Freedom of Speech and the recent unpleasantness

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry to sound like a Trump lover but https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics ... index.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998- ... ple-quote/

And Trump tells Cyberdad "In your face you aussie kangaroo"

Erm...

You do realise I had trump in mind when I said that, right?
Are you being serious, or playful?

This is what I have heard.

So, the question really is: Do these companies have or have not integrity.
I think some people may guess where I stand.



I'd be a bit more diplomatic, but I generally agree.



Well, I read on this website that nothing came of the "planned" protests in 50 states.
So I stick with my prediction that: "THERE WILL BE NO COUP!"

"Useful Idiots" aren't supposed to think.
That is what makes them so 'useful'.

On *both* sides.
Critical/independent thinkers were very busy with sifting the bulldust from the probable actuality.



How many *don't* know this?



What are you doing this Saturday evening?
Interested in grabbing a coffee and see how things develop?



I have never seen anything/k like it in my life.

Not at all. You are showing admirable responsibility.

Well I occasionally have to eat humble pie

Most people want to restrict free speech to enable just their point to be heard without allowing others to share their points of view across which could be different from ones own.

I have seen this in operation a lot on this site where absolutely rediculous claims are being allowed against one political leader and yet anyone who supports this leader is finding themselves restricted from putting their point of view across without an immediate onslaught of bullying. (Yes, state an opposing view... Please do but do not make it personal).

I personally do not mind either point of view because I do not need to know what is going on in USA politics because I live in the UK and what the USA do out there does not effect me, but the anti whoever happens to be in power at the time seems to be allowable but anti any opposition parties leaders is restricted? We need a level playing field where one has the freedom of criticizing a leaders policies, but directed personal remarks against any leader or politician is just not on so if we do limit free speech it should be along those lines.

Now never ever should the prevention of free speech be allowed with scientific beliefs or religious beliefs however unusual or impossible or unlikely these beliefs maybe. The ONLY restrictions should be to not allow personal insults against anyone who believes anything they happen to want to believe in, along with any view that happens to promote violence which is just not on.

Why can't someone believe the earth is square? Why are others allowed to try to limit the one who believes this from speaking? What right does one have to stop anyone being allowed to state what they believe at the time to be true? And what harm does it do for them to believe it? If you know better that the earth is round then you have the right to mention this but do not go beyond that and try to prevent the other person from sharing their views. They are allowed to believe what they believe, and I will be STRONGLY OPPOSED TO ANYONE WHO TRIES TO SAY THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHARE THEIR VIEWS. Why? Because their rights to believe something different are just as important and as equal as your rights to believe in whatever you happen to believe in.

Many things I see written are not directed insults and yet some take them as if they are just because the statements happen to be different from ones own views. If you don't like it, TOUGH! If you want to limit free speech then go and live under a dictator who happens to share your views, as you clearly have no place to live under a democracy if you do not allow others their rights to share their views.
Or if you ONLY believe something because you see it on the television without questioning for yourself what you have seen, then go and live in a communistic country. You would do well in there. (I am not saying this as an insult in this case because certain characters of people will do better if they are among people who think in similar ways and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is if someone tries to insist in communistic ways in a capitalist democratic country as one is not going to thrive in this kind of system if one prefers living by communistic views. I am against preventing people from moving to other countries because I feel that one should have the freedom to decide where to live in the world. Countries under any sustem do jot and should never ever own the people. It is the people who own the country not the governments as the governments are set up for the benefit of the people that live there in order to make a ruling system that works for the people).

In the west the freedom of speech is essential to rule in a democratic way because if we limit free speech, then how are we ever going to have a democracy because if the freedom to state opposing views to certain topics is not allowed we are no longer able to have a democratic vote. It is like an election where all the voters go out to vote for candidate A or candidate B and anyone who votes for candidate B will be put in prison. That is not democracy. That is communism where one has to vote in the communistic way.

