The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Actually, it is very much black and white. You are either in favor of the idea of free speech or you're not. And that includes free speech FOR ALL. The content doesn't matter.

I've said many times, let everyone speak their mind, and let the audience decide the value of what is said.

Of course nobody "gets it", lefties are perfectly happy to silence opinions that they don't agree with. It's just part of their mindset.

No, what you want is speech without consequence.
"It's not my fault that the people who I was speaking to were stupid enough to act on what I said"

It's not about silencing opinion, left or right, it the danger posed to people by the very act of speech. I said free speech has always had limits. You want to call fire in a theatre and not be held accountable, and social media has merely amplified a pre-existing condition by giving the idiot a megaphone, and allowing the person giving the megaphone to avoid responsibility as well.

[Gatefan1976]

As I said earlier in the thread FH, we have local laws which make denial illegal, they also make displays of support for ISIS illegal, which Article 10 says should be allowed, but that wasn't my point which all but Annoyed seemed to have missed, that censoring views that you don't agree with is not constructive to the very core ethos those doing the censoring claim to uphold, theres an old saying 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.

And to repeat, denial is not equal to enquiry.

Are you -seriously- attempting to compare the failures of morality of the left to the failures of the right?
What universal morality holds the left?
What universal morality holds the right?

[Annoyed]

No, what you want is speech without consequence.
"It's not my fault that the people who I was speaking to were stupid enough to act on what I said"

It's not about silencing opinion, left or right, it the danger posed to people by the very act of speech. I said free speech has always had limits. You want to call fire in a theatre and not be held accountable, and social media has merely amplified a pre-existing condition by giving the idiot a megaphone, and allowing the person giving the megaphone to avoid responsibility as well.

That's because the responsibility should lie with whoever is carrying out the act.

[Gatefan1976]

That's because the responsibility should lie with whoever is carrying out the act.

So if I give you a gun, a target, and motive, I am immune from reprisal because "I did not do it"?
My kids know better than that.

[Ian-S]

Are you -seriously- attempting to compare the failures of morality of the left to the failures of the right?
What universal morality holds the left?
What universal morality holds the right?

No.

What I've been saying is, the lefts stance of silencing people they don't agree with through forced censorship instead of letting the listener decide, while simultaneously claiming to stand up for peoples' "freedom" rights is hypercritical at best.

You and FH have proven my point by completely ignoring the core concept of my original post while getting your knickers in a twist over what you think I said, which FH clearly thinks I shouldn't be allowed to think either.

[Gatefan1976]

No.

What I've been saying is, the lefts stance of silencing people they don't agree with through forced censorship instead of letting the listener decide, while simultaneously claiming to stand up for peoples' "freedom" rights is hypercritical at best.

No, what I have shown is that you, like Annoyed want freedom with no responsibility.
Freedom is NOT "free".
I WANT you to have your rights. I want you to be able to exercise them, but there is a line where you cross from your rights, to affecting the rights of others.

You and FH have proven my point by completely ignoring the core concept of my original post while getting your knickers in a twist over what you think I said, which FH clearly thinks I shouldn't be allowed to think either.

What -is- your core concept?
I have no idea what it was, so I am not "ignoring" it at all.

[aretood2]

Actually, it is very much black and white. You are either in favor of the idea of free speech or you're not. And that includes free speech FOR ALL. The content doesn't matter.

I've said many times, let everyone speak their mind, and let the audience decide the value of what is said.

The problem is what happens if the audience's decision involves violence? Or involves allowing them to support destructive decisions? Since GF used it, the audience decided that Hitler was a pretty good guy with some awesome ideas. But I am not talking about opinions or historical beliefs.
I am talking about mass fraud. All I am saying is that it should be illegal to knowingly pass off things that are patently false (as in totally made up) as factual news. It's not about suppressing ideas or opinions,
but about preventing fraud. Holocaust denial is different than this, that does have protections that are difficult to remove without unintended consequences.

It only takes one Adolf Hitler to sweet-talk the audience with his fine words, and next thing you know 6 million people are dead, killed in concentration and extermination camps.

* one extreme example why freedom of speech should be the illusion it has always been

It also only takes one Martin Luther King Jr to sweet talk the audience with his fine words, and you know the millions of Americans who live better lives because of it.

No, what I have shown is that you, like Annoyed want freedom with no responsibility.
Freedom is NOT "free".
I WANT you to have your rights. I want you to be able to exercise them, but there is a line where you cross from your rights, to affecting the rights of others.

What -is- your core concept?
I have no idea what it was, so I am not "ignoring" it at all.

