The point of the gun law is that laws always evolve. They are never stagnant. Do you think the writers of the constitution envisioned people mowing down schools and churches with fully automatic weapons, and then use the 2nd Amendment to protect peoples' ability to keep doing so? The same can very wasily happen with speech censorship. Where is the line drawn between hate speech, and a disagreement? Would you expect that line to never move or be abused in the future?
Do you think our courts still function? How about our laws? We have an administration that openly shows zero respect for either. So if your law was to come into existence now, it would 100% be abused.
Also, harassment is already a thing. If a person is hounding you with their speech, you CAN ALREADY take legal action to protect yourself/punish them. Do you think harassment laws aren't enough?
Yes, the law is flexible. Which is exactly why it will not protect you if the government and the courts get compromised at the same time. If the courts wants they can already justify any suppression of government criticism right now. The definition of treason is flexible enough that you could claim that criticism of the President is giving comfort to the enemies of the US. Seems absurd? Sure.
But the point is that what keeps useful public discourse and criticism alive is not the letter of the law, but the spirit. If Trump had the power to pervert reasonable hate speech laws to this degree, he would also have the power to pass a new version of the Alien and Sedition Acts and have the Supreme Court uphold them.
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
And the people that *are* abused under freedom od speech? Should they just take it? STFU and GTFO? Like the old saying goes. "Your freedom to throw a punch stops when it impacts my face."
Someone disagreeing with you isn't abuse. Neither does it impact your face. Would you care to share what you would consider being abused when it comes to speech?
When it causes actual harm. Death, injuries... like the synagogue shooting. Or the possibility of such, like with the Pipe bombs.
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
And the people that *are* abused under freedom od speech? Should they just take it? STFU and GTFO? Like the old saying goes. "Your freedom to throw a punch stops when it impacts my face."
Someone disagreeing with you isn't abuse. Neither does it impact your face. Would you care to share what you would consider being abused when it comes to speech?
When it causes actual harm. Death, injuries... like the synagogue shooting. Or the possibility of such, like with the Pipe bombs.
Those people weren't killed by words. To my knowledge, no word can kill.
Those people weren't killed by words. To my knowledge, no word can kill.
I really don't find anything strange in saying that words do kill. It's hard to create fanatics without words after all. For example, radio hosts famously played a large role in the Rwandan genocide by urging people to kill their neighbors after a long anti-Tutsi campaign.
And Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi told Islamic State supporters to start killing people with knives, trucks and whatever they had available. And suddenly we had a surge of terrorist attacks using knives and trucks in Europe. al-Baghdadi may not have actually killed the victims of those attacks, but he sure contributed to their deaths.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
So where do you draw the line? I disagree with people here all the time, if some nutjob goes and tracks down a forumite to assault them, and they say I inspired them, am I responsible for what they did?
For that matter, how would you enforce it? Are suggesting we imprision people for ideas? Should even our thoughts be censored?
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
And the people that *are* abused under freedom od speech? Should they just take it? STFU and GTFO? Like the old saying goes. "Your freedom to throw a punch stops when it impacts my face."
Someone disagreeing with you isn't abuse. Neither does it impact your face. Would you care to share what you would consider being abused when it comes to speech?
When it causes actual harm. Death, injuries... like the synagogue shooting. Or the possibility of such, like with the Pipe bombs.
Those people weren't killed by words. To my knowledge, no word can kill.
Not to bring up the Nazi comparison again (and that is not what I am attempting) but It’s been said that Hitler himself did not kill a single Jew. He also was once a nobody that everyone but a select few ignored.
Words themselves may not kill but they can influence people to.
@LadyRhian@Ammar But if you don't trust Trump to legislate anti hate speech laws, why would they be effective? Should we wait until a politician you like comes along to legislate it? What about when the next Trump comes along? Do we trust that person to not completely subvert the laws' definition of hate speech to include critique of themselves? Look at gun laws. Would anyone argue that right to bear arms was NECESSARY for survival in colonial times? What about now? Do you likewise think that we have adhered to the spirit of gun rights with our near weekly school and church shootings? ANY LAW THAT RESTRICS OR LEESNES THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE HAS THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL TO BE ABUSED.
And the people that *are* abused under freedom od speech? Should they just take it? STFU and GTFO? Like the old saying goes. "Your freedom to throw a punch stops when it impacts my face."
Someone disagreeing with you isn't abuse. Neither does it impact your face. Would you care to share what you would consider being abused when it comes to speech?
When it causes actual harm. Death, injuries... like the synagogue shooting. Or the possibility of such, like with the Pipe bombs.