In the west if we want to limit free speech we are saying that we do not like democratic rule and we are in effect welcoming communistic ways into our society... And there is nothing wrong with communism as long as it is not taken to the extreme.... BUT few of you who are on the spectrum will have any chance to thrive under communistic society as we are getting into the realms of NT ideology here, where everyone has to fit in and think in the same way or one will face the consequences if one is seen to be different.

To defend the freedom of speech is of the utmost importance when one wants to live in a democratic world.

Like when a person who does not believe in the "Supernatural" is prohibited from replying to people who do.  Like when a person who has achieved some small measure of success and self-reliance is prohibited from replying to people who have not.  Like when a person who tries hard to not be a racist or sexist in any way is prohibited from calling out people who openly express their own racist and sexist beliefs.  It is as if not upsetting people is more important than being truthful.

OP, there is an irony of sorts here. You say you're worried about America adopting some very bad ideas from old Europe, but seemingly oblivious to the fact that you're aiding and abetting some of these bad ideas in spirit.

The burning of the Reichstag was immediately followed with tough restrictions against anyone who seemingly posed a threat to Nazi ideology, leading to the one-party state. In order to stop those 'potentially dangerous communists at large', the government silenced anyone and anything that they didn't approve of. And it had the support of many people in the German public.

That's exactly what we're seeing now in the USA. I don't support burning down or storming public offices, but the actions of a few will be used as a pretext to suppress political dissent. I can't think of any circumstance where one-party rule (of any political persuasion) proved to be a good thing.

Here, read a translation of the Reichstag Fire Decree:



This seems to be the road we're heading down. Since many of the German people at the time liked the Nazi ideology, and were opposed to communism, they supported these restrictions on their own freedoms. That's what I see on this site. In this scenario, Trump supporters are akin to the communists; most people here are comparable to the nazis - since they don't like the politics of the other side (those dangerous a$$holes), they're all for the government silencing and censuring anyone who doesn't agree with the trending political doctrine.

And I'm one of those Germans who's wary of either side and seeing my liberties slowly eroded away. But in nazi Germany, I'd automatically be labeled a communist even though I'm not. Here, I'm automatically labeled a dangerous Trump supporter. It's really strange seeing it play out before me, especially on a site for people who have been disenfranchised by the majority of the population all their life. Amazing how quick most are to group-think (even Aspies).

No, it's nothing like that at all. We're seeing an expanding control of the media and communications on a mass scale in the name of "safety," with the full-support of a large segment of society. A powerful few will control who has a platform in the first place.

Your examples all seem to be arbitrary and situational to a specific conversation you've had.

History tends to be cyclical. like the seasons. we're just in that unraveling destabilized period. the "winter " of the current era coming to a close. It seems to happen every century. Only thing different about now is our advanced state of modern technology makes it more dangerous for the future.

I notice the ones who whine about being censored or being restricted are the ones that want to say racist things or antisemitism or trans or homophobia stuff, and other hate.

But I don't see any rude people whine about being censored. Maybe because they understand forum owners or individuals can block whoever they want or can decide what people they want in their group. And it's not the end of the world.

↑ This.

Bigots and other hate-mongers abuse their free speech rights to spread lies about those who have the same rights as they do, and they refer to being called out for their lies and hatred as "assault", "oppression", and "persecution".  It is as if acknowledging that others have the same rights and privileges as themselves somehow diminishes their own feelings of self-importance, so they say and do all they can to make those others seem unworthy of any rights and privileges.

"If a gay, black, Jewish woman in a wheelchair has the same rights as me, then that means I am no better than she is, and I will never tolerate that!!" -- anonymous bigot (e.g., a straight, white, Christian man walking on his own two legs)

That looks like some kind of Anecdotal Fallacy to me. "This fallacy is when someone bases an argument on anecdotal evidence. They will use personal experiences as evidence to back up their claims."

Plus another thing that comes to mind is the incomplete evidence fallacy or "Cherry picking", "the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position."

Are you posting this in support of racism, sexism, and/or any kind of xenophobia?