Coronavirus General Discussion

[Maddy]

In an unrelated matter, I found myself on urbandictionary today for a different reason. Underneath the word I was looking for (don't ask) it literally said the following:

JUL 21 WORD OF THE DAY

Karen

(2nd example)

Karen refuses to wear a face mask for her 5 minute trip to the supermarket during a pandemic. She harasses the workers, asks to see the manager and threatens to sue."

Anyways, it got me thinking about Doodle's comment, Maddy's reaction, etc.

Maddy basically told a story that was the exact example of the word Doodle used. Then everyone else basically said Doodle was bad. This had me scratching my head a little bit.

I get that nobody likes labels. But her story was literally the definition. I can't even blame Doodle for his response as I see it as a very natural and human reply.

The typical "screaming Karen" puts on a hysterical show out of a personality-disordered desire to manipulate. These, typically, are the people that go into a cosmetologist's office in full transvestite garb and demand that their balls be shaven. They're the ones that go out of their way to force a Christian bakery to design a cake for a gay wedding when any one of thirty other bakers would have gladly obliged. They're the ones that run around the beach with a 6-foot tape measure screeching about social distancing and ultimately needing to be restrained and then carried off.

They do it out of a desire to control other people, which is why the term came into being to describe the penchant of authoritarian progressives to dictate, right down to the last detail, what other people should do and how they should think.

The situation I described was anything of the sort. It was grounded in law, pursued in a rational, respectful (albeit firm) manner, and motivated by my view that we're dealing with a flatly unconstitutional mandate and on the verge of losing our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. It's one of many ways in which I have communicated the message, "I will not comply" and stood up to those businesses who have been all too willing to be used as the enforcement arm of a tyrannical state. As a constitutional conservative with a strong libertarian bent, I have no interest in dictating how other people should live--unlike Doodle, who has gained a reputation for going out of his way to pick fights with the more right-leaning members of this forum, becoming emotionally upset to the point of hurling personal insults, and then stomping off in a huff.

It hardly comes as a surprise that the Urban Dictionary--whose essential mission is to define the language of leftist culture--is going to provide an example that makes a mockery of conservatives on the very issues that most resonate with that group. And, just as Alinsky taught, to do it in a way that projects onto their opposition of the very thing they're doing.

Doodle's comment was meant as an insult to someone whose opinions he simply cannot tolerate--nothing more, nothing less.

[Cortopassi]

I cannot imagine the uproar that would happen if seatbelt laws were being put in place now, vs. 30 years ago, with the internet and social media and so much conspiracy hyped on everything.

It would be the goddamned end of the world, taking away my freedoms and all. Those elites ain't gonna tell me what to do. There'd be protests and rioting. If I want to fly out my damn window during a crash, it is my right. I can't breathe with that belt across my chest. What if I drive into a lake and can't get it off? The belt will kill me!

Is it really that far gone, people? Don't you think in the next 6-12 months a vaccine and theraputics will improve/be available and things will get reasonably back to normal? How do people out of work not producing and not buying things help the "elites?"

Did you lose freedoms/stop flying because of the 9/11 3oz limits and taking off shoes rules? Is it a pain in the ass? Sure. Is it really impinging on your freedoms? And many have been rolled back.

Do you still have your guns? Yep. Are they a little more difficult to get? Maybe. Shouldn't they be? I know in this group that's a big no, but I think at least a check of your background is a small price to pay. Can I go to Walmart right now and buy ammo? Yes.

Am I being spied on while I surf the internet and walk around? Sure. And tell me how that affects my freedoms. I can always pull the plug. And my life is pretty boring.

I'm trying to think of a crucial freedom I lost in my 53 years of life. Help me out. I can't think of one that makes much difference?

Hell, I can even buy pot now! Maybe that's an elite plot to get my mind to turn to mush so I'll do what they say.

Anyway, I know this falls on mostly deaf ears. I have multiple intelligent friends who subscribe to the whole Q / pedophile / Marxist elites / sealed indictments, etc stuff, and it all, always, just seems to never materialize. C'mon, where are the indictments, the rounding up of those thousands of pedophiles? Is it next month? I thought it was supposed to be in May?