Those people weren't killed by words. To my knowledge, no word can kill.
Here are some cases which are already criminal and involve only words:
Promising to pay someone if he kills your wife
A medical doctor giving bad medical advise on purpose (i.e. recommending you take 10 g of Paracetamol for your headache)
Divulging classified information
Slander
Intimidation
Blackmail
Industrial espionage
All of these can be done with the perpetrator using only words.
Are you arguing all of those acts should not be considered illegal? Because if you are consistent with your basic premise, this is the consequence.
@Ammar I'm saying that there are already penalties for planning to commit crimes, saying you will commit certain crimes, and harassment. What more is needed? How do you define "hate speech"? How do you prevent this from being abused? And again, how do you enforce this? Are we gonna start throwing people in jail because they have unpopular beliefs? Are thought crimes going to be a thing? I see a lot of liberals throw this around, but never really answer these questions.
“True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected speech.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
“True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected speech.
Yes, and these are already unprotected. I'm not clear on what more restrictions would mean or look like. It sounds to me like literally wanting to imprison people for having a different opinion than you.
What is the point of punishing someone by a "crime without victim"?
When i mean crime without victims, i mean for eg : - Owning an piece of metal that killed much more innocent people in hands of government than on civilian hands - Saying unpopular opinions - Having consensual relationships between two adult persons, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc or even a monetary factor involved. - Modifying his own body - Having any "illegal" substance
What is the point of flooding the prison with people wo committed crimes that have no victim? Isn't better to put the police and state force to actually hunt those who commit crimes with real victims? The government shouldn't decide what you can own, what you can do with your own body(aka limiting plastic surgeries), otherwise you are not a free man.
Just for one, "Illegal" substances are those prohibited by law. While you may have meant drugs here, it can also mean things like biological warfare weapons (poison gas, mustard gas, e.g.. And also actual weaponized disease-causing vectors, like Anthrax and similar. Would you suggest those should be legal to own?
By the way, I am also for restricting the use of Alcohol, a drug that is more dangerous and more addicting than most "illegal" drugs.
Saying unpopular opinions sounds like it should be allowed. Should anybody be able to say, "We should burn all people of X ethnic/religious/cultural heritage?" In some cases, like the pipe bomber and the man who shot up the Jewish Temple just in the last two weeks, speech convinced these people they had to take action. And they did. There was a suspect in Kansas who is trying to get leniency because he listened to Donald Trump. "Free" speech about how all X should be burned to death or have knives driven into their eyes shouldn't be allowed. Because it's actively hateful.(...)c
The difference is that an biologic weapon for example can destroy the humanity, at the same way that ""practice"" shooting by aiming at random people with an revolver loaded only with 1/6 shots. It is too dangerous. Firearms in other hands, there are more firearms than person on USA and car accidents are far more deadly than weapons accidents. But if a private entity wanna own biologic weapons to try find an way to counter it in a safe place, what is the problem?
As for Drugs, thanks to the Dry Law, criminal syndicates like Al Capone Mafia raised on power. The same happens to all substances. Uruguay legalized weed and a lot of people said that it will make Uruguay into a narco state but the reality is that the criminality dropped and started to profit from tourism.
About hate speech, who will determine what is hate speech? For example, SCUM Manifesto is hate speech? An "kill the boer" music on South Africa is hate speech? What about when socialists commit racism against minorities? Che Guevara saying that Mexicans are lazy indigenous on his book‘the motorcicle diaries’ is hate speech?
“True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected speech.
Yes, and these are already unprotected. I'm not clear on what more restrictions would mean or look like. It sounds to me like literally wanting to imprison people for having a different opinion than you.
I don't know either (what more protections are being requested) I was clarifying because
Keep imprisoning people until the only people who are left agree with you. That seems to be the answer on both sides of the spectrum. If both sides believe that not only are they 100% right, but the other side is 100% wrong then there is no common ground. There is no compromise once the crusade starts...
Edit: Well I guess I can take some comfort in that my 'side' has more guns...
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
I'm fairly positive the end result of concentration camps doesn't come to pass if Hitler and Goebbels don't spend YEARS dehumanizing the Jews in a focused propaganda effort. The hatred was PLACED inside the German people on purpose. Propaganda is used because it works. People didn't wake up one day and decide the Jews were a parasitic race preying on the German people. They came to believe it because that is what they were repeatedly told for years. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. The center erodes little by little and then it can't hold anymore. And the rhetoric around immigrants and "diseases" I've heard in the right-wing media in the last week is eerily similar.
@jjstraka34 It wasn't just fueling hate. Not all Germans fell in line. It was just as much jailing and "removing" dissidents and objectioners. Which is remarkably like what is being suggested.
