Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "1420 by Daniil Orain"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marissaalonzo7997 In fact, the word 'propaganda' itself is commonly no more than propaganda, which is why I try to avoid it, but I'm impressed that you offered actual reasons.
Still, for someone professing to be against (over-) simplicities, you do a lot of simplifying yourself. Anyway, a label like 'pro-life' contains vastly more truth value than labelling Ukraine a Nazified country. So I see the parallel as one of those speck-vs.-log-in-the-eye ones.
I'll never compare a country like Russia to a Western democracy like you do, because people in the latter have the right to throw the bums out of power when they like. That right is one I closely liken to the right to be in all senses an adult. (Of course I hardly mean that there's any ban on childishness here, but that's another matter.) Russians and Chinese, for example, are all children living under their strict dad, who beats the family and then brags about how smoothly the household runs.
3
-
Disagree. I think what he said was true, even though I oppose his overall outlook totally. The fact is that it's the same in every country and always will be: Elites lead public opinion.
It's simply natural to the human social creature (except in rare and unusual individuals) and we're stuck with that aspect of ourselves permanently. The thing is to face it, accept it, and to modify it and put it to the general advantage of people. It can be made into a feature, not a bug, and often is.
Same, for example, with human aggressiveness, which can never, never, never be rooted out—but which can be channelled ('sublimated') into healthy pursuits like sporting competition and other friendly rivalries (i.e., striving and competition in business and every other walk of life). Aspects like violence and war can definitely be minimized.
Apart from protection against cold, hunger, fire and so on, such channelling is the sole aim of civilization.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@VictorLyuba You are mistaken on what the First Amendment is about. It says that the US government shall pass no laws restricting what people can say (apart from slander, libel, incitement to criminal acts such as rioting for example, or revealing state secrets). Even almost all lies are protected speech (but not slander, libel).
On the other hand, what you speak about is vigorous social disapproval of certain statements a person may make. There is no protection against such disapproval, nor is there such protection in any other country, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be.
Allow me to illustrate by analogy. If you go to an Italian village, enter a café, and make insulting remarks to the staff and patrons about the Pope, you are likely to be told to leave. That cannot be construed as an infringement on your right to free speech, never mind what the Italian constitution may or may not say about free speech protection. You are still allowed to stand on a street corner and announce your views, or in the home or place of business of anyone willing to hear them. You can publish them in a book or on a website.
I hope I have made myself clear about the difference between people rudely telling you to "Shut up!" and the government charging you with a crime.
Thanks for your reply. I am entirely sympathetic to your views on the intolerance of what are called 'politically correct' Americans.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2