US Politics

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

This is hopefully my last comment on this.  People say this like it is something we already have and they're afraid of losing it.  We don't - we can't utter threats, we can't libel people and we can't yell fire in a theatre among a whole lot of other things we can't say or do.

It's really a disingenuous talking point;  the goal of which is to let people with power retain their power through whatever speech necessary.  If you pay attention to the loudest whiners about this, it's usually white men who are so incapable of articulating messages humanely that they need the protection of so called "free speech" that has never existed in the way they thought it did.

Yup.  As I said, people clinging to free speech as a defense to pushing a nasty narrative who dont understand what free speech means anyway.  You said it very well.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Wait, wiat, wait, a second...

 

I thought "case closed"?

 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

32 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

This is hopefully my last comment on this.  People say this like it is something we already have and they're afraid of losing it.  We don't - we can't utter threats, we can't libel people and we can't yell fire in a theatre among a whole lot of other things we can't say or do.

It's really a disingenuous talking point;  the goal of which is to let people with power retain their power through whatever speech necessary.  If you pay attention to the loudest whiners about this, it's usually white men who are so incapable of articulating messages humanely that they need the protection of so called "free speech" that has never existed in the way they thought it did.

I'm just going to say that I disagree with this comment 100%.  I also don't know why "white men" and "white nationalists" have to enter discussions about such basic concepts as free speech.  It really is baffling.  Is this what they are teaching in schools these days?  It would be interesting to sit in on a lecture where a prof is pooping on free speech, as I'd like to have a solid debate about it and why they think this right to say what you think is "disingenuous", and only valued by "white men".   Also, don't "women" value free speech?  If not, why not?  This just nauseates me, that something so basic a freedom that so many have died to protect, is so easily just dismissed as something unimportant or only exists to protect those who are incapable of "articulating messages humanly", whatever that even means.

Who decides what a "humanely articulated message" truly is?  And at what point does that become so blurred, that even those who support such nebulous and vague interpretations of what speech is allowable, suddenly become the enemy.  What then?  

Edited May 13, 2019 by kelownabomberfan

[kelownabomberfan]

26 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yup.  As I said, people clinging to free speech as a defense to pushing a nasty narrative who dont understand what free speech means anyway.  You said it very well.

you said this did you? OK - so I decide that your narrative is nasty.  Do you now lose your right to say these things?  If not, why not?  

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

you said this did you? OK - so I decide that your narrative is nasty.  Do you now lose your right to say these things?  If not, why not?  

Because I don’t routinely defend, deny and deflect on behalf of a racist, misogynistic, criminal moron or defend the white nationalists who support him.  Understand now? 

[The Unknown Poster]

So maybe we can get back on topic. Because this is outrageous conduct. 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

40 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

It's really a disingenuous talking point;  the goal of which is to let people with power retain their power through whatever speech necessary.  If you pay attention to the loudest whiners about this, it's usually white men who are so incapable of articulating messages humanely that they need the protection of so called "free speech" that has never existed in the way they thought it did.

case in point, the recent banning in facebook and instagram: 4 of the 6 banned were loudmouthed white males, one Black man and a white woman. 

[kelownabomberfan]

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Because I don’t routinely defend, deny and deflect on behalf of a racist, misogynistic, criminal moron or defend the white nationalists who support him.  Understand now? 

NO I obviously don't.  But I do see you participating in a lot of behavior that seems to defend, deny and deflect, so there is that.  I find a lot of your views incredibly repugnant, and your posting style to be beyond acceptable.  So can I censor you because of that?  If not, why not?  You are engaging in hateful behavior.  In my opinion.

As for the First Amendment, here's a guy who I guess would now be lumped in with "white men" who are "unable to humanely articulate a message".  This turned out to be his last speech before he was assassinated:

 

Is free speech antithetical to racial justice? Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been surprised at the suggestion that the pursuit of racial justice requires censorship. On the contrary, he understood as well as anyone that the First Amendment was crucial to the civil rights movement.

King spoke passionately in support of the First Amendment on April 3, 1968, the day before his assassination, in what turned out to be his final speech. In Memphis to support a sanitation workers strike, he proclaimed:

Something is happening in our world. The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee — the cry is always the same: “We want to be free.”

This, he continued, was the cry of people “determined to gain our rightful place in God’s world.”

And that’s all this whole thing is about. We aren’t engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody. We are saying that we are determined to be men. We are determined to be people. We are saying ... that we are God’s children, we don’t have to live like we are forced to live.

But the struggle for freedom and justice faced resistance, including an injunction, and this is where the First Amendment came into play:

Now about injunctions: We have an injunction and we’re going into court tomorrow morning to fight this illegal, unconstitutional injunction. All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.”

If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there.

But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.

And so just as I say, we aren’t going to let dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren’t going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.

 

The speech moved to other topics, coming finally to its famous conclusion:

And then I got into Memphis. And some began to ... talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land!

And so I’m happy tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

King’s vision of the Promised Land included equal rights for all, and those rights included freedoms of belief, speech, press, assembly, and protest. First Amendment rights, in his view, were crucial for reaching this land long promised, and part of what makes it the Promised Land.

The Promised Land, then, is not simply a “safe space.” Social justice is not achieved by eliminating “microaggressions” or requiring “trigger warnings.” Student activists, whatever their cause, should recognize and insist on intellectual freedom for all.

