Page 3 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 76,251
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Apr 2021, 9:53 am

How can anybody equate the NAACP with the Black Panthers?

The NAACP was founded when an organization like it was absolutely necessary. Nowadays, it's still necessary. They are a moderate group, often accused of being too moderate by more militant-type folks.

The Black Panthers were more militant.

I think of the NAACP as being like Martin Luther King.

i think of the Black Panthers as being more like Malcolm X.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 12,525
Location: I'm right here

30 Apr 2021, 10:09 am

Mr Reynholm wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
What seems to be lost is a common frame of reference.
Terms get thrown around quite freely without agreement upon definition.
Hyperbolic uses of the word "Nazi" or "white supremacists" when anyone challenges the mainstream narrative.


If someone consistently believes in placing the interests of white people ahead of others that's within the definition of white supremacism, so why wouldn't the label be applicable? :chin:

It isn't like someone only counts once they're a card carrying Klanman.

Would you call those who place the interests of say, black people ahead of other within the definition of "Black Supremacism"? NAACP and Black Panthers fit the bill. Are these racists organizations?
I am not advocating for racism (white,black or otherwise) and definitely not violence. I think there needs to be some fairness in how we define things.


They're both groups formed to focus on a single issue, so the fact that they only talk about civil rights and how they pertain to their membership isn't an issue for me.

There were other groups in that era that actually espoused violence much more broadly than the Black Panther party ever did but I'd say it's more accurate to describe them as 'black separatist' than 'black supremacist' even though both labels were used at the time. 'Black nationalist' would be a good term if they're demanding an ethno-state.

A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.

I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 895
Location: Tulsa, OK

30 Apr 2021, 10:49 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
What seems to be lost is a common frame of reference.
Terms get thrown around quite freely without agreement upon definition.
Hyperbolic uses of the word "Nazi" or "white supremacists" when anyone challenges the mainstream narrative.


If someone consistently believes in placing the interests of white people ahead of others that's within the definition of white supremacism, so why wouldn't the label be applicable? :chin:

It isn't like someone only counts once they're a card carrying Klanman.

Would you call those who place the interests of say, black people ahead of other within the definition of "Black Supremacism"? NAACP and Black Panthers fit the bill. Are these racists organizations?
I am not advocating for racism (white,black or otherwise) and definitely not violence. I think there needs to be some fairness in how we define things.


They're both groups formed to focus on a single issue, so the fact that they only talk about civil rights and how they pertain to their membership isn't an issue for me.

There were other groups in that era that actually espoused violence much more broadly than the Black Panther party ever did but I'd say it's more accurate to describe them as 'black separatist' than 'black supremacist' even though both labels were used at the time. 'Black nationalist' would be a good term if they're demanding an ethno-state.

A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.

I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.

But still, these organizations meet the definition. I don't begrudge them but anything "White" is by extension "Racist".
Why is Black Nationalism OK but White Nationalism racists?
La Raza is an Hispanic organization whose name literally means "The Race". I have never heard La Raza spoken ill of in the media. Are they racists?
The point that I'm trying to make here is that there is a double standard in the way we look at race. I don't look down upon People of color. I believe they are every bit as capable of achievement as white people. But why are white persons demonized by the media and academia for just being?
Critical Race Theory being taught in our schools which desecrates the memory of MLK



Last edited by Mr Reynholm on 30 Apr 2021, 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,473
Location: Long Island, New York

30 Apr 2021, 11:23 am

funeralxempire wrote:
A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.

I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.

I disagree. There are people here and elsewhere who think Autistic people are superior to NT’s. At times the NT’s are dumb, only care about social hierarchical, that Autistics have superpowers etc thinking have been rampant here. I have no problem calling them Aspie or Autistic supremacists. They do not have any power they are usually one person with a computer. Their supremacist beliefs are usually an overcorrection to our lack of power.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 12,525
Location: I'm right here

30 Apr 2021, 11:32 am

Mr Reynholm wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
What seems to be lost is a common frame of reference.
Terms get thrown around quite freely without agreement upon definition.
Hyperbolic uses of the word "Nazi" or "white supremacists" when anyone challenges the mainstream narrative.


If someone consistently believes in placing the interests of white people ahead of others that's within the definition of white supremacism, so why wouldn't the label be applicable? :chin:

It isn't like someone only counts once they're a card carrying Klanman.

Would you call those who place the interests of say, black people ahead of other within the definition of "Black Supremacism"? NAACP and Black Panthers fit the bill. Are these racists organizations?
I am not advocating for racism (white,black or otherwise) and definitely not violence. I think there needs to be some fairness in how we define things.


They're both groups formed to focus on a single issue, so the fact that they only talk about civil rights and how they pertain to their membership isn't an issue for me.

