What's new
By:
Filters

"Alternative Facts": Trump's War on the Media

jimmy eat jazz said:
Both sides of the spectrum have their own version of political correctness. On the left, it includes being sufficiently sensitive to minority or traditionally marginal groups (among other things), while in the right includes being sufficiently patriotic, including showing expected respect during pledge of allegiance (you'd think the Kaepernick thing was the end of the world given how some on the right were in such full frothing outrage over it) or showing expected deference to authority, partiucularly police and military, or showing due respect for POTUS (at least now that Trump is in power, not so much under Obama).

I think both sides could probably due with relaxing the sphincter a bit and adopting a bit more of a live and let live approach. Way too many people getting outraged about way too many things. I just don't know how some people can enjoy life at all with how easily and frequently they are outraged all the time.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. You can't call yourself a liberal, then act like the nationalists and the fascists. If you believe in individual autonomy and the importance of free discourse, then you're a liberal. If you believe that people who have "dangerous ideas" should be denied a platform (and much else), then you're not a liberal. So stop calling yourself one because you're making the rest of us look bad.

P.S. none of the "you"s in the response is intended for jej or anyone else. It's just a substitute for "one".
 
Siro said:
That's the thing. You can't call yourself a liberal, then act like the nationalists and the fascists. If you believe in individual autonomy and the importance of free discourse, then you're a liberal. If you believe that people who have "dangerous ideas" should be denied a platform (and much else), then you're not a liberal. So stop calling yourself one because you're making the rest of us look bad.

P.S. none of the "you"s in the response is intended for jej or anyone else. It's just a substitute for "one".
Click to expand...

Dunno about that, where do you draw the line? Hate speech for example, Germany and GB both have laws that restrict free speech, I consider them both considerably freer and more liberal societies than the US. There should be an agreed civility to public discourse, in most of the post war west there kind of had been until the last 25 years or so at least. Surprisingly it coincided with the longest period of improvement in living standards for the majority of their populations.
 
Rubashov said:
Dunno about that, where do you draw the line? Hate speech for example, Germany and GB both have laws that restrict free speech, I consider them both considerably freer and more liberal societies than the US. There should be an agreed civility to public discourse, in most of the post war west there kind of had been until the last 25 years or so at least. Surprisingly it coincided with the longest period of improvement in living standards for the majority of their populations.
Click to expand...

hate speech should always be allowed.
and no screaming fire in a theater is NOT hate speech
 
Rubashov said:
Dunno about that, where do you draw the line? Hate speech for example, Germany and GB both have laws that restrict free speech, I consider them both considerably freer and more liberal societies than the US. There should be an agreed civility to public discourse, in most of the post war west there kind of had been until the last 25 years or so at least. Surprisingly it coincided with the longest period of improvement in living standards for the majority of their populations.
Click to expand...

To call Europe more liberal than America is a gross oversimplification. In what way is Europe more liberal? Bigger government programs? Not really a sign of liberalism. If you look at social issues, many European countries still don't allow same-sex marriage. 5 years ago, most of them didn't. Then you have the restrictions on free speech that you mentioned. And you have the fact that a big chunk of Western European people support actual, honest to God, neo-Nazis. On the other hand, higher percentage of Europeans say they're accepting of things like abortion, homosexuality, extra-marital affairs and so on. It also depends on which areas of the US you're comparing to which areas of Europe. It's a complicated question of whether Europe is generally more liberal than the US.

Improvement in living standards are a product of development, not a product of the ban on Nazi iconography. The US has good average living standards too.