@jjstraka34 It wasn't just fueling hate. Not all Germans fell in line. It was just as much jailing and "removing" dissidents and objectioners. Which is remarkably like what is being suggested.
I've been reading the last 20 or so posts and I can't even discern what is being suggested or not. I do know there is no national political figures on the left holding rallies calling for the jailing of their political rivals, but I know of THE national political figure on the right who does so at least once a week. In fact it just happened again a couple of minutes ago.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
I'm fairly positive the end result of concentration camps doesn't come to pass if Hitler and Goebbels don't spend YEARS dehumanizing the Jews in a focused propaganda effort. The hatred was PLACED inside the German people on purpose. Propaganda is used because it works. People didn't wake up one day and decide the Jews were a parasitic race preying on the German people. They came to believe it because that is what they were repeatedly told for years. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. The center erodes little by little and then it can't hold anymore. And the rhetoric around immigrants and "diseases" I've heard in the right-wing media in the last week is eerily similar.
The fact is that anti-Semitism was already rampant in Austria, Germany and most of Eastern Europe. The Germans weren't the only ones who persecuted Jews. The Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians were implicit in the process. Hitler stoked the flames that were already there.
@jjstraka34 It wasn't just fueling hate. Not all Germans fell in line. It was just as much jailing and "removing" dissidents and objectioners. Which is remarkably like what is being suggested.
I've been reading the last 20 or so posts and I can't even discern what is being suggested or not. I do know there is no national political figures on the left holding rallies calling for the jailing of their political rivals, but I know of THE national political figure on the right who does so at least once a week. In fact it just happened again a couple of minutes ago.
And Trump would be ignored as a crackpot if the left and right weren't nearly 100% opposed to each other. We're going to continue in this vicious cycle if something doesn't change. I've already admitted that my fellow members here have made me rethink my views on healthcare. The only problem I can see on my part is how to pay for it. You've convinced me that we should make it work somehow, though. Any of my ideas made anybody on the left rethink anything? Just curious...
@jjstraka34 A couple forumites have put forth the idea that hate speech should be illegal. I'm trying to figure out what that would look like in practical terms.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
So where do you draw the line? I disagree with people here all the time, if some nutjob goes and tracks down a forumite to assault them, and they say I inspired them, am I responsible for what they did?
For that matter, how would you enforce it? Are suggesting we imprision people for ideas? Should even our thoughts be censored?
If your language incited people to kill, even if the person who killed was a crackpot, should the person who incited them be held blameless? Just because they weren't the one who actually pulled the trigger, sent the bomb or whatever?
What you seem to be suggesting is, that if I dislike or hate you and consistently tell my crackpot neighbor that you are a threat and should be killed or what have you, and he one day goes out and kills you, I should be free of all blame. After all, I did was use my free speech to express myself. That doesn't seem right to me.
What is the point of punishing someone by a "crime without victim"?
When i mean crime without victims, i mean for eg : - Owning an piece of metal that killed much more innocent people in hands of government than on civilian hands - Saying unpopular opinions - Having consensual relationships between two adult persons, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc or even a monetary factor involved. - Modifying his own body - Having any "illegal" substance
What is the point of flooding the prison with people wo committed crimes that have no victim? Isn't better to put the police and state force to actually hunt those who commit crimes with real victims? The government shouldn't decide what you can own, what you can do with your own body(aka limiting plastic surgeries), otherwise you are not a free man.
Just for one, "Illegal" substances are those prohibited by law. While you may have meant drugs here, it can also mean things like biological warfare weapons (poison gas, mustard gas, e.g.. And also actual weaponized disease-causing vectors, like Anthrax and similar. Would you suggest those should be legal to own?
By the way, I am also for restricting the use of Alcohol, a drug that is more dangerous and more addicting than most "illegal" drugs.
Saying unpopular opinions sounds like it should be allowed. Should anybody be able to say, "We should burn all people of X ethnic/religious/cultural heritage?" In some cases, like the pipe bomber and the man who shot up the Jewish Temple just in the last two weeks, speech convinced these people they had to take action. And they did. There was a suspect in Kansas who is trying to get leniency because he listened to Donald Trump. "Free" speech about how all X should be burned to death or have knives driven into their eyes shouldn't be allowed. Because it's actively hateful.(...)c
The difference is that an biologic weapon for example can destroy the humanity, at the same way that ""practice"" shooting by aiming at random people with an revolver loaded only with 1/6 shots. It is too dangerous. Firearms in other hands, there are more firearms than person on USA and car accidents are far more deadly than weapons accidents. But if a private entity wanna own biologic weapons to try find an way to counter it in a safe place, what is the problem?
