hh on Nostr: I'm watching some rather interesting reactions from "MAGA" and conservative people ...
I'm watching some rather interesting reactions from "MAGA" and conservative people online about the specific examples that the Spanish Dear Leader gave in his apology of totalitarianism... Not unexpected, but interesting all the same.
See, Sánchez said that if you "don't allow people to walk on the street masked [in Spain that's indeed illegal -- except apparently if you're a muslim woman -- probably in the US it's not in any case?], or drive a car without a number plate, or send a parcel without showing your id [again, illegal here. Is it in the US too?], or buy a hunting gun without giving your name", then it follows that you can't "allow people to roam on social media" anonymously spreading "hate speech and misinformation" and the Black Plague.
What's interesting about these reactions I'm seeing by American conservatives is the strong cognitive dissonance when they say that "somehow" all those examples are OK, but tweeting is different.
The more advanced ones are trying to come up with "the First Amendment" as proof that speech is different, but didn't we all agree that the US Constitution is not a compilation of rights, which a natural and inalienable ("God-given" for those who are into that type of rhetoric), but limitations on the government? And in any case, isn't the right to freely trade and to freely associate, and to freely travel (within the national territory) equivalent to and as important as freedom of speech? So why is it justified to mandate a number plate on your car and to show your ID to send parcel, but not to tweet?
This is of course a very tall pile of steaming shit of an attempt to justify a purely partisan position. There is nothing to it, and is internally contradictory. It falls apart. But because they are *conservative*, they actually try to hold it together with rationalizations, because in fact they agree with it. Just when it's not "the bad guys" doing it, and it's them.
Libertarians, as usual, don't have to bend over backwards to palliate any cognitive dissonance, because we don't agree with *any* type of mandated government identification or infringement on our natural rights. I don't want number plates on cars, and I don't want to show an ID when I'm sending a parcel. And I surely don't want the government to be able to link my ID to my notes or tweets, regardless of whether they're "good" or "bad".
See, Sánchez said that if you "don't allow people to walk on the street masked [in Spain that's indeed illegal -- except apparently if you're a muslim woman -- probably in the US it's not in any case?], or drive a car without a number plate, or send a parcel without showing your id [again, illegal here. Is it in the US too?], or buy a hunting gun without giving your name", then it follows that you can't "allow people to roam on social media" anonymously spreading "hate speech and misinformation" and the Black Plague.
What's interesting about these reactions I'm seeing by American conservatives is the strong cognitive dissonance when they say that "somehow" all those examples are OK, but tweeting is different.
The more advanced ones are trying to come up with "the First Amendment" as proof that speech is different, but didn't we all agree that the US Constitution is not a compilation of rights, which a natural and inalienable ("God-given" for those who are into that type of rhetoric), but limitations on the government? And in any case, isn't the right to freely trade and to freely associate, and to freely travel (within the national territory) equivalent to and as important as freedom of speech? So why is it justified to mandate a number plate on your car and to show your ID to send parcel, but not to tweet?
This is of course a very tall pile of steaming shit of an attempt to justify a purely partisan position. There is nothing to it, and is internally contradictory. It falls apart. But because they are *conservative*, they actually try to hold it together with rationalizations, because in fact they agree with it. Just when it's not "the bad guys" doing it, and it's them.
Libertarians, as usual, don't have to bend over backwards to palliate any cognitive dissonance, because we don't agree with *any* type of mandated government identification or infringement on our natural rights. I don't want number plates on cars, and I don't want to show an ID when I'm sending a parcel. And I surely don't want the government to be able to link my ID to my notes or tweets, regardless of whether they're "good" or "bad".
quoting nevent1q…5qluSpain is the poster child of the new wave of fascism that is taking over Europe. Luckily, Spain is a completely irrelevant country. It doesn't even have an influence over American Spanish-speaking countries anymore. Unfortunately, it is still one of the top 5 countries in the EU by population, so they do have weight when it comes to deciding votes, and they will always do it in favor of the most hard core positions that their owners at the WEF tell them to push for.
By the way, there is ZERO difference or alternative among any of the potential ruling parties. Including the neofascist party "Vox" that is trying very hard to coopt the MAGA and Milei movements, but who is simply yet one more among the Putin-funded extreme nationalist, hard-core illiberal, pro-massive spending, right wing socialist movements that proliferate in Europe these days.