I don’t know what that means. — Fire Ologist

Neither did I at first. Apparently, if we were one of the cool kids like him, we'd know it stands for: "quod vide" roughly translating to "which see." Which generally makes little to no sense but it is a pseudo-intellectual meme that basically means "look again" or basically "I already answered your question, you mindless, unwashed pleb, stop bothering me." :lol:

But you and I both know that no such tests are forthcoming and the claims are piffle. — NOS4A2

I was actually going to mention loud speech, but then, that is a physical assault has nothing to do with the content of the speech.

I’m glad you understand free political speech has to be fairly absolute. I also know you don’t understand how fraud works or libel either. But those are not really relevant in a conversation about political speech like Kirk’s and Kimmel’s.

Anyone who likes hate speech regulation doesn’t mind the government deciding what content is good and what content is bad. That’s the beginning of the end of freedom. There is a reason protecting speech is the very first amendment.

"I already answered your question, you mindless, unwashed pleb, stop bothering me." :lol: — Outlander

Thanks. Love it. Is there such a thing as Love speech?

I am always curious why he bothers with these non-responsive responses.

I think he hates me. Maybe that is why he likes hate speech regulation, because people cant be trusted not to spread hate.

In some contexts, speech is used as a form of intimidation. A very effective one at that. — Outlander

Yes for sure, and bullies need to have their ass kicked. But there is no way to regulate speech around intimidation. And some people aren’t intimidated. Some people are stronger than bullies - these types of people don’t want some weak ass politician helping them protect themselves against mean words.

The strategy and its implementation to be in line with the right to freedom of
opinion and expression. The UN supports more speech, not less, as the key means to address hate speech — Banno

That is “newspeak” for “we want smart people telling the masses who we should hate.”

Anyone who supports more speech, not less, would quickly see there is no equitable way to define hate speech or regulate it.

I did my “q.v.” homework. You never gave an example of speech that harms. Definitions of hate speech aren’t examples. Tying the essence of hate speech to ethnicity, race, creed, is not showing how a word can harm and further, why we need to regulate this harm. Or how on earth a court could rule on words that harm.

Isn’t regulating hate speech like rating movies R versus PG?

Are you saying there are some words no one is grown up enough to hear ever? Because they harm?

The truth of the deep leftward bias of all legacy and main stream media — Fire Ologist

The inability to view Fox News as also mainstream media is very telling of you. That media channel would simply have a bias to the right, yet not much else.

This is the argument now being put by sections of the commentariat on the right; that the left is complicit in violence that purportedly resulted from what they have said. — Banno

Please don't confuse this absurdly hypocritical power play for an "argument".

Fair, perhaps. The data shows something quite contrary to the narrative it seems is prominent in the US.

This is not news in the US, the discrepancy in violence is very, very obvious and well known. That the right is pretending otherwise, elevating a lone gunman from a solid MAGA family with no known ties to leftist groups into a Reichstag-like pretext for sweeping crackdowns on the left, is straight from the fascist playbook.

And if we are talking about rhetorical violence, the discrepancy is even more stark.

Indeed. You and I see this. What of them? :wink:

Another Conversation article spoke about McCarthyism, and the inept far-right “cancel culture” that can be seen even in this thread. The question might be, does the US have sufficient self-awareness to understand this, and to push back on this "new era of McCarthyism" as it has in the past? The re-election of Trump does not bode well.

North, south, east coast, west coast, city, farm, black, white, little Italy, china town, rich/poor - the American system survived a massive civil war. We survived the 1960s and the murder if so many politicians, and 2020 elections and a maga insurrection. Nothing really new about a free nation’s people at odds with their own unity — Fire Ologist

This time is different. During the Civil War one crucial issue profoundly divided the north and south, but on so many other cultural issues the electorate was mixed , not segregated by geography. Therenwas much more a rural or city resident of Massachusetts had in common with a resident of Georgia than what divided them. In the 1960’s the country was at war with itself, but a large percentage of the Democratic voters in urban America were socially conservative. Most of those voters have since left the liberal cites for the more conservative South and the far flung suburbs, and joined MAGA. As a result, what had been a mixed electorate for the Democratic party from the 1930’s though the 1960’s , reflecting a wide mix of social values within the big cities , has now become ideologically purified by geography ( population density) to an extent we have never seen before in this country. In the 1960’s the average blue collar resident of Chicago or San Francisco spoke the ‘same language’ as a worker living in Cheyenne Wyoming. That is no longer the case.