As for Drugs, thanks to the Dry Law, criminal syndicates like Al Capone Mafia raised on power. The same happens to all substances. Uruguay legalized weed and a lot of people said that it will make Uruguay into a narco state but the reality is that the criminality dropped and started to profit from tourism.
About hate speech, who will determine what is hate speech? For example, SCUM Manifesto is hate speech? An "kill the boer" music on South Africa is hate speech? What about when socialists commit racism against minorities? Che Guevara saying that Mexicans are lazy indigenous on his book‘the motorcicle diaries’ is hate speech?
You said having any 'Illegal substances'. So you agree with me that some substances that are illegal to have, *should* be illegal. And it should be because a private entity may not put it in a safe place. Just as for guns, people are supposed to be careful with them and not let kids get into them, but too many kids do, and end up killing themselves or other kids. The best lace for such substances to be are in hands, such like those of qualified researchers, who are best able to guard such substances in a way 99% or private individuals cannot or will not.
As for drugs, I think such things should be limited by the amount of harm they do to one's body. Marijuana is less harmful to the human body than alcohol, therefore, alcohol should be subject to greater restrictions than marijuana. Not banning it entirely, for sure, but not the kind of free and unfettered access people have to alcohol now.
I was not familiar with the SCUM manifesto. On looking it up, I'd say yes. Talking about women needing to eliminate men? Yes. Anything calling for genocide of others. I'm not familiar with Boer sons. I know who the Boers were. Do they still exist? I know that was from the 17th Century. I doubt they are still around. As for socialists being racists, I live with one, who happens to be gay and he's all up with people of color standing up to capitalism. While it may have been true in the past, given what I see today, not so much at all. Was Che Guevara calling on Mexicans to be killed/beaten/raped? If not, then no. You appear not to know the difference between disparagement and hate speech. One can be disparaging without crossing the line into hate speech.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
I'm fairly positive the end result of concentration camps doesn't come to pass if Hitler and Goebbels don't spend YEARS dehumanizing the Jews in a focused propaganda effort. The hatred was PLACED inside the German people on purpose. Propaganda is used because it works. People didn't wake up one day and decide the Jews were a parasitic race preying on the German people. They came to believe it because that is what they were repeatedly told for years. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. The center erodes little by little and then it can't hold anymore. And the rhetoric around immigrants and "diseases" I've heard in the right-wing media in the last week is eerily similar.
To be fair, Christians have had a thing against Jews for a long time. During the middle ages (And earlier) they were considered "Killers of Christ". It's also stuff like where the "Blood Libel" comes from (this being the contention that Jews needed to sacrifice a Christian baby and use its blood in their holy rites. The Black Death was blamed on Jews poisoning wells and "good" Christians slaughtered Jews in droves, as Jews seemed to be resistant or immune to the disease (actually, it was more like their insistence on bathing and laws of Kashrut that mostly saved them, from the disease at least. Not so much their neighbors.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
With enough repetition, anyone can br brainwashed into belief. With the Trump supporters taking everything from the Great Orange godling as gospel truth, well, that setting the scene for hate to metastasize into violence.
Not anyone can be brainwashed by propaganda, but many people can. Not falling for it first takes understanding how it works. And the absolute key is constant repetition of the same talking points and always staying on message. Which (and I have on numerous occasions given them credit for this even though I think their aims and goals are horrible) the right-wing media in this country are absolute goddamn masters at. No matter where you turn, FOX News, every AM radio host in the country and Republican politicians are almost ALWAYS talking about the exact same subject on a given day. They focus on one or two things every 24 hours and beat them into the ground. They use the same language and the same phrases. It works. I absolutely works. And the key is the repetition. Always the repetition.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
So where do you draw the line? I disagree with people here all the time, if some nutjob goes and tracks down a forumite to assault them, and they say I inspired them, am I responsible for what they did?
For that matter, how would you enforce it? Are suggesting we imprision people for ideas? Should even our thoughts be censored?
If your language incited people to kill, even if the person who killed was a crackpot, should the person who incited them be held blameless? Just because they weren't the one who actually pulled the trigger, sent the bomb or whatever?
What you seem to be suggesting is, that if I dislike or hate you and consistently tell my crackpot neighbor that you are a threat and should be killed or what have you, and he one day goes out and kills you, I should be free of all blame. After all, I did was use my free speech to express myself. That doesn't seem right to me.
What is the point of punishing someone by a "crime without victim"?