John DeLancie, the original Q, would not be proud.

I am amazed at the human ability to believe conspiracies so easily.

I've enjoyed not posting for a day and a half, but just wanted to get this out there.

Is it really that far gone, people? Don't you think in the next 6-12 months a vaccine and theraputics will improve/be available and things will get reasonably back to normal? How do people out of work not producing and not buying things help the "elites?"

depressing the economy to win an election?... wasn't this all supposed to only be a few weeks to flatten the curve? (which we seem to have done) don't we have riots in the streets already? seems like its not the freedom loving Americans rioting for rights and liberty, but the Marxists rioting to cause chaos and destroy history,

you don't need to be a conspiracy follower to know that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." or has Winston smith already deleted that bit of our past

[Mountaineer]

Corto,

Where is your data to back up your assertions? (Just kidding, I needed an intro for this.)

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/160 ... SQw3w.jpeg

[shekels]

I'm trying to think of a crucial freedom I lost in my 53 years of life. Help me out. I can't think of one that makes much difference?

Where do you draw the line?
In your 53 years you have seen changes (Yes)
So did your parents.
Your children will see freedoms they lose. (no big deal right)
But the question to ask is not what have you lost in 53 years, But what freedoms has the U.S. lost in 200 years.

[WiseOne]

Remember the discussion about what would happen if schools don't reopen? Well, it seems my idea about families getting together to create their own mini-schools is not so weird after all. Below are responses to the WSJ's daily question. The authors are careful to protect themselves with virtue signaling phraseology, as some of these activities could get the participants arrested, but there are several good ideas here for forum members with kids. Intriguing idea to hire furloughed teachers.

If schools continue to stay shut, they could find themselves permanently sidelined if alternatives like this start to really take off. This could kill teacher's unions, too.

Today’s Question and Answer

In response to our question about making remote learning work for your family if children can’t go to school in person this fall:

Roy Farrow, Nevada
My daughters have formed a “safe” group of families, and they rotate homes for homeschooling. The public-school remote learning in their area was a flop last school year, and although nonunion schools beckoned, cost and convenience were a deterrence.

Marisa Palmer, Wisconsin
When the virus first hit we hired two pre-school teachers who were furloughed and they ran part-time preschool out of our neighbor's basement. It was wonderful! Our kids continued learning and socializing. The teachers enjoyed the opportunity to earn money and continue to engage with students. We kept the circle tight so as not to introduce the virus. The pre-school eventually reopened and we were able to send our kids back to school (and the teachers returned, too). But I would highly recommend this set-up.

Michael Duffy, New York
As a parent of two young children, I have been relying on outdoor-only childcare from people in walking or biking distance to our neighborhood (no public transportation). We've hired college students who are largely available due to the pandemic. It works well for everyone.

[jalanlong]

Am I being spied on while I surf the internet and walk around? Sure. And tell me how that affects my freedoms. I can always pull the plug. And my life is pretty boring.

I think for me the difference is that I do not trust the government to stop where you apparently think they will. Right now perhaps they are only spying on you to look for terrorists. But do you not see how under the right circumstances that could change?

Democrat Frederica Wilson in Florida said last year that people who make fun of members of Congress online should be "prosecuted."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1146143587811258370

So you really cannot envision a scenario where if you say the "wrong" thing on your phone or computer that you could run afoul of the authorities? It just doesn't seem like a huge leap for me. I believe a surprisingly large amount of Americans would probably support such a policy right now actually.

[Cortopassi]

Am I being spied on while I surf the internet and walk around? Sure. And tell me how that affects my freedoms. I can always pull the plug. And my life is pretty boring.

I think for me the difference is that I do not trust the government to stop where you apparently think they will. Right now perhaps they are only spying on you to look for terrorists. But do you not see how under the right circumstances that could change?

