"Violent ideologies" is nonsense- speak, intellectual fraud, and the tell that one is being played for a fool.
Approximately everyone believes in an ideology which sanctions violence under some conditions. And that's actual physical forceful violence, not fake Orwellian """violence""".
If you get to pick and choose which violence-ideas get…
"Violent ideologies" is nonsense- speak, intellectual fraud, and the tell that one is being played for a fool.
Approximately everyone believes in an ideology which sanctions violence under some conditions. And that's actual physical forceful violence, not fake Orwellian """violence""".
If you get to pick and choose which violence-ideas get a pass and which get crushed then under such an illusory standard you can go after anyone for any reason at any time. Which, duh, that's what woke always does.
They include the great replacement theory in their list of violent ideologies. This is mainstream enough to have been discussed by Tucker Carlson. Whatever people think of it, it amounts to noticing the decline in white populations by percentage, primarily as a result of mass immigration policies. Observations anyone can make by reading demographic stats.
It is typically the Left making something of it, usually boasting about the decline of whites. Many minorities have done this too.
How do they get away with this? Do you think they actually believe these things are violent ideologies?
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.
"Violent ideologies" is nonsense- speak, intellectual fraud, and the tell that one is being played for a fool.
Approximately everyone believes in an ideology which sanctions violence under some conditions. And that's actual physical forceful violence, not fake Orwellian """violence""".
If you get to pick and choose which violence-ideas get a pass and which get crushed then under such an illusory standard you can go after anyone for any reason at any time. Which, duh, that's what woke always does.
They include the great replacement theory in their list of violent ideologies. This is mainstream enough to have been discussed by Tucker Carlson. Whatever people think of it, it amounts to noticing the decline in white populations by percentage, primarily as a result of mass immigration policies. Observations anyone can make by reading demographic stats.
It is typically the Left making something of it, usually boasting about the decline of whites. Many minorities have done this too.
How do they get away with this? Do you think they actually believe these things are violent ideologies?
It's all part of the political game. If there are categories that the law or a critical mass of socially influential people think are worthy of censoring, then people are going to try to exercise control by claiming to the maximum extent they can get away with that everything they don't like fits inside one of those categories, and everyone they don't like is bad and also worthy of penalty if they tolerate that stuff even in the slightest. There is literally no limit to how much people will distort the definitions of words to accomplish these goals so long as their reference social group allows them to get away with it.
If one is not going to be able to sustain a zero-rules policy then the trouble is finding a way to plant a flag at any other arbitrary point, anchored well enough to resist the inevitable constant pressure to give up yet more ground. The easiest way to do this is to outsource it, for example, to SCOTUS to be in accordance with first amendment law. Substack's statement brings Brandenburg to mind, and that's the hilltop that provides them with the strongest defensive position available.