Gromnir

Not exactly sure, but something is happening that has never happened before: it's one minority (Asians) openly revolted against another minority (Blacks). Have you seen something like this before? I haven't, certainly not in recent memory. I have a feeling that, it's just a matter of time before Asians rebel against and break away from the "rainbow coalition" on the left. am realizing that it ain't what you are talking 'bout, but pretty much every major city has regular and real violence between minority groups occurring with some frequency. crips and bloods run up against nortenos and surenos with startling frequency in many cities with sizeable black and hispanic populations. the asian gangs has weird names. am not being racist. particularly hmong/vietnamese, but other asian gangs as well, typical use three-letter abbreviations to identify their gangs. TLL. ok, now in spite o' us having read some chomsky, we know next to nothing 'bout linguistics. nevertheless, am doubting that when the rather widespread TLL gang came up with their brand, they didn't want to be know as Tiny Little Leprechauns. regardless, gang related inter-racial tensions run high in most major cities, and those gangs is often expressing anger and animosity that their law-abiding communities already got for each other. am also thinking o' the rather heated affirmative action conflicts we recall at Berkeley during the late 80s and early 90s. had some sprinkling o' white students fighting both sides, but the crowds were typical asians being opposed by every other minority group... and 'course Gromnir were ridiculed by everybody 'cause we were initially at school on an athletic scholarship. HA! Good Fun!

aside-- while we wouldn't call it ironic, am admitted surprised that given rubio's candidacy, none o' our more colorful boardies has taken the opportunity to post photos of mrs. rubio when she were a miami dolphins cheerleader. perhaps has somebody done so and we missed? admittedly, we ain't followed this thread too close til recent. anyways, just sayin. HA! Good Fun!

am genuine not certain if our azzuro issue is a bug, but at least one other person is having a similar experience. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83695-azzuro-the-merchant/?p=1776729 in the past, when azzuro would show up in the stronghold, he were in the main keep. am not recalling which build made it possible to purchase azzuro's goods even if you did not return to the keep, but we recall having been able to do so. sadly, now we get azzuro to show and... nothing. am informed that he is present, but am not able to find him within the stronghold complex. furthermore, we no longer have the option to purchase his goods from afar. HA! Good Fun!

took you a long time to respond, and that is what you come up with? again, it still ain't irony. is a difference 'tween irony and hypocrisy. is a difference 'tween irony and simple ignorance... something don't become ironic 'cause you is wilfully obtuse. dramatic irony can happen when audience/reader is aware o' information unknown to the characters in the play/book/movie, but such use o' irony is inappropriate as you is not a character from a play. did you sudden become aware when GD posted in defense o' speech that Americans actual were serious 'bout free speech rights? as a character from a play, if you had been somehow kept in the dark about American pov o' free speech and your only previous experience were based on the 2014 article you link, then we can see ros as a character exemplifying dramatic irony. unfortunately, you are the freaking audience. you saw GUARD DOG's posting in defense o' free speech as ironic? sadly, this is a misuse o' the term. perhaps you and alanis morissette can create a support group? dunno. given that the US did not choose to suppress free speech in 1787, 1948 or 1977, or at anytime since then, it stands to reason that folks such as GD, ordinary Americans, rejected the pleas o' offended groups hundreds and even thousands o' times. were anybody on these boards genuine surprised that Gromnir and others posted in defense o' free speech rights? no? GD's behavior were the expected and quite possibly the norm. is why there were no actual surprise at behavior incongruous with what one would expect. point out jewish-americans in 1977 or 1948 were offended by nazi propaganda, or that black groups were offended by kkk rallies, or that catholics and christians were offended by jon stewart's vagina-manger does not sudden make GD's behavior ironic. thanks for final posting a link, but am also amused if you thinks we should be convinced by a swedish article from 2014 that doesn't even identify the s'posed jewish-american groups that convinced sweden to change its free speech laws... and as we already noted, the existence o' such wouldn't create irony. is also, if is accurate, it is a pretty sad commentary on swedes that they didn't follow America's lead and side with defending liberty. "Of course it would seem different, if you look at only this example. Just how dense are you, really?" all the examples is gonna be different. you already got defamation and incitement just as does the US. the US doesn't have hate speech laws. the reason why the examples is different is because defamation and incitement is fundamental different. how obtuse are you gonna be 'bout this? sweden and other euro nations had to come up with new laws 'cause your previous legal traditions did not provide a basis for criminalizing and punishing those behaviors you now, as a society, find intolerable. am sorry, but from start to finish you is simple being obtuse. your ignorance makes irony possible? so now your ignorance is justification for seeing defamation and hate speech as similar? truth is a defense against defamation, and opinion is NOT considered defamatory, even in sweden. for chrissakes, for defamation you gotta prove injury except in cases of libel where certain categories is considered inherent damaging. point out that your ancestors raped Gromnir's ancestors is not defamation. "I guess I owe people like you some kind of thanks. Hundreds of years ago, when my ancestors and distant cousins were raping and killing your Indian ancestors and stealing their land, people like you made all of that possible. I can't say it feels very good now, but I'm sure you gave those old Europeans one hell of a good time in America, at the expense of all the Indians. I'm sure my ancestors did not call your ancestors "terrorists", but there must have been other words - "savage brutes", "filthy beasts", "barbarians" - words justifying revenge attacks on your women and children for resisting your ethnic cleansing." is offensive and makes ros look bad, but ain't defamatory. the only person whose reputation were damaged when you shared such thoughts were ros. we can't show that we suffered any kinda damage. heck, we can't even claim that our feelings were hurt as the statement were utter ridiculous, but hurt feelings is not actionable... save for when re-imagined as hate crimes. even sweden's peculiar Criminal defamation laws wouldn't seem similar to hate. read actual laws and you is gonna see. call somebody, "a dirty catholic who should burn in the hell he imagined," is not gonna be criminalized defamation even in sweden. call somebody, "a dirty catholic child pornographer who should burn in the hell he imagined," is gonna get you defamation in sweden or the US. again, your defamation laws weren't enough... weren't even close. is precisely why you need hate laws to criminalize those who offend. is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but you show little interest in fixing that shortcoming. HA! Good Fun! edit: we post linky to ros' rape post just so it not seem like Gromnir did anything funny and imagine a person or group o' people making offensive comments. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66123-israel-vs-palestine/?p=1473922