Nazi germany also had Free Speech with consequences...severe consequences.
At the same time I do have to give credit that Annoyed does raise a valid concern. It's all fine and dandy if the speech that "has consequences" is speech you disagree with. What happens if a Ozzie Trump appears in Australia with his own basket of deplorables and starts adding "consequences" to free speech you agree with? Note, I don't want fake news banned, but just want the fraud to be banned. They can post their fictitious nonsense as long as they clearly admit/identify it as such.

[thekillman]

From your post, it appears clear that you think that social networks like Facebook should remove content. For content such as what I bolded, yea, I don't care if they remove that specific content.

But on a deeper level, I don't trust censorship, period. Today they want to block Greek and Russian spammers. What will they want to block 3 years from now? 4 year? 15? Once the precedent is established and all that jazz.

Maybe they can block spammers and trolls and leave it at that? many european nations banned Mein kampf and kept it at that. Hell, it's what most sites and forums ban, only Facebook seems to be dodging responsibility.

That's a pretty good trick, considering that social networks have only been in existence for the past 15 years or so.

And as always, the question is who decides? And what biases will they apply?

Censorship, in some form or another, has always existed. As i've pointed out before, some level of it will always be needed, it's inherently about a grey area. Facebook should be far more transparent anyway, or preferably, burn to the ground. Make sure that people know what gets banned.

that censoring views that you don't agree with is not constructive to the very core ethos those doing the censoring claim to uphold, theres an old saying 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.

It has nothing to do with ethos, it has everything to do with the practical matters. Without censorship, trolls and bots are free to roam. I've had a wikia site up for a while, and bots quickly made it impossible to operate until i installed countermeasures. That's censorship. Yet without it, you couldn't have this discussion. We'd be digging through miles of bot-generated spam to find one reply. Same with E-mail.

Fundamentally, the internet doesn't work without such basic censorship.

Nazi germany also had Free Speech with consequences...severe consequences.
At the same time I do have to give credit that Annoyed does raise a valid concern.

I'm purely trying to show that it's not a black-and-white thing. Censorship is censorship, whether you agree with the message or not. If you want to write something but don't think it fits the site, that's censorship. Every time the spam filters block a message, that's censorship. If you block someone on GW, that's censorship. Yet without this, Gateworld wouldn't work. Pretending that everyone must be heard ignores that the internet is dark and filled with spambots, whereas real life is notably not. Real life isn't the internet, and vice versa, and what make sense in real life doesn't necessarily work on the internet and vice versa.

Real life has no spam bots, for one. Or russian-paid propaganda. But to change that could also require changing the algorithms that they game, which in itself changes message priority, and depending on how that works out in practice could also constitute censorship.

Humanity need to figure this thing out, which will require rethinking how we do these algorithms, how we do censorship, etc, in a way that works online. Which is why i also hate large companies like facebook controlling so much online data, yet doing so selectively little with it. Targeted ads? targeted friends? Sure they'll datamine the **** out of you. Say something wrong in a group? Banned. Be an actual terrorist? nothing.

[Falcon Horus]

Of course nobody "gets it", lefties are perfectly happy to silence opinions that they don't agree with. It's just part of their mindset.

An opinion is not the same as questioning something.

I question whether Trump is fit to be president, but in my opinion he is most certainly not.

A question requires an answer, an opinion does not.

Everybody is free to think whatever it is they want to think about.

When you start voicing those thoughts, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Sure enough, what someone else does with those words is out of your hands, but unfortunately sometimes it really doesn't work that way.

It also only takes one Martin Luther King Jr to sweet talk the audience with his fine words, and you know the millions of Americans who live better lives because of it.

Another example of iconic words leading to a positive outcome.

Nevertheless, freedom of speech is an illusion, much like freedom is in on itself.

Words usually have consequences, either good or bad, and cannot be taken back -- the moment you realize that, that's when you know the power of the spoken or written word.

[SGalisa]

What I've been saying is, the lefts stance of silencing people they don't agree with through forced censorship instead of letting the listener decide, while simultaneously claiming to stand up for peoples' "freedom" rights is hypercritical at best.

You and FH have proven my point by completely ignoring the core concept of my original post while getting your knickers in a twist over what you think I said, which FH clearly thinks I shouldn't be allowed to think either.

Gatefan1976 and FH like to mock or silence me too... so, *join the club*... FH likes to silence me especially when I don't view things the way she seems to or thinks I seem to. Case in point, recent Meghan Markle video and comments. If FH hasn't seen it yet, or read my full post(s), I doubt if she will.

Mentioning this tidbit for reinforcement -- I've seen Meghan's video 5 times now, and still feel the same sadness and hope that I felt when I first watched it. For sensitive hearts, the video pulls you in as if you're right beside Meghan, experiencing her feelings and anguish, and then the exhilarating joy at the end (because of the final decision she made).

