Conservative intolerance toward inconvenient free speech

I've mentioned here several times that before the 2016 election I tried to engaged with seven big conservative politics websites. All seven wound up blocking me, two of which did not allow me to make even one unblocked comment. I did that to try to open communications with conservatives, Trump supporters and Republicans generally. From what I can tell, the effort appeared to be about 98% failure.

Given how dire and fragile our political and social situation is, making another attempt to reach conservatives makes sense, even if the effort is doomed to fail. What I am finding is that at least some big conservative politics sites are now more explicitly intolerant of non-conservative commentary, even if it is respectful and fact-based. 

Here's an example. The is a big conservative politics site (subreddit) at reddit called r/Conservative. The site shows it has 898,000 members and about 3,500 online at the moment. I checked its commenting rules. Here are the relevant ones, copied verbatim:

We have seven rules here - and they're easy to follow so let's review:

1 - Be civil, follow any flair guidelines.

This one is pretty easy... try and be nice to people. If you're getting some of that famous Liberal snark just message the moderators and let them know what's going on so we can help. And if a post says, "Conservatives Only" and you're not a Conservative don't comment there (your comment won't be visible anyway unless you have flair). if you want flair click here to learn about it.

It's not civil to say someone has a "punchable face" or we need to have another civil war. So don't be that person because we will find you and take action for it.

From the flair rules page:

To display your User Flair, you must also have the “☑️ Show my flair on this subreddit” box checked on the sidebar.

The only thing having User Flair does is grant you the ability to comment in posts marked with the submission flair "Flaired Users Only". All the other posts not flaired as such are open for you to comment in.

This is designed so that a couple posts per day are almost guaranteed to have conversation which is not hijacked by leftists and other non-conservatives.

Who Gets Flair?

Only mods can assign User Flair, and User Flair is only for conservatives. Once you have a solid history of comments in /r/Conservative, and have been commenting in the subreddit for at least two weeks, that is the right time to request flair via the link at the bottom of this page.

Please understand that this is for conservatives. We do our best to vet you based on your post history on reddit. You will need some post history to qualify - ideally within the subreddit itself. If you do not have a conservative leaning post history you will likely be asked to re-apply when you do.

You may choose your own flair but mods reserve the ability to reject the text. The flair must be conservative or at least generally right wing in nature. As our mission statement is to provide a place for conservatives to speak to other conservatives - we do not grant flair to those who are not at least reasonably close to that world view.

We do give variants on some of the above: "Libertarian Conservative" and "Moderate Conservative" are acceptable, for example.

We're looking for people who have been commenting for at least two weeks with verified history here in our subreddit. Ideally, we want you to average a couple comments per week, as well. If this is your first comment in /r/conservative, you have not met the minimum requirements to get flair.

7 - Do not violate the Mission Statement

We have a mission statement and we take it very seriously. This is what guides our subreddit and determines who and what belongs here:

We provide a place on Reddit for conservatives, both fiscal and social, to read and discuss political and cultural issues from a distinctly conservative point of view.

For our purpose behind the mission statement, please read Why We Have a Mission Statement.

Our Mission Statement

We provide a place on Reddit for conservatives, both fiscal and social, to read and discuss political and cultural issues from a distinctly conservative point of view.

Why Does /r/Conservative Have Its Mission Statement

The mission statement of this sub exists solely due to the hordes of leftists trying to silence this sub. If they could engage in civil discussion without resorting to personal attacks, dogpile downvotes, and endless parroting of hackneyed talking points, then we wouldn't need to ban them.

In fact, conservative ideas thrive when contrasted with the vapid superficiality, pseudo intellectualism, and creepy totalitarianism of leftism.

-/u/philosoguido - Moderator January 21, 2018

 

So, there you have it. A conservative politics site with almost 900K members that explicitly says liberals (i) want to shut r/Conservative conversation down, by making personal attacks, dogpiling downvotes[1] and whatever other bad things all liberals always do (ii) don't engage in civil discussion, (iii) are vapid and superficial, and (iv) make only hackneyed talking points. Liberals and presumably moderates need to be banned for these horrors.