When i mean crime without victims, i mean for eg : - Owning an piece of metal that killed much more innocent people in hands of government than on civilian hands - Saying unpopular opinions - Having consensual relationships between two adult persons, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc or even a monetary factor involved. - Modifying his own body - Having any "illegal" substance
What is the point of flooding the prison with people wo committed crimes that have no victim? Isn't better to put the police and state force to actually hunt those who commit crimes with real victims? The government shouldn't decide what you can own, what you can do with your own body(aka limiting plastic surgeries), otherwise you are not a free man.
Just for one, "Illegal" substances are those prohibited by law. While you may have meant drugs here, it can also mean things like biological warfare weapons (poison gas, mustard gas, e.g.. And also actual weaponized disease-causing vectors, like Anthrax and similar. Would you suggest those should be legal to own?
By the way, I am also for restricting the use of Alcohol, a drug that is more dangerous and more addicting than most "illegal" drugs.
Saying unpopular opinions sounds like it should be allowed. Should anybody be able to say, "We should burn all people of X ethnic/religious/cultural heritage?" In some cases, like the pipe bomber and the man who shot up the Jewish Temple just in the last two weeks, speech convinced these people they had to take action. And they did. There was a suspect in Kansas who is trying to get leniency because he listened to Donald Trump. "Free" speech about how all X should be burned to death or have knives driven into their eyes shouldn't be allowed. Because it's actively hateful.(...)c
The difference is that an biologic weapon for example can destroy the humanity, at the same way that ""practice"" shooting by aiming at random people with an revolver loaded only with 1/6 shots. It is too dangerous. Firearms in other hands, there are more firearms than person on USA and car accidents are far more deadly than weapons accidents. But if a private entity wanna own biologic weapons to try find an way to counter it in a safe place, what is the problem?
As for Drugs, thanks to the Dry Law, criminal syndicates like Al Capone Mafia raised on power. The same happens to all substances. Uruguay legalized weed and a lot of people said that it will make Uruguay into a narco state but the reality is that the criminality dropped and started to profit from tourism.
About hate speech, who will determine what is hate speech? For example, SCUM Manifesto is hate speech? An "kill the boer" music on South Africa is hate speech? What about when socialists commit racism against minorities? Che Guevara saying that Mexicans are lazy indigenous on his book‘the motorcicle diaries’ is hate speech?
You said having any 'Illegal substances'. So you agree with me that some substances that are illegal to have, *should* be illegal. And it should be because a private entity may not put it in a safe place. Just as for guns, people are supposed to be careful with them and not let kids get into them, but too many kids do, and end up killing themselves or other kids. The best lace for such substances to be are in hands, such like those of qualified researchers, who are best able to guard such substances in a way 99% or private individuals cannot or will not.
As for drugs, I think such things should be limited by the amount of harm they do to one's body. Marijuana is less harmful to the human body than alcohol, therefore, alcohol should be subject to greater restrictions than marijuana. Not banning it entirely, for sure, but not the kind of free and unfettered access people have to alcohol now.
I was not familiar with the SCUM manifesto. On looking it up, I'd say yes. Talking about women needing to eliminate men? Yes. Anything calling for genocide of others. I'm not familiar with Boer sons. I know who the Boers were. Do they still exist? I know that was from the 17th Century. I doubt they are still around. As for socialists being racists, I live with one, who happens to be gay and he's all up with people of color standing up to capitalism. While it may have been true in the past, given what I see today, not so much at all. Was Che Guevara calling on Mexicans to be killed/beaten/raped? If not, then no. You appear not to know the difference between disparagement and hate speech. One can be disparaging without crossing the line into hate speech.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
I'm fairly positive the end result of concentration camps doesn't come to pass if Hitler and Goebbels don't spend YEARS dehumanizing the Jews in a focused propaganda effort. The hatred was PLACED inside the German people on purpose. Propaganda is used because it works. People didn't wake up one day and decide the Jews were a parasitic race preying on the German people. They came to believe it because that is what they were repeatedly told for years. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. The center erodes little by little and then it can't hold anymore. And the rhetoric around immigrants and "diseases" I've heard in the right-wing media in the last week is eerily similar.
To be fair, Christians have had a thing against Jews for a long time. During the middle ages (And earlier) they were considered "Killers of Christ". It's also stuff like where the "Blood Libel" comes from (this being the contention that Jews needed to sacrifice a Christian baby and use its blood in their holy rites. The Black Death was blamed on Jews poisoning wells and "good" Christians slaughtered Jews in droves, as Jews seemed to be resistant or immune to the disease (actually, it was more like their insistence on bathing and laws of Kashrut that mostly saved them, from the disease at least. Not so much their neighbors.
