Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Just a quick thought - inspired by a comment from @WBob on another thread (Bob, if I misrepresent your comment, please correct me - I can't find it right now...). In a recent post, I commented on Facebook censoring the adjacent picture, labeling it as "Violent and graphic." Bob commented on another thread of the tendency of Democrats to censor alternative viewpoints, rather than debating them.
But that made me wonder, how would Democrats debate a patriotic image?
They can't. And they know it. Which is just another example of one of my long-held opinions: Censorship is for those who KNOW they're wrong. If you suspect that you might be wrong, you argue and debate. But if you KNOW you're wrong, you censor. You know that your views are wrong, or evil, or destructive, or whatever. They're indefensible. So you don't defend them. At that point, all you can do is prevent any alternative viewpoints from being expressed. And accuse those who don't go along as being racist, or being climate deniers, or whatever. If you know you're wrong, there's nothing else you can do.
You may think that the desire of Democrats to suppress a pro-American image like that simply confirms the fact that Democrats are anti-American. Maybe so. But it doesn't matter. The details don't matter, here. This is yet another illustration of something much, MUCH more important.
The Democrats' open promotion of censorship tells you all you need to know. You don't even need to know what they're censoring. The topic doesn't matter. Just the fact that they seek to censor views with which they disagree - just that tells you that the Democrats are wrong.
And they know it.
Discussion (31)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Try applying this reasoning to the censorship of Holocaust denial.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Holocaust denial should not be censored. We need the opportunity to point and laugh at those who engage in it.
ETA: In the words of WFB, Jr., I'm not going to insult Jerry's intelligence by assuming he actually believes the things he says. Even if he insults ours.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
A corollary: That Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris won't appear in unscripted settings tells me she can't function in unscripted settings (and she and/or her handlers know she can't), which means she can't handle the types of interactions with world leaders that the president of the United States is expected to undertake.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
When was it ever censored in this country? All I can remember is those who denied the Holocaust occurred being regarded with the contempt they deserved.
Edit: I was in an ROTC class around the time of the Tet Offensive. The U. S. was catching Hell from everywhere and everyone and being compared to Nazis. I guess the instructors, who were mostly Vietnam veterans, and decorated ones at that, decided we kids should get a clue about what real evil is. They showed us the films of the opening of the death camps. Not all, of course, but enough to make the point, and enough to leave me with images that persist even today. They told us that those filming were told not to stop until the reels were exhausted so no one could accuse them of making edits. Eisenhower said it was necessary to document the horrors because "if we don't, someday some son-of-a-bitch will say it never happened."
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Oh, I'm not saying it was. Just pointing out why it shouldn't be.
You're seeing five of 31 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.