On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote: I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income?
Spending the Public's money buys votes? Keynesian stimulus is very much in vogue? You believe brighter days are just around the corner? The political left is better at spending money that generating money?
The reasons for this abound. I haven't even covered the more legitimate end of the spectrum, like when you're fighting a war and debt doesn't matter if you're dead. If you've just suffered a catastrophe and it makes sense to borrow to rebuild and have the infrastructure to pay back the debts. Trying to nail the US's political left on how unaffordable the growth in spending is on bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security, and you'll quickly be called a rich elitist unconcerned with the needs of the poor. Would you rather be seen as the penny-pinching miser or the magnanimous friend of the poor?
On October 05 2013 17:54 supereddie wrote: What is even more crazy is that the president is forced to increase the debt in order to run the government. Because congress gives the president a budget with more spending than income. Or, see this youtube video:
The president cannot, i repeat, cannot increase debt. That is completely up to Congress. The President has no power except to lead troops and give executive orders. He has no control of the budget.
Poor choice of words. I meant he is forced to borrow money, theirby increasing the total debt the country has. It cannot however pass the 'debt ceiling' set by congress.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
oh boy that discussion again....
Let me try to put it as simple as possible. There are two realistic approaches to free speech: 1) You can say whatever you want 2) You can say whatever you want, as long as it does not infringe on someone else or their rights.
You can debate until you are blue that the "purity" of free speech is important, but the other side of the debate has just as much moral high ground (Your free speech might be important, but so is XY's right not to be insulted).
Frankly I'd like to know where the ridiculous idea that you have the "right" to insult someone comes from? Does that give the someone the right to reply in kind? That would be a swell way to communicate. Do they also have the right to change from words to action because they feel so insulted?
Free speech is a nice political slogan, but in reality it is ALWAYS restricted by something. In theory your news outfits are guaranteed freedom, in practice most of the major media companies belong to someone and restrict themselves heavily (or are given a "point of view" by the owner).
Someone could say "freedom of speech" ends, if computerprograms or "something else" picks up on certain keywords in phonecalls, emailconversations or whatever.
Guess people forgot about NSA when it comes to freedom of speech, which would mean that you're free to say whatever you want without consequences. Which doesn't happen. Other countries just don't make the effort to hide it.
Btw, if it's "normal" to allow hatespeeches, that would be an entirely different discussion. In my sane(ish) mind, it isn't.
edit: not to mention that the supreme court already ruled that there are exceptions to the first amendment.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
There is no decision to be made. If one's views are both radical and extreme, then they are radical and extreme. You don't need to make decisions in order to describe something that you see.
People in this thread call each other radical and extreme because they see things differently to such an extent that it's no longer a mere disagreement over specific issues, but two fundamentally different, conflicting world views.
Unfortunately under such circumstances, the fact is either that one side is superior to the other and knows it, whereas the other is inferior and unaware of just how inferior it is or that they have different goals entirely and criteria to measure how close they are to their goals.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
When a high %number of people in a country, lets say over 85%, agreeing on a matter, then the others are extremist. I just made the number up, but it seems fair. You have to pay a price to live safe and without fear. I live in Germany and we have a shit ton of rules, but I still can do everything I want to.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
When a high %number of people in a country, lets say over 85%, agreeing on a matter, then the others are extremist. I just made the number up, but it seems fair. You have to pay a price to live safe and without fear. I live in Germany and we have a shit ton of rules, but I still can do everything I want to.
Not sure how you made up that definition, but by that rule a lot of things would be banned as extremist in Germany. What is legal and what is illegal extremism is not decided by majorityvote (no matter how high you set the bar) but by the constitution. And the decisions are made by the constitutional court. (equivalent to the supreme court in the US)
And there basically only 3 rules that would make your opinion extremist/illegal: a) Trying to overthrow the democracy b) Trying to violate someone else's constitutional rights c) Support the 3rd Reich in any way (this is very Germany specific)
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
There is no decision to be made. If one's views are both radical and extreme, then they are radical and extreme. You don't need to make decisions in order to describe something that you see.
People in this thread call each other radical and extreme because they see things differently to such an extent that it's no longer a mere disagreement over specific issues, but two fundamentally different, conflicting world views.
Unfortunately under such circumstances, the fact is either that one side is superior to the other and knows it, whereas the other is inferior and unaware of just how inferior it is or that they have different goals entirely and criteria to measure how close they are to their goals.