Democrat Frederica Wilson in Florida said last year that people who make fun of members of Congress online should be "prosecuted."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1146143587811258370

So you really cannot envision a scenario where if you say the "wrong" thing on your phone or computer that you could run afoul of the authorities? It just doesn't seem like a huge leap for me. I believe a surprisingly large amount of Americans would probably support such a policy right now actually.

But... and this doesn't belong in this topic anymore... didn't Trump as well say there should be jail time for burning the flag? Is that an ok freedom to be lost?

[Maddy]

I cannot imagine the uproar that would happen if seatbelt laws were being put in place now, vs. 30 years ago, with the internet and social media and so much conspiracy hyped on everything.

It would be the goddamned end of the world, taking away my freedoms and all. Those elites ain't gonna tell me what to do. There'd be protests and rioting. If I want to fly out my damn window during a crash, it is my right. I can't breathe with that belt across my chest. What if I drive into a lake and can't get it off? The belt will kill me!

Is it really that far gone, people? Don't you think in the next 6-12 months a vaccine and theraputics will improve/be available and things will get reasonably back to normal? How do people out of work not producing and not buying things help the "elites?"

You'd seriously liken what's happening today to the inconvenience of a seatbelt law?

No "conspiracy theory" is required to appreciate the draconian effects of lockdowns, social distancing requirements, and mask mandates. A full one-third of small businesses in my area have flat-out failed, and and another third are in danger of failing within the next six months. (Nationwide statistics are not a whole lot better). Their market share is going over to the Walmarts and Home Depots, who were the preordained "winners" in this fiasco as a result of their superior ability to weather the restrictions and the fact that, in many instances, they were arbitrarily declared exempt from them.

Large swaths of the population simply are not working. They're being propped up by government checks that in many instances have been so generous as to deter their recipients from returning to the workplace, leaving those business owners who do manage to reopen unable to find employees. My own (anecdotal) observation is that large numbers of people--previously hardworking--have become lazy and all-too-willing to remain on the government dole.

Supply chains have been significantly disrupted, as a result of which businesses can't get inventory and basic supplies. We're told to brace for more of this.

Churches, especially, have been singled out for arbitrary restrictions on worship. Even drive-in churches are being shut down. One can't help notice that at the same time, well-orchestrated leftist groups are torching cathedrals, defacing religious monuments, and even lighting churches on fire with people inside.

Political rallies--with the notable exception of leftist ones (especially violent leftist ones)--are being shut down. People are being arrested for congregating informally on beaches and in parks.

Political speech, especially on the most popular social media forums, is being censored. Information about the alleged pandemic that runs counter to the official narrative is being eliminated as disinformation harmful to the public. Conservative websites are being demonitized and disrupted. Fact-checkers are eliminating news and commentary that runs counter to the Marxist party line.

Schools have been shuttered since spring, and we are being told that they may not reopen in the fall. University students are being subject to mandatory vaccinations as a condition of return.

Doctors and lawyers have been turned into snitches, no longer just subject to mandatory reporting laws but being required to actively elicit information that may result in mandatory reporting. The long-held sanctity of the patient-physician and attorney-client privileges is gone. Medical records have become de facto government databases controlled by private, for-profit entities whose business is all about amassing and selling private information.

Governments have officially stopped responding to Freedom of Information requests. Interestingly, this follows on the heels of FASAB 56, which officially took U.S. government finances dark. Even local governments have gone largely nonresponsive to the people. Open Meetings Acts, which traditionally have insured transparency in government operations, have been suspended indefinitely. Government offices are closed to the public. Many of them do not even answer their phones. Callers receive a recorded message referring them to a website.

The rule of law is in shambles, having been supplanted, in large part, by a "make up the rules as you go" approach resembling martial law. Administrators, rather than legislators, are making law. Judges are going full-tilt activist.

Criminals, including violent criminals with convictions for rape and murder, are being let out on the street in large numbers. Police are being directed by above to "stand down" in areas hard hit by violence. Citizens are largely on their own.

Everywhere you look, artificial barriers (both physical and psychological) are being used to separate people. Plexiglass has been installed between checkers and customers. Workers and students are being put in plastic cubicles. We're being encouraged to communicate with one another primarily by "device."