There were other groups in that era that actually espoused violence much more broadly than the Black Panther party ever did but I'd say it's more accurate to describe them as 'black separatist' than 'black supremacist' even though both labels were used at the time. 'Black nationalist' would be a good term if they're demanding an ethno-state.

A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.

I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.

But still, these organizations meet the definition. I don't begrudge them but anything "White" is by extension "Racist".
Why is Black Nationalism OK but White Nationalism racists?
La Raza is an Hispanic organization whose name literally means "The Race". I have never heard La Raza spoken ill of in the media. Are they racists?
The point that I'm trying to make here is that there is a double standard in the way we look at race. I don't look down upon People of color. I believe they are every bit as capable of achievement as white people. But why are white persons demonized by the media and academia for just being?


Power dynamics. It's the same reason a straight pride parade would be scorned by a lot of people who would be supportive of a pride parade.

A group that's the majority and that holds substantial power doesn't need an organization or movement to advocate on behalf of their rights specifically. An entity that exists to advocate only for the rights of that group would by definition be seeking to increase their privilege relative to people not within that group.

A group that's minority, holds little power and has historically faced discrimination isn't seeking to further dominate everyone else. Advocating to be included within the power structure isn't the same as advocating to be the only ones allowed within the power structure. That's the fundamental difference and why it's false to compare the two as though they're the same.

White people aren't demonized for just being, can you provide examples of that? I know guys like Tucker like to claim it but they never substantiate those claims. They just repeat those claims to an audience that wants to believe that erosion of privilege is the same as being oppressed.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 12,525
Location: I'm right here

30 Apr 2021, 11:37 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.

I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.

I disagree. There are people here and elsewhere who think Autistic people are superior to NT’s. At times the NT’s are dumb, only care about social hierarchical, that Autistics have superpowers etc thinking have been rampant here. I have no problem calling them Aspie or Autistic supremacists. They do not have any power they are usually one person with a computer. Their supremacist beliefs are usually an overcorrection to our lack of power.


And that's why they're irrelevant, they don't have the power to accomplish anything towards creating an autistic supremacist power structure so they can't actually do anything but preach an ideology that can't possibly be implemented.

Ideology is meaningless if it can't accomplish anything, that's why I focus on soft white supremacism instead of Atomwaffen Division types. The AWD types won't likely accomplish anything because even other avowed white supremacists want nothing to do with them. They might be a terrorist threat but they're not a substantial threat to civil rights.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 895
Location: Tulsa, OK

30 Apr 2021, 12:49 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
What seems to be lost is a common frame of reference.
Terms get thrown around quite freely without agreement upon definition.
Hyperbolic uses of the word "Nazi" or "white supremacists" when anyone challenges the mainstream narrative.


If someone consistently believes in placing the interests of white people ahead of others that's within the definition of white supremacism, so why wouldn't the label be applicable? :chin:

It isn't like someone only counts once they're a card carrying Klanman.

Would you call those who place the interests of say, black people ahead of other within the definition of "Black Supremacism"? NAACP and Black Panthers fit the bill. Are these racists organizations?
I am not advocating for racism (white,black or otherwise) and definitely not violence. I think there needs to be some fairness in how we define things.


They're both groups formed to focus on a single issue, so the fact that they only talk about civil rights and how they pertain to their membership isn't an issue for me.

There were other groups in that era that actually espoused violence much more broadly than the Black Panther party ever did but I'd say it's more accurate to describe them as 'black separatist' than 'black supremacist' even though both labels were used at the time. 'Black nationalist' would be a good term if they're demanding an ethno-state.

A group needs to have substantial political and economic leverage before there can possibly be discussion of them being 'supremacists'. White supremacism is a well-established pattern, black supremacism is not because historically the political and economic leverage to make it possible hasn't existed. There's hypothetical situations where the term black supremacist might be applicable, but there haven't been any real situations I'd feel that it's the correct term to use.

I don't see any reason to pretend things are even or analogous if they're not actually.

But still, these organizations meet the definition. I don't begrudge them but anything "White" is by extension "Racist".
Why is Black Nationalism OK but White Nationalism racists?
La Raza is an Hispanic organization whose name literally means "The Race". I have never heard La Raza spoken ill of in the media. Are they racists?
The point that I'm trying to make here is that there is a double standard in the way we look at race. I don't look down upon People of color. I believe they are every bit as capable of achievement as white people. But why are white persons demonized by the media and academia for just being?


Power dynamics. It's the same reason a straight pride parade would be scorned by a lot of people who would be supportive of a pride parade.

A group that's the majority and that holds substantial power doesn't need an organization or movement to advocate on behalf of their rights specifically. An entity that exists to advocate only for the rights of that group would by definition be seeking to increase their privilege relative to people not within that group.

A group that's minority, holds little power and has historically faced discrimination isn't seeking to further dominate everyone else. Advocating to be included within the power structure isn't the same as advocating to be the only ones allowed within the power structure. That's the fundamental difference and why it's false to compare the two as though they're the same.

White people aren't demonized for just being, can you provide examples of that? I know guys like Tucker like to claim it but they never substantiate those claims. They just repeat those claims to an audience that wants to believe that erosion of privilege is the same as being oppressed.

You may be on to something.
At its core all of human society is about power and wealth.
Check out Bari Weiss. He was a teacher who was fired for his objections to Critical Race Theory.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,333
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Apr 2021, 1:02 pm

When did 'the left' ever collectively agree or express that to be on the left you must tolerate all things? Tolerating any and everything makes you a pushover I don't think being the biggest pushover you can is a good goal for left leaning people or leftists.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,082
Location: Illinois

30 Apr 2021, 1:42 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.

Are you in support of censorship or not?

Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.



I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332
Location: Derby, UK

30 Apr 2021, 4:01 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.

Are you in support of censorship or not?

Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.



I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.

Yes it was. You just don't like the fact my answer was nuanced rather than a simple yes or no. I don't think a binary answer is appropriate when discussing freedom of speech. My answer explains why.



slam_thunderhide
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 148

01 May 2021, 6:05 am

When I see someone in the public eye talking about how tolerance is a virtue but that we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, I usually assume that what I'm really seeing is just self-interest disguised in the language of universalist values.

It's a bit like when I see people say they support "free speech" but not "hate speech". Or when I'm told I should care about "democracy" triumphing over "dictatorship" in some country on the other side of the world.

As Vladimir Lenin once said, the most important question in politics is who shall overtake whom.



Angnix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,133
Location: Michigan

01 May 2021, 12:24 pm

Though, a lot of this comes down to how you were raised... Like parents like children...

I was raised evangelical fundamentalist baptist and was only exposed to those views growing up... I wasn't exposed to other views until I went to college...
Now I have changed my views, but many others are exposed only to one side without finding out why others believe as they do...

I was raised to believe "Christian good, non-christian bad". But now I see that many people use this for their own good, using the name of Christianity for example to convince people to "tithe" for their own financial gain, or like in the case of that one guy I know, did something real evil to use his guise as a Christian minister to gain access to children to abuse... I blocked him from talking to me along with other family members now...

Anyway that's why my motto is "The Truth is in the Middle"... It's worth listening to the concerns of both sides... But at the same time, some views, such as people that believe the Earth is flat for example or believe "my religion is so correct, everyone should believe it and in fact it should be law" are not grounded in reality... I mean in college I Majored not only in Zoology but I took a Science Ethics course... And it's hard, for example human genetic modification might be good to help diseases, but most agree it becomes not cool if your modifying humans to make your children have blue eyes, or even other characteristics... Then you get in debates about curing issues like ASD... Etc...

This reminds me of a debate I got to attend in Maryland about Horseshoe Crab harvesting... Some people advocated for uncontrolled harvesting, mostly by fishermen that relied on them to live, while others said they couldn't harvest them at all because they're rare and their eggs provide food for endangered species... Plus the issue that they are harvested for an important chemical used in hospital tests that people haven't yet figured out how to manufacture... This meeting, all sides were heard and they made a compromise they can be harvested with limits to how many were taken, so the people that depend on them get what they need and the birds get what they need...

I mean yeah, it's hard to compromise... But doing so while listening to the valid concerns of others is very important...


_________________
Crazy Bird Lady!! !
Also likes Pokemon

Avatar: Image I took from New Pokemon Snap, edited with in-game filters

FINALLY diagnosed with ASD 2/6/2020


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,082
Location: Illinois

01 May 2021, 3:42 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.

Are you in support of censorship or not?

Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.



I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.

Yes it was. You just don't like the fact my answer was nuanced rather than a simple yes or no. I don't think a binary answer is appropriate when discussing freedom of speech. My answer explains why.


Either you understand the reason for the First Amendment or you don't. It's as simple as that. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. You either understand why hate speech should be protected speech or you don't.

Ive seen nothing but verbal gymnastics from you.



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332
Location: Derby, UK

01 May 2021, 4:05 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.

Are you in support of censorship or not?

Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.



I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.

Yes it was. You just don't like the fact my answer was nuanced rather than a simple yes or no. I don't think a binary answer is appropriate when discussing freedom of speech. My answer explains why.


Either you understand the reason for the First Amendment or you don't. It's as simple as that. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. You either understand why hate speech should be protected speech or you don't.

Ive seen nothing but verbal gymnastics from you.


And I've seen nothing but over-simplification from you.

It's not a binary debate. Context is important.

If you ban free speech then serious wrongs in society could go unreported and there would be no justice.

