trump No Fan Of Free Speech

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@KingBash said:

@pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them?  How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support?  I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?

I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites.  Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech.  They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree.  And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them.  Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc.   It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed.  Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed.  But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health.  But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with.  Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person.  Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter.  When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.

The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking.  While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech.  And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing.  So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously.  As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition).  Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.

I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.

ALL speech should be protected. 

This has been my default approach. But it's not working. Damned if there aren't a gazillion good folks eager to buy in to the hate and ignorance. There's a far right-wing, openly racist, misogynistic and anti-gay candidate--just a real scumbag--poised to win the presidential election in Brazil right now. He's being called the Trump of the Tropics and he's following Very Stable Genius' game plan. Hate now has a foothold in the world again. I'm not a fan of the shouting down, but I also know that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 

I think this is a necessary evil of it. This racist, homophobic, anti-intellectual wing of the Republican party has always been there. All Trump has done is empower and expose them. If you silence them, you're going down a dangerous path.

My thoughts on the Charlottesville thing, for example, was the opposite of the way the media and alt-left handled it. Just completely ignore those clowns. Let them march with their cute little torches and their chants and give it zero coverage. We used to just laugh at these dorks. 

And we should be applying these same principles to all extremism, on both the left and the right. Just ignore them. Just ignore the Alex Jones deep state people, ignore the outraged-over-everything left... We're giving too much power to absolute zeros. 

Going forward, I think the approach Michael Avennati is taking is the right one. Fight back angrily and with facts. Don't silence anybody, but fight fire with fire. 

[Guest]

@KingBash said:

@MaroonBells said:

@KingBash said:

@pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them?  How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support?  I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?

I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites.  Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech.  They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree.  And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them.  Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc.   It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed.  Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed.  But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health.  But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with.  Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person.  Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter.  When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.

The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking.  While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech.  And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing.  So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously.  As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition).  Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.

I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.

ALL speech should be protected. 

This has been my default approach. But it's not working. Damned if there aren't a gazillion good folks eager to buy in to the hate and ignorance. There's a far right-wing, openly racist, misogynistic and anti-gay candidate--just a real scumbag--poised to win the presidential election in Brazil right now. He's being called the Trump of the Tropics and he's following Very Stable Genius' game plan. Hate now has a foothold in the world again. I'm not a fan of the shouting down, but I also know that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 

I think this is a necessary evil of it. This racist, homophobic, anti-intellectual wing of the Republican party has always been there. All Trump has done is empower and expose them. If you silence them, you're going down a dangerous path.

My thoughts on the Charlottesville thing, for example, was the opposite of the way the media and alt-left handled it. Just completely ignore those clowns. Let them march with their cute little torches and their chants and give it zero coverage. We used to just laugh at these dorks. 

And we should be applying these same principles to all extremism, on both the left and the right. Just ignore them. Just ignore the Alex Jones deep state people, ignore the outraged-over-everything left... We're giving too much power to absolute zeros. 

Going forward, I think the approach Michael Avennati is taking is the right one. Fight back angrily and with facts. Don't silence anybody, but fight fire with fire. 

Like I said, that is my default approach (with groups like Westboro, for example, the less attention you give them the better), but it's getting scary out there. The extreme no longer feels marginalized. Not just in America and Brazil, but in Germany and Sweden. Racists and Neo-Nazis are emboldened because the environment is more welcoming. 

I'm not a fan of Avennati. My instincts say not to trust him. I see him as more of a hit man than a man of principle and well-designed policy. In that regard, he's more like Trump than he is, say, Obama. I do sometimes wonder, however, if his style isn't what's needed for the good guys right now. 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@KingBash said:

@pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them?  How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support?  I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?

I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites.  Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech.  They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree.  And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them.  Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc.   It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed.  Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed.  But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health.  But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with.  Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person.  Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter.  When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.

The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking.  While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech.  And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing.  So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously.  As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition).  Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.

I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.

ALL speech should be protected. 

This has been my default approach. But it's not working. Damned if there aren't a gazillion good folks eager to buy in to the hate and ignorance. There's a far right-wing, openly racist, misogynistic and anti-gay candidate--just a real scumbag--poised to win the presidential election in Brazil right now. He's being called the Trump of the Tropics and he's following Very Stable Genius' game plan. Hate now has a foothold in the world again. I'm not a fan of the shouting down, but I also know that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 

So....now you want to control how people think?

[Guest]

I think every idiot on both sides should be able to say what they want. You cant be pro-x amendment and anti-y anendment. 

