…ya know, if you delete and ignore the bit that explains why I think America is a fucking strange country then of course you aren’t going to understand what I’m talking about. I’ll quote it for you again.
Its a fucking strange country because despite all the available evidence that sensible gun control works you won’t introduce sensible gun control legislation because of a slavish devotion to a document signed hundreds of years ago. Its a fucking strange country because despite all evidence that universal healthcare works and costs a fuckload less than what you currently spend you won’t introduce it because of “states rights” and “people should pay for their own damn healthcare.” Its a fucking strange country because as soon you start to ask the question “hey, maybe we should have a look at what free speech means in the modern age” you get told to “shut up.”
Its a fucking strange country because you have a “blindspot.” You can’t question the constitution. You can’t question the 1st amendment. I had an argument with Bricker over healthcare: where his essential argument against universal healthcare (which, in order to implement properly in the United States, would require a dilution of state rights) was that it was “unwise.” He couldn’t quantify that. He couldn’t expand on that. We live in an ever-contracting world. In a sane world a discussion about “what free speech means” would be one that everybody would be willing to have. But America is a fucking strange country. It is one of the most amazing, wonderful, fantastic places in the world. I would love to visit and spend some time there. But it is also fucking strange. Full of contradictions and blatant and open hypocrisy.
The Sinclair Group owns 173 stations covering 40% of the country. And that number is going up. The President of the United States broadcasts propaganda like this: (warning, link to a Trump Video)
The reality is that in America if you have money and if you have power your “free speech” is louder and clearer and has more influence than those without. So on one hand we have the full might of the federal government of the United States of America. And on the other hand we have a handful of protesters yelling loudly at a rally. Forget about free speech for a minute. Which is the bigger threat to democracy?
Free speech can fight oppression. But what happens when one side has an overwhelming control of the message? Is speech still free? What happens if one side gets total control of the message?
This is about having a conversation. As much as you are “sick and tired” of people wanting to have that conversation (I object to your characterization of their arguments) many people of colour are sick and tired of being subjected to racial harassment and bullying. And with one side with a near total control of the message (and I’m not just talking about extreme right wing media sources, I’m including all of the main-stream networks, as they all signal boost/focus on trivialities like "Hillary’s emails) then I’m sorry, but I can’t get upset that a handful of protesters made a lot of noise, got kicked out of a room, then the speaker was stopped for reasons unrelated to the protest.
…the people “expressing” the idea of the 1st amendment died hundreds of years ago. Is the idea they expressed centuries ago still as valid in today’s society? Why are you so unwilling to have that conversation?
Who cares when they died? Do I want to throw out calculus because white people invented it 100s of years ago? No.
And I’m having the conversation about freedom of speech now. And I think it’s truly unfortunate and dangerous that we have people who are completely ignorant of the nature of power and history who are advocating, in essence, that might makes right with regards to fundamental rights. Well guess who is mighty? The police, the state, the intelligence agencies, etc. I don’t think people really know what they are asking for when they advocate violent “deplatforming” or violent “consequences” of and for points of view they disagree with.
The constitution can and has been amended. And there is a process for that! That’s what leads to political stability. A judge-o-cracy or mob rule is not the method. That’s why when we get these threads about gay marriage or whatever and a majority votes one way and a judge rules the other I get critiqued for bigotry when I question the method of societal change. The big picture is how change is implemented more so than a particular change that got implemented. Do you want to live in a country where a judge can issue a ruling based on creative reading of words? If so then the words that are being creatively read don’t really have much meaning. And that leads to chaos.
The constitution is designed to constrain the government. The biggest murderer of people in history has been governments. People think it’s a big deal when 1 or 2 or 20 get killed by a nutty group. Yet millions were killed by a Hitler or a Stalin because they were able to seize the full apparatus of a state. That is what people really need to fear. Not letting people seize the power of the state is important. However, making sure that the power is widely diffused through competing institutions helps make sure it’s not concentrated in the hands of the state to begin with.
So why would you be part of a mob that contains violent people to confront a violent group if you aren’t expecting violence? Where I’m from that’s called stupidity. I know if I’m part of a group that has a permit to assemble I’m staying away from other groups that have a permit to assemble. Especially if they are armed.
It’s not protesters job to engage in extrajudicial violence and I don’t have much sympathy that these groups are fighting each other. Say you want to fight and get a fight? You got what you wanted.
…do I see a commitment to change in either healthcare or gun control?
(Hint: no I don’t.)
