|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah but on principle; "not doing anything worthwhile" doesn't really matter that much. Deterrence does happen.
And I thought Mexico is paying for it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
BS. Take off those rose-colored glasses. Ted Nugent: Hang Obama and ClintonTwo Months Left Until Obama Gives Dictators Control of Internet Barack Obama Is a Traitor TIME TO CALL OBAMA AND KERRY WHAT THEY ARE: TRAITORS Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage 10 Ridiculous Things Said About Barack Obama According to the leftists, hate speech incites violence and the purveyors of said speech are responsible for the violence they incite. According to their logic, all the people who have been reciting hate speech against Trump are partially responsible for yesterday's shooting. I don't agree with their logic, but if they don't want to be hypocrites then they will admit they believe they have some responsibility in this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you acknowledge that much of the anti-Trump speech is not hate speech? I don't call stuff hate speech. And I'm not sure what you mean by "much"... Not all of the anti-Trump speech counts as what the left calls hate speech, but I say the majority of it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I think it's worth setting out a useful working definition of hate speech: Hate speech - Wikipedia As with references to totalitarianism, accusing people of hate speech when they criticise an individual's behaviour or actions, serves to diminish the harm of true hate speech. It is a reasonable position to attack the nature of some of the criticisms of Trump (and Obama and many many others) as criticism which is beyond the pale, but let's reserve hate speech as the expression which is properly used to describe the language bigots use to stir up hatred against groups of people, based on their colour, gender, nationality, sexuality etc. So if you hate Trump, and you hate Republicans, and you give speech that incites violence against them, well that doesn't count as True Hate SpeechTM... because why? Is it because "republican" isn't a protected class? Really? How does that diminish the harm of True Hate SpeechTM? They hate people. They're speaking. They're inciting violence. But calling that hate speech somehow diminishes real hate speech? Edited by New Cat's Eye, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is it because "republican" isn't a protected class? Yes. Why does that matter? If you're inciting violence against a group by speaking hatefully, why should I care what class of people the violence is towards? And how does calling out the leftists' hateful speech towards Republicans diminish the harm of True Hate SpeechTM?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There are two reasons that hate speech, as set out in the wiki page I cited, doesn't apply to Republicans. First, folks get a choice as to whether to be a Republican - members of protected classes of people don't. That doesn't add up: You get a choice in your religion and yet that is a protected class. If religion can be protected, why can't political affiliation?
Second, protected classes are vulnerable or less privileged groups of people in society, with less power and less ability to protect themselves against prejudice and hatred, so society affords them the protection that they have less ability to create themselves. I don't subscribe to prejudging people based on groups that they belong to - it is wrong to affiliate people with weakness just because of their race or sexual orientation.
Republicans are not a vulnerable or less privileged group. Put on a MAGA hat and go walk through Harlem and then come back and tell me if you felt vulnerable or not.
being rude to your political opponents/lawyers/politicians/bankers isn't. Sure, but what about calling for violence out of hatred? They're Republicans so that doesn't matter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you accept that proposition that speeches like Clinton's are what caused the shooting yesterday? No, I've already said I don't. But if the leftists don't want to be hypocrites, then they should admit that according to their own logic it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If everyone got a free choice in their religion, then there would be a widespread distribution between Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/Jewish/Christian/atheists etc amongst children of Christian families and similarly amongst the other religions. Are you claiming that's the case ? Are you claiming that there is a widespread distribution between Democrats/Republicans/GreenParty/Independents amongst children of Democratic families?
I have not seen white people punched for their colour There's all kinds of videos on youtube of Antifa doing exactly that... All you have to do is call a white guy a Nazi first, then you're justified in assaulting them
Are you prepared to claim that, in the states, Republicans suffer as much abuse/prejudice/bigotry/violence as black people ? As much? No, but a non-zero amount of vulnerability? Yes.
That's wrong - but it's not hate speech. The disinction is important. I'm not seeing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How about some examples of folks in the media or politicians actually doing that. I'm not going to claim that nobody does that, but if you are going to tar "the Left" or "liberals" in that way, I expect you to show some mainstream calls for violence. I'll pass, I don't have the time right now. But it's "leftists", not liberals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Way more so than amongst religious backgrounds, yes. And I note that you don't deny my rebuttal of your point. I'm still getting this straight: So if Democrats breed Democrats like Christians breed Christians, would that remove some of the choice in the matter? And then political affiliation could be a protected class? Come to think of it, maybe the choice part shouldn't be mattering to you that much. You can choose your sex and apparently your race too these days
There are some examples of that - are you claiming the preponderance of racist assaults against white people is greater than against black/Asian people in our societies ? What!? No. You said they're not vulnerable, I'm saying they can be.
In my view, it doesn't require Republicans to suffer a zero amount of vulnerability in order to protect black people/gays etc. Of course, but apparently there is some level of vulnerability that is not worth protecting. I mean, you can't be saying it doesn't matter just because these people were Republicans?
Because if we are to limit freedom of speech, to protect vulnerable segments of society, it is right that we limit those limitations. Hence hate speech should be a very specific definition. Now that I can agree with. I'm not convinced that hate speech should be a thing, but if it is you're right. I see that you've got another post, Message 663. I'll respond to it here as well:
We preserve special punishments for hate speech (at least in the UK), and they should only be applied to limit free speech in defence of those vulnerable groups. Not to say those situations aren't wrong - they are. But where more vulnerable people are targeted, extra protections are appropriate. This, I can understand. Now, I don't really care for it, but I get it. If you're going to go "above and beyond", you should take extra care. Secial punishments, should you decide they exist, should not only be accurate, but very precise.
But neither adds up to hate speech, because vulnerable groups in society are not being targeted for their vulnerability. This I'm having a little more trouble with. How do I target someone for their vulnerability? What does that mean? And why is that the important qualifier? If an individual is being targeted for being a member of a group, why does it have to be for their vulnerability to be important enough to be protected from? And is choice really that important?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Or they reported it because that's their job as journalists; they felt the information is important and they felt it's their professional duty to get this news out to the people. You're joking, right!? They're selling ad space - that is all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Right on. If you find the time, I'd like to hear about what you meant by targeting someone "for" their vulnerability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Make a thread; I was raised Catholic and I'll participate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Whoops!
I'm surprised I was missed I'll take that as a compliment I can't believe I've been posting here for 12.5 years. A lot has changed in my life in the last year; professionally, personally, spiritually. I'm not in the science business anymore and have moved to the enigineering side. I had a really powerful religious experience. I completely changed my lifestyle to put my own health and fitness first. I got out of a long term relationship. Sobered up. Got a new roommate. Been spending my money increasing my property's value. Life's great and I thank God for that. But I'm still a smart ass who likes to talk shit
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024