They used to say this about hippies.
In fact, they still talk about Prius-driving, latte-sipping, mask-wearing liberals.
Cheap stereotypes have no home and no boundaries.
Most stereotypes have a kernal of truth to them. The danger is going from, “some of the people I don’t like look/dress/act the same” to “Have you noticed they ALL have…” Confirmation bias is also powerful so once you make the observation that they all drive trucks, for example, every time you see a truck with a conservative bumper sticker your brain will go, “See? I’m right.” In the meantime, all data to the contrary will be ignored.
I personally know many, many people on the right, and even on the far right, Some are athiests, One is a transhumanist. Some are Christians. A couple are bikers who wear biker ‘uniforms’ (vests with their colors on them, etc). One is a government executive. One is a teacher. Several are software developers. A few are farm owners. None of them look the same except for the bikers, and you’d never identify them from their pastimes.
As for hobbies, let me see which ones I remember:
- Several guitar players
- two private pilots
- one gun collector
- several amateur photographers
- two writers
- several hardcore gamers
- several hobby gardeners
- a fine woodmaker
- a couple of electronics hobbyists
- two amateur astronomers
I could go on.
As for pickup trucks, yes, lots of ‘rugged individualists’ have pickup trucks, because they are disproportionally people who need trucks. Conservatives are heavily represented by rural and blue-collar workers, and trucks are part of the deal. If you live on a farm or an acreage, you need a truck. If you are a carpenter, or a plumber or a mechanic, you need a truck. If you work on remote jobsites, you need a truck.
The government worker drives a compact car. The coders and teacher drive cars or compact suvs. I just had lunch with one of them who just bought an EV.
Stereotypes suck.
I don’t really agree with this. Sure, if we’re talking about thoughts they never act on, then we won’t know what they’re thinking. But thoughts that are not acted upon are not a threat.
We can look at people’s actions. And in fact actions are a much better indicator of what people really think. Not only do they lie to others, but we often lie to ourselves.
The main issue where I’m for further restrictions on freedom of speech is on bigotry. I don’t propose that everything be banned, just that the worst of it dealt with. You don’t need to go anywhere close to the fuzzy line. You can stay away from any gray.
I don’t think it would be hard to tell who these people are if we restrict their speech, as there will still be their actions to look at. And if there are fewer of such actions, then that’s a win.
I’m also for criminalizing online death threats, but that’s more of a logistical problem than a lack of desire to do anything about it.
Thing is, we already have a system like that. When dealing with defamation, slander, or libel, the courts are in part charged with showing a statement was false and that the person who said it knew it was false.
I don’t see any real reason this couldn’t be extended to other types of lies. Exactly how far we can do is difficult to judge, but we already have gone a bit further than the constitution, in that we have false advertising laws. And they also may give a template of where the line actually is on what counts as a lie.
I’m also not sure how much of this should be criminal, and how much of it should be civil. A lot of defamation is handled civilly, and I think the same is true of false advertising.
I think all defamation, slander and libel is handled through civil action, unless someone can point me to a person who has actually been put in prison for that. The problem is, the bar for a judgement is usually quite high, perhaps higher than it ought to be in some cases. And then there is the issue of I can sue you for anything but if you are as poor as I am, I get nothing but legal bills.
Stochastic terrorism, though, is something that needs to be addressed. I stand on my pulpit saying “somebody should fuck that person up” and then hide behind “I personally never actually threatened that person.” That shit needs to end, somehow. I am not quite sure how, but I have heard that the Sandy Hook families lived in fear because of that one guy’s “crisis actors” lie. There really has to be some immediate consequence to spewing potentially dangerous bullshit, and it is not obvious that the civil court system is sufficient to rein this problem in.
The ACLU says that 24 states have laws criminalizing defamation. They of course say that these laws are unconstitutional.
The First Amendment Encyclopedia says that the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled in a a criminal libel case since 1966 but that other courts have upheld convictions in recent years.