Words set off those killers. They reiterated talking points from Trump and FOX News.
I disagree. Hatred set off those killers, not mere words. If you dont have hatred in your heart, the words are powerless. Otherwise, everybody who listened to Trump would become a hate filled maniac whether they're a far-right nut or not. Hell, you shouldn't even be able to listen to a Hitler speech on the History Channel if that's the case.
With enough repetition, anyone can br brainwashed into belief. With the Trump supporters taking everything from the Great Orange godling as gospel truth, well, that setting the scene for hate to metastasize into violence.
No, I don't agree. Not anyone can be 'brainwashed' into belief. We'll have to agree to disagree if you truly believe that. If all you listen to is one side then that is still your choice so you're choosing to be be 'brainwashed'. In my opinion you were brainwashed before you listened...
@jjstraka34 It wasn't just fueling hate. Not all Germans fell in line. It was just as much jailing and "removing" dissidents and objectioners. Which is remarkably like what is being suggested.
I've been reading the last 20 or so posts and I can't even discern what is being suggested or not. I do know there is no national political figures on the left holding rallies calling for the jailing of their political rivals, but I know of THE national political figure on the right who does so at least once a week. In fact it just happened again a couple of minutes ago.
And Trump would be ignored as a crackpot if the left and right weren't nearly 100% opposed to each other. We're going to continue in this vicious cycle if something doesn't change. I've already admitted that my fellow members here have made me rethink my views on healthcare. The only problem I can see on my part is how to pay for it. You've convinced me that we should make it work somehow, though. Any of my ideas made anybody on the left rethink anything? Just curious...
What ideas would you have us consider? It seems like on a lot of issues there's dialogue and ideas from all over.
I'm pretty anti-gun and some arguments here have convinced me of some incremental change may be beneficial. Most people don't seem ready for what I, as an American who has lived more than decade in Europe and Asia, consider reasonable limits on firearms.
The left and right bring opposed to each be other is Trump's goal. "Democrats are killers and a violent mob" is setting the other side against you. There's no dialogue possible when one side is starting from a dishonest actor position.
What do you do with that? "No we aren't" well he'd say that's exactly what a killer violent mob would say. They aren't acting in good faith. If you just ignore it then some grain of truth is assumed by people. So Trump, and the larger Republican party tactic, is strawman attacks. Call Dems lawless or whatever then they are forced to address the ludicrous allegation then they've succeeded in tying you to the strawman because you had to address it. Basically this type of thing must be stopped. The best way is by voting but the GOP seems intent on denying that method in many states. We'll see what happens.
Not anyone can be brainwashed by propaganda, but many people can. Not falling for it first takes understanding how it works. And the absolute key is constant repetition of the same talking points and always staying on message. Which (and I have on numerous occasions given them credit for this even though I think their aims and goals are horrible) the right-wing media in this country are absolute goddamn masters at. No matter where you turn, FOX News, every AM radio host in the country and Republican politicians are almost ALWAYS talking about the exact same subject on a given day. They focus on one or two things every 24 hours and beat them into the ground.
True. If you listen to Fox News and President Trump, the same points get pounded into your head 24/7. Migrants and Mexicans are bad. Jews are bad and secretly control the government. George Soros is the worst because he is a Jew that backs the Democrats, liberals and people seeking to bring down the USA. And on and on and on. It's gotten to the point where Trump's followers would rather believe him than their own lying' eyes, it seems.
Shep Smith, also of FOX news, tried to tell a female viewer the truth about the "Migrant Caravan" using facts, and she pretty much told him she'd rather believe Trump than him.
I mean, I started watching FOX News when I was in high school right around the time of the Columbine shooting. They were fairly instrumental (along with the rest of the the media) in somehow pinning the blame on Marilyn Manson, who it turned out the shooters didn't even listen to or like. After that, on car trips where I wasn't listening to music (and because I hate 90% of the repetition of FM radio stations) I would often listen AM radio for sports or politics. And if you are listening to terrestrial radio in the United States for politics, literally 99% of it is not just conservative, but ultra-conservative. This isn't even remote hyperbole on my part. There is a complete monopoly on radio waves for one side of the political debate. I mean, I don't exist in some kind of liberal news bubble. For a good portion of my 20s and early-30s, I probably consumed more right-wing media just to figure out how they were doing what they were doing. Sometime around 2010 I just couldn't handle it anymore and had to stop doing anything more than checking in every once and awhile.
@jjstraka34 It wasn't just fueling hate. Not all Germans fell in line. It was just as much jailing and "removing" dissidents and objectioners. Which is remarkably like what is being suggested.
I've been reading the last 20 or so posts and I can't even discern what is being suggested or not. I do know there is no national political figures on the left holding rallies calling for the jailing of their political rivals, but I know of THE national political figure on the right who does so at least once a week. In fact it just happened again a couple of minutes ago.
And Trump would be ignored as a crackpot if the left and right weren't nearly 100% opposed to each other. We're going to continue in this vicious cycle if something doesn't change. I've already admitted that my fellow members here have made me rethink my views on healthcare. The only problem I can see on my part is how to pay for it. You've convinced me that we should make it work somehow, though. Any of my ideas made anybody on the left rethink anything? Just curious...
What ideas would you have us consider? It seems like on a lot of issues there's dialogue and ideas from all over.
I'm pretty anti-gun and some arguments here have convinced me of some incremental change may be beneficial. Most people don't seem ready for what I, as an American who has lived more than decade in Europe and Asia, consider reasonable limits on firearms.
What about reasonable terms of discussion on capitalism? Firearms are largely irrelevant. Statistically, the amount of firearm deaths are not worthy of the attention they get. More people die every day of auto accidents, drug overdoses, preventable diseases, etc... The attention it gets is part of the problem IMHO. Yet another way to divide us. How about common ground? Let's talk about something where we might be able to agree. Boring I know, but if we can get a dialogue going on this tiny forum maybe that will be a start. Call me crazy...
Comments
This is an important point.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
The last one doesn't sound as nice.
But the point is that what keeps useful public discourse and criticism alive is not the letter of the law, but the spirit. If Trump had the power to pervert reasonable hate speech laws to this degree, he would also have the power to pass a new version of the Alien and Sedition Acts and have the Supreme Court uphold them.
Hateful online rants by would-be shooters create police dilemma: ‘Nobody should lose their rights’
https://globalnews.ca/news/4614170/online-rants-would-be-shooters-create-dilemma-police/‘It’s your fault’: Protests greet Donald Trump as he visits Pittsburgh after synagogue shooting
https://globalnews.ca/news/4610905/families-politicians-shun-trumps-pittsburgh-visit/Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3xdjTbYyPXMU7wyZZ3cBJcsSTt2TpybA9uPNGxSG0DP4zlYP9sZAU4AJQTrump on PTSD: Some veterans aren’t strong enough to ‘handle it’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-veteran-ptsd-suicide-strong-handle-it-172839989.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=fb&fbclid=IwAR0pRFDTn1qg5pC1RrEwbRsJtmt6MMCiqZ1sTq5q0GQVo1EbyVh0IJtkPDwCNN’s Don Lemon doubles down after saying white men are ‘the biggest terror threat in this country’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/10/31/cnn-host-don-lemon-said-white-men-are-biggest-terror-threat-this-country/?fbclid=IwAR0733o8rdrUCw7WZXy8p6x0tDW4PrKg7bIN2u3nDXEUyWZ7W7NgG2k4DQ8&utm_term=.075572131ccfJewish woman hands emotional note to airline passenger in MAGA cap: ‘Your hat sanctions our death, our murder’
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/jewish-woman-hands-emotional-note-airline-passenger-maga-cap-hat-sanctions-death-murder/amp/?fbclid=IwAR15xIqHWSXb4O3wCi2LLpoxwRLqIb761VyJRymO5XFG6a8alYFcJJgyJF8'When This Happens, You Get a Wake-up Call': U.S. Jews Turn to Firearms Training After Pittsburgh Shooting
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/u-s-jews-turn-to-firearms-training-after-pittsburgh-shooting-1.6613408?fbclid=IwAR2MEaLO6aUKOs6Mm_UyRfrX2g_ixj93oIl7-7Bsa6oqffR8TUkZ94ereMAOpinion Why I Call the Pittsburgh Massacre a Pogrom, and Trump a Czar
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-why-i-call-the-pittsburgh-massacre-a-pogrom-and-trump-a-czar-1.6612190And Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi told Islamic State supporters to start killing people with knives, trucks and whatever they had available. And suddenly we had a surge of terrorist attacks using knives and trucks in Europe. al-Baghdadi may not have actually killed the victims of those attacks, but he sure contributed to their deaths.
For that matter, how would you enforce it? Are suggesting we imprision people for ideas? Should even our thoughts be censored?
Words themselves may not kill but they can influence people to.