Trump’s success is because people in the cities, in the suburbs, on the farms, of every economic class, of all types of sexual preference, in every color, Hispanic, Native American, etc, etc, etc - so many agree. Basic street facts, like who is male, and who is the bully, and who needs help, and who is full of shit all of the time (Crockett) - they can’t be hidden forever. Media is losing and the Dems are losing with them. — Fire Ologist

There you go again with who is winning and who is losing. The media you’re referring to is urban American , the Dems are urban America and I am urban America. You say people in the cities agree? Let’s see what they agree about. This is how urban America feels about Trump; 70-80% in these major cities rejected him in 2024.

1)New York
2)Chicago
3)San Francisco
4)Los Angeles
5)Boston
6)Philadelphia
7)Seattle
8)Minneapolis
9)Milwaukee
10)Washington D.C.
11) Baltimore
12) Portland

That’s an overwhelming expression of solidarity and agreement about a way of life reflecting the values of a country within a country. As an actively participating member of one of these liberal urban communities, what am I losing beside taxpayer support from that other America? I know what I am gaining. I see it as I walk around the neighborhoods. My community has pulled together to affirm its commitments, and protect its values against encroachment from that other America, and to welcome refugees fleeing restrictive policies in red states. My own view of the larger picture is that what started out in the 1960’s as tiny enclaves of hippies and leftist intellectuals in cities has spread over the past 60 years to become the strong majority in urban America and more progressive elements which began with small groups of academics in the 1980’s has furthered the urban shift to the left. I don’t see shrinking numbers over this 60 year time span but the opposite, a steady growth and the emergence of a new kind of city way of life. Trump would not have won if the rest of the country wasn’t becoming aware of this growth in numbers , and becoming alarmed by it. No amount of legislation or political intimidation will slow its continued spread.

Very interesting analysis. How do you see this playing out over the next 4-8 years?

↪Joshs Very interesting analysis. How do you see this playing out over the next 4-8 years? — Tom Storm

My best guess is a sharp economic downturn and likely recession will ensue, and a collapse of the crypto and A.I. bubbles will hurt many average citizens economically and cause a backlash against the political leadership.

, yes, I agree with , an excellent post.

I do hope that the US has the resilience to move beyond its present malaise, and expect that it does. In the meantime it makes for entertaining viewing for us in foreign parts. So much so that twice a week the ABC (ours, not yours) airs a late night show called "Planet America". Some might find it interesting.

I'm curious as to whether it is available in the US?

1)New York
2)Chicago
3)San Francisco
4)Los Angeles
5)Boston
6)Philadelphia
7)Seattle
8)Minneapolis
9)Milwaukee
10)Washington D.C.
11) Baltimore
12) Portland — Joshs

Solidarity on Election Day once every four years (towing the Dem party/media line like the morally superior sheep we are told to be) but what about the rest of the time?

Who are the murderers in those places, and who are they murdering the most? Dems or repubs?

What are the values unique to those cities that the Dems are fostering and building up but the repubs are resisting? What values and will promoting those values help make those cities flourish?

The value isn’t debate and more unity.

Solidarity around hatred for Trump and maga (because the media says so in sound bites) but solidarity with each other?

You are kidding yourself.

None of those places could be a country - they rely too much on being fed and protected from outside. DC literally needed federal troops to reduce gun fire on the streets. Nothing to learn about the strength of our cities and culture there?

