The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

What?
No one has advocated violence, no one has said it should devolve into violence, no matter what is said. Violent protests are not the way to do things, but if someone goes onto a campus, or anywhere and starts speaking and people yell them down, that's perfectly fine. You guys are complaining about being shouted down, tough luck snowflake, they have every right to shout you down.

Well, then re-read the article about Ann Coulter's speaking appearance at UC Berkley being canceled to to the VIOLENCE by anti-trump protesters last week.
Or doesn't violence by the left in pursuit of their goals count for you?

Why doesn't UC Berkley just be sure there are enough cops around to arrest protesters who get violent at Coulter's event rather than canceling it?

[Annoyed]

Let's look at the definition of hate speech first:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

Source: USLegal.com

Depending on where you stand, you can see that hate speech is entirely in the ear of the beholder. And those who rally against are either members of the group targeted or those who sympathise with the group targeted, or those who have an understanding of the consequences might be if the speech goes unchecked -- as far as I can tell.

So, in your mind, if someone hears something that they consider to be hateful, the speaker has no right to say it?

If the audience is sympathetic to the idea of the speech, hate or otherwise, they could be inclined to take the words to heart and act upon them. In the case of hate speech, that could lead to violence (or harrasment) against the group(s) targeted.

So that possibility justifies restricting what someone can say in your mind? Just as a hypothetical, turn that around. Suppose someone that you agree with takes a position that you agree with but might lead to violence against those who disagree. They shouldn't be allowed to express that view either?

You don't really believe in free speech, do you? Unless it happens to be speech that you agree with.

[Falcon Horus]

I'm sure you could, you just did to a degree

I did? Wait... I flirted?!?

That becomes incitement, which is a MUCH harder case to prove -legally-, often because the incited party wants to protect the inciting party.

You mean, like Trump inciting violence at his rallies. I remember the courtcase which is going to happen, or has happened.

You might have more sympathy if I gave you a 3-5 minute nipple cripple, on both, at the same time.

And.... ouch...

So, in your mind, if someone hears something that they consider to be hateful, the speaker has no right to say it?

Where did I insinuate that?

I believe the freedom of speech is that the speaker can say whatever they like, whatever the consequences of that speech are.

Unless, in Belgium anyway, he/she is denying the holocaust ever happened. That's against the law.
He/she can say it, but if someone files a complaint, he/she can be charged for negating the holocaust.
But that doesn't fall under the definition of hate speech.

So that possibility justifies restricting what someone can say in your mind? Just as a hypothetical, turn that around. Suppose someone that you agree with takes a position that you agree with but might lead to violence against those who disagree. They shouldn't be allowed to express that view either?

I didn't say that. You said it.

You don't really believe in free speech, do you? Unless it happens to be speech that you agree with.

Didn't say that either. You say it.

[Ian-S]

The timing of the latest terror attack in Paris is great if you are Marine La Pen.

I read a tinfoil hat theory that the rise of the right wing across the world is due to them using terror attacks to get their agenda. But that's a theory, a tinfoil hat theory.

They call that "Problem, reaction, solution".

Say for example you want to invoke marshal law, but you know nobody would agree to it, in their right mind. So you create the problem, (civil unrest, terrorist attack etc.) then sit back and wait for the reaction (people be scared, demand better security etc.) Then you offer the solution, greater security, but in order to achieve it, you need to invoke marshal law while the right procedures are set up. At this point, Joe Public will be so scared of their own shadow they'll agree to anything to keep them safe.

So the theory goes...

[aretood2]

They call that "Problem, reaction, solution".

Say for example you want to invoke marshal law, but you know nobody would agree to it, in their right mind. So you create the problem, (civil unrest, terrorist attack etc.) then sit back and wait for the reaction (people be scared, demand better security etc.) Then you offer the solution, greater security, but in order to achieve it, you need to invoke marshal law while the right procedures are set up. At this point, Joe Public will be so scared of their own shadow they'll agree to anything to keep them safe.

So the theory goes...

Conservatives are open to that startegy. The Patriot Act.

[Coco Pops]

Hawaii is part of the USA isn't it?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/wash...htmlstory.html


I wonder if he knows that?

[mad_gater]

Where did I say that?
Do you think men can't as well?

Why not have a look into why that is eh?
Additionally, that still does not make them the same coin.

The only reason you got burned is because the majority of bosses are men, if your boss was a woman, there would have been no chance for the scenario to happen (unless the boss is into other women, which means that a male boss has the equal chance of being into men)

you certainly seem to be implying that you don't think women are capable of sexual harassment

[pscard]

So, in your mind, if someone hears something that they consider to be hateful, the speaker has no right to say it?

So that possibility justifies restricting what someone can say in your mind? Just as a hypothetical, turn that around. Suppose someone that you agree with takes a position that you agree with but might lead to violence against those who disagree. They shouldn't be allowed to express that view either?

You don't really believe in free speech, do you? Unless it happens to be speech that you agree with.

Would that be considered 'Agree Speech'?
(Jes kiddn'.)

[garhkal]

They call that "Problem, reaction, solution".

Say for example you want to invoke marshal law, but you know nobody would agree to it, in their right mind. So you create the problem, (civil unrest, terrorist attack etc.) then sit back and wait for the reaction (people be scared, demand better security etc.) Then you offer the solution, greater security, but in order to achieve it, you need to invoke marshal law while the right procedures are set up. At this point, Joe Public will be so scared of their own shadow they'll agree to anything to keep them safe.

So the theory goes...

Only the conspiracy theory people do..

[Gatefan1976]

you certainly seem to be implying that you don't think women are capable of sexual harassment

They certainly are.
What I am saying is -society- is geared towards thinking that they cannot, and you should look into why that is.

[Annoyed]

you certainly seem to be implying that you don't think women are capable of sexual harassment

They certainly are.
What I am saying is -society- is geared towards thinking that they cannot, and you should look into why that is.

Much as it pains me, I have to agree with GF on this. There is a powerful double standard throughout our society when it comes to this topic. Whats good for the goose is not always good for the gander and vise versa is the way we seem to look at it.

[Annoyed]

They call that "Problem, reaction, solution".

Say for example you want to invoke marshal law, but you know nobody would agree to it, in their right mind. So you create the problem, (civil unrest, terrorist attack etc.) then sit back and wait for the reaction (people be scared, demand better security etc.) Then you offer the solution, greater security, but in order to achieve it, you need to invoke marshal law while the right procedures are set up. At this point, Joe Public will be so scared of their own shadow they'll agree to anything to keep them safe.

So the theory goes...

Only the conspiracy theory people do..

Oh, that's a legitimate theory alright.

[Gatefan1976]

So, in your mind, if someone hears something that they consider to be hateful, the speaker has no right to say it?


So that possibility justifies restricting what someone can say in your mind? Just as a hypothetical, turn that around. Suppose someone that you agree with takes a position that you agree with but might lead to violence against those who disagree. They shouldn't be allowed to express that view either?

You don't really believe in free speech, do you? Unless it happens to be speech that you agree with.

Trump thinks like you:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7695001.html

[Gatefan1976]

Much as it pains me, I have to agree with GF on this. There is a powerful double standard throughout our society when it comes to this topic. Whats good for the goose is not always good for the gander and vise versa is the way we seem to look at it.

I get the feeling you don't agree with me, or if you do, you think I am saying the opposite of what I mean.

[jelgate]

Trump thinks like you:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7695001.html

Makes sense. Annoyed is his yes man