|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 31 2017 05:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 04:05 zlefin wrote:On May 31 2017 03:59 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 02:29 zlefin wrote:On May 31 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 01:52 zlefin wrote:On May 31 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 00:48 Gahlo wrote:On May 31 2017 00:33 Mysticesper wrote:
My issue with voter ID laws is that they always seem to come up right before an election instead of after, thus creating confusion and undue 'hardships' to procure an id.
though it still baffles me how people don't have one on them at nearly all times, they are required to do almost anything, and if you don't drive, you get a state ID card instead of a state DL, its like ~20 bucks every 4 years or so (varies by state) I honestly can't think of the last time I did anything that required a photo ID outside of driving and picking something up I ordered online from Best Buy. People that don't have them most likely don't have a need for them outside of when they realize they need one for the election, when it's too late to get everybody through the production pipeline. After that, they don't have a need for one again. I can't even get nonprescription allergy medicine without my photo ID. Beer, airports, some city buildings I better have brought it ... voting nope. which kind of allergy meds? sudafed i'd guess? those rules make a lot of sense; pretty clear need in that case. Allergies very important for ID, citizen core interaction with their governance ... eh who cares? It's not the by-the-book argument, just an observation at the vast number of things that require ID and aren't generally considered racist policies. one is for dealing with an actual real problem that occurs extensively in real life; the other is pure bs manufactured political theater only done to score points by misrepresenting the truth. You heard it here first "citizen core interaction with their governance" is "pure bs manufactured political theater only done to score points by misrepresenting the truth." ok, now you're openly trolling; since it's been well documented and proven by now that the voter ID requirements are not done to actually fix a real problem. you're just engaging in blatant misrepresentation and outright lying, hence, you are a troll. and you're equating two things which were not actually equated, so you're also strawmanning. stop trolling and try being constructive, people like oyu give republicans a worse name than they already have. danglars supports expanding the issuance of state ids to the disenfranchised with public money. doesn't that make you the troll strawmanning him about trying to take away the right to vote now?
no, it does not. that is simply a false assertion that does not correspond at all to the actual discussion chain. don't bother tlaking if you're not going ot pay attention to the discussion chain at all.
and I did recognize his view on ids and it's good he has that, but it does not mitigate the statement he mdae that was rightfully called out as trolling.
|
On May 31 2017 05:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
So, what do the avid readers and defenders of news sources propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik have to say about the fact that Macron called them out as "fake propaganda" in front of Putin?
I'm really liking Macron so far on foreign affairs.
I'd like to know which propagandist lies they told about Macron, specifically (I really don't know, I've barely seen any coverage on Macron from them).
I get the feeling they just weren't actively sucking his cock like most of the French media did and he didn't like that.
Overall though, I like the way he handled the meeting. Hopefully we can start rebuilding a responsible trade relationship with Russia, other neighbors and overseas nations as we inch away from Trump's US.
|
I've always been somewhat impressed by Coulters professional troll and/or shit talking abilities... or at least her vision to know it would work as a career before stuff like twitter and Facebook made it an industry.
|
On May 31 2017 06:24 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 05:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
So, what do the avid readers and defenders of news sources propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik have to say about the fact that Macron called them out as "fake propaganda" in front of Putin?
I'm really liking Macron so far on foreign affairs. I'd like to know which propagandist lies they told about Macron, specifically (I really don't know, I've barely seen any coverage on Macron from them). I get the feeling they just weren't actively sucking his cock like most of the French media did and he didn't like that. Overall though, I like the way he handled the meeting. Hopefully we can start rebuilding a responsible trade relationship with Russia, other neighbors and overseas nations as we inch away from Trump's US.
1. He's a banker, and, ya know, those folks are totally evil
2. He's sympathetic to the US, but members of NATO totally shouldn't be
3. His wife is old
4. Deep state
|
On May 31 2017 06:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 06:24 a_flayer wrote:On May 31 2017 05:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
So, what do the avid readers and defenders of news sources propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik have to say about the fact that Macron called them out as "fake propaganda" in front of Putin?