am suspecting that bruce has a point... maybe not a big point, but one worth considering. recall how fervent and animated were obama before he were elected regarding the need to stop the US from spying on Americans, and to close down guantanamo. these were campaign promises that, unlike various domestic policy issues, obama did have the power to see actualized. almost eight years pass and near 100 of the guantanamo prisoners is still incarcerated at the site, and domestic spying has increased significant. why? just how dangerous must those remaining 91 in cuba be? were obama a liar who never intended to follow through on his promises? doubtful. makes one wonder what changed obama's perspective, no? am suspecting that only a small number o' folks know how great the threat o' terrorism actual is. terrorist acts prevented is subject to a great deal o' subjectivity. am also not sure what is being counted and how these folks decide that a particular threat is/were credible enough to count towards their statistics. furthermore, as shady's link shows, there is a bit o' fuzzy math and outright bamboozling going on when speaking o' USA counterterrorism success. even so, we cannot help but wonder that a President such as obama, who were no doubt genuine concerned 'bout the excesses o' the bush administration regarding attempts to curb terrorism, changed his tune considerable once coming into office. again, is hardly evidence, but is worth considering. HA! Good Fun!

Japanese Internment weren't knee jerk. Americans didn't wake up December 7, 1941 and decide that all Japanese had to be locked up for the safety o' the nation. *shrug* how 'bout a different example? in the US, cops can make searches incident to an arrest. makes sense that cops could search the person they were arresting, yes? the thing is, cops can also search those areas within the immediate reach o' the person to be arrested. so, the courts clarify and announced that if cops wanted to arrest bob in his home, even if cops didn't have a search warrant for the home, they could search drawers and shelves n' such that were w/i immediate reach o' bob. and what do you think law enforcement started to do? it became standard policy to arrest suspects in homes, and then the cops would escort the suspect from room-to-room o' the entire domicile, searching everything w/i reach. it took awhile, but the Court finally put an end to the practice o' escorting a defendant through homes to facilitate a search. law enforcement is tasked with stopping crime. law enforcement, more than the average citizen, sees criminals getting away with stuff all the time. unlike some folks on the boards, we do not see dirty cops everywhere, but cops (local, state, fed) will use every legal option available to them to apprehend those they believe is criminals... and that ain't a bad thing as long as the courts do their job. what we call reasonable suspicion or probable cause in the US is much higher standards than similarly labeled standards in virtual all o' europe, and to top it off, we got the near unique exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree which makes cops job even tougher. am understanding why cops feel hamstrung at times, and we get why so many feel justified in doing anything legal to make an arrest that sticks. the point is that if there is the possibility that a law can be abused by law enforcement, you should not be surprised when it happens. obvious solution: don't expose law enforcement to temptation. HA! Good Fun! ps to wod-- there is no Constitutional right to have a peaceful and undisturbed festival, but there is a fundamental right to free speech. am likely to muddy the waters a bit, but part o' first amendment is the public forum doctrine. if wod wants to hold an undisturbed festival, he should avoid sidewalks, streets and parks, and he should avoid making it open to the public. over-simple observation is that streets, parks and sidewalks is fair game for protesters. hold a street festival and the possibility that losers carrying pig heads and offensive placards becomes increasing likely.