- Promising to pay someone if he kills your wife
- A medical doctor giving bad medical advise on purpose (i.e. recommending you take 10 g of Paracetamol for your headache)
- Divulging classified information
- Slander
- Intimidation
- Blackmail
- Industrial espionage
All of these can be done with the perpetrator using only words.Are you arguing all of those acts should not be considered illegal? Because if you are consistent with your basic premise, this is the consequence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
As for Drugs, thanks to the Dry Law, criminal syndicates like Al Capone Mafia raised on power. The same happens to all substances. Uruguay legalized weed and a lot of people said that it will make Uruguay into a narco state but the reality is that the criminality dropped and started to profit from tourism.
About hate speech, who will determine what is hate speech? For example, SCUM Manifesto is hate speech? An "kill the boer" music on South Africa is hate speech? What about when socialists commit racism against minorities? Che Guevara saying that Mexicans are lazy indigenous on his book‘the motorcicle diaries’ is hate speech?
Edit: Well I guess I can take some comfort in that my 'side' has more guns...
I'm fairly positive the end result of concentration camps doesn't come to pass if Hitler and Goebbels don't spend YEARS dehumanizing the Jews in a focused propaganda effort. The hatred was PLACED inside the German people on purpose. Propaganda is used because it works. People didn't wake up one day and decide the Jews were a parasitic race preying on the German people. They came to believe it because that is what they were repeatedly told for years. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. The center erodes little by little and then it can't hold anymore. And the rhetoric around immigrants and "diseases" I've heard in the right-wing media in the last week is eerily similar.
What you seem to be suggesting is, that if I dislike or hate you and consistently tell my crackpot neighbor that you are a threat and should be killed or what have you, and he one day goes out and kills you, I should be free of all blame. After all, I did was use my free speech to express myself. That doesn't seem right to me. You said having any 'Illegal substances'. So you agree with me that some substances that are illegal to have, *should* be illegal. And it should be because a private entity may not put it in a safe place. Just as for guns, people are supposed to be careful with them and not let kids get into them, but too many kids do, and end up killing themselves or other kids. The best lace for such substances to be are in hands, such like those of qualified researchers, who are best able to guard such substances in a way 99% or private individuals cannot or will not.
As for drugs, I think such things should be limited by the amount of harm they do to one's body. Marijuana is less harmful to the human body than alcohol, therefore, alcohol should be subject to greater restrictions than marijuana. Not banning it entirely, for sure, but not the kind of free and unfettered access people have to alcohol now.
I was not familiar with the SCUM manifesto. On looking it up, I'd say yes. Talking about women needing to eliminate men? Yes. Anything calling for genocide of others. I'm not familiar with Boer sons. I know who the Boers were. Do they still exist? I know that was from the 17th Century. I doubt they are still around. As for socialists being racists, I live with one, who happens to be gay and he's all up with people of color standing up to capitalism. While it may have been true in the past, given what I see today, not so much at all. Was Che Guevara calling on Mexicans to be killed/beaten/raped? If not, then no. You appear not to know the difference between disparagement and hate speech. One can be disparaging without crossing the line into hate speech. To be fair, Christians have had a thing against Jews for a long time. During the middle ages (And earlier) they were considered "Killers of Christ". It's also stuff like where the "Blood Libel" comes from (this being the contention that Jews needed to sacrifice a Christian baby and use its blood in their holy rites. The Black Death was blamed on Jews poisoning wells and "good" Christians slaughtered Jews in droves, as Jews seemed to be resistant or immune to the disease (actually, it was more like their insistence on bathing and laws of Kashrut that mostly saved them, from the disease at least. Not so much their neighbors. With enough repetition, anyone can br brainwashed into belief. With the Trump supporters taking everything from the Great Orange godling as gospel truth, well, that setting the scene for hate to metastasize into violence.
I'm pretty anti-gun and some arguments here have convinced me of some incremental change may be beneficial. Most people don't seem ready for what I, as an American who has lived more than decade in Europe and Asia, consider reasonable limits on firearms.
The left and right bring opposed to each be other is Trump's goal. "Democrats are killers and a violent mob" is setting the other side against you. There's no dialogue possible when one side is starting from a dishonest actor position.
What do you do with that? "No we aren't" well he'd say that's exactly what a killer violent mob would say. They aren't acting in good faith. If you just ignore it then some grain of truth is assumed by people. So Trump, and the larger Republican party tactic, is strawman attacks. Call Dems lawless or whatever then they are forced to address the ludicrous allegation then they've succeeded in tying you to the strawman because you had to address it. Basically this type of thing must be stopped. The best way is by voting but the GOP seems intent on denying that method in many states. We'll see what happens.
Shep Smith, also of FOX news, tried to tell a female viewer the truth about the "Migrant Caravan" using facts, and she pretty much told him she'd rather believe Trump than him.