The point is, you increasingly infuriating fucktard, is that this country as a whole is not being destroyed. That is the point you are purposely, cynically, twisting to win a pointless argument. The point does not concern individuals or groups of people, the point concerns this country as a whole. If you can’t grasp that concept, then you’re too fucking stupid, and cynical, to argue with.
I hope everyone interested in the thread topic reads that article. Definitely worth spending one of your five(?) N.Y. Times monthly views.
Classic confirmation bias, right there. It says what I think, so it must be right.
I think you’re a dolt; and your posts confirm it. So, yeah.
Strange, I just looked up the top 10 causes of death in the US, I didn’t see “Free Speech” there.
Maybe it’s number 11?
I guess saying the wrong thing might cause a heart attack…
Septic, I know for a fact that you’re a dolt, an idiot, a complete moron, just by your OP. And then you tried to back pedal, only further confirming the fact that you are among the clinically hard of thinking.
So what you’re getting so exercised about is the infinitesimally trivial point that some abstract or nominal notion of “the country” may continue to exist. That’s hardly reassuring.
So the country is just a mere notion to you. That explains a lot.
So many are scared of angry Christians, I’m not one of them but I live with plenty of them. They may grumble about liberals and the government, but they are not going to harm anyone or take any action without some really strong provocation (like life-threatening.)
If some significant proportion of the people of the country are harmed, or oppressed, or suffering, or fear for their future, or if the actions taken in the name of the country are harmful, oppressive, or cause suffering, or if the ideals that I believe to be important are harmed, or oppressed, or discarded, it doesn’t matter to me if “the country” continues to exist in name.
I care about the country in the sense that I care about its people and their well-being, and the well-being of all people who are affected by actions taken in the country’s name and I care about the principles that the country supports and promotes. If all of that is in jeopardy, the mere notional or nominal continuing existence of a country with the same name is of no comfort to me.
And it should be to you as well. The concept of a country is only as good as how that concept actually is applied and acts in the world. The symbols, flags, anthems, or map drawings are trivial appurtenances.
What kind of harmful action do you have in mind? Do they vote? Do they vote for people who cause harm? Do they vote for people who promise that their personal lifestyles and beliefs will be upheld as superior to their neighbors? Do they vote to restrict other people’s rights? Do they support police who murder unarmed people? Do they support people like Joe Arpaio?
Christians as a group, specifically fundamentalist Christians, are the most dangerous faction in our country today, mostly because they have tremendous political power and fight to maintain the status quo or to engender some throwback notion of a good society.
That’s the convenience of being the entrenched power in a society. They don’t have to take affirmative action with their own hands to harm the rest of us. They just have to acquiesce to the harm that their proxies commit.
The symbols, flags, anthems, or map drawings are trivial appurtenances.
That’s probably the only thing we’ll agree on in this thread.
For clarification, I don’t fully agree with the author of that op-ed because I suspect his notion of “making speech safe for society” means scrubbing views that *he *disagrees with while permitting offensive speech from *his *side, that he likes. But I posted it in this thread because it seemed very relevant to the discussion at hand.
I know he’s not with us anymore, but I always have to question the logic of this quote. Guns don’t prohibit Congress from passing legislation that limits speech.
Maybe not free speech. But I’ve seen an angry mob petition a man to death.
No. During the Obama administration, Obama and the Dems tried to work together and work “across the aisle”.
They were met by McConnell and the “Party Of No”.
I can tell from this post that you’re a straight, cisgender man, and thus haven’t had people attempt to justify denying people like you their rights, because ‘Christians’.
The obnoxious irony, of course, is that there is an almost 100% overlap between those who say that, and those who claim letting Muslims into Western countries will inevitably result in Sharia.
But Sharia is the epitome of conservative religious values. Not sure why people consider it a “liberal” ideal.
I agree with you, in the sense that nobody on the left would ever support Sharia.
I think the “logic” goes like this…
-
The left supports Muslims as an underrepresented minority in the country.
-
Some parts of the Muslim world live under Sharia law which can be brutal depending on how it’s applied.
-
Insist that Muslims in America are trying to sneak in Sharia (…how could that ever happen…?!) so that people on the left look complicit in some dark anti-American plot.
You again have to ignore that Sharia law would be against every value the left professes. An authoritarian religious institution that often oppresses women and homosexuals. Sounds like a left-wing utopia! :rolleyes: