Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,472 Year: 3,729/9,624 Month: 600/974 Week: 213/276 Day: 53/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 578 of 960 (809825)
05-21-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by jar
05-21-2017 11:50 AM


Re: the "Wall" is really stupid
Yeah but on principle; "not doing anything worthwhile" doesn't really matter that much. Deterrence does happen.
And I thought Mexico is paying for it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by jar, posted 05-21-2017 11:50 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 614 of 960 (812193)
06-15-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 610 by JonF
06-15-2017 9:22 AM


Re: more of the same
BS. Take off those rose-colored glasses.
Ted Nugent: Hang Obama and Clinton
Two Months Left Until Obama Gives Dictators Control of Internet
Barack Obama Is a Traitor
TIME TO CALL OBAMA AND KERRY WHAT THEY ARE: TRAITORS
Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage
10 Ridiculous Things Said About Barack Obama
According to the leftists, hate speech incites violence and the purveyors of said speech are responsible for the violence they incite.
According to their logic, all the people who have been reciting hate speech against Trump are partially responsible for yesterday's shooting.
I don't agree with their logic, but if they don't want to be hypocrites then they will admit they believe they have some responsibility in this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 9:22 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 617 of 960 (812203)
06-15-2017 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by JonF
06-15-2017 11:47 AM


Re: more of the same
Do you acknowledge that much of the anti-Trump speech is not hate speech?
I don't call stuff hate speech. And I'm not sure what you mean by "much"...
Not all of the anti-Trump speech counts as what the left calls hate speech, but I say the majority of it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 11:47 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 12:39 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 619 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 628 of 960 (812228)
06-15-2017 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by vimesey
06-15-2017 12:43 PM


Re: Hate speech
I think it's worth setting out a useful working definition of hate speech:
Hate speech - Wikipedia
As with references to totalitarianism, accusing people of hate speech when they criticise an individual's behaviour or actions, serves to diminish the harm of true hate speech.
It is a reasonable position to attack the nature of some of the criticisms of Trump (and Obama and many many others) as criticism which is beyond the pale, but let's reserve hate speech as the expression which is properly used to describe the language bigots use to stir up hatred against groups of people, based on their colour, gender, nationality, sexuality etc.
So if you hate Trump, and you hate Republicans, and you give speech that incites violence against them, well that doesn't count as True Hate SpeechTM... because why?
Is it because "republican" isn't a protected class? Really?
How does that diminish the harm of True Hate SpeechTM?
They hate people. They're speaking. They're inciting violence. But calling that hate speech somehow diminishes real hate speech?
Edited by New Cat's Eye, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 12:43 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 641 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2017 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 640 of 960 (812249)
06-15-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by vimesey
06-15-2017 3:00 PM


Re: Hate speech
Is it because "republican" isn't a protected class?
Yes.
Why does that matter? If you're inciting violence against a group by speaking hatefully, why should I care what class of people the violence is towards?
And how does calling out the leftists' hateful speech towards Republicans diminish the harm of True Hate SpeechTM?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 3:00 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 642 of 960 (812253)
06-15-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 641 by NoNukes
06-15-2017 3:13 PM


Re: Hate speech

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2017 3:13 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2017 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 644 of 960 (812257)
06-15-2017 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 643 by vimesey
06-15-2017 3:40 PM


Re: Hate speech
There are two reasons that hate speech, as set out in the wiki page I cited, doesn't apply to Republicans.
First, folks get a choice as to whether to be a Republican - members of protected classes of people don't.
That doesn't add up: You get a choice in your religion and yet that is a protected class.
If religion can be protected, why can't political affiliation?
Second, protected classes are vulnerable or less privileged groups of people in society, with less power and less ability to protect themselves against prejudice and hatred, so society affords them the protection that they have less ability to create themselves.
I don't subscribe to prejudging people based on groups that they belong to - it is wrong to affiliate people with weakness just because of their race or sexual orientation.
Republicans are not a vulnerable or less privileged group.
Put on a MAGA hat and go walk through Harlem and then come back and tell me if you felt vulnerable or not.
being rude to your political opponents/lawyers/politicians/bankers isn't.
Sure, but what about calling for violence out of hatred?
They're Republicans so that doesn't matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 643 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 3:40 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 649 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2017 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 650 of 960 (812268)
06-15-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 647 by NoNukes
06-15-2017 4:42 PM


Re: Hate speech
Do you accept that proposition that speeches like Clinton's are what caused the shooting yesterday?
No, I've already said I don't.
But if the leftists don't want to be hypocrites, then they should admit that according to their own logic it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2017 4:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2017 5:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 652 of 960 (812270)
06-15-2017 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 648 by vimesey
06-15-2017 4:44 PM


