The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

I promised I'd watch it and get in my 2 cents.
He lost me after postmodernism. Not that I didn't understand his english or speech, but it was confusing.

However, I agree that we should be able to say whatever we want to say in regards to free speech as long as we don't intentionally hurt anyone. It's up to us to, in a way, to censor ourselves.

But what is intentionally hurtful? Is my saying that abortion is murder intentionally hurtful? In other words, where do you draw the line? Militant atheists would say that preaching Jesus in the park is intentionally hurtful, thus should I be barred from doing it? After all, they call teaching kids your beliefs child abuse...Let me put it this way, would you want Trump and his merry band of friends dictating what is and what is not intentionally hurtful?

[general "you" coming up]

I think it comes down to this, if you want to call me a ****** -- go ahead, and call me a ******. I'm entirely in my right to call you a biggot by that same right.
Are you going to be offended by it? If yes, than why did you call me a ****** knowing it might offend me?

If you're intention is to (intentionally) hurt or offend, you shouldn't be surprised when your free speech is snipped -- which applies to all sides.

The problem I see is that what one applies to one applies to all. You start snipping public speech in one area, it can then be used to justify snipping in another area. And pretty soon it's illegal to be Jewish in Germany, and no I am not talking about Nazis. I'm talking about German courts making it illegal to preform circumcisions. I know it's not part of speech, but it is an excellent example on how things can fly off the handle before anyone knows what happened. Or having schools ban long skirts because Muslims (Looking at you Europe) which is symbolic speech. France is inching closer and closer to making any outward expression of religion illegal (symbolic speech or free exercise as we may call it here in the US, it fits both).

Sure, we'd all love to punish those who would offend you as such, but at what price?

I agree with that, depending upon how you define "hurt anyone". I still don't understand how you can physically hurt someone with mere words, whatever those words happen to be.
You and I could be standing in the same room, and you can hurl whatever insult, epithet, name, curse or whatever at me, and I can do the same to you, and neither one of us will be physically harmed in the slightest. At the very most, we could offend each other and make each other feel like dirt, depending upon the strength of our own self-image. There is no possibility of physical harm. So that is protected speech in my opinion. Like it or not, we do not have the right to never be offended.
Again, how do you injure someone with words alone?

There's a lot about the human mind that goes beyond physical pain...

Even the post modernism argument was undercut by his later argument where he uses -his- subjective reality to say his reality is objectively true.
Idiot.

"I'm a free speech absolutist" is a dead give away of several things. He says he would defend "their" right to not serve him dinner, I have to ask...would he? He talks the talk but he hasn't had to walk the walk. That's the point I diverge from him the most. He goes into a very theoretical rant that he doesn't really take anywhere beyond bringing in marxism. But the idea of people wanting to restrict speech because it might offend is where I do see eye to eye with him.

[aretood2]

I don't buy into that. If the purported "victim" had a reasonably strong sense of self, self-image, or whatever you want to call it to begin with, no words could possibly harm them, as they would just consider the source and assign all due consideration to their words, regardless of what they are.

This is the same false hook all these ultra-liberal college students are hanging this "microaggression" crap on, as an excuse to further stifle other people's right to speak.

Advertisers spend millions and millions of dollars on ads, essentially just words and images. They do this trying to change the way you think and behave and get you to buy products and services that didn't exist nor were needed 100 years ago. If words had no power, then that simply wouldn't happen.

If offenses had no power, then they simply wouldn't be used. They are used because they are effective, just like advertisements. Raise a kid an tell him that he is worthless all of his life, and then tell me that that kid will grow up to be a sane, healthy member of society.

Better yet, how about this. If words are harmless, how come their response ends up being a punch to the face? Back in your day, people didn't go around offending others because they knew that they'd get punched. Back then, people could get away with punching someone for saying something offensive. So why is a physical response such a common one for an act that is verbal? Why would making fun of your mother illicit anger and rage? Why make fun of a third person that is not involved here if it had no effect?

I know you come from a generation that shunned psychology condemning countless war vets to experience a living hell all by themselves with no recourse beyond a bullet to the head as well as showing a gross incompetence to levels that are down right barbaric and savage for mental patients, but one would think you'd start questioning your generation's views once it became clear that they have made a mess of a whole lot of things.

[Annoyed]

There's a lot about the human mind that goes beyond physical pain...

When I was young, one of the most valuable lessons I ever learned is that the only measurement or judgement of my value that really matters is how I measure or judge myself against my own standards. No one else's opinion even comes close.

If a person sees themselves as valuable, the opinions of the entire world can go counter to that, but it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter a bit to that person. Consider the source and give it all due consideration.

The only way the opinions of others can cause harm is if that person or "victim's" self image is already below par. This is the fault of the "victim", not the person issuing the insults. For example, if you respond to this by insulting me, whatever my reaction to that is would be on me, not you, for paying attention to you in the first place.

[aretood2]

When I was young, one of the most valuable lessons I ever learned is that the only measurement or judgement of my value that really matters is how I measure or judge myself against my own standards. No one else's opinion even comes close.

If a person sees themselves as valuable, the opinions of the entire world can go counter to that, but it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter a bit to that person. Consider the source and give it all due consideration.

The only way the opinions of others can cause harm is if that person or "victim's" self image is already below par. This is the fault of the "victim", not the person issuing the insults. For example, if you respond to this by insulting me, whatever my reaction to that is would be on me, not you, for paying attention to you in the first place.

Still failed to answer any of my questions.

[Falcon Horus]

I don't buy into that. If the purported "victim" had a reasonably strong sense of self, self-image, or whatever you want to call it to begin with, no words could possibly harm them, as they would just consider the source and assign all due consideration to their words, regardless of what they are.

