2nd american civil war

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 15:43:59 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 23, 2017 14:48:04 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Well, I'm referring to historical facts about fascism-- not opinions, Harry.

Historically speaking, what "fine line" were you referencing with the hate speech comment? And aren't the terms "fine line" and "hate speech" matters of opinion?

       The fine line-- protecting freedom of speech, while setting limits on the tyranny of the majority, and the subversion of democracy...

[Deleted]

Great thread, graver. I've been saying this for a long time myself. The divide is widening with no willingness to compromise from the left.

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 20:11:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 15:43:59 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Historically speaking, what "fine line" were you referencing with the hate speech comment? And aren't the terms "fine line" and "hate speech" matters of opinion?

       The fine line-- protecting freedom of speech, while setting limits on the tyranny of the majority, and the subversion of democracy...

I saw the protection of free speech at Berkeley. Color me unimpressed.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 20:53:17 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 23, 2017 20:11:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       The fine line-- protecting freedom of speech, while setting limits on the tyranny of the majority, and the subversion of democracy...

I saw the protection of free speech at Berkeley. Color me unimpressed.

I never approved of the Berkeley (liberal) horseshit.

But, yes, we do need to set appropriate limits on true "hate speech."

Obviously, at least 30% of the American people are too stupid (or immoral) to recognize a fascist joker when they see one.

[frmthegrav]

Apr 23, 2017 21:15:56 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 20:53:17 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I saw the protection of free speech at Berkeley. Color me unimpressed.

I never approved of the Berkeley (liberal) horseshit.

But, yes, we do need to set appropriate limits on true "hate speech."

Obviously, at least 30% of the American people are too stupid (or immoral) to recognize a fascist joker when they see one.

       hate speech should be free speech, especially when its so subjective to decide the line.  if no one is being harmed (yelling fire in a theater, libel, etc.) it should be legal.   for all of the lefts epidemic of moral relativism on so many things (pedophilia, incest, bending over 180 degrees for different cultures, etc.), its unbelievably hypocritical of them to be black and white on "hate speech".  of course, for most of the left, attacking and denigrating white people is not hate speech because theyre the oppressors.

    the left is so upside down and clueless about what is wrong and what is right  its mind boggling to so many rational people.  these leftists are indoctrinated by the cultural marxists to find a cause to fight for but have no idea how absurd the cause really is.  certainly would be great if they were rebelling against issues that truly mattered.

  

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 21:15:56 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

But, yes, we do need to set appropriate limits on true "hate speech."

Obviously, at least 30% of the American people are too stupid (or immoral) to recognize a fascist joker when they see one.

What speech do you propose be banned? And don't do the trite fire in a crowded theater routine.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 21:30:18 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

Apr 23, 2017 21:15:56 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

I never approved of the Berkeley (liberal) horseshit.

But, yes, we do need to set appropriate limits on true "hate speech."

Obviously, at least 30% of the American people are too stupid (or immoral) to recognize a fascist joker when they see one.

       hate speech should be free speech, especially when its so subjective to decide the line.  if no one is being harmed (yelling fire in a theater, libel, etc.) it should be legal.   for all of the lefts epidemic of moral relativism on so many things (pedophilia, incest, bending over 180 degrees for different cultures, etc.), its unbelievably hypocritical of them to be black and white on "hate speech".  of course, for most of the left, attacking and denigrating white people is not hate speech because theyre the oppressors.

    the left is so upside down and clueless about what is wrong and what is right  its mind boggling to so many rational people.  these leftists are indoctrinated by the cultural marxists to find a cause to fight for but have no idea how absurd the cause really is.  certainly would be great if they were rebelling against issues that truly mattered.

 

Graver,

     Our only disagreement here probably centers on our definitions of "hate speech."

     I was using the term to refer to the kind of incendiary speech that the Nazis used to incite violence against specific groups of citizens-- e.g., Jews, liberals, socialists, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.


Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity.
Fighting words.
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography.
Perjury.
Blackmail.
Incitement to imminent lawless action.
True threats.

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 21:30:18 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

hate speech should be free speech, especially when its so subjective to decide the line.  if no one is being harmed (yelling fire in a theater, libel, etc.) it should be legal.   for all of the lefts epidemic of moral relativism on so many things (pedophilia, incest, bending over 180 degrees for different cultures, etc.), its unbelievably hypocritical of them to be black and white on "hate speech".  of course, for most of the left, attacking and denigrating white people is not hate speech because theyre the oppressors.

    the left is so upside down and clueless about what is wrong and what is right  its mind boggling to so many rational people.  these leftists are indoctrinated by the cultural marxists to find a cause to fight for but have no idea how absurd the cause really is.  certainly would be great if they were rebelling against issues that truly mattered.