There can not be an agreed upon "civility" in public discourse. If we did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are laws intended to prevent people from directly harming others. Beyond that, society is better off if all views are available for discussion and scrutiny.
 
let me be clear ebfore my low information information gets digested wrongly.
there is Hate speech and "calls to action".

please dont confuse the 2. lawyers on here whos 1st language is English might explain it better.

for example:
you could say
"donald trump is a orange cheeto-ed $^%$^% %$^%$# %@#$%^ %^$*&^%"
or
"whatever REAL sexist hompobic bigoted racist thing."

those things are freedom of speech.
in Netherlands and Europe you cannot do that. I know from personal experience!
you cannot say "the queen is a POS."
or as you know recently far right leader wilders got prosecuted for hate speech!


calls to action are something different.
yelling fire in a crowded theater will lead people to take immediate action, which might have consequences.
depending on those consequences your punishment should be determined.

maybe another thing, lets say at a rally you call for the assassination of a countries leader, and someone goes and does it. the person who called for it should be investigated to see how big his part was in the eventual consequence. and if his words caused the assasination he would be punished.


to put it even more simple as i am simpleminded.
you can say: "**** white people they suck" and if someone goes and kills white people you should not be prosecuted
you can say: "**** white people, lets kill em all" and nobody actually goes and organizes a genocide you should not be prosecuted
you can say: "**** white people, lets kill em all" and you influnced someone to actually GO DO IT. then your part in it should be investigated and punished
 
Siro said:
To call Europe more liberal than America is a gross oversimplification. In what way is Europe more liberal? Bigger government programs? Not really a sign of liberalism. If you look at social issues, many European countries still don't allow same-sex marriage. 5 years ago, most of them didn't. Then you have the restrictions on free speech that you mentioned. And you have the fact that a big chunk of Western European people support actual, honest to God, neo-Nazis. On the other hand, higher percentage of Europeans say they're accepting of things like abortion, homosexuality, extra-marital affairs and so on. It also depends on which areas of the US you're comparing to which areas of Europe. It's a complicated question of whether Europe is generally more liberal than the US.

Improvement in living standards are a product of development, not a product of the ban on Nazi iconography. The US has good average living standards too.

There can not be an agreed upon "civility" in public discourse. If we did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are laws intended to prevent people from directly harming others. Beyond that, society is better off if all views are available for discussion and scrutiny.
Click to expand...

ok let me throw this out there. Europe is more SOCIALISM then America. and socialism and liberalism are seen as brothers!
 
Siro said:
That's the thing. You can't call yourself a liberal, then act like the nationalists and the fascists. If you believe in individual autonomy and the importance of free discourse, then you're a liberal. If you believe that people who have "dangerous ideas" should be denied a platform (and much else), then you're not a liberal. So stop calling yourself one because you're making the rest of us look bad.

P.S. none of the "you"s in the response is intended for jej or anyone else. It's just a substitute for "one".
Click to expand...

I am in full agreement, with possible exception of any implied obligation to grant a platform. A truly free society permits all speech and ideas but this does not imply anyone has an obligation to provide a platform for it. For example, white nationalists should have same free speech rights as anyone else, but neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to provide them a platform. Nor do social communities, such as this one, have an obligation to tolerate this speech in our community forum. This creates a murky kind of line that we are constantly struggling to define.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I am in full agreement, with possible exception of any implied obligation to grant a platform. A truly free society permits all speech and ideas but this does not imply anyone has an obligation to provide a platform for it. For example, white nationalists should have same free speech rights as anyone else, but neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to provide them a platform. Nor do social communities, such as this one, have an obligation to tolerate this speech in our community forum. This creates a murky kind of line that we are constantly struggling to define.
Click to expand...

I agree that they are under no obligation to provide a platform. But I do disagree with them preventing others from providing that platform. That's when you take it to far. That or when your protests turn violent as they recently have been in some cases.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
...For example, white nationalists should have same free speech rights as anyone else, but neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to provide them a platform. Nor do social communities, such as this one, have an obligation to tolerate this speech in our community forum. This creates a murky kind of line that we are constantly struggling to define.
Click to expand...

nailed it!
 
Stoked said:
I agree that they are under no obligation to provide a platform. But I do disagree with them preventing others from providing that platform. That's when you take it to far. That or when your protests turn violent as they recently have been in some cases.
Click to expand...

If, say, a local public school has offered a known white nationalist, or known homophobic activist (e.g., advocating for housing or job descrimination against gays) to speak at a student assembly, you would, then, disagree with any attempts to pressure/convince the school to revoke the invitation?
 