I can't disagree with you more. fear has always been the greatest motivating factor in history. the terrible things we do to each other in the name o' fear is legion. am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security. http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real. heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools. even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans. he more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. gotta learn from history. tHA! Good Fun! But Gromnir I can respect that analogy " the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms " and course it is applicable. But is that Japanese example relevant? We were talking about WW2 and the fact that Japan was at war with the USA....but I am referring to a reality where the state security institutions are looking at ways to address the fact that technology is being used by Terrorist groups, so is it an invasion of liberties for the NSA to look at addressing this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/08/justice-scalia-on-kelo-and-korematsu/ why ignore ww2? Patriot Act and the expansion of NSA role in spying on Americans were brought about 'cause o' fears resulting from 9/11. thankfully, the Court were willing to step up and squash a few excesses approved of by the President and Congress... folks like to ignore how complicit were Congress. we ain't talking 'bout a one-time event. any time we got a war or a terrorist attack, or fear of a possible terrorist attack, Gromnir weeps. the world has been relative safe in our lifetime, but there is always war and terrorist attacks and fear o' terrorist attacks. so we dilute freedoms now, when we are relative safe and what do you s'pose happens after the next 9/11 or war? add some fun the reason why james earl jones is being successful bullied in the scene from the 1992 movie sneakers is 'cause he represents the NSA, and the device (box) being referenced in the scene is a tool that would be evidence o' the NSA attempts to spy on Americans... which would be illegal and almost unthinkable in 1992. am old enough that 1992 doesn't seem that long ago. regardless, domestic terrorists is indeed a legitimate concern. next time a building or bridge gets blown up, how much more freedom does we give up, particular if laws is already in place that facilitate a diminution o' freedoms? and what is a domestic terrorist anyways? were the black panthers domestic terrorists? some computer program catches us using specific phrases too often in email or phone conversations and we get added to a list somewhere that results in a diminished standard of scrutiny when reviewing reasonable suspicion or probable cause? if the local cops, fbi, nsa or anybody else wanna read our mail or listen to our phone conversations, they should get a freaking warrant. we got a 4th Amendment that protects us from such nonsense. HA! Good Fun!

I can't disagree with you more. fear has always been the greatest motivating factor in history. the terrible things we do to each other in the name o' fear is legion. am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security. http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real. heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools. even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans. the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. gotta learn from history. HA! Good Fun!

Don't get me wrong, the default Eternity UI is solid, and more than functional. It's problem is it is a little... plain I guess for some, has sort of a wishy washy color/highlight on characters, at high res like 4k you can't hide the chat box, the top of the UI gets lighter which makes it blend with the background in many cases, and so on. Just niggling things nothing crazy. is a perfect fair assessment and we don't begrudge you for wanting change. if the ie mod fixes the problems you got, so much the better. nevertheless, we hardly even notice the ui anymore... which should come as no surprise given how many hours we got invested in the game. regardless, our comment weren't directed at you personal as we has seen other folks rather more animated in their displeasure with the poe ui. is difficult for Gromnir to get as emotional about the ui as those folks do, but we recognize that such people exist and that their anger is genuine. our apologies if it seemed like we were singling you out somehow. HA! Good Fun!