Cash is on the way out. Stores are putting up automated checkout registers at breakneck speed. Many have been redesigned so that they no longer accept cash. We are now being told that there is a coin shortage that can't be fixed.

The mood, even in this small rural town, has turned dour. People who once freely chatted in the grocery aisle (often to the point of exchanging telephone numbers) no longer even make eye contact.

All this as the dire predictions that purported to justify all this are being outed as not only greatly exaggerated, but in many instances flat-out fraudulent.

And now we're being told--paradoxically--that these restrictions may need to be permanent. Get ready for the "new normal," they say.

Anyone who's been paying even slight attention to the openly articulated goals of the Marxist/technocrat movement that has been in high gear since the 1930s cannot help but see how these developments constitute a nearly item-by-item rollout of their agenda.

[Cortopassi]

Is it really that far gone, people? Don't you think in the next 6-12 months a vaccine and theraputics will improve/be available and things will get reasonably back to normal? How do people out of work not producing and not buying things help the "elites?"

depressing the economy to win an election?... wasn't this all supposed to only be a few weeks to flatten the curve? (which we seem to have done) don't we have riots in the streets already? seems like its not the freedom loving Americans rioting for rights and liberty, but the Marxists rioting to cause chaos and destroy history,

you don't need to be a conspiracy follower to know that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." or has Winston smith already deleted that bit of our past

I totally agree the goalposts moved. Pisses me off. I don't know what to do about it at this point. It seems, though, that if we had a coordinated consistent response to this, and I am not laying all this on Trump, that we could be in a better spot right now, and the liberal media would not be able to use it to the extent it has.

I hate that there's no positiveness to any of the stories. It just beats you into submission if you watch. See this poor young woman with permanent injury, this family who lost three people, etc. Nothing, obviously is covered on the millions who recovered without issue.

[Cortopassi]

Maddy, I don't disagree with any of that.

My only response is what could we have done differently?

If there's one president who could have had the balls to do something like Sweden, it would have been Trump, right? And he didn't. Any democrat would have rolled over to the "science." So we are where we are at right now, and what's done is done.

I have no idea how we get out of it. There was a lady on the HS FB site who wrote this yesterday:

"I need to vent. Drove by Buffalo Grove High School somewhere around 11:00-11:30 this morning and saw a bunch of kids on the field. There were way more than 50 and they were close together. Why would the school endanger so many students and their families during such a serious time???? SMH"

I am part of the parent volunteers coordinating this. They are wearing masks and are distanced and in groups <50.

This has made certain portions of the population Nazi-level nuts. And on the flipside it has made other question whether it's even real.

It's somewhere in the middle. I just don't think there's some underhanded conspiracy about the whole thing. And it seriously will end.

[jalanlong]

Am I being spied on while I surf the internet and walk around? Sure. And tell me how that affects my freedoms. I can always pull the plug. And my life is pretty boring.

I think for me the difference is that I do not trust the government to stop where you apparently think they will. Right now perhaps they are only spying on you to look for terrorists. But do you not see how under the right circumstances that could change?

Democrat Frederica Wilson in Florida said last year that people who make fun of members of Congress online should be "prosecuted."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1146143587811258370

So you really cannot envision a scenario where if you say the "wrong" thing on your phone or computer that you could run afoul of the authorities? It just doesn't seem like a huge leap for me. I believe a surprisingly large amount of Americans would probably support such a policy right now actually.

But... and this doesn't belong in this topic anymore... didn't Trump as well say there should be jail time for burning the flag? Is that an ok freedom to be lost?

No definitely not. Both sides are perfectly willing to take away freedoms they don't agree with. Most Americans are really. Both sides just want to enforce their ideas of right and wrong on everyone else and make them live the way they want to. In that case Republicans are playing to their base as the party of "Patriots" and they don't really understand the meaning of true freedom. These are the people with a Back the Blue bumper sticker on their car right next to their Don't Tread on Me bumper sticker.

