Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Hermit]

While we don't agree on some interpretations, clearly; I think you're assuming some things on my previous post that I never indicated.

 

Taking turns , I agree with. But we're talking about  a mentality of some where others are not allowed to speak at all. That's not discourse, that's a captive audience that's expected to sit there while they have what they see as abuse heaped upon them. If they are not in support of the speaker, they don't get to speak. And that will lead to embitterment, not because it hurts, or enrages, but because it's wrong. It's wrong when anyone does it, and two wrongs not making a right, rather than 'balancing things out' what it does is speed a spiral of tit for tat or even growing animosity on all sides . It's the very definition of counter productive.

 

And you can't treat people like crap just because your ancestors were treated like crap and expect folks to go "Well, absolutely I deserve this for the sins my fathers did and the advantages I have now."  Yet, there is  a segment of anti Free speech types that have no problem with this. And If I tell someone they can't talk period unless they agree with me, well, I did help contribute to the problem of an echo chamber where the only folks who show up are already on my side. Little hard to make change happen if you've driven some of the very folks you need away.

 

And meanwhile, other con men in swastikas are playing the "I'll listen to you card" Most Americans of any color sneer at them, but those vulnerable few, whatever we may think of their intellect or will power? Well, they feel at least there they are heard. Maybe if I had let them get their turn (And I don't mean 'you've had your turn for decades now you have to be quiet period') they would be less likely?

 

 

 

I want Freedom of speech for all, not just those who are most newly come to it, or even those who have the moral high ground because, hey, that's one that folks will disagree on anyway. But  'sit down shut up and don't talk unless it is to agree' that arises? No.

 

But I agree with: let's have turns, let's have honest discourse, and to have that, we need...drum roll please, freedom of speech.

 

 

 

[BoloOfEarth]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

And once you make it possible to deny freedom of speech for one group, do you really want that precedent ready for expansion and re-use on another group?

 

This, right here, is IMO the most important part.  Because even though white supremacists might use denial of freedom of speech to recruit to their ranks, I'm much more fearful of giving them the capability to legally deny freedom of speech to those they hate.  That is a slope I really don't want this country to start sliding down.

[Hermit]

20 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

This, right here, is IMO the most important part.  Because even though white supremacists might use denial of freedom of speech to recruit to their ranks, I'm much more fearful of giving them the capability to legally deny freedom of speech to those they hate.  That is a slope I really don't want this country to start sliding down.

 

A warning first driven home to me by Ms. Jackson, my US govt teacher, and a black woman  who explained to the class exactly WHY she would be the first to allow skinheads, the KKK or neo nazis to have a rally in her town.  Not because she supported them, but because Freedom of speech was more important than either of them, and if it dies for one of us, it can die for any of us.

 

 

 

 

[Ragitsu]

I have to agree with RDU Neil: if you were "pushed" to join the Neo-Nazis/white supremacists/white nationalists/Neo-Confederates/KKK/(insert-flavor-of-crap-here) because of some words, you were probably inclined to do so to begin with.

[Hermit]

Interesting, you have pushed in quote marks but I don't think I used that word.  Minor gripe, but I'm cautious about that sort of thing.

 

 

 

[Ranxerox]

2 hours ago, Hermit said:

 

Well, that article about the ACLU  saddens me terribly for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes sacred cows aren't just for show, they are pillars of the liberty we cherish. The fact those pillars didn't spring whole cloth all at once like Athena from the skull of Zeus doesn't make them less needful, quite the opposite. America was founded on some very high minded ideals. 

 

And let's get this straight, for most of our history, we failed to reach those goals. That's why they were so crucial. Each time "all men were created equal" was said, someone looked around and said 'what about those men without land?' 'what about the black men?' 'hey, we do mean PEOPLE when we use that universal men comment right? The women are pissed now' and someone struggled to make it so. One rung up the latter to the heights at a time. And sometimes we fall hard.