we do not personal identify either republican or democrat. am more libertarian than anything. that being said, in terms o' economic policy, we more frequent identify with republicans, though am actual pretty even split between republican and democrat when it comes to our personal voting history for all offices. the democrat and republican parties is frequent described as a liberal v. conservative choice. is a mistake. both major US parties is flavors of moderate. there is notable exceptions to that generalization, but for many decades the parties has offered little to distinguish one from the other in any meaningful way. example: during the 80s there were few American politicians more conservative than a typical southern democrat. as such, Gromnir votes for candidates rather than parties. as for this Presidential race... well, first o' all, keep in mind that Gromnir recognizes just how little actual power a President gots when it comes to domestic affairs. if you want meaningful domestic change to be initiated by a President, it is likely gonna occur early in his Presidency and only if he/she is of the same party as is controlling Congress. shouldn't be a surprise as is Congress that actual writes and creates all the laws, and the primary job o' any Congressman is to get reelected. a President who is elected with a mandate from the people, and who gots a sympathetic Congress, can initiate domestic change. the most important power o' a President is found nowhere in the Constitution. the President is the single most visible politician in the United States, and as such, he/she has functional power to shape the national political agenda. nevertheless, a typical President is more significant in the international sphere than domestic. warning: the following will be VERY generalized. am gonna avoid analysis o' specific plans or programs not 'cause such stuff is unimportant, but because we would be here all day explaining our self. of the remaining Presidential candidates with any likelihood o' victory, bernie sanders is the one we find most interesting. is not a particular meaningful candidate as we do not see him winning by enough o' a margin to establish the kinda mandate Congress would respond to... and if republicans hold onto Congress, most all o' bernie sanders' plans will die stillborn. free higher education and meaningful change to income inequality is unlikely to make it through Congress. is extreme tough to predict his impact on the international sphere. even so, we like the idea o' a guy from brooklyn becoming President. clinton... *sigh* am thinking that of the remaining candidates, she would be most effective at brokering international consensus. clinton is the one most likely to be able to work with european allies. her husband also has cache in the international arena. even so, we don't personal like her anymore than we liked her hubby. from a domestic policy pov, clinton is as boring a moderate democrat as is possible to imagine. ultimate condemnation: she is a politician. Americans don't trust politicians, and clinton represents more o' what we personal dislike 'bout politicians than any candidate. disingenuous and boring. trump is a cartoon character whose popularity is based on the fact that he is easily the most recognizable republican candidate, and 'cause so many Americans is sick and tired of endemic and stifling political correctness. for those folks who has lost faith in politicians such as clinton and cruz, trump is an alternative. even so, we almost universal disagree with everything trump utters and we would hate to have him being the guy trying to broker peace in the middle east or negotiating with china. cruz is a politician like clinton, but more o' a bully. we don't see him as having any genuine plans for dealing with the debt crisis or income inequality-- our two greatest domestic concerns. guy talks 'bout carpet bombing isis? if indiscriminate carpet bombing is the plan, then we might as well let putin and the russians handle the fight 'gainst isis. would save a lot o' money and all the civilian corpses could be stacked in front o' putin's door-- he don't seem to mind. bernie sanders is our first choice o' the remaining candidates who seem to have a legit chance. is hardly a ringing endorsement. HA! Good Fun!

personally, we do not believe that npc paladins should be affected by the player's dispositions. when may moons ago we suggested that paladins should have a talent available to them that would alter npc faith and convictions bonuses so that they would scale with level, we described it as a loyalty bonus. call the bonus unblemished loyalty or bushido (for the anime fans) if it makes you feel better. the player makes the disposition dialogue choices and justifiably gets disposition adjustment, but am not even certain what is the dispositions for pallegina. from a practical pov, we do not see much value in discouraging a player from creating a bleak walker or kind wayfarer paladin follower just 'cause the dispositions do not match. use loyalty to explain an otherwise practical choice. 'course in the interest o' full disclosure, since the 3.0 faiths and convictions for npcs works almost exact as Gromnir requested, we understandable see little need for change. then again, pc faith and convictions is current busted, so... regardless, most o' what the ie mod adds is not particular attractive or necessary for Gromnir enjoyment. am personally not getting the ui complaints, but we don't play at extreme resolutions. nevertheless, we understand that some folks are very displeased with the poe ui... Gromnir just ain't one o' those folks. being able to choose a different colored circle for each npc would be a welcome addition given how charlie fox poe combats can become, but we were never excited by the blue npc option. *shrug* there is any number o' changes we wish to see implemented for poe, but ie mod doesn't address most o' those desired changes. HA! Good Fun!