[Cortopassi]

No definitely not. Both sides are perfectly willing to take away freedoms they don't agree with.

Nailed it.

[Mountaineer]

Most of the information I've seen about the virus has been how to avoid it - masks, physical distancing, hand washing, etc. Watch this 10 minute video by Pastor Wolfmueller who got the virus about a month ago and listen to his description of the consequences of getting COVID. His neurological effects are quite "interesting", and awful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY-ojG-tqg

[jalanlong]

This thread is making me want to cash in my Permanent Portfolio and move to 100% gold and canned goods. Although I probably wouldn't be allowed to take them to my designated camp.

[vnatale]

This thread is making me want to cash in my Permanent Portfolio and move to 100% gold and canned goods. Although I probably wouldn't be allowed to take them to my designated camp.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vinny

[jalanlong]

Am I being spied on while I surf the internet and walk around? Sure. And tell me how that affects my freedoms. I can always pull the plug. And my life is pretty boring.

I think for me the difference is that I do not trust the government to stop where you apparently think they will. Right now perhaps they are only spying on you to look for terrorists. But do you not see how under the right circumstances that could change?

Democrat Frederica Wilson in Florida said last year that people who make fun of members of Congress online should be "prosecuted."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1146143587811258370

So you really cannot envision a scenario where if you say the "wrong" thing on your phone or computer that you could run afoul of the authorities? It just doesn't seem like a huge leap for me. I believe a surprisingly large amount of Americans would probably support such a policy right now actually.

But... and this doesn't belong in this topic anymore... didn't Trump as well say there should be jail time for burning the flag? Is that an ok freedom to be lost?

No definitely not. Both sides are perfectly willing to take away freedoms they don't agree with. Most Americans are really. Both sides just want to enforce their ideas of right and wrong on everyone else and make them live the way they want to. In that case Republicans are playing to their base as the party of "Patriots" and they don't really understand the meaning of true freedom. These are the people with a Back the Blue bumper sticker on their car right next to their Don't Tread on Me bumper sticker.

It is true that there are freedoms that the right is willing to take away, e.g., the freedom to burn the flag, and of course I'm against such limitations on natural rights.

However, it is also true that the freedom to burn the flag is of far less importance, other than symbolically, than the right of assembly, freedom of travel, freedom of speech in general, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. Furthermore, flag-burning laws have already been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

So no, there is no moral equivalency between the right and the left today. The right is inconsistent in their support for fundamental liberty, but the left is consistent in their opposition to fundamental liberty. The latter is far more dangerous than the former.

I think the left is often for fundamental liberty when it suits their cause. For example, gay marriage and legalizing drugs. They just do not apply that same criteria to other aspects of life. But then neither does the right.

[Libertarian666]

This thread is making me want to cash in my Permanent Portfolio and move to 100% gold and canned goods. Although I probably wouldn't be allowed to take them to my designated camp.

That's why you send your gold to a safe jurisdiction and take yourself to a safe jurisdiction (maybe not the same one) before they come for you.
Just ask anyone whose ancestors escaped from Nazi Germany.

[Xan]

Most of the information I've seen about the virus has been how to avoid it - masks, physical distancing, hand washing, etc. Watch this 10 minute video by Pastor Wolfmueller who got the virus about a month ago and listen to his description of the consequences of getting COVID. His neurological effects are quite "interesting", and awful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY-ojG-tqg

Starting at 4:54 is where he describes what it's like to have his ability to do what he does taken away from him. "Well then, who am I?" I'm not sure what that would be like.

[WiseOne]

Maddy, I don't disagree with any of that.
If there's one president who could have had the balls to do something like Sweden, it would have been Trump, right? And he didn't. Any democrat would have rolled over to the "science." So we are where we are at right now, and what's done is done.

Good point, Cortopassi. I think Trump was trying to stick with a "leave it to local agencies because they are in the best position to assess their own needs" plan, and to some extent I think that is correct. He was also working on partnering with lab test companies to make testing available, responding to states pleading for supplies etc. But, we knew early on that this virus had the potential to rage through nursing homes like the dry tinder they were. Acting right away to focus on protecting them might have forestalled a lot of what we are dealing with now - and there might have been no curve to flatten. We'd have been another Sweden - in good shape virus-wise and with an intact economy.

