I don't think this whole ordeal threatens democracy itself. I think it more threatens certain people's cultures and lifestyles. After this is all over and we know where it's all going, these people will still be able to vote, hold office, have political beliefs etc., but a whole way of life will be irreparably damaged. Some would say that smut or erotica is crass and should be removed, and they certainly can think that, but that is certainly not a moral absolute. There are plenty of people who think that it's normal to view that kind of stuff.

Since the dawn of time people have been persecuting others because one belief system contradicts another, so there is no avoiding this kind of thing from happening, but I generally feel as if most if not all ideas should have a platform. Of course, Tumblr and Facebook feel differently, and nothing can stop that except for the destruction of the way of life of everyone who thinks that adult content doesn't belong there. We will all continue to live, but an idea dies when a decision like that is made, and who is to say that they're wrong? I feel as if we are going through the growing pains necessary to build a society that values what the more influential group of people want.

Do you remember Cointelpro? [COINTELPRO (Portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) (1956–1971) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.]

Your probably do, or heard about it at some point. Then there is the infiltration of the KKK, spying on Martin Luther King and other civil rights luminaries, hounding communists and homosexuals (McCarthy), etc. The feds have been quite willing to do all sorts of things in "the national interest". (I hope that last sentence doesn't lead anyone to think I am a conspiracy fan, since it's all historical).

Ah, no. I don't imagine the republic will collapse as a result of Tumblr's actions towards its large constituency of sexually explicit micro-bloggers.

What happens in democracies (it has happened here before) is that there are various bans which stick and people get used to bans. Then there are more bans. Another example of suppression: The union movement is not dead, but it is not doing well either. Why? Because a series of progressively more restrictive legislation by Congress and Legislatures have been limiting unions and hobbling their ability to organize. Unions and porn aren't related, except that suppression is achieved in much the same way -- continually tightening restrictions.

Now, the union movement is more important than NSFW microblogs, but the more ordinary individual's capacity to carry out executive agency are suppressed, the harder it is to maintain a healthy democracy.

Now, the union movement is more important than NSFW microblogs, but the more ordinary individual's capacity to carry out executive agency are suppressed, the harder it is to maintain a healthy democracy. — Bitter Crank

I think that it does perhaps damage democracy a bit. I just can't help but feel bad for all of the people being deplatformed. There are of course more places for them to go, but as you said, one restriction leads to another. I suppose it's just society's way of weeding out the ideas they don't like. Of course, what is a weed and what isn't falls to the individual. I just wish we weren't so hasty, lest we pull out something valuable and throw it away.

As odd as it may seem in a society long saturated with implicit and muted sexual imagery in advertising, where porn has been freely available since 1968 (it wasn't so freely available before then), a society where there is a steady business in commercial sex and drugs, where violence in various forms becomes background noise, sex is such a contentious matter.

Now, I realize there tends to be a pendulum swing in this sort of thing: There was very up-tight anxiety about sex in the 1950s, then sexual liberation in the 1960s, then gay liberation and women's liberation, Roe vs. Wade, and so on and so forth. Hell seemed to be popping out of the woodwork left and right. Then there was a reaction starting in the 1980s. Playboy and Penthouse covers needed to be put behind a plastic shield; Playboy was banned from college unions (at the behest of feminists); war on porn was declared; porn shops (with mostly straight, some gay content) were shut down where a rationale could be found; and so on. (The same thing happened in film production. In the early days of film, the boundaries were pushed. Then a reaction followed which imposed a code which forbade numerous rather ordinary sexual imagery and language.

Not just the Internet, but the invention of browsers led to a busting open of all sorts of new information sources, including porn. Over the course of 20 years it has brought us the blessings of Wikipedia, Google search, and so on. Plus Tumblr NSFW microblogs. Once again, the pendulum seems to be swinging back towards restriction.

The thing is, though, the pendulum doesn't swing automatically. It's pushed. Since Roe vs. Wade, conservative Catholics and Evangelicals have been remarkably persistent in opposing abortion; it has taken them 45 years to date to make abortion fairly hard to get in many places, if not outright illegal. Anti-sex anxiety attackers are involved in pendulum pushing too. Many feminists, some evangelicals, various up-tight 'family values' types, all combined have never been happy about liberalized social mores for sex.