Re: Hate speech
If everyone got a free choice in their religion, then there would be a widespread distribution between Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/Jewish/Christian/atheists etc amongst children of Christian families and similarly amongst the other religions. Are you claiming that's the case ?
Are you claiming that there is a widespread distribution between Democrats/Republicans/GreenParty/Independents amongst children of Democratic families?
I have not seen white people punched for their colour
There's all kinds of videos on youtube of Antifa doing exactly that...
All you have to do is call a white guy a Nazi first, then you're justified in assaulting them
Are you prepared to claim that, in the states, Republicans suffer as much abuse/prejudice/bigotry/violence as black people ?
As much? No, but a non-zero amount of vulnerability? Yes.
That's wrong - but it's not hate speech. The disinction is important.
I'm not seeing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 4:44 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 654 of 960 (812272)
06-15-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 649 by NoNukes
06-15-2017 4:46 PM


Re: Hate speech
How about some examples of folks in the media or politicians actually doing that. I'm not going to claim that nobody does that, but if you are going to tar "the Left" or "liberals" in that way, I expect you to show some mainstream calls for violence.
I'll pass, I don't have the time right now. But it's "leftists", not liberals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 649 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2017 4:46 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 671 of 960 (812301)
06-15-2017 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by vimesey
06-15-2017 5:10 PM


Re: Hate speech
Way more so than amongst religious backgrounds, yes. And I note that you don't deny my rebuttal of your point.
I'm still getting this straight: So if Democrats breed Democrats like Christians breed Christians, would that remove some of the choice in the matter? And then political affiliation could be a protected class?
Come to think of it, maybe the choice part shouldn't be mattering to you that much. You can choose your sex and apparently your race too these days
There are some examples of that - are you claiming the preponderance of racist assaults against white people is greater than against black/Asian people in our societies ?
What!? No. You said they're not vulnerable, I'm saying they can be.
In my view, it doesn't require Republicans to suffer a zero amount of vulnerability in order to protect black people/gays etc.
Of course, but apparently there is some level of vulnerability that is not worth protecting. I mean, you can't be saying it doesn't matter just because these people were Republicans?
Because if we are to limit freedom of speech, to protect vulnerable segments of society, it is right that we limit those limitations. Hence hate speech should be a very specific definition.
Now that I can agree with. I'm not convinced that hate speech should be a thing, but if it is you're right.
I see that you've got another post, Message 663. I'll respond to it here as well:
We preserve special punishments for hate speech (at least in the UK), and they should only be applied to limit free speech in defence of those vulnerable groups.
Not to say those situations aren't wrong - they are. But where more vulnerable people are targeted, extra protections are appropriate.
This, I can understand. Now, I don't really care for it, but I get it.
If you're going to go "above and beyond", you should take extra care. Secial punishments, should you decide they exist, should not only be accurate, but very precise.
But neither adds up to hate speech, because vulnerable groups in society are not being targeted for their vulnerability.
This I'm having a little more trouble with.
How do I target someone for their vulnerability? What does that mean? And why is that the important qualifier?
If an individual is being targeted for being a member of a group, why does it have to be for their vulnerability to be important enough to be protected from?
And is choice really that important?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2017 5:10 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by vimesey, posted 06-16-2017 4:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 684 of 960 (812392)
06-16-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Chiroptera
06-15-2017 9:37 PM


Re: Who will be the first A-hole
Or they reported it because that's their job as journalists; they felt the information is important and they felt it's their professional duty to get this news out to the people.
You're joking, right!?
They're selling ad space - that is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Chiroptera, posted 06-15-2017 9:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by Chiroptera, posted 06-16-2017 11:41 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 685 of 960 (812394)
06-16-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by vimesey
06-16-2017 4:23 AM


Re: Hate speech
Right on. If you find the time, I'd like to hear about what you meant by targeting someone "for" their vulnerability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by vimesey, posted 06-16-2017 4:23 AM vimesey has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 942 of 960 (815109)
07-16-2017 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 941 by Faith
07-16-2017 3:16 AM


Re: Roman Church
Make a thread; I was raised Catholic and I'll participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 941 by Faith, posted 07-16-2017 3:16 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by Porosity, posted 07-16-2017 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 953 of 960 (815185)
07-17-2017 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 944 by Porosity
07-16-2017 1:38 PM


Whoops!
I'm surprised I was missed I'll take that as a compliment
I can't believe I've been posting here for 12.5 years. A lot has changed in my life in the last year; professionally, personally, spiritually.
I'm not in the science business anymore and have moved to the enigineering side. I had a really powerful religious experience. I completely changed my lifestyle to put my own health and fitness first. I got out of a long term relationship. Sobered up. Got a new roommate. Been spending my money increasing my property's value.
Life's great and I thank God for that.
But I'm still a smart ass who likes to talk shit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 944 by Porosity, posted 07-16-2017 1:38 PM Porosity has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 958 by Porosity, posted 07-17-2017 10:55 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 959 by NoNukes, posted 07-17-2017 11:15 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024