[Newsbot]

Title: Atwood's free-speech flop
Category: Political
Posted By: Bodah
Date: 2010-09-12 16:41:14
Canadian

[RUEZ]

Bingo

[Gunnair]

Hahahaha... bam.

[martin14]

[2Cdo]

I've said it many times before and this just reinforces what I think of the lunatic wing of the left. In their minds tolerance is to be applied only to what they already believe, anything outside their belief system is to be censored, banned and hate crime charges filed.

[Gunnair]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

I've said it many times before and this just reinforces what I think of the lunatic wing of the left. In their minds tolerance is to be applied only to what they already believe, anything outside their belief system is to be censored, banned and hate crime charges filed.

How about Lunatic Atwood? If everyone were to base their opinion on the actions of a few... well, the lunatic right would be in play a well.

[bootlegga]

Yea, one whacko denouncing another!

$1:

...will break the left-wing mainstream media consensus. That’s why the most left-wing journalists in the country despise it.

[sarcasm] Yeah, the Sun newspaper chain is just full of those filthy liberals! [/sarcasm]

Got any other tired phrases to trot out Ezra? Atwood may be an idiot, but Levant is neck in neck with her for sheer lunacy.

[Lemmy]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

I've said it many times before and this just reinforces what I think of the lunatic wing of the left. In their minds tolerance is to be applied only to what they already believe, anything outside their belief system is to be censored, banned and hate crime charges filed.

Come on! Historically, censorship and the chilling of free speech has come from the right MUCH moreso than from the left. Read a little on Larry Flynt, for example. But intolerance (of free speech or whatever) doesn't fall on the political spectrum. Atwood is a novelist. She's no different than Don Cherry or Pam Anderson or Angelina Jolie or any other celebrity with an axe to grind, errr, cause to promote. Wind-bag celebrities aren't to be taken seriously, regardless where they fall on the political spectrum.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Come on! Historically, censorship and the chilling of free speech has come from the right MUCH moreso than from the left.

That's right. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, all of them lions of the free speech movement.

[Lemmy]

Of course not, but clearly this discussion was about free-speech within the context of a democratic society. The lunatics you mention aren't real leftists anyway. Dictatorial behaviour isn't on the political spectrum either, regardless of the philosophy they pretend to espouse. Stalin was no more a communist than Milton Friedman was. Bringing up those clowns is really just a modified example of Godwin's Law. It's hyperbole to use extremes as examples when they're not really pertinent.

[ShepherdsDog]

They aren't extremists. These were the people in charge of the the world's communist societies. All modern "Communist/Marxist" governments are/were dictatorships, with the exception of the government Salvador Allende(Chile).

[Lemmy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

They aren't extremists. These were the people in charge of the the world's communist societies.

Sure they're extremists. They're extremists for being on the extreme of the political spectrum and they're extremists because of their civil rights records.

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

All communist societies are/were dictatorships.

Not really. There's never really been any communist societies. The so-called communist societies we think of, such as Stalin's USSR or Kim Jong Il's North Korea were fascist military dictatorships that SAID they were communist. They never really were though. They paid a lot of lip service to Lenin, but that's about where it ended. As I think about it, the closest attempt at a true communist society was likely Israel and the kibbutz system.