I do disagree with protests that turn violent and or block certain activities like freeways, airports court proceedings etc. 

[Guest]

@AGRforever said:

@MaroonBells said:

@KingBash said:

@pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them?  How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support?  I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?

I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites.  Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech.  They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree.  And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them.  Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc.   It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed.  Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed.  But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health.  But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with.  Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person.  Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter.  When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.

The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking.  While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech.  And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing.  So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously.  As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition).  Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.

I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.

ALL speech should be protected. 

This has been my default approach. But it's not working. Damned if there aren't a gazillion good folks eager to buy in to the hate and ignorance. There's a far right-wing, openly racist, misogynistic and anti-gay candidate--just a real scumbag--poised to win the presidential election in Brazil right now. He's being called the Trump of the Tropics and he's following Very Stable Genius' game plan. Hate now has a foothold in the world again. I'm not a fan of the shouting down, but I also know that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 

So....now you want to control how people think?

??

[Guest]

@KingBash said:

@pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them?  How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support?  I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?

I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites.  Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech.  They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree.  And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them.  Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc.   It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed.  Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed.  But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health.  But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with.  Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person.  Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter.  When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.

The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking.  While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech.  And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing.  So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously.  As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition).  Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.

I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.

ALL speech should be protected. 

Good advise. If you think someone an idiot. Why on earth would you want to silence them if you didn't agree. By all means supply the rope even.

[Guest]

I read that article, and I think it's pretty much the definition of fake news.  It looks like an anti-Trump opinion piece that is intentionally trying to take quotes out of context.  The part of me that wants the truth cringes when this level of reporting is out in the wild, because then you just need to go digging to figure out what actually happened.

I think think the bad aspects of society are dramatically going down for the majority of the population and it's being confined to a relatively small group of people while massively pushed by the media.  I think more and more people are refusing to accept the medias attempt to rile people up by trying to portay the extremes as normal.  I don't think ANTIFA represents most who would consider themselves left, and I don't think Neo-Nazis represent most who would consider themselves on the right.  Similarly, I don't find people compelling when they try to make relatively normal people look like they're evil, when I find almost everyone I meet in real life to be relatively good people.

The video I saw of people protesting appeared to be the subset of SJWs that no one wants to be affiliated with because they push everyone away from their viewpoint by being completely obnoxious.  Super Troopers has a nice quote, "There was a time when we'd take a guy like you in the back and beat you with a hose. Now you've got your God-damned unions." that I think applies here.  I think most people in the center would rather that they weren't there because they distract from real conversation.

I think the lefts attempt to label every conservative candidate as a racist, misogynist, anti-LGBTQ is beginning to fall on deaf ears because it's over-used on people that aren't accurately labeled.  A lot of people see it as a cheap ploy to slander people's names when posted in articles like the one the OP linked to which are there to obfuscate the truth rather than highlight it.

That said, I generally support protests and I think they are often shown on the media to be worse than they are because they only show the crazies and not the majority of normal peaceful people.

[Guest]

Are these the "peaceful" protest you're worried about being silenced?  I especially like the flower-power slogan: "It takes a bullet to bash fascism".  We absolutely must protect these examples of "free speech" right?












https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/21/video_antifa_violence_at_peaceful_patriot_prayer_rally_in_portland.html 

[Guest]

More from the peaceful protesters:

https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/1050110269865779204

From a US Senator's tweet: "Just before I voted to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, my wife received a text message of a graphic beheading. We now have public officials saying you should be uncivil to each other - a call for incivility."

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@KingBash said:

@pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them?  How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support?  I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?

I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites.  Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech.  They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree.  And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them.  Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc.   It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed.  Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed.  But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health.  But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with.  Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person.  Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter.  When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.

The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking.  While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech.  And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing.  So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously.  As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition).  Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.

I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.

ALL speech should be protected. 

This has been my default approach. But it's not working. Damned if there aren't a gazillion good folks eager to buy in to the hate and ignorance. There's a far right-wing, openly racist, misogynistic and anti-gay candidate--just a real scumbag--poised to win the presidential election in Brazil right now. He's being called the Trump of the Tropics and he's following Very Stable Genius' game plan. Hate now has a foothold in the world again. I'm not a fan of the shouting down, but I also know that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 

whats funny  is that is exactly what motivates the people that are of the opposing view points as well.... 

IMO its all the action with little tolerance or attempting to see a position from anothers point of view is what is leading to all this evil.