The All Things Political Topic - Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the radical left, as well as the young & stoopid left, is indeed abandoning +200 years o' american free speech values. am appalled. am guessing john lewis is rolling in his grave, and zombie bernie sanders is not too happy as well. no doubt most dead and undead libs is united in their disappointment at the diminution o' american free speech values by the young and/or extreme.

however, is mainstream conservatives who is pushing the right's crusade versus speech. the war on wokeism, as well as the misguided and and ignorance based crt bans, not to mention the militarization o' suppression o' protests which were applauded by our resident south african, the oath keepers, maga and trump, represent real threats to US speech and even american democracy itself which is far more serious than the comical and self-defeating efforts o' a handful o' antifa clowns. 

vile and willful efforts to gut historic american values in general and free speech in particular should be condemned regardless o' party affiliation. isn't happening. instead from local school board meetings to red state governors and even the previous POTUS, there has been a conscious effort to knee-cap free speech in the US. the most serious threats is coming from the right and is a mainstream push as 'posed to a fringe movement.

'course not all conservatives has joined the battle to undermine free speech and core values. general mattis reaction to lafyette square:

I have watched this week's unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand — one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a "battlespace" that our uniformed military is called upon to "dominate." At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict — a false conflict — between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that "America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat." We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us ... was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis — confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln's "better angels," and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path — which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals — will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

antifa morons and college-aged idiots ignore the obvious lefty role-models which is john lewis and zombie bernie sanders? those uc davis protesters should be double embarrassed that a guy such as mattis is doing more to champion american values than is the radical and young left. that said, it is the current mainstream right which represents the most obvious, organized and immediate threat directed at american speech values since ww1. mainstream right is attacking teachers, journalists as well as military leaders mattis, kelly, mcmaster and mcraven.

‘Greatest threat to democracy’: Commander of bin Laden raid slams Trump’s anti-media sentiment

even so, am increasing disappointed in far too many university students at yale, stanford, berkeley and uc davis who has embraced a view o' free speech which we most assured would not have expected to become prevalent on college campuses during our lifetime. the mainstream right and their war on speech in no way absolves college kid ignorance. am genuine shocked by an anti-liberty trend 'mongst young people, regardless o' political affiliation; is unhealthy and unamerican. no excuse. no equivocation. 

a parting fyi for the afrikaners and maga crowd:  just 'cause fox news pundits talk 'bout the right's championing o' core american values don't make it true. in case you is still unaware, fox lies. 

HA! Good Fun!

Good post Gromnir, I agree with much of it 

@Lexx @Gorth

Arent you worried about the youth abandoning freedom of speech and how can we stop this deterioration of core Democratic values?

 

[Gorth]

5 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Good post Gromnir, I agree with much of it 

@Lexx @Gorth

Arent you worried about the youth abandoning freedom of speech and how can we stop this deterioration of core Democratic values?

 

What has that in any way to do with what you’re quoting?

Unless you agree it’s time to seriously crack down on the conservative establishment trying to abolish free speech 

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Gorth said:

What has that in any way to do with what you’re quoting?

Unless you agree it’s time to seriously crack down on the conservative establishment trying to abolish free speech 

What do you mean? Gromnirs  post starts off recognising that  the youth are abandoning freedom of speech, to quote  "the radical left, as well as the young & stoopid left, is indeed abandoning +200 years o' american free speech values " 

So my question and concern is about that?

 

[Gorth]

49 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

What do you mean? Gromnirs  post starts off recognising that  the youth are abandoning freedom of speech, to quote  "the radical left, as well as the young & stoopid left, is indeed abandoning +200 years o' american free speech values " 

So my question and concern is about that?

 

Abandoning how?

Serious question. By protesting? By saying things nobody likes hearing? Should the courts issue a gag order and prevent them from speaking up? Should there be special police orders for cracking down on only certain political rallies? There is a name for such things.

As also mentioned, not a serious threat to institutional democracy. That is provided by their counter part and those who support such measures as just mentioned above. Those are the ones that I worry about, as those are the ones who actually undermine society and get people killed.

 

[Lexx]

4 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

There's a curious phenomenon in American politics where some folks believe that college students wield more power and have more responsibility than people currently in power.

Hehe, not the anime thread, but it reminded me of this.

[BruceVC]

58 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Abandoning how?

Serious question. By protesting? By saying things nobody likes hearing? Should the courts issue a gag order and prevent them from speaking up? Should there be special police orders for cracking down on only certain political rallies? There is a name for such things.

As also mentioned, not a serious threat to institutional democracy. That is provided by their counter part and those who support such measures as just mentioned above. Those are the ones that I worry about, as those are the ones who actually undermine society and get people killed.

