Left suicide and right laugh

Left suicide and right laugh

Like the mirror, the right and left are full of self-defeating behavior.

Both sides have a lot of self-contradictory behavior and it is difficult to adopt consistent and consistent behavior.

As if the left group behaved and acted like the right group, the right group acted like a left group and exposed self-contradiction to each other.

A little old but interesting example

https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E4%BA%BA%E9%96%93%E7%A0%B4%E5%A3%8A%E5%88%97%E5%B3%B6-% E6% 96% 8E% E8% 97% A4-% E8% B2% B4% E7% 94% B7 / dp / 4884663608

This is a left-winged work. It is “Human Destructive Archipelago” written by Takao Saito who is full of uniqueness.

[It's just a bit of a bitter smile] The author is still criticizing his old nest and criticism of the left media, so it can be said that it is not just a partisan book.

“Who is the one who kills freedom, the one who invades human dignity. A full-length essay and reportage in which the journalist spirit stands up against the winds of the times. Is the description of the book.

What is interesting (?) Here is that a book that was advertised in a left-wing newspaper was out of print, and the book author's self-proclaimed research institute in the United States was pursued by pursuing the author of the publisher. .

In short, it was a book on the theme of disability, but its content was discriminatory and it was crushed under pressure with a disability group.

By the way, I also wrote a complaint in the left-wing newspaper that published the advertisement.

There was only a decent appearance, and in the email exchange with the other party, ① there was an assertion that the other party was also a disabled person, and ② that the other party was a disabled person, as Mr. Saito felt. Fortunately, it was reported that ③ the other party was somewhat sensational, but there was a report that he was conscious of spreading the disability.


“Who is it? Who is the one who kills freedom”?

Probably because it is a "person who infringes human dignity", it will be suppressed because of discrimination against disabled people, but research smashing and the other party also seems to be disabled, send a protest and drive the book out of print Is the action to be a “person who protects human dignity”?

Although it is decent but not partisan, the behavior that humans who have been recognized as enemies do not have human rights deviates from the original leftist ideology, and above all, it is rather “human destruction” as the title .

Of course, it would be a claim that it is a “human-destructive archipelago” because it is a country where hate books will be released in the current way, and it is calm if social sanctions are added to the person who describes hate books. There can be a controversial argument that a difficult society cannot be protected.

However, recognition as a hate book is difficult and should be cautious, and it is hard to say that it should be easily banned only with the intentions of the disabled group.

There is an opinion that these should be excluded from freedom of expression at least from the same point of view regarding freedom of expression, but there is a very difficult problem of ambiguity of the outer edge and how far to be regulated, so it is not a common opinion That's it.

In the first place, if out-of-print due to such private sanctions becomes natural, it will become a pressure battle and freedom will be greatly impaired. It would be a good idea to put up a hate book and a label on the opponent you don't like, and develop an out of print apology / dissolution movement.

Therefore, speech should be free, and in the case of incorrect speech, the attitude to oppose in speech is inherently the left group (rather the right group tends to be able to identify censorship theory and “correct”, so it is not possible to take something contrary to it It is easy to get an opinion of OK).

[It would be hard to say that it should be easily crushed because it is an expression that is problematic for some humans. This should be important especially for the leftist.

In spite of this, it was reported that the above was happily out of print, apologized, and forced to close the laboratory, and this ending was very good. Yes, I was worried about it.

The lab is already out of print and the lab has already been closed, so it is currently unknown what hate books and hate-like research were done (or just the name of the lab in the United States without regard to the description content, There is no one person, but a Nikkei with a disability was an activity aimed at raising disabilities, but it seems that it was just too much content ...). There is a possibility that the content was hateful without much room for excuse, so it cannot be defended by sight, but it seems to be quite problematic to crush it with private pressure.

Also, if it was so terrible, there could have been a way to seek legal injunction and the damage to legitimate personality rights caused by trial.

Also, this kind of behavior may cause problems such as unfavorable reputation for the disabled people's association, conspiracy content that is often seen recently, connection with power, or the obstacle being pushed into the invisible area.

The state of being crushed when involved is unhealthy.

∙ It should be handled in an open stance, and such a countermeasure is not considered appropriate.

However, for some reason, it will be put on sale with the details of it in the book at the end of the action.

In other words, I can say that I have not come up with such a problem.

The right group has risen as a result of resentment or repulsion of the left group.

[This is a matter of course, but on the contrary, the right group is just laughing at the “funnyness” of such a left group. That tended to disappear.

No, the right group is more self-destructive and self-contradictory than the left group, and despite criticizing the left group as not being constructive, they are often less constructive.

This time, the left group was taken up, but a similar example is seen on the right side. On the contrary, it is better if there is still a claim, but it ends with a mere left wing or hate, and even if you do this, it will not move forward and will eventually be returned to the left.

The right group should have a coherent and well-organized theory system, and change the style of the left group from beginning to end.