I will keep civilly commenting at r/Conservative based on facts and logic until they ban me. I imagine it won't take long. My first comment there is here. It is the beginning of my latest little experiment in how mainstream conservatism deals with inconvenient free speech.

Questions: 

1. Are sites like r/Conservative unable to deal with civil, but inconvenient facts and logic, or am I just another one of those uncivilized, superficial, vapid, brainwashed liberal blowhards who makes only hackneyed talking points and is rude to conservatives? (I suspect most conservative really do see me as rude, uncivil, ignorant and stupid-brainwashed)

2. Are sites like r/Conservative echo chambers or places for unfettered, honest discussion?

Footnote: 

1. The dogpiling of downvotes might have been what flagged me to the two conservative sites that would not let me post even one comment under my Germaine II Disqus account. People on the other Disqus sites constantly downvoted most of my comments, So by the time I got to the last two sites on my list, I was already persona non grata by virtue of a having buttload of downvotes. 

FWIW, I dislike downvoting and rarely do it. I dislike it here. 

From the fascism and crackpot files: GOP-style election integrity, etc.

Let the brainwashed cool off first, then maybe they can vote

Newsweek writes: 

If red states and blue states were to "divorce" each other, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene called it possible that people who move from a Democratic state to a Republican state would be barred from voting for a temporary "cooling off" period.

California's seen an influx in people moving out of the state and many have opted to go to Texas and Florida, where residents can get more bang for their buck. However, some, including Greene, have complained that those who are leaving California are bringing their political beliefs with them and potentially shifting the political landscape.

On Wednesday, the Georgia congresswoman posted on Twitter that "brainwashed people" who move from California and New York need a "cooling-off period." Her comment was in response to a Twitter user who wrote he supports discriminating against Democratic transplants, including restricting their ability to vote for a period of time. He also wrote that they should have to "pay a tax for their sins." 

"After Democrat voters and big donors ruin a state like California, you would think it wise to stop them from doing it to another great state like Florida," Greene tweeted.

What can one say in the face of Marjorie's style of . . . . "excellence"? At least she is honest about her fascism and hate. One can only wonder about how many other Republicans, elites and rank and file, see the Democrats as brainwashed and their right to vote as optional. 40%? 70%? Who knows?

Ex-president accuses the House 1/6 investigation committee of bad intent 

Axios writes in an article, Trump accuses Jan. 6 panel of "seeking evidence of criminal activity":

Former President Trump's legal team on Wednesday accused the House committee investigating the Capitol riot of seeking to uncover evidence that would support a criminal referral against him.

The select committee is acting as “an inquisitorial tribunal seeking evidence of criminal activity,” Trump lawyer Jesse R. Binnall wrote in the brief, adding that such action is “outside of any of Congress’s legislative powers.”

“The Washington Post has confirmed what was already apparent — the Committee is indeed seeking any excuse to refer a political rival for criminal charges, and they are using this investigation to do so," Binnall added.

By gosh, maybe Trump has a point. The House committee just might be seeking evidence of criminal activity related to his 1/6 coup attempt. But, he's really got nothing to worry about. Neither Biden nor Attorney General Garland have any interest in vindicating the rule of law against Republican politicians or elites for their crimes, corruption, insurrection, treason, shootings or anything else. They will blow off any House criminal referral just like Trump blew off concerns about ethics, rationality, truth and the rule of law during his time in office.

Two historians got their shorts in a twist -- we need to be like Antifa

The courier journal, a Kentucky newspaper writes in an opinion piece, 
Two Kentucky historians agree the GOP is steering the US straight toward authoritarianism:

Two Kentucky historians agree it’s past time for Democrats to start warning voters — loudly, clearly and unceasingly — where Donald Trump and his truest true believers in the GOP are steering the country: Straight toward white supremacy and authoritarianism.

“This is real, this is serious and it’s frightening,” said Brian Clardy, a Murray State University history professor. “We must build a democratic resistance that amounts to a counter-fascist coup — In short, we must all become ‘antifa,’ or antifascists,” said John Hennen, a Morehead State University history professor emeritus.

Clardy said Trump largely won on a white backlash triggered by Barack Obama’s election. Clardy was in the crowd when our first African American president was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. 