All of the those places are failing, sorry to say. You are making my point. I live in one of them. Liberalism is crumbling and taking its supporters with it. The urban democratic base better keep getting their welfare checks and EBT cards and virtue signals and AOC feel good speeches, or the Dems will lose them too.

Liberal utopia is more like China. Let’s talk free speech or “hate speech” in China (does anyone really know, because China doesn’t really let a lot of light in.). Is that the country within a country - socialist/communist paradise?

Over the next 4-8 years I hope people start recognizing the difference between a man and a woman again. Probably not, we are so far gone.

Someone who truly values diversity and inclusion would lament the disparity between urban voting patterns and non-urban. There is no new world order anywhere near us - just more fighting for no good reason.

I do hope that the US has the resilience to move beyond its present malaise, and expect that it does. — Banno

I appreciate that. And we certainly will. Conservatism has been muzzled since Clinton in America (the reason Rush Limbaugh was born hiding in AM radio). Conservatives have let the adolescents pretend to be in charge too long. Celebrating the death of people just won’t fly anymore. I don’t think Dems realize how impossible it was for Trump to get re-elected, yet he did. That should really tell you something.

Isn’t anyone concerned that the violent right wing monsters aren’t rioting over Charlie Kirk’s death? Surely they must want to do something in response? What are they planning?

I’m sure the Dems fear riots and insurrections.

But instead they are going to get more conservative speeches and will lose more and more elections. That’s my prediction.

More conservative speeches, ie. more “hate speech”.

The bullshit won’t work forever. You have to actually make things function.

Liberal Canada just announced 13 billion in government spending to build low income housing due to the housing crisis. They are goin to build 4,000 homes. Do the math - that’s fucking the stupidest thing Inever heard.

Mamdani is going to be mayor of New York. Free buses and groceries for all (or a total mess made worse waiting for a republican to come in a clean it up.)

80% of the US population is considered urban., but Trump got 49.1% of the popular vote..

I think the community you're referring to is educated urbanites, probably mostly white, so it's the 45% of whites who didn't vote for Trump. The group to watch is Latinos, who are now 20% of the US population, and voted for Trump in larger numbers in 2024 than previously.

All of the those places are failing, sorry to say. You are making my point. I live in one of them. — Fire Ologist

I’m curious. Which of the cities I listed do you live in? Do you live within the city limits or in a suburb? If you live within one of those cities I listed, you must be bombarded with viewpoints that are abhorrent to you. No wonder you feel they’re ’failing’.

What are the values unique to those cities that the Dems are fostering and building up but the repubs are resisting? What values and will promoting those values help make those cities flourish? — Fire Ologist

I’ve discussed the philosophical underpinnings of the spectrum of ideas on the left that runs from Hegel through Critical theory and that defines and organizes a range of political and social perspectives of the big cities. These philosophical underpinnings are not your cup of tea, so your criterion for flourishing will likely not be consistent with them. If you dont already, you deserve to live in the America where your philosophical values are shared by the lion’s share of your community. That way, you may be less tempted to engage in shrill competitive rhetoric concerning who is winning and who is losing. Don’t worry about our flourishing. We’ll figure that out in our own way. If our ways are failing you, you need to tend to the flourishing of your own community in your own way.

↪Joshs
80% of the US population is considered urban., but Trump got 49.1% of the popular vote..

I think the community you're referring to is educated urbanites, probably mostly white, so it's the 45% of whites who didn't vote for Trump. The group to watch is Latinos, who are now 20% of the US population, and voted for Trump in larger numbers in 2024 than previously. — frank

I’m focusing on the high population-dense cities themselves, not ‘urban areas’ inclusive of vast stretches of sprawling conservative suburbs. The former are the communities I have in mind. Around 15-20% of Americans live within the city limits of the 50 largest U.S. cities by population.

The facts are readily available.

Notice this, too:


Nothing surprising here.