Of course the left would have still criticized his every move, so don't think for a minute that would have made them happy. It would have made me happier though.

[Maddy]

Most of the information I've seen about the virus has been how to avoid it - masks, physical distancing, hand washing, etc. Watch this 10 minute video by Pastor Wolfmueller who got the virus about a month ago and listen to his description of the consequences of getting COVID. His neurological effects are quite "interesting", and awful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY-ojG-tqg

The effects of influenza and other respiratory infections on elderly and medically-fragile people can be pretty horrific as well. And the epidemiology, after correcting for inaccuracy and fraud--including the intentional seeding of nursing homes with the virus, turns out not to be a whole lot different.

But nobody was screaming about social distancing--much less shutting down the economy--during last year's flu season. Nobody gave a freaking damn.

[jalanlong]

Am I being spied on while I surf the internet and walk around? Sure. And tell me how that affects my freedoms. I can always pull the plug. And my life is pretty boring.

I think for me the difference is that I do not trust the government to stop where you apparently think they will. Right now perhaps they are only spying on you to look for terrorists. But do you not see how under the right circumstances that could change?

Democrat Frederica Wilson in Florida said last year that people who make fun of members of Congress online should be "prosecuted."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1146143587811258370

So you really cannot envision a scenario where if you say the "wrong" thing on your phone or computer that you could run afoul of the authorities? It just doesn't seem like a huge leap for me. I believe a surprisingly large amount of Americans would probably support such a policy right now actually.

But... and this doesn't belong in this topic anymore... didn't Trump as well say there should be jail time for burning the flag? Is that an ok freedom to be lost?

No definitely not. Both sides are perfectly willing to take away freedoms they don't agree with. Most Americans are really. Both sides just want to enforce their ideas of right and wrong on everyone else and make them live the way they want to. In that case Republicans are playing to their base as the party of "Patriots" and they don't really understand the meaning of true freedom. These are the people with a Back the Blue bumper sticker on their car right next to their Don't Tread on Me bumper sticker.

It is true that there are freedoms that the right is willing to take away, e.g., the freedom to burn the flag, and of course I'm against such limitations on natural rights.

However, it is also true that the freedom to burn the flag is of far less importance, other than symbolically, than the right of assembly, freedom of travel, freedom of speech in general, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. Furthermore, flag-burning laws have already been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

So no, there is no moral equivalency between the right and the left today. The right is inconsistent in their support for fundamental liberty, but the left is consistent in their opposition to fundamental liberty. The latter is far more dangerous than the former.

I think the left is often for fundamental liberty when it suits their cause. For example, gay marriage and legalizing drugs. They just do not apply that same criteria to other aspects of life. But then neither does the right.

Of course I'm for legalizing gay marriage and drugs. I'm a libertarian.

But if I were gay and had to live in a country with one of the following legal systems, I know which one I would choose:

1. Gay marriage and drugs are legal, but there is no freedom of speech, assembly, or self-defense, punishable by severe measures; or
2. Gay marriage and drugs are illegal but people are not sent to concentration camps for them. However, there is freedom of speech, assembly, and self-defense.

And of course that isn't the choice. It's between these two:

1. Gay marriage and drugs are legal, but there is no freedom of speech, assembly, or self-defense, punishable by severe measures; or
2. Gay marriage is legal. Most drugs are still illegal but pot is getting to the point where it will be legal. Even as it is, people are not sent to concentration camps for drugs, and there is freedom of speech, assembly, and self-defense.

Again, there is no moral equivalency between these two systems. The second one is vastly superior, although of course not perfect.

I believe in fact that people are indeed sent to what amounts to concentration camps for using drugs. And they are also sent there for exchanging money for sex.