 

But that doesn't mean it isn't worth reaching for. And instead some folks want give up one freedom because it complicates the pursuit of other freedoms? Well, GOSH, who the heck knew high ideals might lead to complications and difficulties instead of being easy? And once you make it possible to deny freedom of speech for one group, do you really want that precedent ready for expansion and re-use on another group?

 

 

Internal debate within the ACLU when different civil liberties come into conflict with each other is not a bug; it is a feature.

 

We live a perilous juncture in American history, where either the thoughtless championing of free speech (I see you, Facebook, Twitter) or the abandoning of free speech could easily plunge our country into fascism. *Gasp! The Horror!*  We may actually have to proceed forward with a nuanced response, and Goddess knows that as a country we are not good at those.

 

So, if the organization, that has spent more time thinking about civil liberties than any other, is passionately debating how best to go forward, that is a good thing.  Maybe all those fine, passionate, committed, legal minds can help us thread the needle between giving our enemies all the communication tools they need to hopelessly divide our country  and sacrificing the very liberties that makes our country special.

 

Right now the ACLU is enjoying huge surge in support, but they are also having to weather a huge surge in commitments.  They are engaged in a 150 lawsuits against the Trump administration, and you know that is going to eat a lot of resources.  Resource allocation is going to remain crucial moving forward.  One of the internal complaints among ACLU staffers was that white supremacist cases seemed to get to jump to the front of the line.  Would it be the death to liberty if Nazis and Klansmen had to enter the back of the queue like everyone else?

 

"The city council has denied has denied out request to march on city hall in protest of the new housing project they are planning for the n*****s and the illegals!"  "That not right.  Your voices have a right to be heard.  We will take you case.  Our next case opening will probably be in 8 months."  "Eight months!  Our march is suppose to be 6 weeks!"  "Well, sorry about that, but we have a huge number of people seeking our help, and I just don't see how we can help you any sooner than that.  Maybe, you can win the case on your own, and if not, well, we will help you with your appeal in 8 months."

 

To me the above conversation, seems perfectly reasonable to me, and if members of the ACLU staff reprioritize how they take cases that might be for the best.  The ACLU has a history of championing the underdog, and white supremacist aren't quite the underdog that they were a couple years ago.  Adapting to changing circumstances is necessary for any organization that wishes to have a future.  Let them talk, let them debate and let them adapt.  Remember that the ACLU doesn't pass laws and isn't proposing outlawing Nazi marches, and I have no doubt that if someone else proposes such a law that the ACLU will speak out.    

[Hermit]

12 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

 

To me the above conversation, seems perfectly reasonable to me, and if members of the ACLU staff reprioritize how they take cases that might be for the best.  The ACLU has a history of championing the underdog, and white supremacist aren't quite the underdog that they were a couple years ago.  Adapting to changing circumstances is necessary for any organization that wishes to have a future.  Let them talk, let them debate and let them adapt.  Remember that the ACLU doesn't pass laws and isn't proposing outlawing Nazi marches, and I have no doubt that if someone else proposes such a law that the ACLU will speak out.    

 

I do have a lot of respect for much of what the ACLU has done in the past and continues to try to do. Indeed, that's why the idea of them possibly abandoning free speech commitment is alarming to me. The article seemed to indicate at points that internal debate wasn't so lively as curtailed and folks were being told to toe the party line so to speak.

 

As for the "the thoughtless championing of free speech " because we might have danger... well, those who give up liberty in order to secure safety deserve neither if one believes a certain Franklin quote.

 

 

 

 

[Ragitsu]

15 minutes ago, Hermit said:

Interesting, you have pushed in quote marks but I don't think I used that word.  Minor gripe, but I'm cautious about that sort of thing.

 

 

 

 

Well, that wasn't my quoting you. That was me speaking about the talking point that people (mostly men) join the various "white power" organizations because they've been beaten over the head with the mentioning of white privilege.

[Hermit]

32 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Well, that wasn't my quoting you. That was me speaking about the talking point that people (mostly men) join the various "white power" organizations because they've been beaten over the head with the mentioning of white privilege.

 

That's what you think the talking point was?