I’m focusing on the high population-dense cities themselves, not ‘urban areas’ inclusive of vast stretches of sprawling conservative suburbs. The former are the communities I have in mind. Around 15-20% of Americans live within the city limits of the 50 largest U.S. cities by population. — Joshs

Ok, but doesn't that mean the "other America" you spoke of is 80-85% of the population? Is that what you meant?

Ok, but doesn't that mean the "other America" you spoke of is 80-85% of the population? Is that what you meant? — frank

I don’t mean that literally 80-85% of the country is hostile to the philosophical and political values that urban America stands for. My point is that the cities give us the closest
thing to a consensus on these values, allowing us to think of them as representing a ‘country within a country’

and who is full of shit all of the time (Crockett) — Fire Ologist

We do have a record holder. ^{(2020, 2020, 2024)}
I guess people can double down with excuses or not care.

I don’t mean that literally 80-85% of the country is hostile to the philosophical and political values that urban America stands for. My point is that the cities give us the closest
thing to a consensus on these values, allowing us to think of them as representing a ‘country within a country’ — Joshs

:up: This is a view of Chicago from the suburbs. It looks like Oz.

very cool pic

You didn’t address the majority of what I asked you to address. So here’s a simpler philosophical question:

Do you hold Hitler morally culpable for any unjust death? And, if so, why?

Last I checked, Hitler never physically killed anyone with his own hands. All he did was say stuff. And we all damn well know that a good sum of it was vitriolically hateful - very much that speech that got him into political power to begin with. I could say more as to how I take this to relate to the non-Orwellian instantiations of what the UN has coined hate speech, but it would be contingent on what your stance might be to the above two questions, and I don’t want to jump the gun, so to speak.

BTW, though I’d be disappointed, I wouldn’t be either insulted or surprised by some stranger on the internet stating that, “No. Hitler was in fact perfectly innocent of any murder, for all he did was speak: he never once stabbed, shot, strangled, starved, etc. another human to death with his own hands.”

President Trump remembered the conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a “martyr” on Sunday in remarks at his memorial in Arizona, but he pivoted swiftly to blunt politics by saying that he hated his political opponents and that they “cheated like dogs.”

Striking a far different tone from that of Mr. Kirk’s widow, Erika, who spoke immediately before him, Mr. Trump said he disagreed with Mr. Kirk’s view of wanting the best for one’s opponent.

“I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them,” he said. — at Kirk Memorial

Yep.

Did you notice the hit piece in Crickey today, from that ratbag Bernard Keane?

It is an “agenda” of the white male id — capricious, short-fused, anxious, paranoid, jealous, demanding of control but resentful of the burden of responsibility control brings — the nihilism of privilege.

PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

Department of Educational Standards and Community Safety

Administration Announces Removal of Voltaire Materials from Public Institutions, Citing Harmful Content.

Following a comprehensive review by the Committee on Safe Learning Environments, the Administration today announced the immediate removal of all works by and about François-Marie Arouet, generally known as Voltaire, from public school curricula and library collections. The 18th-century author's writings have been deemed inconsistent with current community values and potentially harmful to social cohesion. "While we respect historical context, we cannot ignore the clear pattern of inflammatory rhetoric that permeates Voltaire's work," stated Dr. Patricia Mooreland, Director of Content Standards. "His persistent attacks on established institutions, combined with his documented use of divisive language regarding religious communities, creates an environment that is simply incompatible with our commitment to inclusive education."

The decision affects approximately 847 titles across the district's 23 branches, including "Candide," "Letters on the English," and various biographical works. Parents and educators have been provided with a curated list of alternative Enlightenment-era materials that promote critical thinking without the "needlessly provocative elements" found in Voltaire's corpus. School Superintendent Janet Brightwater emphasized that this action reflects the Administration's dedication to fostering learning environments where all students can feel safe and valued. "Education should challenge young minds," Brightwater noted, "but not at the expense of community harmony or respect for Christian beliefs. We remain committed to teaching the Enlightenment period through more constructive voices who advanced human knowledge without resorting to satirical attacks that could normalize intolerance."