Why doesn't it cater to people who like random loot? No one is forcing them to look up the tables that list which day corresponds to which loot. And if you don't know, it'll be random as far as you're concerned. It won't be random though will it? I noticed that for me it wasn't really random because I seemed to always get the same loot from the same place. Then I heard that it's randomized depending on time. See I used to do thing pretty similarly on each run. People get stuck in a pattern with this system. Especially in the early game. There'll be more changes the further you get in the game, but then why not just have something better from the start? many/most drops in the game are fixed. however, in the eothasian (sp?) temple in gilded vale, the endless paths, and raedric's keep, there are a relative high number o' randomized loot points. HA! Good Fun!

it appears that he is smoking a cigarette. HA! Good Fun!

according to numerous crpg purists, respec diminishes the game. more than a few claim that respec is cheating, regardless o' how much the developers change mechanics from one build to the next. is a few who argue that regardless o' whether they personal make use o' respec, your capacity to do so results in diminution o' the title... am not gonna try and explain that complaint. *shrug* regardless, keep in mind that your ability to respec comes at a price. whenever you respec, thinks o' the poor grognards. never forget the true crpg fans, huddling in the dark corners o' the internet who will gnash their teeth and howl in fury 'cause they know that somebody, somewhere, has invested +30 hours into their current play o' poe and will not need restart the game to take advantage of new abilities and talents. you must not forget those poor wretched souls who will rage impotently each time they see the respec button when they access an inn menu. yes, these sad brutes may choose to reread their d&d white box edition or their merp rolemaster elves sourcebook as a panacea-- a desperate attempt to stave off an existential crisis. hopeless. you must not forget the purists. respec responsibly, for the purists. they may not deserve your sympathy, but they do suffer. HA! Good Fun!

folks overthink attributes with poe. is tough to have a broken spread as virtual any mix is gonna have advantages, particular with a class as flexible as the priest. wanna play a melee combat priest or a ranged combatant? maybe you prefer pure support? perhaps a balance 'tween support and combat? heck, the offensive spell casting repertoire o' a 3.0 priest is considerable, particular if you like to set things ablaze. we got an all-priest party that is a bit too powerful to be fun. the thing is, we made a dwarven priest who is very effective as a tank in spite of relative low health and endurance. our current potd run for 3.0 is using the following priest as our main: priest of eothas hearth orlan aedyr colonist m 14 c 9 d 10 p 15 i 15 r 15 stick a flail in his hands and he is a beast in combat. *shrug* am not needing to respec to play this character equal dominant in support, melee combat or as a ranged damage-dealer dependent on spells. such flexibility allows us to change party members w/o suffering a loss in overall combat efficacy. at the same time, with appropriate gear and resting bonuses, we rare miss any perception, intellect or resolve dialogue options. HA! Good Fun!

is more chaplinsky than brandenburg. brandenburg's incitement to violence exception is most typical used in cases where an individual is encouraging folks to perform acts o' violence. is a three part test requiring intent, imminence and likelihood. facts: a kkk guy gets on tv and says, “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken," and “the **** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” Court strikes down the ohio conviction o' the d-bag kkk member. as reprehensible as were the words, the speaking were not likely to result in an IMMINENT and violent response from other d-bag kkk members. fighting words, as 'posed to incitement, is those utterances that the listener is likely to respond to with violence, but chaplinsky is... problematic. fighting words is Not protected speech, but the SCOTUS has refused to uphold a challenge based on chaplinsky since... well, ever. chaplinsky were the first, and last, successful fighting words case. fighting words is "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." unfortunate, lower state and fed courts has been kinda all over the place and the closest we got from SCOTUS is dicta that cross burning is likely verboten when is intended as a threat o' harm, so providing you with the rule is less than illuminating, eh? if it makes you feel better, angry muslims could march outside fenway park, set fire to the stars and stripes while spouting... well, pretty much every third qistina post. stuff 'bout american antichrist and how the west will burn. wouldn't offend the Constitution even if it angered almost every drunken southie sox fan. HA! Good Fun!

odd. am being informed that azzuro is at our stronghold for 7 days and 19 hours, but apparently he has nothing to sell. weird. HA! Good Fun!