The personnel may change over time, but there always seems to be opposing advocacy groups in favor of loosened mores, and other advocacy groups in favor of tightened mores.

The personnel may change over time, but there always seems to be opposing advocacy groups in favor of loosened mores, and other advocacy groups in favor of tightened mores. — Bitter Crank

I guess the question now is, where do we fit into this? I believe (well, hope) that someday these advocacy groups can live in peace. It won't happen soon, but I keep out hope that it can, and Philosophers may be able to help. Advocates for both major theories of sociology would probably argue that what leads to progress is these two sides pushing, but a man can dream, can't he?

All that aside, I believe you have a point. Democracy is damaged by restrictions like this, but the people who put those restrictions in place are usually ok with a less egalitarian society as long as they get their way, and I think it would be bold to say that Democracy is the only way to go for a free and functioning society. There are probably lots of ideas that we haven't tried yet. Democracy surely is the only form of government so far that respects freedoms, but I think to just stop there would be foolish. Our ideas trailblaze the future, and if we want a better future, I think we should start thinking one up.

What do you think a truly free form of government would be like or involve?

I just can't help but feel bad for all of the people being deplatformed. — TogetherTurtle

Yes, getting deplatformed is unpleasant. But, there is a long tradition of deplatforming which goes back before the concept of an internet platform had even been imagined. People the government considered extremists or activists in groups as dissimilar as the KKK, Socialist Workers Party, the 1960s Student Mobilization Against the War in Vietnam, the Communist Party USA, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (civil rights for blacks), and so on have always found themselves in the crosshairs of efforts to literally deplatform them, if not figuratively do it.

What do you think a truly free form of government would be like or involve? — TogetherTurtle

As Churchill said, Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time... (Apparently WC did not originate this statement. Didn't he also say that "Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried all the alternatives."?

Your question is utopian and I am a sucker for utopian fantasy. First, we would need to abandon capitalism as the world economic system. Capitalism isn't inherently anti-democratic, but it has no limits on its field of endeavor. It just tends to fuck things up. So, some kind of democratic industrial socialism would be a better replacement.

Under democratic industrial socialism economic decisions (which are often as not also political questions) would be made in a decentralized bottom up manner. There would be markets, because markets are the obvious method for people around the world to trade goods and services.

This system (imagined by Daniel DeLeon, founder of the American Socialist Labor Party, and others) contains elements of syndicalist anarchism (a combo of socialism and anarchism).

I am in favor of a quite liberal approach to personal and collective morals.

My vision has 0.0001% chance of ever coming to fruition, unless it turns out that God is a Socialist Labor Party member.

There would be markets, because markets are the obvious method for people around the world to trade goods and services. — Bitter Crank

At least to me, that just sounds like capitalism between socialist states.

It's an interesting discussion though. As you said, I am also a sucker for that kind of utopian fantasy. I try to stay away from politics mostly because it seems that not many people actually wish to discuss them, more indoctrinate.

Didn't he also say that "Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried all the alternatives."? — Bitter Crank

I believe he did. It is, of course, a bit ignorant of us to always seem to do that, but the statement itself reminds me a lot of the other European nations at the time that also thought they were right. Churchill has always been a strange figure to me. Bold in his words, and they were necessary for the time, but maybe not self-reflected.

I wish you would say more. I think privacy is very important. Do you disagree with that? I think feeling safe is important. Do you disagree with that? I think our relationships are much better when we share social agreements and feel like we can trust each other. Do you disagree with that? What would follow is discretion is important. Discretion, good manners, and respect. Not shoving a difference in someone's face is being respectful and that is conducive to feeling safe and having good relationships. Now who the other person is, doesn't matter because we show all people the same courtesy and respect. It doesn't matter who they are, because it is our behavior that matters. Doesn't that solve a lot of social problems? — Athena

I think that people tend to be irrational about privacy issues. Part of that is the degree to which people estimate that anyone is going to really be interested in their private lives.