If you want government to ban certain speak for being radical you must of course define what kind of speech as you put is "radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. " These are the same kind of charges leveled against Socrates, do you think he deserved the poison cup?
As you yourself say what is considered radical and extreme is always subjective in nature and further I would ad determined by the people presently in power. Thus acknowledging a right to criminalize certain views as radical or extreme is only to acknowledge the right of the strong to impose their will on the weak. To infringe on the right to freedom of expression I would demand some sort of objective criteria such as causing direct harm to a or multiple victims. Example on this could be threats or depending on definition slander.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
When a high %number of people in a country, lets say over 85%, agreeing on a matter, then the others are extremist. I just made the number up, but it seems fair. You have to pay a price to live safe and without fear. I live in Germany and we have a shit ton of rules, but I still can do everything I want to.
Not sure how you made up that definition, but by that rule a lot of things would be banned as extremist in Germany. What is legal and what is illegal extremism is not decided by majorityvote (no matter how high you set the bar) but by the constitution. And the decisions are made by the constitutional court. (equivalent to the supreme court in the US)
And there basically only 3 rules that would make your opinion extremist/illegal: a) Trying to overthrow the democracy b) Trying to violate someone else's constitutional rights c) Support the 3rd Reich in any way (this is very Germany specific)
I was under the impression that you also banned certain political parties or is that only when one of the three criteria applies?
@ Scareb that is of course a matter of definition in either case I don´t think that extremist views should be banned. As far as the discussion goes about the American right defined as both socially and fiscally conservative they of course make up a larger share of the electorate.
On October 05 2013 17:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: [quote] People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
When a high %number of people in a country, lets say over 85%, agreeing on a matter, then the others are extremist. I just made the number up, but it seems fair. You have to pay a price to live safe and without fear. I live in Germany and we have a shit ton of rules, but I still can do everything I want to.
Not sure how you made up that definition, but by that rule a lot of things would be banned as extremist in Germany. What is legal and what is illegal extremism is not decided by majorityvote (no matter how high you set the bar) but by the constitution. And the decisions are made by the constitutional court. (equivalent to the supreme court in the US)
And there basically only 3 rules that would make your opinion extremist/illegal: a) Trying to overthrow the democracy b) Trying to violate someone else's constitutional rights c) Support the 3rd Reich in any way (this is very Germany specific)
I was under the impression that you also banned certain political parties or is that only when one of the three criteria applies?
@ Scareb that is of course a matter of definition in either case I don´t think that extremist views should be banned. As far as the discussion goes about the American right defined as both socially and fiscally conservative they of course make up a larger share of the electorate.
it's only if one of those criteria are met that political parties are banned. The NPD may be neonazis but they're just on the edge without actually saying the stuff you'd get problems with in the open. The ones that are banned don't care about that.
Instead, for example, the NPD will most likely say that they want to split classes for germans and non germans (mostly looking at muslims) for some other reason like some bullshit along the lines of "people not being able to speak german properly will make it super bad for everyone else in class therefore everyone not german out of class!!!"
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
There is no decision to be made. If one's views are both radical and extreme, then they are radical and extreme. You don't need to make decisions in order to describe something that you see.
People in this thread call each other radical and extreme because they see things differently to such an extent that it's no longer a mere disagreement over specific issues, but two fundamentally different, conflicting world views.
Unfortunately under such circumstances, the fact is either that one side is superior to the other and knows it, whereas the other is inferior and unaware of just how inferior it is or that they have different goals entirely and criteria to measure how close they are to their goals.
If you want government to ban certain speak for being radical you must of course define what kind of speech is as you put it "radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. " These are the same kind of charges leveled against Socrates, do you think he deserved the poison cup?
In case of anti hate speech laws, it's the manner of addressing the public that is the subject of the law, not a specific ideology.
On October 05 2013 22:16 narkissos wrote: As you yourself say what is considered radical and extreme is always subjective in nature and further I would ad determined by the people presently in power. Thus acknowledging a right to criminalize certain views as radical or extreme is only to acknowledge the right of the strong to impose their will on the weak. To infringe on the right to freedom of expression I would demand some sort of objective criteria such as causing direct harm to a or multiple victims. Example on this could be threats or depending on definition slander.
First of all, you seem to be jumping between arguing about hate speech and arguing about extremist ideologies.