  

Yep. I have a hard time understanding the mentality that argues there are 76 forms of gender identity while at the same time being black and white on "hate" speech.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 22:14:27 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 23, 2017 21:30:18 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

hate speech should be free speech, especially when its so subjective to decide the line.  if no one is being harmed (yelling fire in a theater, libel, etc.) it should be legal.   for all of the lefts epidemic of moral relativism on so many things (pedophilia, incest, bending over 180 degrees for different cultures, etc.), its unbelievably hypocritical of them to be black and white on "hate speech".  of course, for most of the left, attacking and denigrating white people is not hate speech because theyre the oppressors.

    the left is so upside down and clueless about what is wrong and what is right  its mind boggling to so many rational people.  these leftists are indoctrinated by the cultural marxists to find a cause to fight for but have no idea how absurd the cause really is.  certainly would be great if they were rebelling against issues that truly mattered.

  

Yep. I have a hard time understanding the mentality that argues there are 76 forms of gender identity while at the same time being black and white on "hate" speech.

Question for you two defenders of liberty.

Do you think that Trump's derogatory public comments (e.g., about Mexicans and Muslims) have incited violence against people he has denounced?

Just askin'...

[frmthegrav]

Apr 23, 2017 22:27:29 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 22:14:27 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Yep. I have a hard time understanding the mentality that argues there are 76 forms of gender identity while at the same time being black and white on "hate" speech.

Question for you two defenders of liberty.

Do you think that Trump's derogatory public comments (e.g., about Mexicans and Muslims) have incited violence against people he has denounced?

Just askin'...

        have led to violence?   yes.  id say by bringing the issue to a head, some people (although very few in number) have taken action and may have discriminated or done harm to some immigrants.    i do not think trump is legally responsible  in any way, though, and he has never advocated violence.  if you want to throw hitler into this, hitler purposely had his party members attack and physically beat members of other groups into submission.  violence was commonplace.

      any of the violence that did result from trumps comments are dwarfed by the number of violent incidents that illegal muslims and to a far lesser extent, mexicans have done.   how many rapes and violent attacks have been committed by illegals? 

[frmthegrav]

Apr 23, 2017 21:55:02 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 21:30:18 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

       hate speech should be free speech, especially when its so subjective to decide the line.  if no one is being harmed (yelling fire in a theater, libel, etc.) it should be legal.   for all of the lefts epidemic of moral relativism on so many things (pedophilia, incest, bending over 180 degrees for different cultures, etc.), its unbelievably hypocritical of them to be black and white on "hate speech".  of course, for most of the left, attacking and denigrating white people is not hate speech because theyre the oppressors.

    the left is so upside down and clueless about what is wrong and what is right  its mind boggling to so many rational people.  these leftists are indoctrinated by the cultural marxists to find a cause to fight for but have no idea how absurd the cause really is.  certainly would be great if they were rebelling against issues that truly mattered.

 

Graver,

     Our only disagreement here probably centers on our definitions of "hate speech."

     I was using the term to refer to the kind of incendiary speech that the Nazis used to incite violence against specific groups of citizens-- e.g., Jews, liberals, socialists, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.


Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity.
Fighting words.
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography.
Perjury.
Blackmail.
Incitement to imminent lawless action.
True threats.

      inciting violence, to me, is different than advocating violence.  any speech could incite violence in any individual.  even advocating violence should be legal to some extent.  words and action are two different things.    we dont go after thought crimes yet.

      how is child pornography unprotected?   i have no problem with pedophiles who write or read about it.  no one is harmed.

    attacking members or groups of individuals are completely within everyones rights.  that includes attacks based on creed, color, religion, or whatever.
     
     fighting words-- again, words and action are two different things.  no one is harmed until a punch is thrown.  all of the other categories have a case to be made as someone could be injured in some way.


           

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 22:27:29 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 22:14:27 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Yep. I have a hard time understanding the mentality that argues there are 76 forms of gender identity while at the same time being black and white on "hate" speech.

Question for you two defenders of liberty.

Do you think that Trump's derogatory public comments (e.g., about Mexicans and Muslims) have incited violence against people he has denounced?

Just askin'...

What comments, what violence?

Did Obama's rhetoric about cops incite violence against them? Just askin'

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 23:06:56 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 23, 2017 22:27:29 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Question for you two defenders of liberty.