Feeling safe is fine, but if that involves an aversion to difference, or if it involves people being hypersensitive and rather neurotic, then we have serious problems.

Re trusting each other, that's important in close relationships, of course, but I think it's just as important that we don't automatically trust others, especially not what they say. We put far too much weight on utterances/speech acts in general in my opinion.

I'm not at all a fan of etiquette or "good manners" for their own sake. I want people to be existentially authentic and to be able to accept difference.

I'm very pro-difference, pro everyone letting their freak flag fly, and pro being cool with others letting their freak flags fly, no matter how different they may be from your own, no matter how much you wouldn't choose the same things for yourself.

And respect needs to be earned.

What solves social problems is being cool with difference. Being laissez-faire. Not wanting to control others. I'm extremely against all types of social pressure in the direction of conformity.

I think we need to be careful with our words. Money is not a spirit. Our spirit can be generous or greedy, it can feel safe and bold or afraid and powerless, but money is money. Money has no feeling and cannot be spirit.

A lot happened in 1958. The Military Industrial Complex was embedded in our government. We replaced liberal education with education for technology. This meant the end of education for good moral judgment and transmitting the culture that is vital to empowering the people and liberty. The social, economic and political ramifications of this change are huge.

At least to me, that just sounds like capitalism between socialist states. — TogetherTurtle

In any society there has to be a system for exchanging goods and services. Markets are an ancient institution, whereas capitalism is a relatively recent system (last few hundred years). Socialism is also a recent development, more recent than capitalism. The essence of capitalism is not buying and selling; people have been doing that for several thousand years. Capitalism is a legal system creating corporations directed by boards of directors, selling shares, and existing to maximize profits for the shareholders. A market where a seller exchanges wool for lumber doesn't have to involve any of the essential capitalists features. A market (Target, Amazon) can be a capitalist corporation, but it doesn't need to be.

Churchill — TogetherTurtle

I haven't read a biography of Churchill, but my impression is that he was like Roosevelt: a consummate politician with a varied history.

I think that people tend to be irrational about privacy issues. Part of that is the degree to which people estimate that anyone is going to really be interested in their private lives.

Feeling safe is fine, but if that involves an aversion to difference, or if it involves people being hypersensitive and rather neurotic, then we have serious problems.

Re trusting each other, that's important in close relationships, of course, but I think it's just as important that we don't automatically trust others, especially not what they say. We put far too much weight on utterances/speech acts in general in my opinion.

I'm not at all a fan of etiquette or "good manners" for their own sake. I want people to be existentially authentic and to be able to accept difference.

I'm very pro-difference, pro everyone letting their freak flag fly, and pro being cool with others letting their freak flags fly, no matter how different they may be from your own, no matter how much you wouldn't choose the same things for yourself.

And respect needs to be earned.

What solves social problems is being cool with difference. Being laissez-faire. Not wanting to control others. I'm extremely against all types of social pressure in the direction of conformity. — Terrapin Station

Feeling safe will always involve an aversion to a difference, or a curiosity because we are primates. It is instinctive to detect sameness or difference. It is instinctive to need to know if this movement or object is a threat to us or not. We can overcome our fears by becoming familiar with the movement or object. That is having enough information to know the cause of the movement or what the object is and can do.

Our fear of the stranger is fundamental to our survival. Let us appreciate that and be respectful of it. Then we can make better judgments based on awareness of our survival need to know and that fear is our friend. Feeling bad about ourselves because we fear something or someone will not help. Apply reason, not blind prejudiced judgment.

Trusting each other is essential to commerce and the economy. Trump's power plays are crippling to the trust essential to good commerce and economic growth. I wish his playing board remained his private affair and had not become a public affair affecting international politics and economies. He is like the bully who brings the ball to the game and drives everyone home by insisting everyone play by his rules. Trust is very important to commerce and economics.

