Gryzemuis on 20/8/2018 at 09:56
Quote Posted by icemann
Whilst I agree that some of the opinions on the far right should not be tolerated. If we react violently / aggressively toward it, are we any better than it?
If you actually kill someone, you will go to jail. There is free speech. Talking is not the same as acting. However, if you seriously say you are going to kill someone particularly, you will go to jail.
Same thing should apply on a larger scale. Lynching black people is a crime. There is free speech. But if you say you want to kill or deport or lock up a whole group of people, just because, then maybe you should go to jail to.
Gryzemuis on 20/8/2018 at 09:59
Quote Posted by icemann
All you do by doing so is drive it underground (as I mentioned), which over time makes it worse.
No. Trump brought out many despicable groups from an underground existence. They are in broad daylight now. Do you think that makes America better ? I don't.
Gryzemuis on 20/8/2018 at 11:54
FYI, all those diagrams are pure bullshit.
There are hundreds of broad political subjects. Just the idea that you can group all solutions/proposals/ideas in two groups, "the left" and "the right" is bogus. Adding a "democratic" vs "authoritorian" scale to it doesn't give it any value. The idea that everybody needs to pick "sides" is bogus. It is a stupid idea that simplifies hard questions, as if they are all simple and have only 2 solutions. And they encourage the "us versus them" mentality.
The idea that all "capitalist" or all "communist" are the same is ridiculous.
Even inside the same governments (e.g. Trump's, but also Obama's, Bush's or Clinton's administrations) people had different and even opposing ideas.
I guess it is all to blame on the two-party system in the US. Democracy of the stupid. ("Vote red or vote blue, it's that simple").
SD on 20/8/2018 at 13:34
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
FYI, all those diagrams are pure bullshit.
There are hundreds of broad political subjects. Just the idea that you can group all solutions/proposals/ideas in two groups, "the left" and "the right" is bogus. Adding a "democratic" vs "authoritorian" scale to it doesn't give it any value. The idea that everybody needs to pick "sides" is bogus. It is a stupid idea that simplifies hard questions, as if they are all simple and have only 2 solutions. And they encourage the "us versus them" mentality.
It's obviously a simplification, but that doesn't make it bullshit.
As a general rule, economic policy can be neatly filed under left (more state intervention) and right (less state intervention). Left-wing economics is all about putting control of the economy in the hands of "the people" (read: the government) and right-wing economics is all about leaving it to the market, with everyone between the two extremes favouring a mix of state and market solutions.
And question like "should cannabis be able to be consumed legally" is absolutely a binary question, with an authoritarian ("no") and a libertarian ("yes") response. I mean, I can't really conceive of a libertarian argument for opposing a person's liberty to use drugs.
I'm certainly interested in seeing some examples of hard questions which can't be divided like this.
heywood on 20/8/2018 at 22:14
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
But what I don't agree with is that hatred should be protected by the right of free speech. If your speech is designed solely to attack and hurt others, then that is not okay and you should not have the right to that speech. You have the right to have an option. You do not have a right to spread hatred and vitriol, to attack others. Those aren't valid political beliefs, they're behaviours which are unacceptable in any society.
I keep seeing "freedom of speech" being used to defend the alt-right. No. Just no. Stop trying to use free speech to defend the indefensible.
Racism, bigotry, sexism, death threats, these things are never okay, anywhere, on any side of the political spectrum.
One problem I have with hate speech is the word hate. It's not against the law to hate someone. Besides, how do you know when speech is motivated by hate and when it isn't?
Being able to say what you think is one of the most fundamental and universal human rights. I don't think we should be censoring speech except in cases where an individual is actually being threatened with violence or harassed. Using racial or ethnic slurs or derogatory language is ugly and unnecessary but doesn't rise to that standard. That kind of language should be fought culturally. Teach children not to use it, don't tolerate it at school, don't tolerate it in the workplace, challenge your friends if they do it, shame people who do it in public, etc.
Another problem with taking political correctness to the point of censorship is that the terms racist, bigot, sexist, xenophobe, etc. are being thrown around with as much care as my two year old throws his toys. Their significance is being eroded by people who use them as general insults to put down people with different political views. Political correctness can serve a useful purpose in communicating norms of culturally acceptable behavior, but it can also be used as a tool for silencing opposing political views, and that's not OK with me.
Nameless Voice on 20/8/2018 at 22:33
But people should also have the freedom that if you say reprehensible things, they don't have to listen to you or to suffer your presence.
They should be within their rights to throw you out of the places that they are trying to inhabit and not be forced to listen to you or put up with you.
That applies both to physical spaces as well as virtual ones.
Renzatic on 20/8/2018 at 23:19
I think of freedom of speech as such:
Are you being persecuted by the government for the things you say? Do you risk life and liberty for speaking unpopular opinions?
No?
Then your 1st Amendment rights are being upheld.
Did you someone call you an asshole for the things you said while speaking your mind?
Yes?
Well, that's their right. Speech is reciprocal, after all.
Did someone kick you off their property because you spoke your mind?
That's their property, and property rights triumph over all in a capitalist society. When you walk into a store, a restaurant, a private online forum, you're there by the owner's good graces. If they don't want you screaming about socialist black people on welfare in the front lobby, they can demand you leave.
There are exceptions to the above, but these should be considered the true base facts that underlie all free speech rants.
Starker on 21/8/2018 at 01:51
Quote Posted by SD
My chart is doubtless pretty standard for a European liberal (socially libertarian, economically centrist) but they put my party in the upper right quadrant, seemingly apropos of absolutely nothing. Given that the Liberal Democrats is the party that drove legalisation of gay marriage in the UK, wants to legalise marijuana etc, it's difficult to understand how they managed to put them up there:
Yeah, I got nothing. The only thing I can think of was Farron's antics with the "gay sex is sin" stuff, but that was a flash in the pan, really.
I know there was the perception that the coalition government was dragging the UK back to Thatcherism, so they were getting flak just for associating with Tories, but that was before they got practically wiped out.
Queue on 21/8/2018 at 02:03
I'm right where I thought I'd be. With the amount of people who seemingly have libertarian values, it's weird that how little traction the Libertarian party gets. Though, that might have something to do with the lack of good candidates in the past...or that too many "libertarians" are stay-off-my-porch lunatics.
Me, I'm all for doing whatever is best for the planet and society; and couldn't care less who is kissing who, or what fairy tale people decide to worship. As long as you don't hurt anyone, don't fuck up our only home, or try to force anyone to conform to your nutty beliefs then you have every right to be as nutty as you want.
Who am I to judge, lest I be judged myself.
Inline Image:
https://s33.postimg.cc/cwmgqax6n/results.jpg