You assume everyone is strong and has a great self-image. That in on itself is a flawed assumption.

But people don't work that way. You have different types of people, who respond differently to situations, and handle situations differently.

Your black and white view is getting in the way again.

If words never harmed anyone, why are there such things as verbal abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, bullying, brainwashing, conversion therapy, bodyshaming...

Slander. Ruining a person's reputation. Fake news. Accusations (false or otherwise).

It only takes 140 characters these days to cause harm -- both physical and psychological.

The power of words, my friend, is unlimited.
Words can harm in ways we haven't even thought of yet.

But words can also hold hope. Or bring comfort.

This is the same false hook all these ultra-liberal college students are hanging this "microaggression" crap on, as an excuse to further stifle other people's right to speak.

You accuse the ultra-liberal student of not being tolerant of your free speech, while at the same time you want the ultra-liberal student to shut up and go away?

Hate to break it to you, but that sounds a lot like stifling his freedom of speech.

[Annoyed]

You assume everyone is strong and has a great self-image. That in on itself is a flawed assumption.

But people don't work that way. You have different types of people, who respond differently to situations, and handle situations differently.

The flaws in a person's psyche do not warrant limiting someone else's speech.

If words never harmed anyone, why are there such things as verbal abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, bullying, brainwashing, conversion therapy, bodyshaming...

Slander. Ruining a person's reputation. Fake news. Accusations (false or otherwise).

It only takes 140 characters these days to cause harm -- both physical and psychological.

The only items you cite that I could consider legitimate are slander, and brainwashing (and that only if drugs/physical torture is involved) and real, physical bullying. The rest is plain old BS, pulled from thin air as far as I can tell.

The power of words, my friend, is unlimited.
Words can harm in ways we haven't even thought of yet.

You mean that no one has yet tried to use an excuse to stifle someone's speech with claims of causing some sort of imaginary harm.

You accuse the ultra-liberal student of not being tolerant of your free speech, while at the same time you want the ultra-liberal student to shut up and go away?

Hate to break it to you, but that sounds a lot like stifling his freedom of speech.

No, I accuse the "snowflake" as it were of trying to stifle the speech of others by claiming imaginary harm, rather than simply disregarding the source as an idiot or whatever.

[jelgate]

I think you just described Trump

[SoulReaver]

No, I accuse the "snowflake" as it were of trying to stifle the speech of others by claiming imaginary harm, rather than simply disregarding the source as an idiot or whatever.

how about that : the LSOS stifled the will of the electorate with imaginary claims of elections rigged against him (when in fact they were rigged - for him)

[Annoyed]

how about that : the LSOS stifled the will of the electorate with imaginary claims of elections rigged against him (when in fact they were rigged - for him)

If you have evidence of Trump, the Russians, or anyone else hacking the voting machines and changing the tallies, present it.
Otherwise, your claims of damage are as imaginary as the claims of those who claim microaggressions cause damage.

[SoulReaver]

If you have evidence of Trump, the Russians, or anyone else hacking the voting machines and changing the tallies, present it.

except that your own CIA says it? none admittedly :|

Otherwise, your claims of damage are as imaginary as the claims of those who claim microaggressions cause damage.

"microaggressions"?

technically stealing a loaf of bread @ Wallmart is also a microaggression isn't it? (if not a nanoaggression)
yet your camp supports harsh punishment even for that doesn't it? zero tolerance etc.

[Gatefan1976]

I don't buy into that. If the purported "victim" had a reasonably strong sense of self, self-image, or whatever you want to call it to begin with, no words could possibly harm them, as they would just consider the source and assign all due consideration to their words, regardless of what they are.

This is the same false hook all these ultra-liberal college students are hanging this "microaggression" crap on, as an excuse to further stifle other people's right to speak.

Why have you in the past asked me to tone it down when speaking to you?
I don't mean in the silly threads where that's par for the course, I mean in the serious threads.
Did you get triggered enough to say something?

[Annoyed]

Why have you in the past asked me to tone it down when speaking to you?
I don't mean in the silly threads where that's par for the course, I mean in the serious threads.
Did you get triggered enough to say something?

I don't recall asking you to tone it down or take it easy. Do you have an example? I think the closest I've ever come is pointing out that you were over the line of what is supposedly the rules of the threads, but I also said that I wouldn't ever take an issue to the mods.

[Gatefan1976]

"I'm a free speech absolutist" is a dead give away of several things. He says he would defend "their" right to not serve him dinner, I have to ask...would he? He talks the talk but he hasn't had to walk the walk. That's the point I diverge from him the most. He goes into a very theoretical rant that he doesn't really take anywhere beyond bringing in marxism. But the idea of people wanting to restrict speech because it might offend is where I do see eye to eye with him.

Being a black bloke living in America, I am sure he has had to walk the walk at some point, but free speech is not an absolute right, it is in fact a privilege of living in a -relatively- free society that even then puts limits on it. As for bringing in Marxism, I get the feeling after watching the clip, that was his real intention all along, but it was handled so ham fistedly bad as to be ridiculous.

[Annoyed]

"microaggressions"?

technically stealing a loaf of bread @ Wallmart is also a microaggression isn't it? (if not a nanoaggression)
yet your camp supports harsh punishment even for that doesn't it? zero tolerance etc.

No, stealing a loaf of bread from Walmart would be either theft or an indication that the person is suicidal. Have you ever had walmart bread?

[Gatefan1976]

I don't recall asking you to tone it down or take it easy. Do you have an example? I think the closest I've ever come is pointing out that you were over the line of what is supposedly the rules of the threads, but I also said that I wouldn't ever take an issue to the mods.

Not recently, no.
Even then, going OT is also par for the course as the nature of discussions is to meander at least slightly and involve tangential topics.