 

Thanks for responding, this is what I was initially expecting when I asked you the question, I wanted your opinion based on reality of what is happening at UC Davis and how the radical left in this example resorted to violence and damaging university property because they want to prevent Charlie Kirk from speaking at an event

Did you watch the video that Gromnir posted, its only 3 minutes but its a summary of what I was asking you 

You ask "what do I mean   by abandoning freedom of speech ". Its exactly what happened at the university. Radical left and Antifa protestors want to stop an organized event at the university. The chancellor at the university in the video makes the correct statement that basically says " universities should be places where we encourage and contest different ideas irrespective if we disagree with what someone is saying " 

When I was University this was what we considered them to be. The far rights attempts to do the same thing must also be condemned but we not talking talking about the far right here, Im asking you about UC Davis and what happened 

And my overall point being, the radical left absolutely exists in the US and globally in several countries. And here is an example. It manifests in different ways 

Im assuming you would be concerned how this is an  erosion of freedom of speech and how the discourse and debate  at universities should be protected?

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by BruceVC

[uuuhhii]

one need to be pretty delusional to believe any 200 year old tradition of free speech exist

what kind of people are even free 200 years ago

who can vote who can have their voice be heard 200 years ago

Edited March 19, 2023 by uuuhhii

[BruceVC]

44 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

one need to be pretty delusional to believe any 200 year old tradition of free speech exist

what kind of people are even free 200 years ago

who can vote who can have their voice be heard 200 years ago

Well I can only speak for myself, I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal. I cannot die 

I'm not sure about anyone else but I remember Democracy from 200 years ago? So ask me any  questions 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by BruceVC

[Pidesco]

All people being free just depends on how you define people.

[Gfted1]

On 3/19/2023 at 2:57 AM, uuuhhii said:

one need to be pretty delusional to believe any 200 year old tradition...

Add another zero and the same thing could be said about religion.

[Malcador]

On 3/18/2023 at 4:31 PM, Lexx said:

If this is the worst that the radical left is doing... Meanwhile, the radical right is killing people.

Damn leftists need to step their game up.

[Gfted1]

Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout! People can handwave anything as long as it aligns with their views.

[uuuhhii]

but what about the whataboutism of this person

trying to eliminate all inpurity and hypocrisy is a neverending hole most people wasted enough time in

[Gfted1]

42 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

but what about the whataboutism of this person

Eh, I dont blame anyone, were all products of our environment after all. Germans are accustomed to removing free speech whenever it clashes with their "great shame", so Im not surprised whatsoever that blocking free speech doesnt even blip their radar. "Durr its not as bad as <example>". Definitely wont see anyone at a Germany university talking about Hitler.  

[HoonDing]

Freedom of speech != freedom of consequence.

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Pidesco said:

All people being free just depends on how you define people.

That  sounds very socialist and I have no idea what you talking about 

[Malcador]

11 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

That  sounds very socialist and I have no idea what you talking about 

What's socialist about that ?

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

That  sounds very socialist and I have no idea what you talking about 

Are you trolling or just being inadvertently nonsensical?

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Freedom of speech != freedom of consequence.

...

duh.

is why the first amendment is a prohibition on governement consequences. US first amendment don't make you free from social and employment consequences, with a few limited exceptions. 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:57 AM, uuuhhii said:

one need to be pretty delusional to believe any 200 year old tradition of free speech exist

what kind of people are even free 200 years ago

who can vote who can have their voice be heard 200 years ago

bassackwards. those shared delusions is what is most important. a shared belief in justice, democracy, rule o' law is what makes such meaningful. is no objective and quantifiable justice in the universe. is not a sub-atomic rule of law particle to be found in nature nor a human rights molecule. belief is what makes shared values meaningful.

and yeah, shared values is a double-edged sword. aztecs were okie dokie with human sacrifice and in the US we were okie dokie with institutionalized slavery for near a century o' years after the creation o' the bill of rights. today, women is still treated as chattel in more than a few places 'round the globe. shared values might very well be wrong and in need o' reevaluation. freedom from government punishment for expressing opinions is one o' those shared values we believe is worth keeping, but if you got an argument for dumping it, we would like to hear.

recognizing that not everybody were free hundreds o' years ago is utter irrelevant to the question o' whether it makes sense to abandon or retain speech values. again, duh. we shouldn't need respond, but is 2023, so here we are.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 21, 2023 by Gromnir

[uuuhhii]

14 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

...

duh.

is why the first amendment is a prohibition on governement consequences. US first amendment don't make you free from social and employment consequences, with a few limited exceptions. 