Can you follow the logic of respecting all people because we do so for the sake of being respectful? What happens when we respect another? What happens when we disrespect someone. Might we want one result and not the other? The Greeks understood moral as knowing universal law, (knowledge of how the universe works) and good manners. Practicing good manners for their own sake is vital to manifesting a better reality and avoiding so many of our human problems. Now it doesn't matter if the other has a different sexual orientation or is a different race or ethnicity. There is one rule that applies to all equally. :smile: We are equal and different. The world is a better place when we follow the rule and problems arise when we do not. Do you agree with that logic?

What is the benefit of being pro differences? I am sure there are some benefits but too much of a good thing is not good. What you say of being pro differences leads me to think of being on a small life raft in the middle of an ocean and having no idea which way to paddle to have a chance of surviving. Promoting differences and holding that respect has to be earned do not go together. That would be finding fault with someone who does not meet your idea of a person who earns respect, and that is not promoting differences.

What is being cool with differences if it is not being respectful? Telling me you think respect needs to be earned, does not go with "I'm extremely against all types of social pressure in the direction of conformity." Please check your logic.

In any society there has to be a system for exchanging goods and services. Markets are an ancient institution, whereas capitalism is a relatively recent system (last few hundred years). Socialism is also a recent development, more recent than capitalism. The essence of capitalism is not buying and selling; people have been doing that for several thousand years. Capitalism is a legal system creating corporations directed by boards of directors, selling shares, and existing to maximize profits for the shareholders. A market where a seller exchanges wool for lumber doesn't have to involve any of the essential capitalists features. A market (Target, Amazon) can be a capitalist corporation, but it doesn't need to be. — Bitter Crank

GOOD JOB! I love the way to cleaned up the popular misunderstanding. :up:

I don't want to keep doing long posts back and forth, so just one thing at a time.

Feeling safe will always involve an aversion to a difference, or a curiosity because we are primates. — Athena

A problem with this is that there are lots of people who don't feel unsafe just because of difference.

Feeling safe will always involve an aversion to a difference, or a curiosity because we are primates.
— Athena

A problem with this is that there are lots of people who don't feel unsafe just because of difference. — Terrapin Station

@Athena In general, I think primates, people, dogs, cattle, bees--all sorts of creatures--do have a strong tendency to be on guard around the stranger and the very different... whatever that is. It's not a pre-frontal feature, more of a gut reaction. Instinctive.

It isn't a bug; it's a feature, and a feature over which we can exercise some control. We don't have to kill the stranger, we can sample the different -- or not. Context matters immensely here. Alone on a dark night, strangers are more worrisome than they are in broad daylight. Strange food is safer in a highly rated restaurant than deciding whether to eat a strange plant in the jungle.

I'm not at all a fan of etiquette or "good manners" for their own sake. I want people to be existentially authentic and to be able to accept difference. — Terrapin Station

\\

Hear! hear!

I'm very pro-difference, pro everyone letting their freak flag fly, and pro being cool with others letting their freak flags fly, no matter how different they may be from your own, no matter how much you wouldn't choose the same things for yourself.

And respect needs to be earned.

What solves social problems is being cool with difference. Being laissez-faire. Not wanting to control others. I'm extremely against all types of social pressure in the direction of conformity. — Terrapin Station

I've been the weirdo non-conformist in many settings, so I get the importance of acceptance and authenticity. I'm fine with letting folks fly as freakish a flag as they feel like unfurling, as long as I don't have to live with, next to, or too close to them. Just as straight-arrow people ought to give freaks some room, freaks need to give straight-arrow types room too. We can be "cool with difference" and that is generally a good thing, but making "cool" mandatory seems like another oppressiveness.

In terms of freakishness, sometimes the inauthentic, straight-arrow conformist is actually more freakish than any whacked out weirdo could hope to be.

GOOD JOB! I love the way to cleaned up the popular misunderstanding. :up: — Athena

Sorry for misunderstanding at all. I haven't taken any classes on economics or looked into the writings of many capitalist or socialist advocates. I probably should, and may very well in the future. Again, sorry for misunderstanding at all, but from how Athena put it, it seems to be common, so at least I know that I may be mistaken now.