 

If someone wants to mention and discuss white privilege, good. It's a debate we should have. How much does it help the ones who have it? How far does it extend? Does Economic privilege matter more or less? Etc.

 

But if you use it (or anything else) to shut someone up and turn the debate into a one sided castigation , then don't be surprised if they walk away. And out of those that walk away, there will be some vulnerable to opportunistic folks with agenda.

 

See the difference?

Free speech being denied actually feeds the problem.

 

If not, I'm not sure how else to explain it.

[RDU Neil]

14 minutes ago, Hermit said:

But if you use it (or anything else) to shut someone up and turn the debate into a one sided castigation , then don't be surprised if they walk away. And out of those that walk away, there will be some vulnerable to opportunistic folks with agenda.

 

To me this is the issue... IF it was actually happening in any kind of systemic way that was disenfranchising a group in any statistically clear manner. As far as I can tell, this isn't the case. Are there angry, self-righteous types in the social justice war that go to far? Sure... but just pointing out some instances of it, as if it was a pandemic wave of intolerance, and ignoring all the deeply thought, researched and evidenced work of social justice on campuses, the ACLU, etc., is a classic misinformation tactic. Harp on the outliers and the extremes and build a straw man to discredit the whole movement. Drowning out good work with a "but they were mean to me!" confirmation bias type of rant sounds awfully "snowflakey" to me.

 

Instead of saying, "Hey... don't tell me to shut up! Free speech is important!" all I'm saying is that there is a responsibility of the privileged to say, "OK... I will listen. I will absorb. I will reflect. Have your say."

 

If they are truly irrational and lashing out, it will wither. Outrage can only go so far. But if you are willing to actual hear them, then yes, there will be some very uncomfortable times when you have to withstand some unreasonable attitudes on the way to a level of social reparation. Be strong. Deal with it. Work through it.

 

To say, "Don't ever be mean and take your social justice too far, 'cause I might get all supremacist on you!" is just as unreasonable.

[Hermit]

Well, it happens enough to keep organizations like FIRE going strong. I highly recommend them by the way. Good cause in helping students and staff alike at universities hold onto their civil liberties.  The fact that universities are more under the spot light doesn't make it okay or unimportant. And  Frankly, if someone is shut down, telling them that they are the exception and to stop being a snowflake doesn't strike me as going to help win them over.  We should be very careful of playing the numbers game. Justice exists for all men, or it exists for none is a very old wisdom for a reason- possibly an impossible goal, but worth pursuing. Some folks use that same logic  of it's the exception not the rule to excuse some terrible social injustices to the poor or minorities. I don't care for it there either.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Instead of saying, "Hey... don't tell me to shut up! Free speech is important!" all I'm saying is that there is a responsibility of the privileged to say, "OK... I will listen. I will absorb. I will reflect. Have your say."

 

I quote this to stress that we are and have been in agreement on the key issue of turns. Yes, folks should listen before taking their own turn. Again, it's when it is one sided that we have a problem. "Have your say" should be followed by someone else going "Thanks for listening. Okay, now you" and they talk. When that doesn't happen, when Freedom of Speech is for some animals and not for others, well, Orwell might say we're heading down a bad path.

 

Quote

To say, "Don't ever be mean and take your social justice too far, 'cause I might get all supremacist on you!" is just as unreasonable.

 

No, but saying "Hi I have heard what you have to say, considered it, and now would like to tell you my own opinion on it..." is not unreasonable, and some folks act like it is. That's a problem.

 

And cutting away at Freedom of Speech will eventually, imo, do far more harm that good. Exactly who gives it back?  Will they want to?  And again,  if the shoe ends upon a jackboot, we may regret the precedent it kicks us with.

 

YMMV

 

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

Deleted meself

[Hermit]

Well, this will offend some of my LGBT friends... A LOT

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

 

 

[Dr.Device]

The thing is, free speech is already less than absolute. Sure there's the obvious "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, but there are many others, as well.
In a system where you could never be punished for the content of your speech, the following things would all have to be legal.