On the other hand there are things which are not appropriate for most, arguably ALL, people all of the time. I gave snuff movies as one example - rape, animal abuse, child abuse, torture, sadism are others. Not fine even among those who love such topics, in my view - definitely not fine if blasted out at everybody else on prime-time TV.

The problem here, which you aren't addressing at all, is the inherent contradictions of the debate. If you allow complete free speech with no limits then for all the positives (freedom, enlightenment, justice etc.) you will also have to cope with the negatives (libel, slander, aggression, grotesqueness, provocation, misinformation, manipulation, exploitation etc.).

Conversely if you attempt to ban all the dangerous extremes there's a good probability you'll also rule out a lot of the cutting edge material that's actually positive - art, philosophy, innovation, troubleshooting, counter-cultural information, alternative viewpoints, anti-corruption investigations, and anything else that goes against the status quo.

So what's your answer to that paradox, then, Mr. All-Or-Nothing?

To my mind some degree of censorship is inevitable to stop the innocent from being traumatised, to stop dangerous extremists and psychopaths from getting a platform, and to prevent fraud and exploitation. But any censorship needs to be delicately done, and totally independent of other social, economic and political forces and institutions (religion, big business, politics etc.). Ensuring that remains the case would need to be a 24/7 concern. But it always comes back to the same problem: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Incidentally, I say that as someone who doesn't have a First Amendment.

There's an irony here in discussing something in "yes or no" terms, that was an amendment. The American implementation of freedom of speech is essentially BS - you have the right to say anything you want, but if it's anything different from the white, Christian, male, capitalist doctrine then there'll be hell to pay. So despite all the moralistic posturing and the wonders of the First Amendment there's actually very little freedom at all, unless you're a fan of getting lynched. You can say whatever you like, provided you fit in. What sort of freedom is that?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 12,525
Location: I'm right here

01 May 2021, 4:17 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Check out Bari Weiss. He was a teacher who was fired for his objections to Critical Race Theory.


When was she fired for that?


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,082
Location: Illinois

01 May 2021, 5:13 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
You don't have to recommend anything. But you do have to clarify your position, which I don't have a mother f*****g clue where you're landing, here.

Are you in support of censorship or not?

Well now, that's the thing about free speech, I don't HAVE to clarify anything.



I guess you don't. My question was relatively simple. Nothing in the rest of your post was relevant to that question at all.

Yes it was. You just don't like the fact my answer was nuanced rather than a simple yes or no. I don't think a binary answer is appropriate when discussing freedom of speech. My answer explains why.


Either you understand the reason for the First Amendment or you don't. It's as simple as that. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. You either understand why hate speech should be protected speech or you don't.

Ive seen nothing but verbal gymnastics from you.


And I've seen nothing but over-simplification from you.

It's not a binary debate. Context is important.

If you ban free speech then serious wrongs in society could go unreported and there would be no justice.

On the other hand there are things which are not appropriate for most, arguably ALL, people all of the time. I gave snuff movies as one example - rape, animal abuse, child abuse, torture, sadism are others. Not fine even among those who love such topics, in my view - definitely not fine if blasted out at everybody else on prime-time TV.

The problem here, which you aren't addressing at all, is the inherent contradictions of the debate. If you allow complete free speech with no limits then for all the positives (freedom, enlightenment, justice etc.) you will also have to cope with the negatives (libel, slander, aggression, grotesqueness, provocation, misinformation, manipulation, exploitation etc.).

Conversely if you attempt to ban all the dangerous extremes there's a good probability you'll also rule out a lot of the cutting edge material that's actually positive - art, philosophy, innovation, troubleshooting, counter-cultural information, alternative viewpoints, anti-corruption investigations, and anything else that goes against the status quo.

So what's your answer to that paradox, then, Mr. All-Or-Nothing?

To my mind some degree of censorship is inevitable to stop the innocent from being traumatised, to stop dangerous extremists and psychopaths from getting a platform, and to prevent fraud and exploitation. But any censorship needs to be delicately done, and totally independent of other social, economic and political forces and institutions (religion, big business, politics etc.). Ensuring that remains the case would need to be a 24/7 concern. But it always comes back to the same problem: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Incidentally, I say that as someone who doesn't have a First Amendment.

There's an irony here in discussing something in "yes or no" terms, that was an amendment. The American implementation of freedom of speech is essentially BS - you have the right to say anything you want, but if it's anything different from the white, Christian, male, capitalist doctrine then there'll be hell to pay. So despite all the moralistic posturing and the wonders of the First Amendment there's actually very little freedom at all, unless you're a fan of getting lynched. You can say whatever you like, provided you fit in. What sort of freedom is that?


If you'd just answer the f*****g question, we might proceed with the conversation. Otherwise, the conversation is over.

Yeah, it is "all or nothing" with me. Hate speech is protected speech for very important reasons.

Answer the f*****g question or don't waste my time any further.