I'm really liking Macron so far on foreign affairs. I'd like to know which propagandist lies they told about Macron, specifically (I really don't know, I've barely seen any coverage on Macron from them). I get the feeling they just weren't actively sucking his cock like most of the French media did and he didn't like that. Overall though, I like the way he handled the meeting. Hopefully we can start rebuilding a responsible trade relationship with Russia, other neighbors and overseas nations as we inch away from Trump's US. 1. He's a banker, and, ya know, those folks are totally evil 2. He's sympathetic to the US, but members of NATO totally shouldn't be 3. His wife is old 4. Deep state
1) He IS a banker, the rest of that line is clearly the opinion of a talking head.
2) He IS sympathetic to the US, the rest of that line sounds like nonsense to me or part of a talking head opinion.
3) Trump's wife is young. Am I now a propagandist?
4) What?
If that's what they reported on, or were opinions from westerners they shared/gave a platform to, I'm not convinced by your argument that they were spreading lies and propaganda.
In that light, saying that Trump was a real estate mongol who did some dubious things is propaganda. Or saying that Trump is looking for better relations with Russia is anti-Trump propaganda. Don't you see how stupid that is?
|
On May 31 2017 04:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/MikeLevinCA/status/869607299295330304
We should cut down on uncritical posting of tweets from (aspiring) politicians.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
On May 31 2017 07:03 Introvert wrote:We should cut down on uncritical posting of tweets from (aspiring) politicians. + Show Spoiler +
Or match StealthBlue on frequency to remind people how often he posts tweets. It probably wouldn't take too long in fact; conservative ones stick out extra bad here.
(Kathy Griffin is beheading Trump head)
|
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true
|
On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true
Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction.
|
On May 31 2017 07:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction.
Well, that depends. Does "freedom to hate speech" outweigh "freedom from being hate speeched at"? It isn't as though government prohibiting something innately creates less freedom (see: slavery, where prohibiting slavery undoubtedly increases freedom but obviously reduces the freedom to own slaves).
Edit: If you begin with the premise that any government ban reduces freedom then there's contradiction, but I strongly doubt that tweeter believes such a premise.
|
On May 31 2017 07:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction.
I think it's facetious to call it a contradiction. Obviously if you think that hate speech is a terrible thing that ought to be punished, you wouldn't call such a society less free. If you're conservative you probably wouldn't call a society with public prostitution and drug use free. Yes, it's less free in the technical sense but it's clear how his post is supposed to be understood.
Nobody seriously defines freedom in the sense of literally being able to do everything without repercussion. That restriction and rules do not automatically imply a genuine loss of freedom is actually a fairly conservative argument.
|
On May 31 2017 08:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 07:58 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction. Well, that depends. Does "freedom to hate speech" outweigh "freedom from being hate speeched at"? It isn't as though government prohibiting something innately creates less freedom (see: slavery, where prohibiting slavery undoubtedly increases freedom but obviously reduces the freedom to own slaves).
I mean, I get what he's saying. Objectively, there is a limitation of a freedom there. I would agree with that limitation and think using "see, they are less free than murica" is a really stupid way to try to justify hate speech, but the words he is saying are technically true.
On May 31 2017 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:
Nobody seriously defines freedom in the sense of literally being able to do everything without repercussion.
I mean...I've had arguments with people who do. It's annoying when the spirit of the conversation gets mired by technicalities. (And that goes as a non-partisan statement, fwiw)
|
There's also the whole affirmative freedoms (the government guarantees I can walk down this street) vs. negative freedoms (the government won't stop me from walking down this street) that can crop up and muddy things further. Basically, being "more or less free" will invariably end up highly subjective and impossible to quantify at an individual level, let alone some vague societal level.
|
On May 31 2017 08:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 07:58 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction. Well, that depends. Does "freedom to hate speech" outweigh "freedom from being hate speeched at"? It isn't as though government prohibiting something innately creates less freedom (see: slavery, where prohibiting slavery undoubtedly increases freedom but obviously reduces the freedom to own slaves). Edit: If you begin with the premise that any government ban reduces freedom then there's contradiction, but I strongly doubt that tweeter believes such a premise.