• Blackmail - It's legal for me to say anything I want about someone. And a threat to say something is still just more speech.
• Extortion - As long as I don't follow through, I've done nothing illegal.
• Assault (in the sense of threats of bodily harm) - Once again, as long as I don't follow through.
• Slander & Libel - Well, duh.
• Perjury - Hey, I can say whatever I want.
• Incitement to violence - As long as I don't commit the violence myself. Heck, I could lie and tell you whatever I think it would take to get you to beat up some guy I don't like. 
• If you consider yourself a free speech absolutist, to you think all of these should be legal? If not, then clearly there are limits to free speech.

Nazis aren't just telling people that Jews are bad. They are trying to change the system to make it so that Jews can, once again, be rounded up and exterminated. By allowing this "viewpoint" to be treated just like the opposite —Hey, let's not round up and exterminate the Jews and other minorities— we give it credibility. I think that as a civilized society, we can set limits on what is reasonable discourse. You want to advocate for the menadatory separation of the races, fine. That makes you a bad person, but whatever. You want to campaign that I* should be killed? Nope. That's out. It's illegal to try to convince someone to commit murder. Why should it be legal to convince a lot of people to commit genocide?

 

We strive to be a society of rights, that's true. But none of those rights are absolute. The paradox of tolerance is ever present.

 

So, tl;dr if you don't believe all the things on the list above should be legal, then you agree that there is a line where speech can be made illegal. We just disagree with where the line is.

 

*This is not theoretical. I'm trans. There are, in fact, large number of Nazis arguing that that means that I should be killed.

[Ragitsu]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

Well, this will offend some of my LGBT friends... A LOT

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

 

 

 

This administration and the national attitude it has cultivated is going to set us back in so many ways.

[Ranxerox]

3 hours ago, Hermit said:

 

I do have a lot of respect for much of what the ACLU has done in the past and continues to try to do. Indeed, that's why the idea of them possibly abandoning free speech commitment is alarming to me. The article seemed to indicate at points that internal debate wasn't so lively as curtailed and folks were being told to toe the party line so to speak.

 

As for the "the thoughtless championing of free speech " because we might have danger... well, those who give up liberty in order to secure safety deserve neither if one believes a certain Franklin quote.

 

 

 

Personally, I don't believe that Franklin quote, because it is not a Ben Franklin quote.  The actual quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

Lest someone ask what the difference between the two quotes, it is the difference that of a wise man and fool. 

 

Pretty much every law demands that you give up a liberty, be it the liberty to drive the speed that you want to drive, the liberty to tell lies in order to make a profit, or liberty to kill your daughter's boyfriend because he has it coming.  It turns out that these liberties, even that last one, aren't considered essential liberties.  Nor is it just a matter of what type liberty is a stake, the safety being won is also critical to the equation.  If the safety is not little or temporary, even things that one might regard as essential liberties are up for grabs.  The government can demand that I support it with my tax dollars, because if taxation were made voluntary the government would soon fail.  It can restrict my freedom of speech even in matters of conscious where state secrets are concerned.  It can restrict my sincere practice of religion if that practice places other people in danger.

 

So, yes liberty is important and it is worth sacrificing safety in it's name, but Benjamin Franklin understood that is it it was not and could not be a total absolute.  Therefore, Mr Franklin put qualifiers in the statement in order to extol the importance of liberty but also to give us something workable the real world and not just for the benefit of those taking the liberty.

 

 

Also, it is worth noting, that the Charlotte city council denied the march permit out of concerns for public safety.  These concerns turned out to 1000% justified.  The Charlotte city council was right and the ACLU was wrong.  One can say that hindsight is 20/20, but this wasn't hindsight.  This was foresight on the the part of the city council.  They looked at the dangers and at the tools that they had to address those dangers and correctly decided that it wasn't worth the risk.  In the wake of the tragedy that followed, had the ACLU not had a crisis of confidence that would have said something unflattering about them.