I don't know that it is as cut and dried as you are making it appear. For example, on freedom of speech: people love to say leftists are against freedom of speech because of the censoring of certain unpopular thoughts and conspiracy theories online and the whole cancel culture thing. But they are certainly in favor of it when it comes to mocking the President and will run to it anytime people claim they have gone too far. Like everyone else they only support freedom when it is part of their agenda.

I think people focus on the Left because they have controlled the media narrative for so long that their curtailments of freedom seem so egregious. I feel if Fox News Conservatives like my parents ran the country and had complete control of the narrative then you would see just as many freedoms removed on that end as well. Which is why people should not get lost in the weeds of seatbelts or baking a cake. Everything should focus on the consistency of liberty. Something as simple as wearing seatbelts may not seem like much but it sets a precedent that politicians (ie the people) can force you to modify your behavior in order to keep you safe, according to their standards. And if you don't comply you will be punished in some way. Anyone who doesn't see how that way of thinking could lead to all sorts of bad things down the road has not learned a lot from human history.

[jalanlong]

Of course I'm for legalizing gay marriage and drugs. I'm a libertarian.

But if I were gay and had to live in a country with one of the following legal systems, I know which one I would choose:

1. Gay marriage and drugs are legal, but there is no freedom of speech, assembly, or self-defense, punishable by severe measures; or
2. Gay marriage and drugs are illegal but people are not sent to concentration camps for them. However, there is freedom of speech, assembly, and self-defense.

And of course that isn't the choice. It's between these two:

1. Gay marriage and drugs are legal, but there is no freedom of speech, assembly, or self-defense, punishable by severe measures; or
2. Gay marriage is legal. Most drugs are still illegal but pot is getting to the point where it will be legal. Even as it is, people are not sent to concentration camps for drugs, and there is freedom of speech, assembly, and self-defense.

Again, there is no moral equivalency between these two systems. The second one is vastly superior, although of course not perfect.

I believe in fact that people are indeed sent to what amounts to concentration camps for using drugs. And they are also sent there for exchanging money for sex.

I don't know that it is as cut and dried as you are making it appear. For example, on freedom of speech: people love to say leftists are against freedom of speech because of the censoring of certain unpopular thoughts and conspiracy theories online and the whole cancel culture thing. But they are certainly in favor of it when it comes to mocking the President and will run to it anytime people claim they have gone too far. Like everyone else they only support freedom when it is part of their agenda.

I think people focus on the Left because they have controlled the media narrative for so long that their curtailments of freedom seem so egregious. I feel if Fox News Conservatives like my parents ran the country and had complete control of the narrative then you would see just as many freedoms removed on that end as well. Which is why people should not get lost in the weeds of seatbelts or baking a cake. Everything should focus on the consistency of liberty. Something as simple as wearing seatbelts may not seem like much but it sets a precedent that politicians (ie the people) can force you to modify your behavior in order to keep you safe, according to their standards. And if you don't comply you will be punished in some way. Anyone who doesn't see how that way of thinking could lead to all sorts of bad things down the road has not learned a lot from human history.

As for 1st Amendment rights, I see no calls for censorship of anyone from the Republican party or Trump supporters. Yes, they complain about negative coverage of Trump, but they don't call for the forcible silencing of anyone who writes negative articles or the like. This is of course unlike the left, who indeed does try to silence their opponents by threats or actual violence.

So do you think the Republicans don't call for censorship because they really believe in freedom of speech or is it because if they called for anything of the sort it would be met with incredible disdain from the media? They cannot do it because they would face backlash the Left doesn't face because they control the narrative.

The Left seems as if they are the party of limited speech but maybe that is because they can do so very easily. They control all the major news outlets, entertainment industry, social media etc. If they want to cancel Rosanne Barr because of comments they do not like, they can very easily do so because they control the narrative. If Republicans wanted to cancel Rosie O'Donnell for a similar reason the media would laugh at them.

But if the tables were turned and Republicans controlled every single major outlet of information and controlled the culture, do you really think they would allow dissenting opinions to flourish? I could easily see celebrities who criticized America, kneeling football players and flag burners given the same treatment conservatives get today. Maybe I am wrong. I know my Republican family members say all the right things about freedom and censorship but I know darn well if they could they would find a way to silence liberal celebrities and such, they would do it in a minute.