“While we’re celebrating here in Washington, folks back home are seething,” he said to a woman standing near him. He meant white folks.

Hennen said Trumpism has deep roots. “The eruption of violent white nationalist authoritarianism in our country is the shocking manifestation of less noisy currents of fascist politics which have evolved for decades.”

At least, I'm not alone in seeing Republican Party fascism as a dire, imminent threat to democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties. More people are slowly waking up. Whether the awakening is too little and/or too late is hard to tell. Elections in 2022 and 2024 ought to shed some light on the state of what's left of American democracy, elections, the rule of law, civil liberties and social cohesion.

I wondered how much ill-will and anger Obama's election created in the GOP. I suspected it was a lot. Apparently at least some others see it about that way too. The night Obama was elected in 2008 and walked out on the stage in Chicago, all I could think was 'don't shoot him', 'don't shoot him', 'don't shoot him.' 

Toothless federal government ethics

The New York Times writes:

As House ethics investigators were examining four cases this fall detailing a sweeping array of improper financial conduct by lawmakers, they ran into an obstacle: Two of the lawmakers under scrutiny refused to meet with them or provide documents.

The investigators were not too surprised. Over the past decade, fewer and fewer House members have been willing to cooperate with congressional investigations, a development that ethics experts warn could reduce accountability for misdeeds and erode trust in the institution of Congress.

Omar Ashmawy, the staff director of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent entity that reviews allegations against House members and refers misconduct cases to the House Ethics Committee, acknowledged the growing resistance to his office’s work, but said he was undeterred: “It has never prevented us from being able to gather the facts and determine what happened and whether or not the subject was culpable.”

Still, the trend is unmistakable.

In 2009 and 2010 — the first Congress scrutinized by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which was created in 2008 — three lawmakers refused to cooperate with the office’s 68 investigations, a noncooperation rate of just 4 percent.

This year, six out of 14 House lawmakers under investigation have refused to participate — a rate of 43 percent, the highest on record.  

There is no requirement that lawmakers cooperate with the Office of Congressional Ethics, but legislators who do so often are able to resolve what had appeared to be violations of ethics rules.

The fact that many will no longer even meet with ethics investigators reflects a troubling trend in American politics in which improper behavior is no longer a political liability, ethics experts say.

Maybe ethics investigators can gather facts to determine what happened as is claimed, or maybe they can't. How can they know what is being withheld from them? Given the open hostility of both Democrats and Republicans to ethical concerns, it seems reasonable to think that Congress is becoming increasingly corrupt and autocratic. 

One outside ethics expert commented: “What people used to think was a career-ending mistake has been proven to not be a career-ending mistake. Many people have noticed a shift in ethical norms. It used to be the case that when a member violated the ethics rules, if not a fine, there would be a fairly stiff political price to pay. I worry that has gone away.”

Indeed, concern for ethics has gone away. That, along with unwarranted opacity, is one of the key hallmarks of a corrupt government.

Should we require an intelligence test to vote?

 There are multiple links on Google search (or whatever your search engine is) that asks the question: Should passing an intelligence or IQ test be required to vote? 

Ideally not. But when the truly ignorant, bigoted, and ill-informed can vote, what does that say about our ability to vote wisely?

Consider: The senior, who is barely able to still contemplate the world around him or her, being coerced by their kids to vote a certain way. 

Consider: A uneducated poor rural family, who have limited access to the internet or news other than Fox.

Consider: A tribe that gets told how to vote by their local leader, or an urban slum resident who lacks a highschool education but is "taught" how to vote by his or her local activist.

Consider: The bigot, who has made no bones about his or her feelings about those different from themselves.

I have read opinions both in favor of and against this idea. Because ONCE you start down this slippery slope, who ELSE will be denied a vote? Already moves are under way to make voting harder for minorities or those without "proper" IDs. 

Now imagine asking people to be informed or intelligent to vote. BUT AGAIN, why not? We need to know how to drive to get a driver's license, right? Yeah but, we can also be as dumb as doorknobs to have kids and no one can say different. Same, apparently, for voting.

SO the question remains: Should we require that voters at least have some level of knowledge, learning, and intelligence to vote?