(AI was utilised in the preparation of this post.)

Following a comprehensive review by the Committee on Safe Learning Environments, the Administration today announced the immediate removal of all works by and about François-Marie Arouet, generally known as Voltaire, from public school curricula and library collections. — Wayfarer

Since we are experiencing planetary cooling—well, not according to most scientists and other learned fork, but what the hell do they know—as long as we’ll have some hated books to burn in bonfires to keep us warm we should all be a’right. Brings to mind the good puritanical Savonarola days of old! Yay!

Damn leftists and their censorship of free speech, such as of books, I say! Sure, certain books such as Mein Kampf are untouched by all. But there was the censorship of Orwell and now it’s the censorship of LGTB books. What will these leftists do next? Claim that slavery was good for slaves and that history books evidencing otherwise are fake and unpatriotic? More stuff to heap into the bonfire of the vanities I guess.

If this humorously intended sarcasm of mine offends anyone then it must be hate speech, together with all “your mamma” jokes and comments about unliked hairdos. And this offensive speech of mine must thereby be legally criminalized as hate speech, or at least I must be harshly penalized and harassed until I either learn my lesson or else die. But if you find such an understanding of “hate speech” distasteful, the only remedy is for laws to not give a hoot about any speech whatsoever. Therefore, receiving death threats from anonymous strangers on your cell phone who make it clear they know where you live and other such details, that’s just free speech in the spirit of the law as interpreted by the forefathers of the constitution. Right? A death threat is just another’s humor and one then simply just doesn’t know how to take a joke. The current laws criminalizing death threats are, after all, just taking away your constitutional right to the freedom of speech to threaten others with their lives. It’s only speech, after all. Nothing more.

Yes, this sarcasm is in reply to a sarcastic post. With my sarcasm tentatively ended:

I’m guestimating here, but, maybe, just as no one is OK with having their loved ones murdered, no one would be unharmed (nothing about insulted here) by receiving repeated death threats for the remainder of their lives.

Extremes are for extremists. And I don't find the issue of free speech to be an exception.

But anyways, still wanting to hear from @Fire Ologist if Hitler was in any way morally culpable for unjust deaths.

bombarded with viewpoints that are abhorrent to you — Joshs

Not so much bombarded with views. Bombarded with condemnation maybe. It’s more annoying or tiresome than abhorrent.

I’m from Philly, currently in the suburbs, but born on Broad St and lived and worked in and around the city all my life. I always loved being from the city that hosted the scribing of such a great experiment in politics. Pretty cool to feel that history in the bricks around here. Something unique about the northeastern coastal cities - Boston to DC and all in between.

But the political debate today? That’s seems virtually the same where ever there is a Starbucks or a gas station around, city/countryside doesn’t matter so much. Concentrations of voters just make the same old story louder, but the one narrative we all have to face is: who is the “sexist, racist hater”. Right? So if people really want to get into it, the conversations are not about practical issues and views on them, it’s more about the threshold issue: “how could you be such a douche?”

Right? I mean if we are being honest. We have all been well-trained to know who the “fascists” are. It’s the republican, conservative, right wing. Giving them an inch is dangerous. Once we identify the republican/conservative, we at least know what type of character we are dealing with.

We need to address how Kirk was really a sexist about these women, and those trans. Was he being racist with Blacks here and illegal immigrants and whomever? How about Trump? How is Trump hateful this time, and that time? Always nefarious. Or Cavanaugh, or Clarence Thomas, or W. Bush, or whoever is republican, or whoever is conservative, on every channel (except we need to footnote Fox for some reason). And from every left-leaning leader, around the world, so that we all know: most republicans are racist, “hateful, hateful men…” It’s been this way since I first noticed in 1980 with Ronald Reagan (aka “OG Hitler”).

