Such a withering riposte…well, sure, run back to the cactus-fucking…
You fancy yourself a thinker and fighter for liberty. But by all appearances, you prefer polemic podcasts over history books. You prefer Twitter over the work. And it shows. My god it shows. You are the quintessential armchair bloviator who thinks he knows better than the people who roll up their sleeves and actually get it done. You would confidently explain the idea of a passing route to an NFL quarterback and then sit smugly in your confidence that you’ve somehow helped.
Here you’ve launched a pit thread directed at ACLU staffers without even knowing their position on protecting hate speech. I’ll make a confident prediction: when this letter eventually goes public, as seems inevitable at this point, and it shows that these staffers in fact support protecting the speech rights of white supremacists, you will not come back to this thread and humbly beg forgiveness. You will just go right on bloviating.
Yes, I do on both counts. I think most problems of racism are systemic, having largely to do with low social mobility and poverty, and requiring surprisingly little conscious racism on anyone’s part. It’s certainly a problem, and certainly worth addressing. I don’t think the white supremacists who are the target of ire here have much to do with it.
Assuming for a moment that every Trump supporter knew this before the election (I would not take this as given, because my model of the average Trump voter does not include a great deal of understanding of policy), it’s possible to support stricter drug laws and treating suspected criminals like shit without being racist (although you’re still an asshole). Racists will love it more than usual, and these are positions that will hurt black people disproportionately, but you don’t have to be racist to support them - it just helps.
This is a pretty good point. I just don’t know that we can draw that line.
Just for example, do the beliefs above constitute this kind of hate speech? If so, you can be plenty racist and do plenty of damage without hate speech. If not, numerous policy suggestions are suddenly out of line and we have not just “dinged” free speech a little, but taken a huge chunk out of it.
The line between hate speech and not-hate-speech is fuzzy, and very hard to make reasonable policy on.
One of those letter signers was on the podcast, as I already explained. There is not going to be any such revelation; but if there is, I will change my opinion.
Having majored in history in college and having read many more history books since then, it’s remarkable how wrong your supposition about me is. Similarly, if “the work” includes working for candidates’ campaigns and for the Democratic Party, I would wager that I’ve put in more hours there than at least 99% of Americans. If it means IRL activism against police brutality, or running for office myself (albeit losing), then the same is also true.
I’ve admittedly slowed down in my contributions to “the work” in recent years; but raising two children with autism might have something to do with that.
And earlier this year I got back into it, putting a lot of hours into a successful campaign to get a yes vote for a half cents sales tax increase to fund the local parks and recreation department.
So bite me.
With what level of confidence do you make this assertion? 60% 90%? Obviously, you made a pit thread about it. So it must be pretty high, right? I’d just like to get you on the record.
As for the rest, I’m glad you participate in causes you care about. My point was that you opine with undue confidence about civil liberties without having worked on the issue and without displaying much grasp of it. You would do better to do some reading and actual work before you declare that the experts are destroying the cause.
As long as you’ve invoked women’s rights, let’s use it as an example. I’m a fervent feminist myself. The nature of patriarchal oppression is not geared towards the genocidal (gynocidal) elimination of women altogether but instead towards the continuation of patriarchal control of them as resources (reproductive and sexual, primarily, although not exclusively). It’s an intolerable status quo that’s been around a lot longer than (any race-specific) racism and longer than capitalism, and it is kept in place by poisonous propaganda, by sexist stereotyping and horribly destructive double-standard notions about sex and reproduction and the interplay between the two.
And because of that, there have been feminists who have sought to apply a social styptic pencil to the process, to make it socially unacceptable to voice sexist opinions, or to express support for the sexual double standard, or to hold women to a different yardstick of acceptable behaviors than men are held. They’ve sought to formalize it in contexts such as the workplace and the school, to make it not merely socially unacceptable but a violation of policy, a behavior that can get one fired or result in fines for one’s company. And oh yes there’s been a huge outcry about all this as an infringement on people’s freedom of expression, a loud pushback about how it’s an egregious “political correctness” that we just can’t tolerate.
So… some of you debating here would like to convince me that free speech should be curtailed for reasons of social justice.
May I safely assume that every one of you will be OK with radical feminists like me rendering it a hate crime to express sexist sentiments?
Only *very *misogynist statements (like “She deserves to be raped”,for one common online example) but sure, yeah, I would. But then, I don’t believe in free speech.
I’m not ok with that, but I’m only here because I think a collective suspicion of marching militants works just fine as a policy. They can still buy billboards.
I am curious though, if taking the absolutist position on the first amendment enables a greater understanding of those who voice a similar position on the second.
for historical reference -
for historical reference -
for historical reference -
for historical reference -
(post shortened)
Oops. Was I too subtle? I was too subtle wasn’t I. Did you see the wink smiley at the end of the post? I thought the wink smiley, plus the “Or not” would have made it obvious that I was joking. Oh well, I guess they can’t all be knee-slappers. 
<<< wink smiley
Are you an actual ACLU member (whatever that may mean) or do you simply make periodic donations? Are you assisting in their membership drive? How’s that workin’ out?
My position has been that the answer to hate speech is more/free speech. Others seem to believe that censorship is the way to go. I don’t always agree with the ACLU. I consider them to be more of a necessary evil. Somebody has to mount a legal defense for the free speech of assholes such as Nazis and Antifa.
For historical reference, every time you use the phrase “for historical reference,” you use it wrong.
Reading your attempts at satire is like listening to a three-year-old play the slide whistle. They think they’re making music, but nobody else does.
Trump Just Threatened To Take Away NBC’s FCC License…Because They Think He’s A Moron
In the sense of being against facists, I proudly would call myself antifa. But I side with those in the ACLU who would support the rights of Nazis, Trump and the KKK to speak politically and peacefully. If the ACLU stops supporting their rights, the organization will lose its credibility.
If they can’t support the civil rights of Nazis, how can they protect NBC from the Great Orange Leader?
Do you have a lot of experience listening to three-year-olds playing slide whistles (whatever that means)?
Too much.
“whatever that means”?
Between three-year-olds, “playing”, and slide whistles, which concept is giving you difficulty? I’m sure any of us would be happy to explain these concepts to you if they’re beyond your understanding. We Dopers are a helpful bunch!
Right? I mean, this is some grade-school level epistemology here. If you don’t know what a concept is, you can either spend the twenty seconds necessary to Google it (and decide if you need to know more about it at that point), or you can reveal your ignorance and laziness in a parenthetical comment and expect the world to detour around your lazy ass. I would be ashamed of a student that made the same choice as doorhinge.
Well said.
I though I’d gotten pretty good but it turns out my mom has just been turning off her hearing aids.
Well, when has NBC organized rallies that were ready to expect violence and to make violence too?
What I do think many are doing (the ones that only reach for the freedom of speech issue) is that they ignore that a lot of the recent discussions involved the use of deadly force. Something that I do think that, no matter who planned that, makes any talk of freedom of speech a moot one.
Perhaps a youtube link might help.