If hate speech includes normal things that come out of the mouth of the democratically elected president of the United States, you have an overly broad definition of hate speech. If you don't see a problem and huge difference with "freedom from being hate speeched at," you don't deserve western civilization.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 31 2017 08:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 08:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 31 2017 07:58 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction. Well, that depends. Does "freedom to hate speech" outweigh "freedom from being hate speeched at"? It isn't as though government prohibiting something innately creates less freedom (see: slavery, where prohibiting slavery undoubtedly increases freedom but obviously reduces the freedom to own slaves). Edit: If you begin with the premise that any government ban reduces freedom then there's contradiction, but I strongly doubt that tweeter believes such a premise. If hate speech includes normal things that come out of the mouth of the democratically elected president of the United States, you have an overly broad definition of hate speech
Alternatively the standard for normal things that come out of the mouth of the democratically elected president of the United States may have been lowered in recent months. You can't simply say "he has a respectable title, therefore he must be respectable". The respect of the title was built on it being held by men unlike him.
|
On May 31 2017 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 07:58 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction. I think it's facetious to call it a contradiction. Obviously if you think that hate speech is a terrible thing that ought to be punished, you wouldn't call such a society less free. If you're conservative you probably wouldn't call a society with public prostitution and drug use free. Yes, it's less free in the technical sense but it's clear how his post is supposed to be understood. Nobody seriously defines freedom in the sense of literally being able to do everything without repercussion. That restriction and rules do not automatically imply a genuine loss of freedom is actually a fairly conservative argument.
Word-crime is getting to be the absolute contradiction that matters to freedom. I'm not going to stand here saying "fire" in a theatre or inciting to a riot are not useful restrictions on freedom.
And yes, a society with illegal prostitution and drug use is less free. Come on people, let's separate he's less free to speak in Canada and the morality of current and planned restrictions.
|
On May 31 2017 08:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's also the whole affirmative freedoms (the government guarantees I can walk down this street) vs. negative freedoms (the government won't stop me from walking down this street) that can crop up and muddy things further. Basically, being "more or less free" will invariably end up highly subjective and impossible to quantify at an individual level, let alone some vague societal level.
Trump would be guilty of a crime for his speech in Canada. This makes Trump less free in Canada. Muddy it if you want to go on to the larger topic surrounding this, but let's admit the obvious.
|
On May 31 2017 08:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 08:24 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 08:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 31 2017 07:58 Danglars wrote:On May 31 2017 07:54 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think there's anything contradictory about the tweet, the person is saying that hate speech does not constitute genuine freedom and that Donald Trump has crossed that line, both of which arguably is true Do you see he is arguably less free? "Canadians are not less free" ... "Trump would suffer legal consequences for identical behavior in Canada." Argue that being less free ain't such a bad thing, and in some ways you'd have a point, but please see the contradiction. Well, that depends. Does "freedom to hate speech" outweigh "freedom from being hate speeched at"? It isn't as though government prohibiting something innately creates less freedom (see: slavery, where prohibiting slavery undoubtedly increases freedom but obviously reduces the freedom to own slaves). Edit: If you begin with the premise that any government ban reduces freedom then there's contradiction, but I strongly doubt that tweeter believes such a premise. If hate speech includes normal things that come out of the mouth of the democratically elected president of the United States, you have an overly broad definition of hate speech Alternatively the standard for normal things that come out of the mouth of the democratically elected president of the United States may have been lowered in recent months. You can't simply say "he has a respectable title, therefore he must be respectable". The respect of the title was built on it being held by men unlike him.
Respectable and criminal are historically different things under the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