I think if I'm being honest, I like any idea of a Utopia, whether it be a Libertarian's lawless world or a Socialist's united one. I can't shake the feeling, however, those old world systems could never lead to a world where every last person is happy, (which I suppose would be the definition of a utopia). So to restate my question from earlier a bit more clearly, do you think that there could be a system of economy or administration that could lead to that? Something that doesn't need to be entirely new, but could probably benefit from a few new ideas. So I'm sort of asking you to theory craft your own new government using any ideas you like.

those old world systems could never lead to a world where every last person is happy, (which I suppose would be the definition of a utopia). So to restate my question from earlier a bit more clearly, do you think that there could be a system of economy or administration that could lead to that? — TogetherTurtle

Utopias have their attractions, but there is a hidden flaw in utopian schemes: Once everything is perfect, everything must stay perfect, and in order to stay perfect, everyone and everything must remain static. Life, given its chaotic nature, is disruptive and things don't stay static for long.

There are non-utopian schemes which might make people happy, but there is yet another problem: People are sometimes extremely unhappy despite themselves. Discontents, mental illnesses, physical ailments, injuries, and so on can leave people unhappy.

The best we can do is design a society where there is a good chance of most people being reasonably happy much of the time. Quite a few systems have achieved something of the sort. What do they have in common? (This is all pure speculation, you understand, prepared from notes written hurriedly on the cuff of my shirt sleeve.)

a) Social conditions are stable, but not rigidly fixed.
b) Social mobility (upward and downward) is possible.
c) Economic measures indicate steady growth with occasional recessions, but no booms or busts.
d) Population growth is at a moderate rate, in line with the economy
e) Public education is excellent, producing a literate, culturally capable population
f) There are no aggressive enemies
g) Government is efficient, honest, and effective
h) Religion tends to be tolerant, flexible and moderate in its demands
i) Industry is conducted on a socialist model, agriculture on a family farm model.
.....

You'll note an emphasis on stability, moderation, good government, excellence in education and 'liberal' religion. This is the sort of society that I think the largest number of people can be happy in. The conditions described are more likely to exist in an economy that is collectivist rather than highly competitive and acquisitive (which is what we have now).

Within this society there will still be unhappiness, but the causes should not issue from the nature of society itself. Our society tend to drive people crazy.

This will probably prove disappointing. It's not much of a utopia -- just something people could live with.

Discontents, mental illnesses, physical ailments, injuries, and so on can leave people unhappy. — Bitter Crank

I think one of the main things that makes a society utopian is access by all to cures for these kinds of things. So in my belief, a prerequisite for a utopia would be everyone fully having the capacity to be happy already, they may just not be at the moment due to factors other than their health.

I think that a stable structure like you describe is certainly good enough for now, but perfection should be pursued even if impossible because the more we try the closer we get. I also don't think it's the only stable structure. I may be seen slightly as a radical by some, (and of course, I would never do any of these things, I think they're horrible) but some cultures are simply ok with things that we would consider violations of human rights. Societies around the world and certainly in the future will include extreme social stratification, and in some parts of the world, that is considered fair. Of course, corruption happens, but I would assume socialist nations have had some history with corruption as well.

In nations and parts of the world where the values that socialism protects (equality between all economically and non-competitive economies) are wanted, people should certainly live that way. If people wish to live by the word of their god (regardless of whether you believe that their god is real or not, personally, I don't) or to create great wealth for themselves, I have a hard time telling them those are morally ambiguous goals. One man's trash is another man's treasure is essentially what I'm trying to get at here.

Could a world dominated by socialist economies exchanging goods work? Probably, and it would make socialists very happy, but what of everyone else? In a few generations, most people will probably have submitted, but there will still be holdouts. You would have to take them by force, and that sounds more dystopian than utopian to me. It's almost the same thing as our original subject here. Capitalists get deplatformed and a whole way of life is destroyed. Was that way of life good? To you, no, but to the small business owners and CEO's and the average man who wants to live above average means, it certainly was good. The poor will most likely agree with you, but that just seems like choosing one group over another.

