Scuzz
3800
Since history has shown us that no political party keeps the presidency for more than 8 years (there are a few exceptions), wouldn’t that tend to show that the political wind just seems to blow different directions, asking for change every 8 years. Some part of the electorate is willing to switch sides every 8 years, or not show up at the polls.
Of course the worst part is having the GOP control the congress, but how many years did the Dems control it without creating any sort of Dem nirvana.
Has the right changed that much, or maybe the left now hates different things about the right. Things more basic and visceral.
I think we’re now at that point. I’m seeing a literal and well-deserved hatred of conservatives. Armando solutions won’t be far from reality in a few years.
I’ve seen folks praise the beheaded Trump, say that on the opoid crisis that if these folks die off it’s fewer Trump voters so it’s a win. At this point I won’t say anything bad about it either- I actually believe it is justified now- Republicans are that much of a threat to my well-being.
This is why I think civil war or at a minimum, severe domestic terrorism, is inevitable- America hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War.
The problem with the Communist vision vs the social democratic vision of the Nordic countries is that intrinsic to the Communist world view is that society is divided into the exploiters and the exploited, and you need to take from the exploiters to help the exploited. Pretty much from first principle social conflict is intrinsic. It’s not at all like the same thing as “provide more health care by raising taxes” or whatever, there is a social injustice that needs correcting, and the only way to affect these changes are going to be by force.
I think this is why, in a very handwavy, vague, adjacent to racism way, many white people exhibit overconcern for things like BLM or 1% talk or social justice/identity politics ect. There’s no ideological rigeur in those movements so there’s no specific threat, but the vague worry that you or your group gets defined as the exploiter class is probably there , if not articulated.
It’s as if you’re forgetting New Coke.
ShivaX
3804
Look at European “hate speech” laws and how they actually get implemented, especially the recent thing with Turkey and Germany. Look at the Muslim Ban. Look at Bloomberg and soft drinks.
Liberals are more than willing to crush the rights of people that are “wrong”. The problem is who gets to decide who is wrong? The government, who one day might decide that you’re wrong for opposing them. Remember the old adage that every law you pass is something you’re willing to kill someone over. One day that government you gave so much power to might be run by someone who sees you as the bad guy. Now you’re fucked. Better that they never have that power even if you might agree with them having it right now, because the day will come where you don’t and then who is going to save you?
Well, I mean if Trump isn’t an argument for small government then I don’t know what is. :P
But I also don’t think that liberal necessarily means big government either.
ShivaX
3806
It doesn’t but government is the only tool big enough to do what liberalism wants in many ways.
You want gays to have the same rights as everyone else and not be discriminated against? Okay, do it without any legal backing. Then ask black folks how well that worked for them for 100 years.
I wonder, is liberal without big government libertarian?
Seriously, I’m pretty daft. But it sounds pretty convincing after thinking about it for all of a minute.
How is this even an issue? I would actually say that if anything, current developments in the US are showing you guys need to implement something like this to stop people resorting to violence.
ShivaX
3809
Sort of, but libertarian assumes people aren’t shitbags. People are shitbags.
ShivaX
3810
Yeah, no thanks.
And if you think violence and speech are the same thing. I dunno what to tell you. Making it illegal for some racist fuckwit in his basement to scream about Jews isn’t going to make him less likely to kill someone. If anything letting him rant like a lunatic allows him to vent as well as give us a heads up to keep an eye on him.
Better Norm Macdonald than the super-creepy Darrell Hammond version!
(Seriously though, I love Norm in just about anything.)
I like the Darrell Hammond version because it’s creepy. You ever check out his biography? Dude’s life has been dark.
That we can 100% agree on.
Lol, that’s not hate speech law, but defamation law, which is different and you guys have in the US too, and that your first lady has not problem using. The poem in question was written to break those laws on purpose as per the comedian himself. And all that has come out of it is a ban on republishing. I actually think they did apply the law with subtletly.
What your source fails to quote is that the important suit by Erdogan (using a law forbidding defamation of heads of state) was dropped because Germany took that specific law out of the books. Again, great execution. The article you quoted is misleading as hell.
This is another example of such laws in action in Germany. See the outcome.
Hate speech laws are something very specific, and they are applied with great care (another example from Germany).
ShivaX
3815
That those laws even existed is ridiculous. And he would never be charged with anything in the US.
Hate speech is not very specific. If i say Islam’s treatment of women is deplorable, then I could be charged with hate speech violations in most of the EU.
I get it, Europeans can’t handle real freedoms, it’s cool, it’s not for everyone.
[quote]Pretend for a moment, as passionate college kidz like to do, that the Constitution doesn’t exist and there are no legal obstacles to punishing hurtful speech. The fact of the matter is that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder: one person’s “hate speech” is another’s unobjectionable fact. And if there’s one thing Europe’s governments have demonstrated again and again, it’s that empowering politicians to ban offensive speech is to give them a license to stamp out what’s most offensive to them: mockery and dissent.
As I’ve explained in the past, Germans are vastly more likely to be investigated and prosecuted if they complain about a government employee than if they’re mean to their neighbor Hans. What’s more, the insult law can and frequently does encompass things like opposition politicians calling the Chancellor “insane” at a public meeting. In fact, the more high-profile the object of your scorn, the more likely they are to put law enforcement on your case.[/quote]
Plenty of links abound in there but I’m not going to quote these things all day, though I easily could.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Not freedom to say things I agree with and then prison for those that don’t.
Nope, not in most EU countries you wouldn’t.
Hate speech laws (varies by country) take incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination as a requirement for the speech to fall under those clauses. The above does not fit.
Moreover, most hate speech laws have dispositions against freedom of expression and in the vast majority of practical applications of these laws there’s a lot of care taken to analyze the speech. I think some countries like Denmark might be a little bit looser with the definition, but most are strict. Did you read the last link I provided?
If you want more reading, this is the closest to an European guideline.
magnet
3817
Well, they do have the freedom not to have your car seized and then sold by the police on a random pretext. Also, the freedom not to be executed when you are innocent of any crime.
So that’s something.
Scuzz
3818
However as we are seeing more and more now that the freedom of speech is not the freedom of consequences of that speech.
Oh good, are we having the free speech maximalism argument again? Awesome. I just hope someone will drop some Popehat links…wait, I’m getting an update right now.
Yes, we’ve got popehat links.
I think we can call this a job well done, people.
