were never going to last forever. Human nature is not one for seeking truth, we will take our comfort foods and gorge ourselves upon the lies. Examine religion and you will know the true modus operandi of humanity.

It is a delusion to believe we are any better than the Taliban.
Our institutions can be, but the people who comprise them are not any different.
Thus it will ever be our struggle to maintain our institutions against dark, intrusive, thoughts.

Hypocrisy be damned, these people have a righteous cause to pursue until whatever bitter end is necessary to secure power for themselves.

To that end, I too "become what we fear", in that I no longer believe America's institutions were ever built to withstand human nature. Not truly. We left ourselves open to populists, propaganda and worse. It is not illegal for a political party to openly declare elections a fraud or that we need second amendment solutions. There is no filter to ward against misinformation intended to harm us. Many of the actions taken to divide us and create inner conflict should be illegal. In that, I oppose our Bill of Rights as we currently view it.

While the ideals are sound, the implementations are not. The idea that you cannot "yell fire in the crowded theater" should be upheld, and expanded upon. Our people need a structured guidance to maintain civil discourse. To not fan the flames of our own division. This is not to outlaw disagreement, rather, we need to protect from violent conflict. And I only see that being possible if we maintain our bonds of fellowship. By becoming a stronger melting pot, by reaching out in education and using indoctrination to cement a search for truth. To teach critical thinking skills and to cast down misinformation and propaganda.

It is not free speech as we know it today, and for that I am sorry. But humanity has fallen far in my esteem, the happy childhood images shattered and replaced with the bitter history of humanity. To watch us slide backwards into a less civil society is a movement I would see corrected if we could. Not that I grant much hope to that.

I’m pretty sure I created a thread about it at one point but if we could amend the constitution with a “one wish granting” democracy fairy, how would you redo the first amendment so that the people, aka elected government would have the necessary tools to address your concerns while still being less likely to use those tools in a nefarious manner?