When did the Republicans turn into a bunch of PC pussies?

From Freepers to my local right-wing talk radio station to reddit to fark to wikipedia and beyond, it seems most everyone is against SOPA. I would have loved to have been working the phones in a Congressional office yesterday.

Somebody's been Googling their name again.

DarnoKonrad: Aarontology: When did the Republicans turn into a bunch of PC pussies?

Republicans have always been the language police -- well, language gestapo really. You talk like they do, make fun of people they don't like, or you're "politically correct" and they get all pissy.

That's a good point. But it seems lately they're the ones going on about people's feelings or whatever.

But since it's Santorum, it's just him being bitter about the joke at his expense and wanting to use the government to punish people who do things like that. Which is pretty scary, actually.

The GOP: Where "freedom" comes with a really big asterisk.

He should have worded it better but he isn't completely wrong, when you give people the freedom to make choices sometimes they will make the wrong choice. It's just part of the game, I don't think the government should take that freedom away and I rather dislike Santorum (The GOP Candidate, not the other thing).

Color me shocked.

Aarontology: When did the Republicans turn into a bunch of PC pussies?

Just because they're #1 with racists and have turned "PC" into a bad word doesn't mean they don't want to control everyone. And loving guns and sending other people's kids into war doesn't mean they're not pussies.

Politicians only support paid speech.

DarnoKonrad: Aarontology: When did the Republicans turn into a bunch of PC pussies?

Republicans have always been the language police -- well, language gestapo really. You talk like they do, make fun of people they don't like, or you're "politically correct" and they get all pissy.

I view it like this: Conservatives think of themselves as granting you the freedom to be just like them.

Santorum is right. "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean you have the right to steal, or to slander, or to cause havoc for fun.

Well, it does allow you to say all kinds of ridiculous shiat too, Ricky... And most of it would be harmful to someone else if we're stupid enough to let you have any power.

so do corporations still get free speech or is it only little people who get crushed?

Weaver95: so do corporations still get free speech or is it only little people who get crushed?

I think Colbert covered that. The more money, the more speech.
So does Rick get one or two decals for his NASCAR jacket?

Free speech isn't about speech that is easy. It's not about speech that is agreeable. Freedom of speech is about speech that annoys you. Offends you. Pisses you off.

Most of our freedoms are about the right to piss other people off.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom to assemble. All about pissing off people. Especially people in power. Especially about pissing off the majority. It is to guarantee the freedom of folks to be contentious, inappropriate, and above all, to disagree with those around them.

That doesn't mean the freedom from being disagreed with, rather, it is a protection to be able to disagree, and not have the full weight of the government come down upon you, because someone has the ear of a Congresscritter or Governor or other member of the state. American freedoms aren't about the right to be free of hurt feelings and to be free from argument, they are about preserving those arguments, and allowing the tide of public opinion to turn on that very public.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion are about keeping the state out of public arguments. About keeping the government the Hells out of such things, and letting people decide for they own damn selves.

Freedom of speech has never been about the freedom from butthurt. Our entire nation was based on the premise that here you could be as big a dick to folks who piss you off, and they can be as big a dicks as they want to you, and the government can't back either, but let you have all the knock down, drag out, public brawls about issues, and when the dust settles, the government treats you both the same, and let the majority vote their way about policy, so long as it doesn't violate some basic principles of fairness.

We can't, even if we have a majority, vote this a "Christian nation." We can't, even if we have a majority, tell folks that they can't belong to an organization that hasn't broken any laws, but pisses folks off by its existence.

The sad fact is, some folks think that our freedoms are freedoms to protect them from being disagreed with, when they are in, in the spirit of this nation, the freedom to disagree. Loudly. To sing it to the Heavens, to tell it the mountains, to whisper it to the rivers. To disagree, and piss other folks off.

That essential premise is what this nation is based upon, and it sets our national character. We are a rambunctious, fractious, argumentative, boisterous republic. Our national character was set when we told the East India to stop colluding with our government to fix prices and stifle competition. Our very Bill of Rights is about preserving that spirit, and if that pisses you off: good. That's the f*cking point.

Aarontology: When did the Republicans turn into a bunch of PC pussies?