[Ragitsu]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/trump-i-have-the-absolute-right-to-pardon-myself.html

 

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/trump-lawyers-cite-wrong-obstruction-law-in-letter-to-mueller/

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/3/17421300/trumps-interview-subpoena

 

────────────────────░███░
───────────────────░█░░░█░
──────────────────░█░░░░░█░
─────────────────░█░░░░░█░
──────────░░░───░█░░░░░░█░
─────────░███░──░█░░░░░█░
───────░██░░░██░█░░░░░█░
──────░█░░█░░░░██░░░░░█░
────░██░░█░░░░░░█░░░░█░
───░█░░░█░░░░░░░██░░░█░
──░█░░░░█░░░░░░░░█░░░█░
──░█░░░░░█░░░░░░░░█░░░█░
──░█░░█░░░█░░░░░░░░█░░█░
─░█░░░█░░░░██░░░░░░█░░█░
─░█░░░░█░░░░░██░░░█░░░█░
─░█░█░░░█░░░░░░███░░░░█░
░█░░░█░░░██░░░░░█░░░░░█░
░█░░░░█░░░░█████░░░░░█░
░█░░░░░█░░░░░░░█░░░░░█░
░█░█░░░░██░░░░█░░░░░█░
─░█░█░░░░░████░░░░██░
─░█░░█░░░░░░░█░░██░█░
──░█░░██░░░██░░█░░░█░
───░██░░███░░██░█░░█░
────░██░░░███░░░█░░░█░
──────░███░░░░░░█░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░█░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
 

[Hermit]

*Looks for part where I said Free Speech was absolute*

Mmm nope.

Nada.

ZIp.

 

*Looks for where I used quotation marks to suggest an exact quote*

Mmm nope.

Nada.

Zip.

 

That said. 

Ranxerox, did you just compare the 'liberty to drive' with Freedom of Speech? Only one of these is in the bill of rights so..no. 

 However, you do have a fair point about the crisis of confidence being somewhat understandable. Again, I respect much of what the ACLU does and has done. So yes, it's alarming when Crisis of conscience included telling its members to toe the line as the article suggested.

 

Dr. Device, I cannot claim to understand your struggles. No way, no how. That said, I don't think tolerating hate speech is the same as just treating it as the opposite of non-hate speech. I think it exposes the hate to the light. Will it convert the hateful? Probably not, but it will expose their true nature to those who were indifferent to certain dangers. Sunshine and Fresh air, so to speak, can be the best way to make folks aware we have a roach..pardon me, a bigot problem.  For some folks, I'm sure it is obvious. But there are far too many that seem clueless. IMO

 

I don't believe Freedom of Speech means surrender.  Rather the opposite, to me, it is when we burn down what made us great in order to protect what we have that endangers us. If we must err, I want us to err on the side of liberty rather than destroying the liberties out of fear that someone else might.

 

But that is my take on it. Others disagree. 

 

I think we ALL agree Nazis are A-holes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Deleted meself

 

Didn't we warn you about going back in time and killing your grandpa?

[Hermit]

2 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

This administration and the national attitude it has cultivated is going to set us back in so many ways.

 

 

I never claimed to be the most enlightened individual (Yes, I know you're all shocked) but I do worry about the same. Trump being able to appoint new Justices , well, I would not be exaggerating to say the thought stresses me out.

[RDU Neil]

2 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Didn't we warn you about going back in time and killing your grandpa?

 

At least he didn't go back in time and have sex with his grandma!

 

"Good NEWS everyone!"

[TrickstaPriest]

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

 

At least he didn't go back in time and have sex with his grandma!

 

"Good NEWS everyone!"

[Iuz the Evil]

Interesting article. I found the ACLU leadership (particularly Romero) to be thoughtful and principled in their defense of their position, even though they obviously knew it was not a popular position with some of their staff. I'm glad they continue to defend our rights, even those of individuals I find repugnant.

[RDU Neil]

I've come to the point where I can't support football because of the entertainment value based on injury cost to the players.

 

But I can say I've become a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, lately.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/04/trump-calls-off-philadelphia-eagles-visit-white-house?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=277174&subid=24646434&CMP=GT_US_collection

 

Being "disinvited" to this White House is a serious badge of honor.

[Cygnia]