better not have gd read or he will pop a blood vessel. the most common criticism o' the incitement to hatred provisions is that they is not defined and there is lack o' consistent application. regardless, the hate laws o' the eu is a morass as will become readily apparent to those who read. ... not that such has anything to do with ros misapprehensions. thanks for posting though. HA! Good Fun!

aside: oddly enough in the USA we do have one category o' "offensive" speech that may be abridged due to the class (legal class as 'posed to simple dictionary meaning) o' the listener. warning: sweary carlin's routine inspired a constitutional battle. the actual facts o' the case is kinda ridiculous and will make most roll their eyes. a ny radio station broadcasts the above during afternoons when kids as at school and the radio station adds a warning that hic svnt dracones. john douglas is driving his son to a dentist appointment during regular school hours and he fails to catch the warning before the mind o' his infant (trivia o' the day: common law legal infancy is one younger than eighteen) were warped by the offensive torrent o' vulgarity blaring from his amc pacer's radio. the father just happens to be part o' a an advocacy group: Morality in Media. were such an obvious set-up. regardless, the Court decides that government efforts to censor media broadcasts gets reduced scrutiny wherein goal is to protect the innocent children. is a decision based very little on the rule o' law. Gromnir's mentor observed that more than a couple fundamental rights decisions could be best explained by identifying the "victim"-- Cute Cases is what he called 'em. why does children, the mentally handicapped and amish get seeming special rulings that don't align logically with established Constitutional Jurisprudence? perhaps, at the end o' the day, Justices is ordinary folks who will let their sympathy guide their choices? anyways, we did wanna clarify that there is one situation where in the class o' the listener is relevant when deciding if offensive speech can be suppressed. HA! Good Fun! ps we don't actual know if mr. douglas' car were a pacer.

there is nothing ironic about gd's posting. "That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948." gd, and those like him, has been arguing the importance o' free speech since 1787... and before. given you can't cite 1948, we will use skokie. in 1977, the largely jewish community o' skokie illinois were understandably offended when illinois nazis chose to have a march through the streets o' their town. the reaction o' the community were predictable. most americans were offended by nazis parading down the streets of a quiet suburban town, but folks like gd were equal disturbed that the offensiveness o' speech could be provided as the rationale for denying a fundamental right to american citizens. if europe had waited until 1977 to suppress offensive speech in response to the plight o' the jewish community o' skokie, gd's current posting still would't result in irony. same scenario, but different year. perhaps you feel that the jewish americans o' 1948 or 1977 were hypocritical, but there is nothing ironic about GD'S behavior. his behavior is, thankfully, as predictable as were the folks living in skokie in 1977. americans have a far greater respect for free speech than does most europeans (am knowing this offends many europeans, but is an inescapable conclusion) so it should come as no shock at all that in 1787, 1977 or 2016, folks such as gd is raging 'bout liberty and the ease with which some enlightened folks were willing to give up that liberty. again, is precisely 'cause o'f folks like GD that America has a different perspective regarding free speech. call it arrogance or obtuse if you wish, but GD'S demands to preserve liberty is in no way ironic. again, duh. is no ironic, or quixotic, or hyperbolic that can be reasonable attributed to GD'S posting that you identified. the best you can argue is the hypocrisy o' some Americans... very predictable hypocrisy and is nothing particular ironic about hypocrisy. *insert more ros misapprehensions 'bout law* for chrissakes... the journalist article is much relevant given YOUR description o' how hate crimes work. "For an example of what not constitutes hate speech you have the statement "homosexuals are a cancerous tumor on society". What hate speech does encompass however, is for example the use of Nazi symbols in certain ways. It's not illegal with swastikas in games, movies, historical re-enaction et.c., but if you were to publicly hand out leaflets with swastikas, pictures of Hitler and an invitation to join your political party, that would be considered hate speech (but ONLY if this is done in the public sphere, so if I gave you one such invitation in a meeting between friends, it would not be illegal). Maybe you view hate speech laws as a slippery slope, but that's not how things have turned out in reality. So while I understand your criticism, as it turns out, this type of legislation does not end up being used wrongly." is possible you is confused, but is nothing remote like common law defamation or incitement... which is why the eu had to come up with new laws and why the USA has no such. you use wiki to misunderstand? shocking. regardless, the article is talking exact 'bout what you deem to be hate speech. you didn't actual read it, did you? incitement can be criminalized in the US. we criminalize incitement. article makes that very point. however, we don't have special rules for classes and categories o' people. "Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules." r.a.v. v. city of st. paul burn a cross on a person's lawn in the US and you is likely gonna be criminalized for any number o' different violations o' state criminal codes. however, what we do not have is special categories o' crimes that is dependent on the race, color, creed, or gender o' the speaker or listener. HA! Good Fun! ps we keep writing 1948 as 1938. perhaps if we get an actual cite to a reputable source, we will be able to keep it straight in our noggin.