I'm probably wrong. All I know is that this whole crazy world is full of even crazier people who think entirely differently with different values. Sometimes equality just isn't valued, and the only thing you can do about that is try to convince them, and if you can't, you have to live with that. They probably think you're just as wrong as you think they are. If a utopia were to come about, it would have to circumvent this entire problem as well as provide institutions that make people happy.

If you want to read a basic text about socialism, try The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. The first publication date was 1844, give or take 15 minutes. It's a short work, you can get it for free here at Marxists.org.

Capitalism has been vigorous and relentless in defense of free enterprise and capitalism, so many people in the industrialized west have no knowledge of what Marx and Engels were proposing. It is radical - absolutely, but it isn't utopian. It isn't a long text -- its a short booklet -- but even so there are passages that are not very relevant to the present moment.

For some people, revolutionary conflict would be utopia. There would be a great cause to fight for, a great enemy to fight against -- good vs. evil -- and revolution need not be a violent overthrow of the government. Most Marxists understand that trying to violently overthrow the American system would be a good way to get shot.

Daniel DeLeon, an American Marxist (late 19th, early 20th centuries) argued that IF democratic mechanisms were available, it made sense to use those mechanisms to overthrow capitalism. For Deleon revolution is political, not military. It involves intensive and extensive organization of unions, of political activity, disciplined voting in elections, and so forth.

For some people, revolutionary conflict would be utopia. There would be a great cause to fight for, a great enemy to fight against -- good vs. evil -- and revolution need not be a violent overthrow of the government. — Bitter Crank

I suppose that's true. I'll look into more reading about this and maybe we can discuss it some day. For me at least, a utopia would have to be a society in which no ideas are suppressed, so I guess the million dollar question is how to do that. I'll think on that and I hope you do too. Other than that, I have nothing else to say. Thanks for the resources, I hope you have a great day.

but making "cool" mandatory seems like another oppressiveness. — Bitter Crank

The way it needs to be mandatory and oppressive is in there being not only no laws against difference, but not control via social pressure, either.

What is the problem with knowing it is our nature to be on guard when in the presence of a stranger? I thought understanding human nature was always a good thing. What is the problem with that?

What is the problem with knowing it is our nature to be on guard when in the presence of a stranger? I thought understanding human nature was always a good thing. What is the problem with that? — Athena

The reason you'd be relatively on your guard when in the presence of a stranger doesn't have anything to do with difference--maybe the stranger looks, dresses, acts, etc. just like you, apparently has the same tastes and interests as you, and so on. The reason to be relatively on your guard (I say "relatively" because you don't need to categorically be too on-guard, there are other factors here) is that you don't know the person yet, you don't know whether you can trust them, you don't know that they might not be trying to scam you somehow, etc.

I think what you said is excellent and I want to add to this the importance of liberty and an organization that empowers the people, democracy.

Liberty is not the freedom to do anything we please, but the freedom to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong. This goes with an understanding of morals as a matter of cause and effect, and it requires training for logic. It is not basing our decisions on our feelings but on reason.

Freedom does not imply good moral judgment. Freedom is doing whatever we feel like doing at the moment and it can be disastrous. I think we are in moral crisis because we think about freedom and not our responsibility to use our freedom wisely.

Empowering people who run on emotion and false beliefs is not a real good idea. On the other hand tyranny is an even worse idea, no matter how well-intentioned the tyrant is. The problem with tyrants is not if they have good or bad intentions, but human judgement is better when everyone participates in the decision making. The collective mind is superior to the mind of a few. But here things can get a little dicey. An emotionally driven mob, surely is not to be desired! Steps must be taken for the mass to have both power and good reasoning.

Two reasons for having liberty and democracy are-

1, the collective mind holds more information
2. people obey the laws when they believe they hold the responsibility for those laws. When it is their laws, they want to protect them. When they feel responsible for the laws, they take steps to change laws when they believe they need changing.

