The Secret to Trump's Appeal...

Post Reply New Topic

Obama's crocodile tears are a joke, how many times has he cried about all the children that he incinerated with drone strikes? He gives weapons to Mexican drug cartels and Sryian "rebels" aka ISIS but we are supposed to be disarmed? You don't understand how evil the people are that run this country, no I don't believe Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt. I consider him and all the proceeding presidents of my lifetime to be traitors to this country and people. We're not stupid, we talk to Europeans where there is no 1st or 2nd Amendment protections so we know damn well what these deluded leftists wants to do in this country. They straight up say it on the internet, we've live it in the public forum and now people are rejecting our shill old media.

If Obama could ban guns then he would, if he could police speech then he would. The 1st and 2nd Amendment are the last vestiges of what this country was founded on, there is no more country without the 1st and 2nd. We've already lost the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendment. I suppose I should be grateful they are not quartering soldiers at my house yet, maybe someday.

Dude...

No. I meant precisely what I typed. No more, no less.

You do realise that 'governing' would be applicable to (e.g.) the moderators of an internet forum, right?

That's their freedom of speech. It's their property they aren't required to allow you freedom of speech, in fact their freedom extends as far as censoring your freedom of speech on their service since it is their property. Only the government is barred from restricting your freedom of speech-- a private institution can do whatever it wishes. I mean we could always change property laws so that the government can force free speech upon private institutions, but I really don't think anyone wants that.

Don't we all? And yet, and yet...



So you think Jacoby is worried about internet forum moderators?

Hardly. Did you forget what you had previously posted? If so, it's right there in the text you just quoted. If one can refer to the process of forum moderation as 'governing', one can hardly accuse him of "over-egging the matter".

Though you'll probably try and find a way to again avoid responding to that rather obvious point. Perhaps I shouldn't really be surprised, considering you're one of the two people who selectively ignored the qualifier "trying" in Jacoby's earlier post.

Jacoby ignored me.

I wanted a concrete example of what he meant, and why it was a problem. 'Trying to govern' vs 'governed' - I should have said 'tried to govern', though I would hope the point was the same. That is, what exactly does he mean?

You had a crack at it (the use of the term 'problematic', internet forum moderators), and as such I am now talking about your ideas of what 'trying to govern' means. But he ignored me.

A worldview issue, perhaps. I don't think internet forum moderators are a bad thing. Nor do I think people taking issue with what one has said - whether or not they use the term 'problematic' - is a bad thing. I would not call either effort 'trying to govern' speech. It seems a pretty normal part of everyday discourse to me. No-one so far has said why they are bad.

A: I think blah blah blah.
B: I have to say, that's problematic.
A: Could you explain what you mean by that?

You can then enjoy a futile back and forth that, if you're lucky, at least ends in some inventive name-calling.

I see that you are greatly concerned about losing the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

... However, as I've pointed out before...


Source: The Man Who Will Make America Great Again

So... Why is it you support Trump again?

"Trying to govern" is, simply, any attempt at using, leveraging, influencing or controlling an authority. So "trying to govern speech" would include such things as campaigning for your university to adopt new pronouns for everyone. It would also include attempting to redefine internet insults as "violence", then lobbying the (largely impotent, to be fair) U.N. to persuade governments or businesses to change laws or policies.

How would closing down parts of the internet inhibit his right to free speech? Freedom to speak is not the same as the right to be heard.

Well, isn't that convenient.
The act of speaking and venue are not so easily separated.

If place didn't matter, we could tell Fred Phelps's crew to keep their "God hates fags" caterwauling away from soldiers' funerals and we could keep the Klan off of Main Street.

Hopper: Just read any of the 10k articles written during this campaign on political correctness, I do not need to explain something so basic.

GGPViper: The way that was explained to me was that Trump was referring to was shutting down the internet in a specific geographic locations like say Iraq and Syria like the US did to North Korea after they were alleged to have hacked Sony. Any other implication our government already does anyways as normal procedure at this point but who is the viable candidate that is so much better on that issue? I'd vote for Rand Paul if he were a viable candidate, I could maybe vote for Ted Cruz but the establishment "mainstream" favorites? I hate them more than anyone in the country, they are the enemy. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina are non-starters. A crushing defeat and them being ejected from the party would be worth it to me.

There are a lot of reasons to like Trump's candidacy, he says stupid **** sometimes but he's unfiltered and I don't believe in speech crimes. He talks like a real person, why does politics deserve such reverence? If we are to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people then shouldn't it speak the same language? Political correctness has stopped us from tackling our real problems with real solutions, from immigration to trade to war and those are pretty big issues. People's feelings do not need to be coddled, there are more important things than policing microaggressions and forcing people to admit their "privilege". I have all but given up on this country so "the chaos candidate" starts sounding a lot more attractive when you're heading off the cliff with the status quo, what's the worst that can happen? He gets co-opted and sells us out, it's possible but to paint him as some sort of potential fascist is ignorant of the government we already have and who else is running.

Convenient for whom?



In terms of an action that has taken place, no. In terms of what is permissible, and where, absolutely.



And yet place does matter. Can you tell me the difference between a public street in America and a privately owned website?

The more important issue is what they have in common. Government cannot restrict speech in either place.

PS
Here's a question for you.

What's the point of unheard speech?

I do not think that goonsquad is saying that alcohol explains why trump supporters support trump. He is saying that the higher incidence of alcoholism among trump supporters is evidence of their stress and their stress is what makes them make decisions based on emotion rather then rationality.

Yeah, that's pretty close to my point. Substance abuse and high suicide rates indicate stress in working class whites as a group. That stress makes them apt to prefer leaders with Trump's more authoritarian style.

Actually, I think I'm really most interested in the high death rates among whites by itself.. I'm gonna hafta download that paper when I get back to school next week.