*groan* is so incredibly not ironic that jewish folks would be offended by nazi propaganda circa 1947. jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles. there is no irony that some group o' (as yet uncited) jewish americans would be offended and outraged. is also not the least bit ironic that America, as a whole, did not respond to the outrage of an offended minority group by suppressing free speech. your example is no more ironic than that American catholics and American christians were outraged enough by jon stewarts' vagina-manger that they demanded suppression. the outrage o' the offended is so freaking predictable that the Founding Fathers made our free speech protections part o' the Constitution so that simple majorities, moved by anger or guilt or whatever, could not dilute free speech protections. again, duh. the only irony is that the (hypothetical?) outraged jewish americans who wanted to suppress free speech and predictable got no traction in the US in 1947 were actual able to sway virtual all o' the rest o' the western world in suppressing Free Speech protections. what a hoot. once more, so is not forgotten, we add your original statement: "That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948." is not the least bit ironic. Americans like gd had to have been fighting against abridgment of free speech in 1948 or we woulda' ended up having our liberty encheapened here in the US. "for ****'s sake" is right. and we can't help you on your misapprehensions regarding the law. we thought the linked article did a fair job o' explaining the basics o' how hate is different than assaults and defamations. perhaps this confusion is resulting from obtuseness rather than misunderstanding. dunno. HA! Good Fun!

I am afraid you missed the point entirely. The irony was that while our hate speech laws was triggered by an international embarrassment and (among others) pressure from American (Jewish) groups, when I 70 years later go to an Internet forum, it is full of Americans who say that hate speech laws are the worst thing ever. If I was in your situation I would perhaps also be against hate speech laws, but I can only conclude that in practice, the law has not been misused the way Guard Dog hints at. I am not saying that hate speech laws is exactly the same as defamation and assault. I am saying that from my point of view, with the hate speech laws I am used to, I could see that what is covered by them could instead be covered by defamation and /or assault in different countries. When I say "defamation" I am referring to various roughly equivalent crimes across different countries which might not be defined the same way, same with "assault". When you read about US defamation and assault laws on Wikipedia it seems to cover everything that hate speech does here, apart from more implicit threats, which I guess constitutes the actual difference in practice. again, there is no irony that the group being attacked would be offended. jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles. whatever. here in the US we got the First Amendment which protects, among other things, offensive speech. the same folks (Americans) who woulda complained that hate speech laws is repugnant to the first amendment in your uncited 1947 incidents has not disappeared. the same folks is fighting 'gainst the tyranny o' the majority. that is why First Amendment is different. once again, for those who missed. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419 but yeah, when jon stewart did his vagina-manger bit, many catholic and christian groups were outraged. many ignored the First Amendment 'cause o' their outrage. that isn't the least bit ironic. that is the expected outcome and it is precisely why we got the First Amendment. if all Americans were dedicated to resisting diminution o' Free Speech in every circumstance, there would be no need for a Constitutional Amendment to protect free speech. duh. and again, if is roughly equivalent crimes, then is no need to add fluff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ defamation feels samish to you? *chuckle* and for chrissakes, how many times does Gromnir need chastise folks for using wikis as a source o'... anything. surely do not use to educate self 'bout law. no doubt that is the reason a few o' the self appointed legal pundits from these boards is so frequent making foolish and ridiculous statements. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure where you see reductio ad absurdum from us? "From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least)." were your absurdity, not ours. "Case in point: in the same situation, would you decry it as evil and objectively wrong from a moral standpoint if a nation would change its laws accordingly?" depends on what you mean by evil. we ain't used that term but regardless, personally we would never, under any circumstances, criminalize a man for the singular reason that he professed his belief in a divine power. make most extreme and ridiculous possible: even if the only way to save the species were to force a married woman to have multiple partners other than her husband, we would accept that the species weren't worth saving. However, much as your misguided "at all costs" notion were misplaced, we will note that despite Gromnir being much more interested in preserving personal liberties as 'posed to caving to the "tyranny of the majority," the US constitution can be amended. if one wishes to make hate speech or monogamous marriage or the worship o' a higher power criminal acts, the People can do so in the United States. "It's not a characterization of First Amendment privilege. It refers to the fundamental unwillingness to consider said privilege as anything but an unalienable right in any just society." now you ain't even responding to Gromnir. *shrug* am not certain what you hoped to achieve with your final point 'bout practicality. another mischaracterization perhaps? didn't think this were necessary, but might as well add. http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp the people can make hate speech a crime. we cannot think of justification save for more reductio ad absurdum, but the mechanic exists. HA! Good Fun!