This is totally different from religion with rules given by a God and demanding only obedience of the people, not reasoning. Mans' laws are changeable. God's laws are not changeable. At least not until God sends us a new prophet who can correct the misunderstanding of what the last prophet said. :lol: In short the Christian bible does not give us a good explanation of democracy. It talks a lot about being obedient and not thinking too much and then we elect presidents who do not think too much but we hope will do the will of God. This is difficult because Christians have so much control of our country and the religion is not good for liberty and democracy. Obviously, we can not have rule by reason when Christians dominate. That leads to destroying liberty and democracy especially when public education stops preparing the young for liberty and democracy.

One more thing, judging human nature that has been denominated by believers in the God of Abrahman is like Fraud's belief that women envy men's penises. The truth is distorted by cultural exclusion, and not knowing of humans outside the culture. Religions give us a biased point of view.

Freedom of speech is one of our most important freedoms and we need to protect it even when someone is saying something we do not like. It is the principle that must be protected, and I will say only when get rid of religion will we return to the principles of democracy. Because religion is relying on the will of a God and democracy is relying on rule by reason.

Only highly moral people can have liberty, and it is reason that brings us to highest morality, not religion. But we have lost this reasoning because in 1958 we dropped education for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church. Now we are in a real mess and our most threatening enemy is ourselves.

In 1917 teachers were very proud of what their education for democracy had to do with the increasing powers of the unions. Farmers had granges so they could also have shared benefits. Parents had far more control of education than government, through personal contact with the schools and PTA and socializing with each other and going to town hall meetings.

The power of Christianity was manifested out of the strength of its organiation. Secular organizations have tended to be weak and without education for democracy, they are being disseminated. It was a terrible decision to end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church. Our liberty and democracy are being destroyed as the Military Industrial Complex is swallowing up the rather weak secular orgainzation we had. (I am testing this bold statement. If you think me wrong please say so.) Bottom line is democracy needs unions or better yet, replace autocratic industry with the democratic model.

Can we please with begin with the science of our nature? From birth, we are programmed to recognize sameness and differences. Research determined at birth the baby can distinguish between the parent's language and a foreign language. I believe we need to be aware of this programming and from there develop our concepts of truth.

Obviously, culture has a lot to do with our ability to trust others and I that is why I am making my arguments. We had a culture that encouraged trusting each other and we are rapidly destroying our past reality of privacy and trust. In the 1950s I lived in Hollywood, California and we did not lock our doors and we did not live in fear. Today I wouldn't even drive through Hollywood without locking my car doors and there is no way I would attempt to live there. Hollywood is a hell hole compared to when we could ride a trolley to the beach. Trust is not just about how fearful or courage we are. It is also about the world around us.

I distinctly choose to be with people my own age, because I share values with these people, and life experiences that make it easier for us to understand each other, It is more pleasant for me to engage with people like me. Here sameness means feeling comfortable and it requires less energy. I would love to travel around the world and experience people of different cultures, and I eagerly engage with people from other countries. I love differences but in my day to day life, I want what is familiar and comfortable.

I have said it is important to respect everyone, but trust is something that must be earned. A good con person will appear to be like me, knowing that will lead to me being trusting. It is just our nature. However, today it is foolish to be trusting without knowing the other. Brand name companies have shot themselves in the foot by having their products made in China and then marketing a product that is far inferior to the standard we expected from these companies. And then there are the jerks who tried to run on the good name of Windows, who scammed us. When the bottom line is money, morality can go down the toilet, and today we have created a very untrusting reality. The rip off artist in foreign countries have increased our distrust of strangers. The management company that took over the apartments where I live has caused people to move out because they can not be trusted for anything but gorging more and more money from us. In the long run, people who have made money the bottom line will pay for that. Perhaps our whole nation will pay for that as we come to believe no one can be trusted. This is very destructive to even very large and powerful nations.

Can we please with begin with the science of our nature? — Athena

"Our nature" is every way that any human is or can be. And part of that is that we don't have to feel unsafe due to difference. It's incorrect to say, as a universal generalization, that we don't feel safe around difference. And as I explained but you're not really acknowledging. for many people that's not why we're cautious around strangers. Maybe for some people it's why they're cautious around strangers, but that would probably just amount to some sort of bigotry/prejudice.

