If there's one thing that the radical left, which has been gaining immense sociopolitical power in the past decade, as made quite clear is that there's no limit to how extreme they are willing to go in their views and opinions, no matter how outrageous they may have sounded just a mere few years earlier. The pattern is always the same: They start with more minor and mostly non-controversial claims, and when society starts listening to them, they get more and more emboldened and start taking those claims more and more towards the ridiculous extreme.
That's how they have gone, for example, from a simple "we shouldn't make fun of fat people" to "being obese is healthy and has no health risks", and from a simple "people should not be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation" to "as an indisputable scientific fact, biological sex does not exist".
There are, of course, many steps between those two extremes. Many of these mid-point positions often consist of Orwellian doublethink, where two opposing and contradictory views are being held at the same time.
When it comes to the concepts of free speech and democracy, the main body of the radical left is currently mostly at this kind of mid-point.
When it comes to free speech, the current majority consensus among the left is "free speech is important, and we support it, BUT" (and that's quite an important but) "free speech needs to be restricted in order to protect it." They have this Orwellian notion that free speech being "too free" is actually hindering free speech, because it "silences minority voices" (or whatever BS), and thus, still in a rather Orwellian doublethink way, free speech needs to be restricted in order to ensure free speech.
Likewise when it comes to democracy, the majority narrative is very similar: They are still pretending that their actions exist "to protect democracy", and that people need to be restricted in order to do so, and that too much freedom is "a threat to democracy". For example, elected officials of the wrong political opinions need to be removed from office because, even though they were elected by the people, they are a threat to democracy. The people's vote needs to be circumvented and annulled in order to "protect democracy". (It doesn't matter how contradictory and self-defeating that sentiment is.)
My prediction is that this is just a temporary phase, like with everything else in the far left narrative: For a time they pretend to care about the concept, often trying to still argue for the actions that undermine it with the pretense of "protecting" it, but as time passes and they get more power and get emboldened, they will just drop all pretenses and simply start opposing those things outright, rather than pretending to support them.
I thus predict that in the near future the far left, including politicians, academics, journalists, and all other kinds of far-left influencers, will start directly and blatantly speaking against free speech and democracy, and argue that they should be ended outright.
After all, free speech allows people to present the wrong opinions, and democracy allows people to vote for the wrong people. Thus, logically, they are bad and should be ended. We don't need either free speech nor democracy in the future socialist utopia.
That's how they have gone, for example, from a simple "we shouldn't make fun of fat people" to "being obese is healthy and has no health risks", and from a simple "people should not be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation" to "as an indisputable scientific fact, biological sex does not exist".
There are, of course, many steps between those two extremes. Many of these mid-point positions often consist of Orwellian doublethink, where two opposing and contradictory views are being held at the same time.
When it comes to the concepts of free speech and democracy, the main body of the radical left is currently mostly at this kind of mid-point.
When it comes to free speech, the current majority consensus among the left is "free speech is important, and we support it, BUT" (and that's quite an important but) "free speech needs to be restricted in order to protect it." They have this Orwellian notion that free speech being "too free" is actually hindering free speech, because it "silences minority voices" (or whatever BS), and thus, still in a rather Orwellian doublethink way, free speech needs to be restricted in order to ensure free speech.
Likewise when it comes to democracy, the majority narrative is very similar: They are still pretending that their actions exist "to protect democracy", and that people need to be restricted in order to do so, and that too much freedom is "a threat to democracy". For example, elected officials of the wrong political opinions need to be removed from office because, even though they were elected by the people, they are a threat to democracy. The people's vote needs to be circumvented and annulled in order to "protect democracy". (It doesn't matter how contradictory and self-defeating that sentiment is.)
My prediction is that this is just a temporary phase, like with everything else in the far left narrative: For a time they pretend to care about the concept, often trying to still argue for the actions that undermine it with the pretense of "protecting" it, but as time passes and they get more power and get emboldened, they will just drop all pretenses and simply start opposing those things outright, rather than pretending to support them.
I thus predict that in the near future the far left, including politicians, academics, journalists, and all other kinds of far-left influencers, will start directly and blatantly speaking against free speech and democracy, and argue that they should be ended outright.
After all, free speech allows people to present the wrong opinions, and democracy allows people to vote for the wrong people. Thus, logically, they are bad and should be ended. We don't need either free speech nor democracy in the future socialist utopia.
Comments
Post a Comment