Okay, now I literally have no idea what perspective are we trying to tackle the issue from. From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least). From a philosophical POV, I see the issue as extremely malleable. Enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs is going to solve some problems (your society won't ever have the problem of silencing opinions diverging from those supporting the status quo) and run into some others (sometimes the status quo is really not that terrible to have, especially when the alternative is the ****ing nazis). In certain situations, it's better to have one, in others, the other. Admittedly, this is my completely uneducated opinion and I'm looking forward to seeing the problem from new angles I haven't considered yet (but am sure people who earn their living actually dealing with the tricky issues of lawmaking have). you want statistical evidence of improved quality of life resulting from a specific fundamental right? was that serious? ... really? pointless anyway... we hope. hypothetical: an incontrovertible statistical study shows that religion or monogamous marriage is ultimate harmful to a society. would that study convince you that laws providing for the freedom to worship or marriage to a single person should be repealed or abridged? and am also gonna take issue with your implied characterization o' First Amendment privilege as "enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs." what does that mean? is likely borne of a misunderstanding. you wanna stand on a sidewalk or street outside o' a hospital and complain 'bout obamacare? sure, why the hell not? however, if you use a bullhorn to get your message across, and you blast your anger-filled tirade 24/7 so that you is disturbing patients, the cops will stop you and they will be justified in doing so. is not "at all costs." never has been. however, is damn clear that if the cost is abridging your speech for no reason other than that Gromnir were offended, then we see no difficulty in balancing. am suspecting that you would be offended (at least we hope so) by attempts to suppress purely academic arguments that run counter to whatever is the consensus o' economists, biologists or physicists, yes? why? are you confident enough -arrogant enough- to decide the truth that should be embraced by any discipline? no? is that kinda arrogance okay for social truths? personal truth? why should you decide? why should the majority be allowed to decide which truths is absolute or which opinions is too controversial? suppress? should such views have been suppressed? http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/02/magazine/tm-10501 did shockley's "science" cross the line? was his studies any less offensive than some random nazi in skokie quoting mein kampf? how does one measure benefit or harm? you got some kinda balancing test in mind? shockley were more offensive and dangerous than any number bigots, and his science (edit: apparently, we can't spell science. sheesh) ended up being discredited. does that make a difference? if the random bigot shouting on the street corner is quoting shockley, then what? doesn't matter. shouldn't matter. gd brought up orwell. is appropriate. "if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." HA! Good Fun! ps am hoping it is clear that we ain't a fan o' shockley. "In a Playboy interview, he aired his low opinion of his three children, of whom two were college graduates, one from Radcliffe and the other from Stanford. "In terms of my own capacities . . . [they] represent a very significant regression," he said. "My first wife--their mother--had not as high an academic-achievement standing as I had."" the guy were a d-bag... regardless o' his brobdingnagian scientific achievements in physics. his eugenics studies were largely discredited, which only embittered him further, but his efforts challenged many educated folks and their competing notions regarding the need for intellectual freedom, and a desire to suppress offensive speech. how does one do so? easy. don't.

if you have more pressing concerns, then is very difficult to claim that you have been injured to such a degree that the offending speaker should need have his rights abridged. and if the bigot has raised ten more concerns? so what? you have a similar opportunity to respond. if your only reason for suppressing the 1930s naacp member or communist is because you is offended and inconvenienced, then am gonna chuckle to see you laughed outta Court. this is exact the kinda thing we speak o' when we note the difference between european and American pov. use inconvenience o' the listener to abridge a Fundamental Right o' a speaker is unthinkable here in the United States... and thank goodness for that. oh, and the playing field is level. from the previous incarnation o' this thread: "Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules." r.a.v. v. city of st. paul HA! Good Fun!