US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1925

On May 05 2015 01:25 puerk wrote:


Are you the ultimate arbiter of the human experience or just a solipsist?

On May 05 2015 03:50 Millitron wrote:
I think it's funny that the people who are advocating limiting free speech are the same ones who accuse people of being rape apologists or victim blamers if they say the rape victim should've taken more precautions. I can't believe they don't see the irony in the fact that they're now blaming the victim.

On May 05 2015 03:50 Millitron wrote:
I think it's funny that the people who are advocating limiting free speech are the same ones who accuse people of being rape apologists or victim blamers if they say the rape victim should've taken more precautions. I can't believe they don't see the irony in the fact that they're now blaming the victim.

On May 05 2015 03:57 ZasZ. wrote:


That comparison doesn't hold up that well. Maybe if a woman was standing on a corner holding a sign that says "Please rape me," you could make the argument that the situations are similar.

At the risk of derailing the thread back to rape, there is also a difference between victim blaming and hoping women take better care of themselves. I would never say a woman deserved rape for wearing certain clothing or acting a certain way, but knowing what I do about culture I would ask my daughter to be careful if she is out late alone. It's of little consolation to a rape victim that it was 100% not her fault because she was still raped. I would rather we prevent the rape in the first place, and until culture can address that issue women should probably take precautions.

This group in Texas is like the kid from your 1st grade class that hovers half an inch from your face repeating "I'm not touching you I'm not touching you," and then when you headbutt him he looks shocked and appalled that you touched him. Nobody likes that kid, but at least he didn't hurt you. Everyone is free to hate anyone or everyone depending on their own personal tastes, but the line should be drawn at physical violence. And obviously encouraging everyone to hate just a little bit less.

On May 05 2015 03:48 Plansix wrote:

Who are you talking about and which event?

On May 05 2015 03:51 ZasZ. wrote:


Neither but you are kind of condescending, huh? It should be obvious that my post was my opinion based on my experiences. I'm not saying others need to react to it in the same way. I agree that deliberately provoking crazy Muslims is dumb and inviting disaster. But the fact that these individuals can be provoked to KILL over a cartoon is indicative of a much greater problem than a few racist assholes in Texas who were not hurting anyone.

And yeah, I have pretty strong opinions about religion. People can worship whatever make-believe entity they would like as long as they leave the rest of us out of it. And most of them refuse to do that in their own way, shape, or form. You can consider Hebdo's cartoons to be in bad taste (many of them were), but I believe they should be able to produce them without fear of being murdered at their desks. The same way I think it is beyond retarded that religious conservatives think they have any right to the institution of marriage as a whole as opposed to just religious marriages. Proselytism is by far the worst thing to come out of organized religion...you don't need to inflict your views upon others in order for your religion to be valid.

On May 05 2015 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


The one in Texas and the alleged shooters.

On May 05 2015 04:08 Plansix wrote:

They shot someone and their plan was to shoot more people. All the news reports that are available are reporting that.

On May 05 2015 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which they are getting from where?

On May 05 2015 04:21 Plansix wrote:

Ah, this is one of those arguments you assume that any information you don't like is false and not in good faith. No need to discuss this further.

On May 05 2015 02:34 phil.ipp wrote:
why do people think everything that comes out of your mouth falls under the freedom of speech.

if i say to my friend: hey lets kill this guy over there. i dont use my constitutional right to freedom of speech. its a murder plot.

its the same for a hate speech. of course the line is more blurry and at some point the decision has to be made - but its not a discussion with different opinions. they dont discuss something in a hate speech.

there is no, and probably never will be a law that allows you to say everything in every situation.

its like the https://xkcd.com/1357/ comic.

freedom of speech just should guarantee you, that you dont get thrown into jail for speaking out on political ideas.
but only if these ideas respect the human rights.

so if you tell 1000 people they should kill all jews, you dont exercise your right to freedom of speech.

On May 05 2015 02:51 puerk wrote:
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.

Which obviously ends the topic.

On May 05 2015 04:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Supposedly he was on probation because he tried to go to Africa to fight for a terrorist group, he was on the no fly list, and he tweeted support for the Charlie Hebdo attack and how we need to do the same here. All signs point to him being a piece of shit. Distrust for cops is one thing, but I really don't think they've fabricated him being on probation and the no fly list to make him look bad.

On May 05 2015 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:


I never said anyone fabricated anything. Just that statements from the police aren't indisputable facts and we don't know. It might seem fine to just take the police's word for it in this case and talk about them as if they are hardened facts but we could of just taken the officers word in SC too and where would that have gotten us?...

It's not like Garland Police have a spotless record or anything.

On May 05 2015 04:41 Yoav wrote:


You utterly misunderstood that comic. It takes as its assumed starting point that all speech shouldn't be fucked with by the government. It then goes on to say that a free society can then fuck with speech by mocking it and arguing against it.



Yeah. I'm pretty sure calling your opponents in an argument Nazis or Nazi sympathizers means you automatically lose though.

Also, the problem with the Nazis was definitely too much free speech guys. Wait, it was about governments illegalizing opinions and outlawing the opposition? Well, shit.

On May 05 2015 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:


I never said anyone fabricated anything. Just that statements from the police aren't indisputable facts and we don't know. It might seem fine to just take the police's word for it in this case and talk about them as if they are hardened facts but we could of just taken the officers word in SC too and where would that have gotten us?...

It's not like Garland Police have a spotless record or anything.

On May 05 2015 04:49 puerk wrote:

Governments are just people speaking words. They are not responsible when some one who considers himself a soldier or a policemen takes violent actions in accordance with those words.


To reiterate: words have impact, drawing the line between words and physical violence misses the point, as there is verbal violence that can be harmful and also incitment to violence that in itself is harmful.
The issue got resolved as almost all commenters on this thread acknowledged that some limits on what someone can say should apply, and that provoking someone knowingly to commit physical violence is a stupid idea that should be discouraged.

On May 05 2015 04:48 Millitron wrote:

Do the Garland Police have any say on who ends up on the No Fly list?

Ibrahim was no threat to anyone, innocent of everything, and ended up on that list only due to a government mistake. Nonetheless, she was not allowed to reenter the US to finish her studies or even attend her trial and speak in her own defense.

On May 05 2015 04:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Supposedly he was on probation because he tried to go to Africa to fight for a terrorist group, he was on the no fly list, and he tweeted support for the Charlie Hebdo attack and how we need to do the same here. All signs point to him being a piece of shit. Distrust for cops is one thing, but I really don't think they've fabricated him being on probation and the no fly list to make him look bad.

Simpson was convicted of making a false statement and sentenced to three years probation. During the investigation, FBI agents attempted to get Simpson on a no-fly list, but were unsuccessful, court documents show.