Edited May 13, 2019 by kelownabomberfan

[kelownabomberfan]

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

case in point, the recent banning in facebook and instagram: 4 of the 6 banned were loudmouthed white males, one Black man and a white woman. 

yes, that's definitely is proof all right.  Just wow.

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Because I don’t routinely defend, deny and deflect on behalf of a racist, misogynistic, criminal moron or defend the white nationalists who support him.  Understand now? 

oh but I say that you do engage in all kinds of hateful behavior.  Do you actually?  Does it matter?  I have decided that you do.  So therefore now you can't say anything.  You've lost your right.  That's how it works when the lines get blurry.  Understand now?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

oh but I say that you do engage in all kinds of hateful behavior.  Do you actually?  Does it matter?  I have decided that you do.  So therefore now you can't say anything.  You've lost your right.  That's how it works when the lines get blurry.  Understand now?

 

50 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yup.  As I said, people clinging to free speech as a defense to pushing a nasty narrative who dont understand what free speech means anyway.  You said it very well.

 

Hey- can you two take your twitter beef to PM, please. 

Or make a free speech thread to continue your discussion about free/hate speech? This is the U.S. politics thread, can we try and keep it on topic please?

[kelownabomberfan]

5 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

Or make a free speech thread to continue your discussion about free/hate speech? This is the U.S. politics thread, can we try and keep it on topic please?

I'm pretty offended by this.  But yes, to avoid me wanting you banned for spreading hate, I can go to PM.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

16 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

yes, that's definitely is proof all right.  Just wow.

No it's not- it is evidence. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

edit

Edited May 13, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[kelownabomberfan]

1 minute ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

No it's not- it is evidence. 

no, it's not evidence.

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

 

Hey- can you two take your twitter beef to PM, please. 

Or make a free speech thread to continue your discussion about free/hate speech? This is the U.S. politics thread, can we try and keep it on topic please?

Hey he asked.  He can Pm me anytime. 

Point taken!

[kelownabomberfan]

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

******* cuckoo bananas.

that's pretty offensive to bananas.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

no, it's not evidence.

Quote

Main Difference – Evidence vs Proof
Evidence and proof are two words that we commonly use interchangeably in general parlance.  However, there is a subtle difference between evidence and proof. Evidence refers to information or facts that help us to establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is the sum of evidence which helps to prove something. The main difference between evidence and proof is that proof is more concrete and conclusive than evidence.

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-evidence-and-proof/

[kelownabomberfan]

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-evidence-and-proof/

so here's where we get into the definition of "hate" again.   Hamas has called many times for the death of all the Jews in Palestine.  It's safe to say that that is pretty hateful.  And yet Hamas has a presence on Facebook.  Why were they not banned?  Should they be banned?  If so, does that prove that it's not just "loud-mouthed white guys" that are banned for "hate"?  Or is Hamas "hate" different than loud-mouthed white guy hate?  It's so confusing.

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

 

Hey- can you two take your twitter beef to PM, please. 

Or make a free speech thread to continue your discussion about free/hate speech? This is the U.S. politics thread, can we try and keep it on topic please?

Hey he asked.  He can Pm me anytime. 

Point taken!

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

13 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

so here's where we get into the definition of "hate" again.   Hamas has called many times for the death of all the Jews in Palestine.  It's safe to say that that is pretty hateful.  And yet Hamas has a presence on Facebook.  Why were they not banned?  Should they be banned?  If so, does that prove that it's not just "loud-mouthed white guys" that are banned for "hate"?  Or is Hamas "hate" different than loud-mouthed white guy hate?  It's so confusing.

SOrry... you quoted the evidence vs proof post of mine- I am not sure what this has to do with hamas.... or how facebook enforces their ToS.

Maybe take up my suggestion for a free/hate speech thread- seems like an appropriate place for the above quoted post. Or feel free to shoot me a PM and we can discuss why facebook is not enforcing their ToS with hamas.

 

If you want to continue with U.S. politics in this thread- I am all in!

Edited May 13, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[pigseye]

Still politics but in keeping with the direction of the thread,

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/443452-ilhan-omar-accuses-cheney-of-deep-seeded-hate-and-islamophobia

Quote

Rep. Ilhan OmarIlhan OmarGOP lawmaker slams Pelosi after imam critical of Israel delivers House invocation Pence calls for Omar to be removed from House Foreign Affairs Committee Cheney, Omar reignite Twitter feud MORE (D-Minn.) on Monday accused House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) of "deep seeded hate and Islamophobia" after Cheney repeatedly criticized Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) over her comments related to Israel and the Holocaust. 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

19 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Still politics but in keeping with the direction of the thread,

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/443452-ilhan-omar-accuses-cheney-of-deep-seeded-hate-and-islamophobia

 

She states that she gets a calm feeling when she thinks about how she loves "the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that [safe haven], in many ways.”  for Jews after the Holocaust.

 

"There’s, you know, there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, had been wiped out," Tlaib said on Yahoo News’s “Skullduggery” podcast. 

"I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time," she continued, before noting that she loves "the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that [safe haven], in many ways.”

Edited May 13, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[The Unknown Poster]

This is crazy. How can anyone defend this.  Put him in jail until he complies and make him plead the 5th. Let’s see how that plays. 

I love this expression “perjury trap”. On other words he means “they’ll catch me lying”. 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Well...he did it. He got me to like one of his tweets. (Not really but I do like the policy)