There's nothing about hate speech that I will agree on being subjective or a matter of personal choice. Promoting violence, discrimination, and denying basic human rights of individuals or groups of people are all unacceptable.
Second of all, if your right of freedom of expression doesn't extend to public hate speech then no right is being infringed upon by you being punished for hate speech. The term "infringement" implies that a guaranteed right has been unjustly denied, which in a society that bans hate speech obviously isn't the case.
On October 05 2013 17:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: [quote] People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread.
When a high %number of people in a country, lets say over 85%, agreeing on a matter, then the others are extremist. I just made the number up, but it seems fair. You have to pay a price to live safe and without fear. I live in Germany and we have a shit ton of rules, but I still can do everything I want to.
Not sure how you made up that definition, but by that rule a lot of things would be banned as extremist in Germany. What is legal and what is illegal extremism is not decided by majorityvote (no matter how high you set the bar) but by the constitution. And the decisions are made by the constitutional court. (equivalent to the supreme court in the US)
And there basically only 3 rules that would make your opinion extremist/illegal: a) Trying to overthrow the democracy b) Trying to violate someone else's constitutional rights c) Support the 3rd Reich in any way (this is very Germany specific)
I was under the impression that you also banned certain political parties or is that only when one of the three criteria applies?
@ Scareb that is of course a matter of definition in either case I don´t think that extremist views should be banned. As far as the discussion goes about the American right defined as both socially and fiscally conservative they of course make up a larger share of the electorate.
Parties can get banned, but really only in extreme cases, and only when those criteria apply. And even then it is hard. General election a month ago had overall 30 Parties including: (i add their translated partyname, skipping the German/ of Germany and also added their results) - NPD(national democratic party 1,3%), REP(republicans , 0,2%), pro Deutschland(pro Germany 0,2%) - all 3 are far rightwing neonazi parties, under observation of the Verfassungsschutz (constitutional guard, basically our domestic secret service) - MLPD (marxist leninist party, 0,1%), DKP (communist party 0,0%) - obvious, again under observation but not banned - BP(bavaria party 0,1%) - want bavaria to be independent - PBC (party of bible following christians 0,0%) - fundamentalist christian
All kind of other parties, ranging from a No!-party over an animalprotectionparty and a few direct democracy-parties to multiple pensioneer-parties.
Since years there are attempts to ban the NPD, but mostly they try to justify it by them organizing violence and crimes and not their party program. And of course the party just responds, that it is not the parties fault, that some followers get violent in their spare time
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
So basically... whatever the government deems as not what they want socially can be hate speech. Russia is doing a similar thing with gays and youth so gay people don't spread their propaganda to children. You can civilly argue that having parades (for anything) in the street is a form of recruitment into an ideology. I disagree with what Russia has put in place and as such I disagree with what Canada has put in place because it can lead to similar things.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
So basically... whatever the government deems as not what they want socially can be hate speech. Russia is doing a similar thing with gays and youth so gay people don't spread their propaganda to children. You can civilly argue that having parades (for anything) in the street is a form of recruitment into an ideology. I disagree with what Russia has put in place and as such I disagree with what Canada has put in place because it can lead to similar things.
the definitions are kept pretty vague for a reason. That way it's the government that does the law, the police who apprehends possible problems and the supreme court that interprets the definition. You god it split that way so that it's NOT just the government who decides what's good and bad.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme.
Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them.
I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with.
Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not.
So basically... whatever the government deems as not what they want socially can be hate speech. Russia is doing a similar thing with gays and youth so gay people don't spread their propaganda to children. You can civilly argue that having parades (for anything) in the street is a form of recruitment into an ideology. I disagree with what Russia has put in place and as such I disagree with what Canada has put in place because it can lead to similar things.
No. Freedom of press and speech is a fundamental right and protected under the constitution of most western countries. There are minor limitations to that, slander or hate speech. And with absolute freedom of speech not everything is perfect, you might want to talk to the relatives of fallen military personell and their relation to the westborough baptist church. There are many fail safes implemented that something like an abuse of speech limitation does not happen(the guy above me mentioned a bit) And the fact that you bring in Russia to a discussion about freedom of speech in Germany, or Canada is very telling.
On October 05 2013 20:10 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I wonder what is US max debt going to be until they finally cant pay back.
They wont ever pay it back, i thought this should be clear to everyone by now. In the far future they will blow it up, to force a monetary revolution and introduce a world currency.
EPT