Marco Rubio admitted he was wrong about SOPA. And Democrats are pushing it too. Basically, SOPA is to prevent all you mavericks from yelling "fire" in an empty theater because you illegally downloaded the movies so no one has to go to the theater anymore...or at least that seems to be the dumb point made by Santorum.

I_C_Weener: Marco Rubio admitted he was wrong about SOPA. And Democrats are pushing it too.

The thing about that is a lot of the folks merely said they were withdrawing sponsorship of the bill and gave some half assed "We can fight this without violating freedom" thing. I'll believe they don't support it when they vote against it.

As for Rubio, he saw an opportunity to blame something unpopular on the Democrats. I think that was more his motivation than any real issue with the bill.

I thought the Repubicans were against the government controlling aspects of our lives?

I quote the best statement about free speech ever:

For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution? If you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago. America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

Whatever else that movie was, that quote is dead on. It's a shame that so many people don't understand that.

imapirate: I thought the Repubicans were against the government controlling aspects of our lives?

Politicians are never against government controlling our lives. The stuff they want to control though varies with the party.

hubiestubert: Bunch of common words combined to make an uncommonly cool post

Preach it.

what a piece of shiat

Aarontology: When did the Republicans turn into a bunch of PC pussies?

viet nam, when they all had to hide in the safe national guard?

/what do I win??

Well to be fair, there seems to be bipartisan support both for and against the bill. Democrats have their own reckless nanny-staters, such as Clinton when Hot Coffee surfaced. They need to be combated as well.

Lumpmoose: Well to be fair, there seems to be bipartisan support both for and against the bill. Democrats have their own reckless nanny-staters, such as Clinton when Hot Coffee surfaced. They need to be combated as well.

That's pretty much it.

Look at Tipper Gore. Democrats and Republicans both run the gamut. And they're both wrong on the issue, for the same reason. It is about control. It is about limiting freedom in the name of safety. Safety for our children. Safety for our friends and political fellow travelers. It is about trading a little freedom for safety. In this case, it's actually worse, because it is less about safety than convenience. It is about making things easier to manipulate and control by limiting what folks can bring to bear against you.

One of the things that has been coming up, be it Santorum, be in Gingrich, or a lot of others, is that their words come back to haunt them. Their own words. Part and parcel of a new defense against this, is trying to classify those words put out into the public, can be restricted under the aegis of copyright. It's not entirely new, but it is a growing sort of concern, when you see companies that record said words--our news agencies--as considering their content as protected from being repeated. Quotation as infringement. SOPA and PIPA are part and parcel of an attempt to gag quotation. Not just muzzle things that offend folks. Not just keep you from the concept of fair use, but an end run around folks who dislike the idea that their own words come back to haunt them.

It's not about just infringement, but also about controlling the digital record, which is increasingly becoming a sort of Akashic Record of every politician's positions. If you only appear on friendly networks, only appear on record with those who will support and then ask for those who quote you to be expunged, you control message. Controlling message is what politicians desire the most, especially in an age when your words fly into the ether, and folks can compare and contrast. Directly. Themselves.

That is the real danger with SOPA. It is an obtuse way to control message. You quote someone who appears on Fox? You'd best have permission to use said clip. Don't? You can get your message shut down, without so much as a hearing. It is not just about copyrighted material like movies or TV shows, or books, but about controlling what content you can use as ammunition against someone and controlling the records themselves.

This is real danger. Not that you can have your site yanked because you used an image that Time Warner wanted a penny for, but because it can be used as a bludgeon to dun folks who dare to use quotations that would show hypocrisy, and allow politicians to continue to be hoist on their own petard, and their own words.

We saw it in the last election cycle, when Palin tried clumsily to try to classify her words as protected from being repeated. With SOPA/PIPA, you will have to contend with a lot more hoops to repeat things. It's not about being PC, but about controlling message.

Since he's not long for this race, and I'm not gonna be able to use this much after he drops out.

Santorum = RAT BASTARD!

/being honest & cordial.

I had a dream the other week that I was at a barbecue hosted by a shirtless Rick Santorum who was busy talking up my young hot neighbor. I haven't bothered to analyze this yet.

imapirate: I thought the Repubicans were against the government controlling aspects of our their lives?

You were close.

"Don't Tread on Me" == "Oh my goodness don't hurt me with your evil 1st amendment rights!!!"