bassackwards. those shared delusions is what is most important. a shared belief in justice, democracy, rule o' law is what makes such meaningful. is no objective and quantifiable justice in the universe. is not a sub-atomic rule of law particle to be found in nature nor a human rights molecule. belief is what makes shared values meaningful.

and yeah, shared values is a double-edged sword. aztecs were okie dokie with human sacrifice and in the US we were okie dokie with institutionalized slavery for near a century years after the creation o' the bill of rights. today, women is still treated as chattel in more than a few places 'round the globe. shared values might very well be wrong and in need o' reevaluation. freedom from government punishment for expressing opinions is one o' those shared values we believe is worth keeping, but if you got an argument for dumping it, we would like to hear.

recognizing that not everybody were free hundreds o' years ago is utter irrelevant to the question o' whether it makes sense to abandon or retain speech values. again, duh. we shouldn't need respond, but is 2023, so here we are.

HA! Good Fun!

does not ask if freedom are worth pursue

but how much freedom one seek to preserve actually exist

to chase any ideal is to realize ideal are not yet fully attained or attainable

if there is no freedom for someone 200 years ago there is certainly no freedom from government punishment for expressing opinion for them too

is there freedom for all now

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

word salad

slaves, chinese and others were not treated as deserving the protections o' the bill of rights two hundred years ago. the obvious response is that two hundred years ago slaves, chinese and others should have enjoyed all such freedoms, 'cause freedom o' speech were a good idea two hundred years ago and remains a good idea today. is not that free speech were a bad idea in the past but that institutionalized bigotry were the problem.

again, duh. utter bassackwards.

HA! Good Fun!

[uuuhhii]

7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

slaves, chinese and others were not treated as deserving the protections o' the bill of rights two hundred years ago. the obvious response is that two hundred years ago slaves, chinese and others should have enjoyed all such freedoms, 'cause freedom o' speech were a good idea two hundred years ago and remains a good idea today. is not that free speech were a bad idea in the past but that institutionalized bigotry were the problem.

again, duh. utter bassackwards.

HA! Good Fun!

again did not ask if freedom is a good idea

but freedom of who one seek to preserve and defend

many would use their own freedom to take away others

there are certainly enough try to silence other by claim to defend their own religious freedom

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

again did not ask if freedom is a good idea

 

no, you pointed out the notion o' free speech as existing two hundred years ago were, "delusional." you then pointed out the irrelevant observation that not everybody were free two hundred years past.

you know what else happened two hundred years ago? the monroe doctrine. 

...

is just as relevant.

there is nothing delusional 'bout observing the enduring value o' US free speech.  the Constitution has been amended many times and a few such amendments guarantee more people enjoy free speech precisce 'cause it is is a good idea. china and russia both have constitutions btw and their enumerated protections o' speech, on paper, is stronger than the first amendment. it is the shared values o' US citizens which has resulted in speech being a consequential freedom. an incremental decrease in bigotry while maintaining and expanding free speech rights is cause for applause, no? 

9 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

many would use their own freedom to take away others

so vague and non-specific as to be meaningless, particular in the present context.

add some further irrelevancy regarding religious freedom?

responding to platitude based argument is offering serious diminishing returns.

HA! Good Fun!

[uuuhhii]

17 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

no, you pointed out the notion o' free speech as existing two hundred years ago were, "delusional." you then pointed out the irrelevant observation that not everybody were free two hundred years past.

you know what else happened two hundred years ago? the monroe doctrine. 

...

is just as relevant.

there is nothing delusional 'bout observing the enduring value o' US free speech.  the Constitution has been amended many times and a few such amendments guarantee more people enjoy free speech precisce 'cause it is is a good idea. china and russia both have constitutions btw and their enumerated protections o' speech, on paper, is stronger than the first amendment. it is the shared values o' US citizens which has resulted in speech being a consequential freedom. an incremental decrease in bigotry while maintaining and expanding free speech rights is cause for applause, no? 

so vague and non-specific as to be meaningless, particular in the present context.

add some further irrelevancy regarding religious freedom?

responding to platitude based argument is offering serious diminishing returns.

HA! Good Fun!

so vague and non-specific free speech exist very little 200 year ago is irrelevant to the value of free speech

[Gromnir]

10 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

so vague and non-specific free speech exist very little 200 year ago is irrelevant to the value of free speech

vague and non-specific support o' a generalized and irrelevant observation 'bout US free speech two hundred years ago as a basis for deciding the value o' free speech in 2023? yeah, meaningless... and that is our generous response. 

HA! Good Fun!