Do you think that Trump's derogatory public comments (e.g., about Mexicans and Muslims) have incited violence against people he has denounced?

Just askin'...

What comments, what violence?

Did Obama's rhetoric about cops incite violence against them? Just askin'

Harry,

  Are you referring to Obama's statement that "there is no excuse for violence"-- the part of his Ferguson speech that Fox News omitted from their coverage?

[lz2112]

Apr 23, 2017 13:58:43 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 22, 2017 18:19:21 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

The Simple Reason Why A Second American Civil War May Be Inevitable

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

America has always had its divisions, and Americans have never really been a monolith. We’ve always been a nation of many nations. The culture of New England is different from the culture of the Deep South, which is different from the cultures in the West Coast or the Midwest. People living in the cities have different beliefs than people who live in the countryside. Within those areas, there are ethnic, linguistic, and religious enclaves. It’s always kind of been like that (probably to a lesser degree in the past), and somehow we’ve been able to find enough common ground to keep this country together for more than a century.

However, something has changed. You can feel it in the air. Our nation has clearly never been this divided since the Civil War. A lot of people noticed it after the last election, but the truth is that these divisions have been deepening for decades, and they’re just now reaching a very noticeable breaking point. That’s obvious enough when you look at how the left and the right have been going at each other. It used to be a war of words, but it’s turning into something very dark.

Consider what happened last week in Berkeley after Trump supporters and counter protesters clashed for the third time. 21 people were arrested and 11 were injured (that we know of), six of who had to be taken to the hospital. At least one person was stabbed. The police confiscated confiscated knives, stun guns, and poles. One Trump supporter admitted to being surrounded, pepper sprayed, and beaten with sticks by a mob of “protesters.”

But wait, that’s not the dark part. After these groups clashed, the leftist protesters took to Reddit and admitted that they lost this particular battle (I can’t believe I’m using the word “battle” to describe it), and that it was time for them to attain more combat training and better weapons, including firearms.

Do you see what’s going on here? Conservative demonstrations, which used to be placid affairs (remember the Tea Party protests?) are now turning violent as conservatives grow tired of restraining themselves, and are no longer afraid to hit back. Liberal demonstrators are responding by ratcheting up the level of force that they’re going to bring to the next street battle. It’s a tit for tat that keeps escalating, and I shudder to think of where it’s going to end up.

Honestly, I think we’re in the early stages of a second civil war. I can’t say what it’ll look like precisely, but I can tell you that our nation is on this path, and it’s not clear how we can get off of it. In fact, I fear that it may be inevitable, and there’s a very simple reason why.

It’s because Americans have been self-sorting themselves along geographic and political lines for a long time. A book titled “The Big Sort” made light of this trend back in 2008.

Basically what’s going on, is that Americans are moving to communities that align more with their politics. Liberals are moving to liberal areas, and conservatives are moving to conservative communities. It’s been going on for decades. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, 26.8% of Americans lived in landslide counties; that is counties where the president won or lost by 20% of the vote.

By 2004, 48.3% of the population lived in these counties. This trend continues to worsen. As Americans move to their preferred geographic bubbles, they face less exposure to opposing viewpoints, and their own opinions become more extreme. This trend is at the heart of why politics have become so polarizing in America.

We’re also seeing the same trend emerge online with social media. Despite the fact that the internet allows us to be exposed to more opinions that ever before, people choose to follow online voices that they already agree with. They’re slipping into digital bubbles that are comparable to their geographic bubbles.

This trend is irreversible as far as I can tell. That’s because it’s tied to innovation. As our country became more interconnected with roads and Americans gained more mobility, we chose to move to like-minded places. We’re given the internet, the greatest source of information in human history, and we use it to seek out only the information that reinforces our current beliefs.

We’re self-sorting at every level. Because of this, Americans are only going to grow more extreme in their beliefs, and see people on the other side of the political spectrum as more alien.

You can see how this is creating the perfect breeding ground for a real, physical war. The polarization makes it easier to dehumanize the other side. The self-sorting creates definable geographic boundaries that are necessary for a war. It spawns two sides with beliefs that are so divergent, that they cannot coexist.

We’re becoming two distinct nations with two competing visions for what the country should be. Two visions that are diametrically opposed. We used to be a nation of many nations that was held together, because there was still some common ground on what it means to be an American above all else. Now we can’t even agree on that.

Once the last shreds of common ground and understanding dissipate, a moment that is rapidly approaching, another civil war will be impossible to avoid. I wish I knew what the solution is, but I don’t. All I can say is, unless Americans go out of their way to listen to people on other side, whatever that side may be, there’s going to be a lot of blood in the streets.