[Maddy]

So do you think the Republicans don't call for censorship because they really believe in freedom of speech or is it because if they called for anything of the sort it would be met with incredible disdain from the media? They cannot do it because they would face backlash the Left doesn't face because they control the narrative.

The Left seems as if they are the party of limited speech but maybe that is because they can do so very easily. They control all the major news outlets, entertainment industry, social media etc. If they want to cancel Rosanne Barr because of comments they do not like, they can very easily do so because they control the narrative. If Republicans wanted to cancel Rosie O'Donnell for a similar reason the media would laugh at them.

But if the tables were turned and Republicans controlled every single major outlet of information and controlled the culture, do you really think they would allow dissenting opinions to flourish? I could easily see celebrities who criticized America, kneeling football players and flag burners given the same treatment conservatives get today. Maybe I am wrong. I know my Republican family members say all the right things about freedom and censorship but I know darn well if they could they would find a way to silence liberal celebrities and such, they would do it in a minute.

I really do think that a majority of conservatives, especially constitutional conservatives, understand and value the importance of principle. They're willing to accept rules and norms that don't always give them the result they want but that, over the long haul, lend consistency and predictability the law and provide everyone a maximum amount of freedom to live as they see fit. At the extremes, including the evangelical lobby and career politicians, that generalization may not hold true, but for the majority of workaday people, I'd say it fits pretty well.

[jalanlong]

So do you think the Republicans don't call for censorship because they really believe in freedom of speech or is it because if they called for anything of the sort it would be met with incredible disdain from the media? They cannot do it because they would face backlash the Left doesn't face because they control the narrative.

The Left seems as if they are the party of limited speech but maybe that is because they can do so very easily. They control all the major news outlets, entertainment industry, social media etc. If they want to cancel Rosanne Barr because of comments they do not like, they can very easily do so because they control the narrative. If Republicans wanted to cancel Rosie O'Donnell for a similar reason the media would laugh at them.

But if the tables were turned and Republicans controlled every single major outlet of information and controlled the culture, do you really think they would allow dissenting opinions to flourish? I could easily see celebrities who criticized America, kneeling football players and flag burners given the same treatment conservatives get today. Maybe I am wrong. I know my Republican family members say all the right things about freedom and censorship but I know darn well if they could they would find a way to silence liberal celebrities and such, they would do it in a minute.

I really do think that a majority of conservatives, especially constitutional conservatives, understand and value the importance of principle. They're willing to accept rules and norms that don't always give them the result they want but that, over the long haul, lend consistency and predictability the law and provide everyone a maximum amount of freedom to live as they see fit. At the extremes, including the evangelical lobby and career politicians, that generalization may not hold true, but for the majority of workaday people, I'd say it fits pretty well.

It could be because I am in the bible belt but I see very few constitutional conservatives. I see a lot of conservatives who like "traditional values" and only look at the outcome of issues thru that lens instead of the principles involved. I have a family member here who is on Facebook a lot. She will do like 5 posts in a row of anti-govt memes with quotes from Reagan saying govt is the problem not the solution and govt should leave me alone and let me live my life. Then she will follow that up with a post or meme decrying the legalization of gay marriage or drugs or some such. She has total disconnect on those posts because she has no true principles. I think that is more common. Maybe in a different part of the US it is different. But if that were the case I feel like there would be more Libertarians than there are.

[WiseOne]

Back in the days of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, the Republicans were definitely the ones trying to use the force of law to implement their view of how society should be structured. There are also plenty of examples of censorship (e.g. banning biology textbooks in Tennessee if they mentioned evolution) and prosecutions (the Scopes Monkey Trial, McCarthyism, the prosecution of the gay couple in Georgia having sex in their own home, in violation of a Georgia anti-sodomy law).

I must say though that at least Republicans didn't go around torching cities and condoning the murder of children. And, the discussion in the forum is about what's happening today - and the Republicans are not currently the problem.