It's amazing the realities that right wing, and to a lesser extent liberal media can create. Just completely fabricating the narrative and the hogs squeal with glee as they eat it up.
I used to be against reeducation, but these types of absolutely wild fantasies right wingers have probably can't be solved fast enough before climate change makes it all moot. My dad has every reason to be a comrade, materially speaking, but the conditioning is far too strong.
Reeducation needs to be seriously discussed, and every reeducation discussion should include the following points:
There is no justification for absolute freedom of speech in the face of a climate crisis that will affect billions. Whatever right to free speech exists doesn't extend to trying to murder-suicide the entire planet.
We already have reeducation in the U.S., and almost no one has a problem with it because in some situations it's an entirely reasonable solution. If you drive drunk, many states will require you to complete a weekend class (sometimes you're even bound to the confines of a residential facility for this) to avoid jail time and regain your drivers license. If you commit assault or battery (and note that assault is one of those fuzzy areas between speech and action), many states will require you to complete anger management classes. If ordinary crimes that often do no physical damage to anyone are worthy of reeducation, it's impossible to argue that promoting fascism or furthering the destruction of the planet's ecosystem is unworthy of reeducation.
Our news and media is already packed full of pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist propaganda. We're already reeducating people on a mass scale. Bending that propaganda needle back in a more productive direction would achieve the same things but towards far better ends.
Stripping money out of politics (stuff like limiting campaign expenditures to publicly-available funds, banning PACs, and curtailing quasi-PACs like the think tank propaganda industry) would also have an enormous reeducation-like effect.
In theory, 4 and 5 would be all you need, with no custodial, in-classroom programs required. But even if custodial, in-classroom programs are necessary, we already have them in operation for fairly low-level antisocial conduct (3).
I think you overanalized points 1-2. There was never and will never be anything like "absolute freedom of speech" or "freedom of speech" in general.
Very much like liberals believe in "free will" psychology and physics already proved there is no such thing. We know people already "decided" what to do based on MRI scans well before they become conscious of it.
Free speech as an extension of free will only means someone will say whatever he already experienced and is accustomed to .
If you go to an Amazonian tribe you wont see QAnon posts or them talking about the necessity for a pure "white" race or whatever shit liberals and fascists thinks it is their "opinion". Go interview families in Africa and see how closely their opinion matches the "enlightened" master race on FB/Reddit/4Chan etc...
Likewise go to a farming village and China, you wont see someone talking about the "Illuminati" or "deep state" shit.
The reality is people will only say what they already believe in and/or have been influenced by.
In a hypothetical ideal society nobody will be talking about the need to bring white supremacy to power because there wont be any material need and there wont be any exposure to such ideas.
So back to your post your points 1-2 implies climate change is a special condition to which we must act in forbidding "free speech". It certainly makes the case stronger why we can't have it, but it is not a special condition at all, as I explained above, IMO believing and preaching this idea of "free speech" is just liberal ideology itself trying to make you accept their beliefs as actual tangible real things, which they are not.
It doesn't matter how much time useless philosophy majors, liberal economists/"experts" or even pseudo intellectuals want to talk about and pay lip service to "freedom of speech", the reality of the human experience is there will never be such a thing.
"Free speech", "democracy", "free will" etc... are all parts of the liberal ideology which is pretty much a religion, based on how they act, it is far more important to believe and accept those concepts than whether or not those concepts are even valid to begin with.
It's amazing the realities that right wing, and to a lesser extent liberal media can create. Just completely fabricating the narrative and the hogs squeal with glee as they eat it up.
I used to be against reeducation, but these types of absolutely wild fantasies right wingers have probably can't be solved fast enough before climate change makes it all moot. My dad has every reason to be a comrade, materially speaking, but the conditioning is far too strong.
Reeducation needs to be seriously discussed, and every reeducation discussion should include the following points:
In theory, 4 and 5 would be all you need, with no custodial, in-classroom programs required. But even if custodial, in-classroom programs are necessary, we already have them in operation for fairly low-level antisocial conduct (3).
I think you overanalized points 1-2. There was never and will never be anything like "absolute freedom of speech" or "freedom of speech" in general.
Very much like liberals believe in "free will" psychology and physics already proved there is no such thing. We know people already "decided" what to do based on MRI scans well before they become conscious of it.
Free speech as an extension of free will only means someone will say whatever he already experienced and is accustomed to .
If you go to an Amazonian tribe you wont see QAnon posts or them talking about the necessity for a pure "white" race or whatever shit liberals and fascists thinks it is their "opinion". Go interview families in Africa and see how closely their opinion matches the "enlightened" master race on FB/Reddit/4Chan etc...
Likewise go to a farming village and China, you wont see someone talking about the "Illuminati" or "deep state" shit.
The reality is people will only say what they already believe in and/or have been influenced by. In a hypothetical ideal society nobody will be talking about the need to bring white supremacy to power because there wont be any material need and there wont be any exposure to such ideas.
So back to your post your points 1-2 implies climate change is a special condition to which we must act in forbidding "free speech". It certainly makes the case stronger why we can't have it, but it is not a special condition at all, as I explained above, IMO believing and preaching this idea of "free speech" is just liberal ideology itself trying to make you accept their beliefs as actual tangible real things, which they are not.
It doesn't matter how much time useless philosophy majors, liberal economists/"experts" or even pseudo intellectuals want to talk about and pay lip service to "freedom of speech", the reality of the human experience is there will never be such a thing. "Free speech", "democracy", "free will" etc... are all parts of the liberal ideology which is pretty much a religion, based on how they act, it is far more important to believe and accept those concepts than whether or not those concepts are even valid to begin with.