[laurent92]

They are delusional. I confronted my father about not being in favor of basic democratic principles (67, I’m 40), he maintained he wanted freedom of speech until, after a few targetted questions from myself, he admitted to having limits to it. Same for the right to vote, which he defends fiercely, except for the people who are under influence, foreign or otherwise.

Such horrible people maintain a doublespeak even in their own mind.

We’ve lost. We’ve lost.

[yuliyp]

Do you really think your father is a horrible person because some of the ideas in his head might be wrong, or come from a different set of values than you? Are all of your own views self-consistent? Have you ever come to a conclusion, and later changed your views after thinking further or getting new evidence, or from discussing them further?

I also find myself disagreeing with my father's politics often. I do compartmentalize it into a judgment of his political views, not my view on him as a person.

[laurent92]

Yes, of course. He constantly lies to hide his real political opinions: He obviously fights for women to succeed, he favors my sisters every time he can, he’s a staunch feminist, but he doesn’t want to lose his son. He puts a visible fat thumb on the balance in favor of women, and he’s surprised that I point out his fat thumb resting on the balance.

It’s sad, I’m sad, he’s sad, but he keeps doing it, and doesn’t want to discuss it.

To answer your question, I have often changed my mind in my life. Precisely because I’ve always engaged with opponents, had animated debates, and sometimes encompassed their point of view. I don’t understand how one can stay stuck on a demonstrably false information, and be so mean about it that you wouldn’t want it undemonstrated. But I feel like 10-20% of the Gen Z generation has the same problem dealing with their parents consuming fake news.

[foxhop]

Thanks for your story, I try not to use "generations" anymore. People are too complicated for that chaotically broken system created by media companies. I never fit any generational trope and I really don't know anyone who has.

I don't think we lost, I think some people have cognative bias and feminism has been hijacked in recent years by "Social Marxists" and mutated the original cause. When a person build's their cognition on a false premise a dysfunctional cognitive bias is formed. The individual will need to grow out of it themself, but it's hard to do because it requires breaking a bit of ones ego and facing ones shadow.

If you want to talk more hit me up, links in profile.

[golemotron]

Good practice. It's also good to make note of the differences you and your father have politically and then compare then to those of your children (or that age cohort if you don't have children) when you are your father's age. What we consider important, and why, change a lot over our lifetimes.

[poorjohnmacafee]

Well every family member and person I've ever gotten to know well enough where we talk politics, believe that the state naturally seeks to increase its power over time, so that people should be skeptical of the state. As cliche as it is to bring up, this is what the American founding fathers talked extensively about. Freedom of speech is the fundamental way that people can push back when governments do this, inevitably as they try to, as every state in every historical period has tried to.

Again, they're either naive or that's what they want and should be honest about it.

[freejazz]

The founders also were aware that the only freedom of speech that you have is from the gov't restricting your speech.

[remarkEon]

This is absolutely not at clear cut as you are describing it. They were well aware that public opinion generally understood is what is supposed to bound government action. I don't have all the Federalist references handy atm, but it is not the case that they would have said "meh if a private corporation does it it's okay". As will all things with those folks it's considerably more nuanced than that.

[freejazz]

I don't actually think it's more nuanced than that because the constitution is pretty explicit about "free speech" and the founders certainly weren't advocating that publishers have to publish things they didn't want to publish so maybe you can do us all a favor and explain where you think the nuance is as opposed to just suggesting it has to be more complicated than that.

[Jensson]

Lets say we have a company that pays politicians to do what they want, this is what you call free speech. This company also has the power to silence peoples voices on the public forum of that day, this is what you call free speech. Do you think this is what the founders intended by "free speech"? I do not, these two together means that the line between government and big corporation gets blurred, and that now effectively the people who decides what gets legislated are also the people who are free to censor people.

[freejazz]

The founders didn't intend anything for "free speech" save for what they enshrined in the constitution. I'm not sure how that could be more clear. Facebook is not a public forum. Back in the founders time, the only public square was the actual public square. There were even fewer publishers with even fewer opportunities for people to have their ideas amplified and disseminated, and even back then they did not think that xyz printing press had any obligation to publish anything anyone wanted to.

[PrincessJess]

They didn't account for a corporatocracy.

[freejazz]

Is this an argument? Do you think more people had more access to publishing in their time compared to today? I'm really struggling to understand why you think you are making a slam-dunk argument and that you haven't actually said anything of substance isn't helping me get there.