Spot on imo. Geographic bubbles, political bubbles, internet bubbles and echo chambers. With the internet, people have access to more information than ever, but at the same we are dreadfully uninformed.

And that is exhibited most on college campuses, places you would think free exchange of ideas would be accepted, and perhaps even nurtured. But the current environment seems to be that the administration's have acquiesced to the radicals, and will not allow any speech that does not conform to their views of the world. And if it takes violence to suppress any nonconforming ideas, so be it.

That allows them to live in their peaceful echo chamber, which only reinforces their beliefs. I won't say that dynamic is not on the Right also, but the Right doesn't own the youth of America on college campuses. And teaching that youth that loathing the ideas others may have, to the point of violence, is a good thing, without them ever hearing any ideas opposed to their own....

The left has won, guys, they have the younger population, and when Trump finally steps on his dick enough times, it will be over.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to social issues, so not a big deal too me.

Pot is less dangerous then alcohol. How many potheads beat their wives versus how many drunks?

There is no God. Stop using a myth to satisfy man's need to know shit he don't know. Being Gay isn't a choice, so let anyone marry whoever they want. It is a conservative creed that the government should stay the f-word out of our lives. Live by that creed.

Abortion is always a tricky thing. I have no hard fast opinion on it, both my Dad (hardcore prolife) and my sister (hardcore prochoice) had to go through the trauma of that decision. IOW, I have missed out on a stepsibbling and a niece/nephew. My core belief is that the government should not determine who we are, or what we do with our lives. But this is a tough one, because when exactly does life begin?.


My basic point is, don't try to classify people into bubbles, and even conspirists like Grave are trying to pigeon hole all of us.

And FWIW, the fight against the suppression of free speech does have it's advocate.

www.thefire.org/spotlight/

I have donated to them because they are fighting the good fight. In the spirit of the on running ET and OSU feud, UF has a Green rating, OSU has a Yellow.

[Walter]

Apr 24, 2017 0:19:34 GMT -5 lz2112 said:

Apr 23, 2017 13:58:43 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Spot on imo. Geographic bubbles, political bubbles, internet bubbles and echo chambers. With the internet, people have access to more information than ever, but at the same we are dreadfully uninformed.

And that is exhibited most on college campuses, places you would think free exchange of ideas would be accepted, and perhaps even nurtured. But the current environment seems to be that the administration's have acquiesced to the radicals, and will not allow any speech that does not conform to their views of the world. And if it takes violence to suppress any nonconforming ideas, so be it.

That allows them to live in their peaceful echo chamber, which only reinforces their beliefs. I won't say that dynamic is not on the Right also, but the Right doesn't own the youth of America on college campuses. And teaching that youth that loathing the ideas others may have, to the point of violence, is a good thing, without them ever hearing any ideas opposed to their own....

The left has won, guys, they have the younger population, and when Trump finally steps on his dick enough times, it will be over.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to social issues, so not a big deal too me.

Pot is less dangerous then alcohol. How many potheads beat their wives versus how many drunks?

There is no God. Stop using a myth to satisfy man's need to know shit he don't know. Being Gay isn't a choice, so let anyone marry whoever they want. It is a conservative creed that the government should stay the f-word out of our lives. Live by that creed.

Abortion is always a tricky thing. I have no hard fast opinion on it, both my Dad (hardcore prolife) and my sister (hardcore prochoice) had to go through the trauma of that decision. IOW, I have missed out on a stepsibbling and a niece/nephew. My core belief is that the government should not determine who we are, or what we do with our lives. But this is a tough one, because when exactly does life begin?.


My basic point is, don't try to classify people into bubbles, and even conspirists like Grave are trying to pigeon hole all of us.

And FWIW, the fight against the suppression of free speech does have it's advocate.

www.thefire.org/spotlight/

I have donated to them because they are fighting the good fight. In the spirit of the on running ET and OSU feud, UF has a Green rating, OSU has a Yellow.

Your website's qualifying criteria does not seem to make a distinction between free speech, as for example, writing an op-ed or standing on a soapbox somewhere, and engaging in ongoing and individual personal harassment of someone.
Do you believe, for instance, that a person has the right to flood your inbox with a steady stream hate-filled obscenity for weeks, months, even years by actively working around mailblocking with phantom ISPs?
Further, do you believe a school has the right to make up rules that define a personal code of conduct for its students that might forbid such an act?
Lastly, do you believe a school should have a such a code of conduct?
Your website seems to think that a school has no business telling students that the school has standards when it comes to personal attacks of other students.