In the wake of the Las Vegas shootings what do we see happening? Absolutely nothing. In the wake of landmark Affordable Care Act (a small but sure stepping stone to Universal Healthcare) we have seen a massive push-back that will destabilize the marketplace and make the path to UH more difficult.
It isn’t about having everybody in “lockstep.” My point is that people are very obviously not in lockstep. There is a massive groundswell of support for sensible gun control and universal healthcare in America. But that groundswell of support doesn’t matter.
Not about “the validity of freedom of speech.” What “freedom of speech” should mean. The conversation you want to have and the conversation Black Lives Matters wants to have are two very different things.
Coincidentally, when my mom came to visit recently, she told me about a relatively rare instance when she and my late father differed politically. It sounded eerily like this argument, even though she had no idea AFAIK about this and the thing she was talking about was way back in the Seventies. Both my dad and mom were backers of what I think was called the Afro-American Student Coalition at UNC-Chapel Hill. But my mom disagreed with their conduct when they went to a speech given on campus by a speaker they considered racist, and exercised their “heckler’s veto”. My dad, she says, basically did not subscribe to the adage “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it”. His position, she said, was that you just find your group of partisans and go to battle for their cause, by hook or by crook.
I’m disappointed to hear that about my dad, because that philosophy ultimately leads to cases like the French Revolution, where a cause that originated in laudable ideals degenerates into increasingly radical purification via purges and executions. But I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, because I do remember not long before my dad’s death (he died when I was fifteen, so I was probably 14 at the time) arguing with him about Mao Zedong. He was an admirer of Mao, but (while granting that 1940s Mao was legitimately an admirable figure) I couldn’t get past the Cultural Revolution, which involved a similar dynamic as Roberspierre’s Terror.
In short: if you don’t fight for the free expression rights of people with different views from yours, don’t be shocked if you someday find your former allies have decided you are no longer pure enough and it is *your *speech that should be shouted down (or worse).
I think you are just telling others what a coward you are. The person who died and even a wife of a doper who was seriously injured did not expect to be subject to violence. Nor they were violent or seeking violence, they only expected to tell the fascists about how dupes they are.
You are still insisting then that practically it is the violent group or the ones that we know that eventually do make a reality of their bigoted desires the ones the ones that do deserve to speak freely. Again, no problem and I do agree on defending their right to say what they want, but as usual: that right is forfeited when they do use violence when attempting to quiet their opponents.
Whatever. You choose to delude yourself by believing that armed protesters confronting another group of armed protesters is not foolish.
Say that there is a group of Nazis who you honestly believe want to harm you. These Nazis are also armed. You think it’s wise to approach them carrying weapons to have a dialogue? Your definition of bravery and stupidity need to be re-evaluated. It’s not the protesters job to de platform or consequence anyone. There were police present to maintain order and supposedly to protect people’s ability to exercise rights. A bunch of larpers carrying poles, shanks, and makeshift flamethrowers aren’t necessary.
Anyways, back to the point of using violence to suppress rights, on that day the protesters from the left got out violenced. Still support using violence to suppress speech or only when the left has the numbers and will?
A wise person, bravery is irrelevant here, would support everyone having the right to exercise fundamental freedoms without having to worry about cracked skulls from a bike lock, blown eardrums from M-80s, or being flattened by a car.
This. I think the old fallacy of being polite, keeping quiet, being patient, KNOWING YOUR PLACE, etc is being recognized as the bullshit it always was.
Sometimes you have to be an asshole and cause some minor “pain” to get done done.
We have seen a big upsurge in racism, white supremacy, and outright Nazism. Now is not the time to be quite and polite.
And no, there are no “fine people on both sides”. There is NO equivalency.
No. But that is also irrelevant. What matters is who violated the law and who initiated hostilities through illegal action. These aren’t concepts harder then what elementary school children are expected to follow.
And you’ve continued to paint Heather Heyer as an armed protestor when there is literally no evidence to support it. When you have any evidence of that, I’ll listen. Until then, you’re simply sympathizing with people carrying out terrorist attacks on Americans.
Do you have ANYTHING to cite that someone on the left initiated hostilities? Maybe someone dressed in body armor and firing on protesters? You’re either full of shit, or willfully ignorant, you troll.
Tsk, tsk! A lying potty mouth! Why should I respond to you when not only you have really poor reading comprehension but you are also very dishonest?
Go ahead and continue supporting violent suppression of speech and keep feigning shock, surprise, and outrage when that violence is hard to constrain. You are really daft.
That would be the side that brought weapons, stated in advance that they were ready for and expected violence, assaulted and killed people, and then afterwards said they were pleased with the violence they committed.
