Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Over/Under on How Many Fascists It Takes To Destroy America?
Tucker Carlson has a powerful commentary reviewing how many people have lost their jobs or otherwise suffered personally and financially for the simple act of expressing an opinion that does not pass muster with the corporate political correctness police in Silicon Valley. He challenged Trump to make First Amendment protection a high priority of the Justice Department. He asked the rhetorical question regarding how the Holder Justice Department would have reacted to actions by Silicon Valley against an Obama supporter?
Carlson’s commentary underscored a toothless Trump Administration (press assertions of persecution notwithstanding) when it comes to the First Amendment rights of his supporters or just even free thinkers or Christian believers. Carlson questioned that if Trump cannot make those who voted for him feel that their personal liberties are more secure in 2020 due to his Presidency, then should he be President in 2021?
This highlights how strong fascism has become in our culture. And yet I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans do not want this. So my question then becomes: How many fascists does it take to destroy America?
Published in General
What does this have to do with people who have “lost their jobs or otherwise suffered personally and financially for the simple act of expressing an opinion that does not pass muster with the corporate political correctness police in Silicon Valley?“
When did political statements gain protected class status?
If they had such protection, it would be statutory not constitutional.
Again, I thought all speech was protected.
From government not private consequences.
Rodin, I missed the show you posted and am glad you mentioned it here.
I like Tucker more than any other voice currently on TV. He remains true to his own individual beliefs, including opposition to a bloated military budget, as well as apparently endless never-winnable wars, and other philosophies not currently held by the dictates of Prime Time TV and the Corporate Overlords who want all opinion makers to conform to their needs.
So here is a question that centers on a concrete example: let’s say you have children who grow up with decent educations in computer science and other technological fields of study like AI.
Like you, they hold firm to conservative beliefs and principles. When they send their job applications and resumes out, they get nowhere in terms of being hired, due to the fact that over their lives, they have made their political philosophy known on social media such as facebook and ricochet.
In this day and age, HR people search out such social media sites to determine the background of job applicants. (If you want to envision totalitarianism, it is rampantly well established inside the tech firms.)
Your children never seem to get jobs inside the well paying technology firms, be they located inside Silicon Valley or Austin Texas. Would you end up feeling differently about what you just posted, if this totalitarianism, which you seem somehow to miss, affected your family in this manner?
Wait a second. All political speech is protected from the government, but civil rights law which can be enforced through the government, does not allow, for example, a Hindu to not be hired because of his religion, or to be fired for his religion, or to be fired for the faithful living according to his religion, such as in its simplest forms, thinking about it, talking about it, and in other benign ways acting upon it.
It’s against the law for anyone to discriminate based on ones creed, or religion. Theft, for example, in prohibited in my spiritual conscience and my so-called religion, and if I say so, this is a function of my religion and my creed, it is protected from both being fired for saying it, and from being refused service in a business, say a diner, for saying it.
Are you writing here that my understanding is wrong in this?
Yes, anti-discrimination laws prohibit private entities from making hiring and service decisions on certain defined basis, normally membership in a protected class. Political statements are not covered by such laws.
Tell that to the conservative voices who have been de-monetized on youtube, and censored on Facebook or twitter.
Because the government (more state governments) absolutely jump in to protect leftists.
Also, it is axiomatic that government can’t contract out discrimination.
That’s right, 7/350 is hardly enough agents to matter if they’re distributed randomly throughout the population. If, however, that concentration were found within the highly connected subset of media and political actors then I think it’d be enough to destabilize the whole.
I’m glad to (be able to) hear it. Isn’t despair awful, just the worst state imaginable?
Is punishing (or otherwise influencing or controlling) corporations fascism if it’s not the government that does it? I think we need to take as much of this load as possible out of the realm of government and into private hands.
For example?
Seven million bombers inside the US. That is a lot. I was just here on Ricochet directed to a review of Days or Rage, in it read:
And this was just a couple handfuls of people. And then regarding mixtures and weighting, this network happened to be at first unknowingly and then knowingly supported financially and legally by the a major US church denomination.
Seven million indeed.
Um, just for the readers here and for the NSA, just so you know, I was kidding. I was trying to be light-hearted and jovial in a sense. I’ve never died and come back. But yes, despair is certainly awful, especially when you really are stuck in something that you can’t get out of. But no, as for myself, I never really committed suicide.
I wasn’t thinking about 7 million literal bomb throwers, just garden variety leftist/fascists. But I note that even with that level of extreme behavior (300 bombings in one large city) the PR separatists didn’t move the Overton window. But consider what a similar number of agents can do today, from within the media and political apparat, without even having to handle explosives.
Well, dedicated leftists, anarchists. Seven million is high, of course. But when you consider a network of only a few thousand bombers, that’s still enough to bring the US to — what? — a stand still? Fear? Third-worldism?
I guess in that situation we would want the government looking over everyone’s shoulder.
I think we could actually have a huge number of active bomb throwers and yet maintain stability, if the media and political actors kept their stuff together. I think what began as a relatively small number of active fascists within the media and government has metastasized into something that has already decimated the core of major cities, is in the process of importing an illiterate and decidedly un-American sub-population, and will if unchecked lead to people like me being herded into camps.
The last thing we need is the (feral) government looking over us.
I never thought of it that way. But you’re right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gO7uemm6Yo
Brings on many changes. Can’t help it, I always giggle at that. The song is appropriate to societies as well as individuals.
My uncle, who has a master’s degree in electrical engineering, once worked for a large corporation and didn’t like the way they ran their business.
So, he started his own small business and has made millions and millions of dollars.
That, I think, is the solution. Don’t rely on the Left to write your paycheck.
I’m not sure that applies when a company essentially has a monopoly on free speech, especially when that company receives certain benefits from the government.
Most states have free speech requirements too. I believe that Prager University just filed a lawsuit against Youtube/Google in state court. “Attorneys for Prager said they filed the second suit at the state level on the recommendation of the federal judge in the first case.”
Is a company allowed to bar certain groups from speaking on their platforms? Blacks, conservatives, gays, Christians, Muslims, etc. Only the Left-leaning groups?
…
I’m more worried about that California vote harvesting scheme.
Once the vote is corrupted there is no going back.
Yes, that’s been a big concern of mine, too. What are we going to do? Ask Jimmy Carter to come and oversee our American election process? Are we going to be another third-world despotic regime in which all elections are won by a landslide for the ruling party? Are we going to start having national holidays for government employees to march down 5th Avenue and Hollywood Blvd (I’m assuming it’s as big a thoroughfare as its famous name suggests) carrying signs for the PRI?
I think it is a healthy reminder that Rand Paul has survived 2 assassination attempts.
And its new self-designated sanctuary state status. Is there no way of expelling a State, which has surrendered its legal legitimacy, from the Union?
Maybe. It may all depend on how creative one is. See my #9 above. I recall a time not that long ago when sexual orientation was not considered the equivalent of “sex” for purposes of antidiscrimination laws. That’s changing. Our friends on the left have been extremely good at expanding the reach of certain laws to go where they’d like. It can take time and effort, but you have to start somewhere.
Well, the Congress could decide to prevent their senators and representatives from taking their seats. If there was real fraud and the Republicans had guts (ha!), that would fix things quickly.
In most cases, statutes have been amended to include sexual orientation.
I understand your point, but, for the record, those are state laws covering similar ground. Such an amendment to federal law died in Congress, so the move began to “reinterpret” existing law. In many cases, accepted theories are made by advocates, not born in the legislature.
And in those cases, conservatives oppose the change on principle.