But before we go seceding the democrat rich cities from the anti-progressive rural country, what if Conservatives actually don’t hate the different races, and don’t hate the different sexes. Imagine that. What if we really don’t hate anyone and just have much better ideas for what to do to improve the machine we’ve built ourselves?

Then we might actually want to debate guns, or Israel, or trans with a conservative. But..naaaaah. It is way too “white supremecist” to discuss border wall or ICE policy with a conservative.

Do you want the 15% or so conservatives who live in the city-country within the country to stay, or are we talking total political cleansing? Perfect the echo chamber?

I don’t see anything so incorrigibly new about today that makes it necessary to seriously consider secession of cities from the country. And if not necessary, it sounds like an enormous effort.

You called me “shrill” and said I must feel “bombarded with viewpoints that are abhorrent to me” so you must feel bombarded too, no? Why else would you notice that about my words?

But should we blame the bombs we throw on those who somehow asked for them, or blame ourselves for throwing bombs at all? I blame myself. I don’t want to be shrill if by shrill I simply push you away.

I certainly don’t think I’m racist or being racist, or sexist or hateful.

Circling back, I know well what it is like to be hated for what I think and say, because people hate fascist, racist pigs, and I’m conservative, and like Hollywood agrees, we all know what that means. But I still don’t see any wisdom or benefit in putting the responsibility of regulating our “hate speech” in the hands of any shitty government.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the people who like the idea of hate speech legislation, where the ones who hated others most often?

the cities give us the closest
thing to a consensus on these values, allowing us to think of them as representing a ‘country within a country’ — Joshs

I certainly agree that Dems win control or have much power in the big cities and the Repubs win control or sway everywhere else.

But what I see, is that the cities feed off of the land and can’t survive without it. And the democrat cities also feed off of themselves. As soon as taxes start to chip away at growth, the rich people will flee the city. There can be no cutting out the conservative rural areas from a thriving city. I only mean thriving in one way: surviving with some growth.

Progressive/leftist ideas may work, but we would absolutely have to give up freedom and hand over much more power to the government. I don’t think China or anywhere on earth is enough inspiration to change the model that built the US.

We are going to have to figure out how to stop talking about who is the worst fascist dictator or who is the hater. It’s such a waste of time.

Do you hold Hitler morally culpable for any unjust death? And, if so, why? — javra

So because I am a conservative we have to clear up my relationship to Hitler.

You precisely exemplify my point to @Joshs just above.

We have all been well-trained to know who the “fascists” are. It’s the republican, conservative, right wing. — Fire Ologist

To answer your question. Yes. Hitler was a homicidal maniac who seized control of a country and directly caused the deaths of tens of millions. Why do I think that? Because that is how tyranny rolls. Do we really need to breakdown a “why” question about whether Hitler was a murderer? It’s just so tiresome.

I could say more as to how I take this to relate to the non-Orwellian instantiations of what the UN has coined hate speech, — javra

Please do.

I’ll give you my take. Absolute freedom of political speech, allowing even Hitler to speak, is the only way to prevent us from finding ourselves taken over by a Hitler. Hate speech legislation is no way to prevent Hitler from taking over. It’s a pathetically dumb idea. We need to be able to sound as hateful as we want when we see a Hitler taking over. We need to be able to scream “Trump is a vile fascist baby Hitler” if we want. The question isn’t what we can and cannot say because we can say anything; the question is WHAT will we say now that we have this freedom. Is it important to worry about Trump? Or what’s important to you?

But if all conservatives must be racist sexist pigs, what’s the point of asking their opinion on anything anyway? Right?

The left and the right can both be tyrannical, or authoritarian in their own way. It’s not really a comtinuum. Trump in his own way is just as bad as Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden when it comes to this bullshit. They all end up dictatimg certain shit. Question is what, and are the checks and balances in place. I wasn’t afraid with Obama and Biden, and I’m not afraid with Trump.

Question for you (that we should all know the answer to): is a black lesbian voting against her own interests by default, if she votes republican?