LsWbm42.gifv


[video]https://i.imgur.com/LsWbm42.mp4

https://i.imgur.com/LsWbm42.gifv
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
If, say, a local public school has offered a known white nationalist, or known homophobic activist (e.g., advocating for housing or job descrimination against gays) to speak at a student assembly, you would, then, disagree with any attempts to pressure/convince the school to revoke the invitation?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It depends on the steps taken.

I am all for protesting, petitions, signs, meetings with school officials...

I don't agree with blocking traffic, assaulting people, physically blocking people to the event, burning trash cans...

Some of the recent events have gone more into this second category. If the school in this scenario decides to go ahead with that event and provide that platform they should not be prevented from doing so.
 
Stoked said:
Yes and no. It depends on the steps taken.

I am all for protesting, petitions, signs, meetings with school officials...

I don't agree with blocking traffic, assaulting people, physically blocking people to the event, burning trash cans...

Some of the recent events have gone more into this second category. If the school in this scenario decides to go ahead with that event and provide that platform they should not be prevented from doing so.
Click to expand...

Stoked said:
Yes and no. It depends on the steps taken.

I am all for protesting, petitions, signs, meetings with school officials...

I don't agree with blocking traffic, assaulting people, physically blocking people to the event, burning trash cans...

Some of the recent events have gone more into this second category. If the school in this scenario decides to go ahead with that event and provide that platform they should not be prevented from doing so.
Click to expand...

I agree, as a general rule, that more drastic actions as you describe here should be avoided. They do not reflect well of those who engage in them and are possibly counterproductive in any case.

With that said, I disagree that someone advocating for open discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. should be given any platform paid for, in effect, by taxpayers. In such as case, I would undertand it if opposition groups took more drastic actions, as providing a public and taxpayer paid platform for hate messages is, in my mind, a far worse offense than reasonable opposition taken to prevent such a platform from being provided. What are the limits of reasonableness in this case? I'm not sure, rioting is most certainly is not reasonable, but is interrupting the meeting? I don't think so. This is why it's a murky line, at least in my mind.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I agree, as a general rule, that more drastic actions as you describe here should be avoided. They do not reflect well of those who engage in them and are possibly counterproductive in any case.

With that said, I disagree that someone advocating for open discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. should be given any platform paid for, in effect, by taxpayers. In such as case, I would undertand it if opposition groups took more drastic actions, as providing a public and taxpayer paid platform for hate messages is, in my mind, a far worse offense than reasonable opposition taken to prevent such a platform from being provided. What are the limits of reasonableness in this case? I'm not sure, rioting is most certainly is not reasonable, but is interrupting the meeting? I don't think so. This is why it's a murky line, at least in my mind.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with their speech or event either, for the record.

But if we are going to allow political based speeches as tax payers we should allow them all. If you can convince a specific organization like a college to cancel an event through peaceful means than sure great. make your voice heard.

But I strongly oppose shutting it down by force and that is what I see happening in some cases. At that point its not free speech but the oppression of free speech IMO.

I agree that it is a murky line and people's opinions on where that line is will obviously differ.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I agree, as a general rule, that more drastic actions as you describe here should be avoided. They do not reflect well of those who engage in them and are possibly counterproductive in any case.

With that said, I disagree that someone advocating for open discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. should be given any platform paid for, in effect, by taxpayers. In such as case, I would undertand it if opposition groups took more drastic actions, as providing a public and taxpayer paid platform for hate messages is, in my mind, a far worse offense than reasonable opposition taken to prevent such a platform from being provided. What are the limits of reasonableness in this case? I'm not sure, rioting is most certainly is not reasonable, but is interrupting the meeting? I don't think so. This is why it's a murky line, at least in my mind.
Click to expand...

therein lies the rub.

i dont think murderspeech aka abortion should be done with taxpayer funding

to me nationalsozialismus speech and abortion speech, are just as wrong. but you don't go see me burning down trashcans and riot!

i will always be for less taxes and get government out of most ****
 
So it looks like Milo finally lost the support of conservatives by daring to question the West's deepest taboo.
 
Siro said:
So it looks like Milo finally lost the support of conservatives by daring to question the West's deepest taboo.
Click to expand...

Finally pushed his abrasive personality to far and he lost a lot of fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top