Governments which pay the bills of news sources may have a degree of influence over them, you see. Just as governments may have a degree of influence over Facebook or Google for other reasons. I tend to be suspicious of any government influence. — Ciceronianus the White

That's not even comparable. Assume there's direct control over what TeleSur puts out and what the Venezuelan government demands of them. Great, now how is that at all comparable to governments having near unhindered success at making private entities hide or remove content they don't like based on political reasons (e.g. revealing government corruption and malpractice)? It isn't comparable. You're comparing suspicions you have about one entity reporting a certain way, with a certain slant, and on the other hand engaging in censorship and widespread PR for the government.

I understand you don't want to focus on legality. For my part, I don't see the point of merely expressing outrage. Addressing legal remedies and advocating them may be useful, though less satisfying. — Ciceronianus the White

The reason I don't want to focus on legality is because even if it is illegal, it's clearly not stopping the government from doing so. And besides which, the people who often support this reveal themselves to not actuall care about free speech because they're cool with Jones type loons being negatively affected, and they get up in arms when it goes the other way. If I say "Isn't this wrong?" the answer shouldn't amount to "Well it's legal".

I believe that free speech is important, but some people just don't. A lot of the time people see progress as a straight line, and never consider at all that there could be some truth in different ways. At the end of the day, even though I don't believe in God, I can't say that he isn't real any more certainly than a devout person can say that he is. Free speech and expression help to reach the end that is a society where all views are at least given a platform, but in practice, people use those rights to deplatform their rivals and that sort of defeats the purpose of free speech. It's a tricky situation, but also a problem worth solving.

As for the power of Christianity, as far as I was aware it has been a huge part of American and western culture for hundreds of years. I may be mistaken, but it seems like up until 1958 schools did teach morals, but they were Christian morals, which kind of defeats the purpose of mentioning how they stopped teaching them in an argument against Christians themselves. I would imagine that a lot of moral positions you hold are also ones the church held, (The Ten Commandments and such. Of course maybe not all of those, but for the western world they seem to be the starting point for most senses of morality.) and those were probably taught in schools. Of course, some things the Bible says (Like stoning homosexuals and women being traded almost as property) are certainly bad, (at least today) and I don't disagree with that. So overall, I don't think everything religion teaches is good, or accurate, but they are certainly a useful institution that has had power for a long time and is worth keeping around if for nothing else as a sort of "devil's advocate" (ironically) for an increasingly Atheistic society.

I think my position is something close to pacifism in a political and moral way. There is no universal answer key telling us what is right or wrong, true or false, so hurting others emotionally or physically for holding a view is a risky venture at best. (Of course, I assume you don't do those things, but some people certainly do.) So I don't think the church should be the primary source for moral teachings to the general populace, but I don't think secular organizations in schools should be either. Isn't the most egalitarian way to give both a platform and let the people decide from there? What about the other organizations that have strong moral views? I don't see why they are any more right or wrong than the two mentioned before, so they should have platforms to discuss too. Ideally, society would be governed (at least in the context of morality) by the majority group out of all of those, or by none at all, each acting as sort of guiding hand to those who wish to learn their ways and then apply those.

Our liberty and democracy are being destroyed as the Military Industrial Complex is swallowing up the rather weak secular organization we had. (I am testing this bold statement. If you think me wrong please say so.) — Athena

Hell if I know. From personal experience, I can tell you that at least where I live, Atheistic ideas and institutions have never really held power. The only reason I ever learned about the concept was a book about the Bill of Rights I read when I was in 5th grade. I grew up around people who thought I was a freak for not believing in God, and for a time I thought that they shouldn't be able to speak their mind because they didn't think rationally, but as I got older I questioned rationality itself. How can we be sure we are correct when our brains forget things and make up new things all the time? It is my belief now at least that a fundamental part of the human experience is not knowing the truth. I find it hard to think that I am above my friends and neighbors and family when I don't even know if I'm right after all.

As for a Military Industrial Complex, maybe. We have been militaristic almost as long as we've been religious, so it would be hard for me to say without looking into it more.