I’m used to it. I’m sure the responses would have been less insipid if a more popular Doper had started the thread.
And Dopers can’t stop themselves from leaping to unwarranted conclusions:
Sept: High human population is at the root of many environmental problems.
*Dope: Why do you want to massacre babies? Are you going to eat them?
*
Sept: Free speech is not an unmixed blessing. Dope: Why do you want to overthrow the Constitution, shutter all news agencies except the government’s, and stifle poor Aunt Gertrude?
The problem is that we all know this isn’t a reasoned discussion on the dangers of unfettered speech, it’s a dimwitted defense of the 2nd Amendment. A sad attempt at a “gotcha” by attempting to link the 1st A to the 2nd, and claiming that liberals don’t really care about America because we’re not trying to quell free speech, even though it’s so terribly dangerous.
I’m unclear on why the 2nd Amendment is relevant to the discussion. Aren’t the problems ostensibly being caused by unfettered freedom of expression present in all modern democracies, among which the U.S. is relatively rare in having a strident right-to-bear-arms concept? Canadians and Brits and Australians have people saying dumb stuff, too.
It’s relevant because IT’S IN THE TITLE OF THE THREAD!
And, yes, the 1st Amendment is a bigger threat simply because it is the only reason the 2nd Amendment is a threat at all! Were it not for the freedom of speech, the NRA wouldn’t have the over-sized influence it has.
I somewhat grudgingly agree with part of what **septimus **is saying - the 1st Amendment has regrettably allowed for all kinds of abuse of it - fake news, coronavirus protests or church gatherings that spread the disease much worse, etc.
My main concern is - there is just about no political faction that can be entrusted to safely oversee speech in America if the 1st Amendment were repealed. Most people who criticize the 1st Amendment seem to imagine some alternative society where ***they ***call the shots on speech and ***their ***side is allowed to say what they like while their opponents’ opinions or views are muzzled. I find that more terrifying than the current state.
Hey, in North Korea, you have unfettered free speech as long as you’re praising the Kim regime.
Hi Velocity. Did you notice the word I wrote in all-caps, underlined, bold-faced, italicized and used font size 4? I did figure font size 4 wasn’t quite big enough, but didn’t want to insult your intelligences. :smack:
Where many of you Dopes lose your way in the difficult process of cognition is the failure to recognize a fundamental cause-effect sequence:
(1) First, one describes problems.
(2) Then, one seeks remedies.
I guess I’m not as smart as all y’all, 'cuz I’m still working on (1). Let me repeat my examples of all y’all’s “thought” processes, but in a larger, bolded font:
Sept: High human population is at the root of many environmental problems.
*Dope: Why do you want to massacre babies? Are you going to eat them?
*
Sept: Free speech is not an unmixed blessing. Dope: Why do you want to overthrow the Constitution, shutter all news agencies except the government’s, and stifle poor Aunt Gertrude?
Get the point?
That you’re shitty at expressing your intent? I mean seriously, if I found myself having to use big fonts and bold to state simple concepts that I thought were obviously implicit in my original statement and I wasn’t being believed, I might suspect that my original argument was not written well, i.e. if I’d hypothetically used the phrase “threat to America” when I meant “problematic for America”.
But that’s just me and my wee brain what knows only some good words.
Who the hell can tell what you like or don’t like from your posts? You vomit out some word salad and take the next 20 posts to complain about how you’ve been misunderstood.
I think you are shitty at reading. In the OP, he wrote: “ But note that I am not calling for a direct repeal of the First Amendment (as if that were even possible).“
I understand that to mean he’s not calling for the direct repeal of the First Amendment.
He also wrote: “ I just want us all to FIRST grok what the real problems are; THEN we can seek solutions.”
I took that to mean he doesn’t have a solution, and first he wants to talk about it.
How the hell anyone can fail to understand those sentences is their own fault.
Okay, how about we talk about the problem that is leading him to feel compelled to used big fonts and bold because he evidently feels his intended point is not being understood? Perhaps tackling a little problem like that might serve as a useful training ground before addressing constitutional issues.
Can you explain the part about the 2nd Amendment? You seem to have a good grasp of his intent.
I took it to mean that people who thought the 2nd A was a problem should instead focus on the 1st, since it’s a MUCH bigger threat and 1,000 deaths per month was totally no biggie.
Judging from the early posts in the thread and how rapidly the OP become impassioned, it looks like mocking the work of Myers and Briggs is a bigger problem than, say, shooting Myers and Briggs.
Calling people “idiots” is a sure bridge to mutual understanding, I’m sure. Use capital letters some more, too, that’ll prove persuasive.
The OP was stupid and you’re stupid for claiming that we’re stupid for calling it stupid. I could write up a detailed analysis, but I don’t intend to use bold or excessive capital letters, so I’m confident it will prove beyond your understanding.
The thing is, no nation has the unrestricted right to say anything, any time. There are lots of restrictions on the first amendment.
So the framing of being “for” or “against” free speech is often misleading.
That said, since Trump’s presidency, I have changed my views on this issue. Previously I would have been in favor of some regulation of, for example, news agencies, to ensure they can’t just make up shit that has dangerous effects on the populace. But the reality of a president and administration that would call a blue sky “fake news” if they thought it made them look bad, has made me realize how dangerous that power would be.
Again, as I’ve said before, the mention of 2nd Amendment in the thread title was a foolish diversion. Silly comparisons often amuse me — I think I have a mild form of autism. But whatever disclaimers I offer, some of you still seem to think that this thread is a very strange defense of gun rights. :smack:
Feel free to call me stupid. I’m one of my own worst critics and often consider myself an idiot savant. But attack me for the views I express, not for some false version of septimus you’ve conjured up from fantasy.
Let’s set aside the pissing contests of who is stupidest, if we can. And set aside pointless whingeing about font-sizes, etc.
Can you point to one or more specific sentences I wrote which were “stupid”? NOT sentences with stupid uses of font embellishments, NOT sentences where, exasperated, I started calling my detractors stupid, and NOT sentences where I tried to emphasize my point with “colorful” exaggeration, but sentences where the actual intended content was false or stupid.
**Please respond to what I actually wrote and the points I actually intended, rather than what you like to pretend I wrote in order to justify your desire to consider me stupid.
**
Can’t do it, hunh?
I realize I get much flak for excessive usage of emphasis tags (bold-face, etc.) I have authored books, newspaper columns, and a large number of journal articles and cannot recall offhand of a single time I used boldface or italics — let alone all-caps — in any of that writing. I resort to it here out of exasperation. I emphasize key words because some of you seem incapable of grasping the intent of plain English sentences.
The foolish diversion has torpedoed any hope of debate on the topic you intended. By comparing the two amendments, you immediately point the finger at 2nd Amendment opponents. I’d also note that there are earnest defenses of the 2nd amendment that invoke free speech, notably the idea that it isn’t semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips that make school shootings a problem, it’s the fact that the media reports on them.
At this point, the thread is a lost cause, if you want to talk about abuses of the 1st Amendment and the dangers unfettered free speech causes in today’s world, you’ll have to start a new thread.