Honestly, I wasn't paying much attention to Meghan, because I haven't watched Tv in the past 2 years. So, I knew she looked familiar from internet pictures, but didn't connect with who she was or why the video seemed so important to my friend. I *am* glad that my friend sent it to me. We bonded stronger thru that simple message.

I do find it interesting that since I posted the note about the video (and that particular by Goalcast "Be Your True Self" link), about it's had over 2,000 views in less than 24 hours. ... someone's paying attention somewhere, even if it isn't here on GW...

Of course nobody "gets it", lefties are perfectly happy to silence opinions that they don't agree with. It's just part of their mindset.

As I just noted to Ian-S, that *silencing* happens to me with FH's comments against me. Even when I'm wrong and correct it -- the silent treatment continues (similar to the silent treatment Will Robinson got at times in "Lost in Space"). Oh well, whatever... I don't expect an apology or anything positive in response, because that's what most "leftists" (and "socialists") do. They move on and don't even acknowledge that they went back and re-reviewed what was written. I find myself re-reviewing some postings several times before I get back on the forums, because I've rushed to fast in the past that I either misread something or lost something in the translation and skimming over process.

In this particular situation, for example (regarding Meghan Markle, etc.), it's FH's loss, not mine. A wealth of emotional sharing in that video I mentioned, and I wasn't really originally *that* much interested in who Meghan was. Now, I really appreciate what Meghan shared. I just hope what Meghan shared in the video doesn't fall on deaf ears (around the world). Fortunately, she is now in a position where her voice can be heard among many around the entire world who have the ability to also help make a positive, HOPEFUL difference in helping to heal those who are experiencing similar dilemmas and choices about their own self (and self-worth, etc) and existence along with the rest of humanity. Our world is emotionally and socially fractured, and needs to stop with the damaging nonsense stuff and truly heal. Otherwise, the divisions and strife will only get worse.

Reposting below quotes for reinforcement to my above comments.

There's only one person on this forum that I know who posts such crazy articles (of which many have been proven false or skewed), so yes, therefore I can only use yourself as an example.

And I didn't read your whole Meghan/Harry thing -- the moment you mentioned her roots I literally rolled my eyes and moved on.

Seriously, you should watch the video .... It truly was a beautiful story...

Not acknowledging and so-called "moving on" -- even after I explained that FH's POV may be in error (btw via preconceived thinking), is nearly the same (in my POV) as giving someone "the silent treatment"... I've noticed this wasn't the first time such moments have occurred and most likely won't be the last, either...


Sorry, I can't help but notice when these things happen. ...and I just happened to be passing thru recently, when these recent events occurred between FH and myself. ... I actually don't mind FH mentioning me (in whatever entertains her fancy visions)... if I have time, I'll stop by and *maybe* speak up now and then ---- I do lurk by here occasionally, but not reading ALL of the postings during the first pass). Otherwise, been busy elsewhere with more important things--like trying to keep up with my family and their daily events, etc.

EDIT----sorry, I didn't intend that to come across as sooooooooooo overly serious (at Falcon Horus). Apologies... I was rushing to reply, and work on other home things, and forgot the half-humorous smileys... Sorry about that. Smileys now added.. not sure if I got the right emotional reactions in this time. I'm very sleepy at the moment.
On a more humorous note... perhaps FH=SGalisa's character nemesis... (in a unique, positively challenging way, tho) *wink, wink!!*

[Gatefan1976]

The problem is what happens if the audience's decision involves violence? Or involves allowing them to support destructive decisions? Since GF used it, the audience decided that Hitler was a pretty good guy with some awesome ideas. But I am not talking about opinions or historical beliefs.
I am talking about mass fraud. All I am saying is that it should be illegal to knowingly pass off things that are patently false (as in totally made up) as factual news. It's not about suppressing ideas or opinions,
but about preventing fraud. Holocaust denial is different than this, that does have protections that are difficult to remove without unintended consequences.

I didn't invoke Godwins law.

It also only takes one Martin Luther King Jr to sweet talk the audience with his fine words, and you know the millions of Americans who live better lives because of it.

The power of speech.

Nazi germany also had Free Speech with consequences...severe consequences.
At the same time I do have to give credit that Annoyed does raise a valid concern. It's all fine and dandy if the speech that "has consequences" is speech you disagree with. What happens if a Ozzie Trump appears in Australia with his own basket of deplorables and starts adding "consequences" to free speech you agree with? Note, I don't want fake news banned, but just want the fraud to be banned. They can post their fictitious nonsense as long as they clearly admit/identify it as such.

She already has, but most ignore her. I don't mind people raving like fools, that is free speech, I -do- mind it when that speech is designed purely to provoke, or denigrate others.

[Gatefan1976]

Gatefan1976 and FH like to mock or silence me too... so, *join the club*... FH likes to silence me especially when I don't view things the way she seems to or thinks I seem to. Case in point, recent Meghan Markle video and comments. If FH hasn't seen it yet, or read my full post(s), I doubt if she will.

Mentioning this tidbit for reinforcement -- I've seen Meghan's video 5 times now, and still feel the same sadness and hope that I felt when I first watched it. For sensitive hearts, the video pulls you in as if you're right beside Meghan, experiencing her feelings and anguish, and then the exhilarating joy at the end (because of the final decision she made).

Honestly, I wasn't paying much attention to Meghan, because I haven't watched Tv in the past 2 years. So, I knew she looked familiar from internet pictures, but didn't connect with who she was or why the video seemed so important to my friend. I *am* glad that my friend sent it to me. We bonded stronger thru that simple message.

I do find it interesting that since I posted the note about the video (and that particular by Goalcast "Be Your True Self" link), about it's had over 2,000 views in less than 24 hours. ... someone's paying attention somewhere, even if it isn't here on GW...



As I just noted to Ian-S, that *silencing* happens to me with FH's comments against me. Even when I'm wrong and correct it -- the silent treatment continues (similar to the silent treatment Will Robinson got at times in "Lost in Space"). Oh well, whatever... I don't expect an apology or anything positive in response, because that's what most "leftists" (and "socialists") do. They move on and don't even acknowledge that they went back and re-reviewed what was written. I find myself re-reviewing some postings several times before I get back on the forums, because I've rushed to fast in the past that I either misread something or lost something in the translation and skimming over process.

In this particular situation, for example (regarding Meghan Markle, etc.), it's FH's loss, not mine. A wealth of emotional sharing in that video I mentioned, and I wasn't really originally *that* much interested in who Meghan was. Now, I really appreciate what Meghan shared. I just hope what Meghan shared in the video doesn't fall on deaf ears (around the world). Fortunately, she is now in a position where her voice can be heard among many around the entire world who have the ability to also help make a positive, HOPEFUL difference in helping to heal those who are experiencing similar dilemmas and choices about their own self (and self-worth, etc) and existence along with the rest of humanity. Our world is emotionally and socially fractured, and needs to stop with the damaging nonsense stuff and truly heal. Otherwise, the divisions and strife will only get worse.

Reposting below quotes for reinforcement to my above comments.



Not acknowledging and so-called "moving on" -- even after I explained that FH's POV may be in error, is nearly the same (in my POV) as giving someone "the silent treatment"... I've noticed this wasn't the first time such moments have occurred and most likely won't be the last, either...


Sorry, I can't help but notice when these things happen. ...and I just happened to be passing thru recently, when these recent events occurred between FH and myself. I actually don't mind FH mentioning me (in whatever entertains her fancy visions)... if I have time, I'll stop by and *maybe* speak up now and then ---- I do lurk by here occasionally, but not reading ALL of the postings during the first pass). Otherwise, been busy elsewhere with more important things--like trying to keep up with my family and their daily events, etc.

I don't silence you at all. I have zero control over you.

[aretood2]

I didn't invoke Godwins law.

Only that in this case it is relevant to mention Nazis considering anti-semitism and all...But once again, Hyperbole by definition is not meant to be literal.

[Coco Pops]

I think Trump is a windbag.
America 'supected' Iraq had WMDs & invaded the country, but found nothing.
North Korea is openly flouting their WMDs & all Trump is doing is making threats to push buttons.
Why has America not invaded North Korea?
Could it be America has no financial assets (oil) to protect?

And Trump tweeting about how big his nuclear button is. Don't forget that.

Is this an adult size toddler in the Whitehouse, and the WH has become an Adult Day Care facility?

Seriously people voted for this clown child????

[SGalisa]

Gatefan1976 and FH like to mock or silence me too...

I don't silence you at all.

True, you don't verbalize things that way. You have actually tried to encourage me with better methods of communication and research, etc. I do appreciate that, but don't know how to verbalize some things in ways you all here, who think differently than me, would prefer.

Also, I said that you like "to mock" me which can be a form of silencing in itself. There are many times I simply do not respond to certain comments, which may (at times) *seem* like silencing, but is more of a mocking tone; and I don't respond because I'm not witty enough to return sarcastic comments ~ which you often poke *fun* with at me. That's okay... Because I'm petite in stature, I don't have broad shoulders ~ so stuff just falls off them instead.
(That's a weak joke there!)

If I stay quiet from responding to the prodding or whatever people call it, it's my lack of being gifted in quick comebacks / wit. Otherwise, joust away ~ I get enough of that poked sarcasm from certain members of my own family... Which is another reason why I don't participate much in the verbal jousting or jabbing sessions here on GW.

I have zero control over you.

That's the truth.