Deviation Actions
Literature Text
You said a true thing,
But it offends the aristocracy,
You have arguments to bring,
And there's no shortage of hypocrisy,
They silence you,
Or you don't speak what's true.
You spoke the truth,
But it offends academe,
You tell it with ruth,
But insults they'll scream,
They silence you,
Or you don't speak what's true.
You let the truth out,
But it offends the technocrats,
You calmly tell what you're about,
But they attack like rabid rats,
They silence you,
Or you don't say what's true.
The truth may not always be pleasant to hear,
But it's the only way for peace to draw near,
Don't let those on high control your mouth and ear,
They call you names out of fear,
Because their power rests in your cowering at their jeer,
Which is why they hate the sound of good cheer,
So let's strike out against them in the wild web frontier!
Censorship. It's not a good thing. Pretty much ever. No, no, sit down and hear me out before you prove yourself to be one of the useful idiots laboring with unceasing fervor to ironically centralize the power to decide what is acceptable to say with the same people who have all of the nukes. Maybe censorship isn't sounding so attractive now? Of course it's not, because you're not a complete moron. See, the argument against allowing the government to criminalize certain kinds of speech is, your guy won't always be in power if you live in a democracy or a republic. If you live in a dictatorship, he's not going anywhere, and in all likelihood he's already turned out to be not as great a guy as you thought before he seized power at gunpoint, but that bit's a whole separate wing of political science and philosophy. So, let's stick with Western republics and democracies for the moment. See, in a republic, or a democracy, who holds power is left up to this little thing called election, in which the erudite elates and the unwashed masses alike each get to cast one ballot, and whoever gets the most ballots gets to have whatever seat was up for election. This is obviously the oversimplified explanation in case a six year old happens to be really into poetry. (If that's the case: Hi Jimmy/Sally! You're just swell!) In such a system, the candidate who gets the most ballots is usually the one capable of motivating the greatest number of their base, the voters who would vote for that candidate anyway, and sway enough of the rest to choose that candidate over the other through rhetoric. Rhetoric has a bad rap at the moment because it's being used as a rhetorical buzzword to stand in for sophistry, which it can sometimes be, but is not always. All sophistry is rhetoric, but not all rhetoric is sophistry. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. I'm sure you get it. Probably. Rhetoric is simply the art of convincing people to change their minds through language, so most times, elections come down to who has the most effective rhetoric. This isn't a bad thing. Really, it's not. What is the alternative to rhetoric? Hint: it's not rainbows and warm-fuzzy feel-good cuddles. It's force. That's right sunshine, if you're not using rhetoric to change people's minds, you're using force to change their behavior. What does this have to do with censorship? Censorship is forcing people not to say certain things. It doesn't change minds, it just stops people from talking a certain way. And if you're censoring your political opponents, in a republic or democracy, they could win just by promising to censor you for a change. More tomorrow.
Please consider helping me go pro by visiting my WordPress!
If you like my stuff consider buying a thing!
Check out a free speech social media platform.
After all ignorance is bliss, right?