Is it supposed to be a gotcha — praxis

Absolutely not. That would require me to be speaking in bad faith. So thanks again for that assumption.

It’s just, me and Jeremy and many others on this thread seem to be able to identify what woke means, what is woke, and what isn’t. And the woke people on the thread won’t talk about it, and say they don’t know what woke means. And would rather talk about Hitler.

I just want to engage on the issues. The issue is “the End of Woke” so seems to me a working definition of woke, from a woke subscriber, would be instructive.

Sorry for the length of the post! — Jeremy Murray

Me too! :razz:

Possible World Series opponents, — Jeremy Murray

Toronto? Yes indeed! Hope so for both of us!
And Schwenksville - that’s crazy! Been there myself. That’s the home of the annual Philly Folk Festival, for 60 plus years now.

I think the desire for shared values is universally human, and it seems to me that this group felt this too, and defaulted to standards forged in an era of righteous moral outrage. It was easy to see systems actually oppressing people, locally and globally, in the 60s, perhaps for the first time in human history. — Jeremy Murray

I agree - underneath it all when being honest - most adults are just people, and do share a few basic values.
But also, looking only surface deep at each other (which wokeism promotes with its focus on race and physical identity), people easily become reluctant to notice what we share in common. We all give in to fear and ignorance and tribalism too easily, and it becomes too hard to offer humility and respect (and the left chastises any show of respect for the other side). So any shared values we might identify never get a chance to help us come together.

Systems oppress, — Jeremy Murray

Yes - this is ingrained. And although systems do limit us, oppress is the wrong word. So it is irrational to reify the insight that “systems oppress” as wokeism does. For people who think simply that systems oppress, what is not admitted or dealt with is this: when systems are toppled, new systems emerge, so we can’t just say “systems, like oppression, are always bad, and must never take hold”. We need to make good systems, not no systems. There will always be systems and hierarchies, and the powerful and the weak. Period. We need to grapple with that, not imagine it doesn’t exist and shoot for toppling all systematizers. We are all adherence to system. Period. So let’s get to work on a good one, not blindly topple all of them.

This relativistic, vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough to survive algorithmic abuse. — Jeremy Murray

That is interesting. And I agree. The “vibe-oriented moral consensus is not sturdy enough.” One man’s good vibe is another man’s vague confusion. This is the problem with consensus based conclusions generally. Reliance on a consensus to ground authority doesn’t work as soon leadership conflicts with itself ans our leaders live to do, and also as soon as the populous is split 50/50, which it is. There is no moral authority. Too often, no one even wants to identify a consensus. They just want to shout louder and see if the loudest one wins the day. And consensus changes with the wind, as it has for female athletes and gay people, thanks to the new trans consensus.

It is rare to find a DEI expert who doesn't drape themselves in some sort of spirituality these days - indigenous 'ways of knowing', for example. — Jeremy Murray

I agree. DEI and wokeism has always been more of a moral system, or religion, than a political/legal/practical system. Woke does not need to use reason or debate to persuade and coerce. And in fact, anyone who doesn’t just get it and accept the proclamations of DEI, must be deficient and incapable of reason anyway - like a sinner. That is the only clarity - they are certain of what is evil. Trump and his ilk are beneath reasonableness and worthy of contempt as evil doers. But as far as the positive proclamations of woke, that is now postmodern and amorphous, amenable only to posturing, confusion (often intentional confusion) and moral conflict. Total mess when the left runs things.

The only person I can't trust is one certain of his views on subjective matters. — Jeremy Murray

Don’t you think that describes the vast, vast majority of leftists? They are so certain a man like Kirk gets killed annd they are so certain they can celebrate it, and vilify any/all who show any sympathy for the dead man. It takes some kind of certainty to act they way. Celebrating victimization is supposed to be the type of oppressive behavior the left hates and seeks to redress. But they can’t see Charlie was a victim at all, despite the blood and the murder on a sunny day at a stimulus school for kids. They utterly blow the moral argument all of the time, utterly contradict any moral authority they think they have, and then, with zero self-reflection, they confidently act like the oppressors they are supposed to be resisting. Like affirmative action - it should be sour medicine at best, but instead, it is reverse racism to be celebrated for some reason.

Look, I obviously tend to be more harsh on the left than the right, because I’m conservative. (And have been brow beaten all my adult life.) But I think the conservative counter-argument to the wrongs the left have been perpetrating in the name of political correctness/wokism are much more relevant today than the more shallow fears and purported injustices the left wants to focus on. Many might not want to admit it, but the US, and really the world, is in a better place today since Trump took office. The biggest threat to the US today is the same as it has been for 20 years - Democrat policies. Conservative racism and fascism is simply put, bullshit. The left is full of too much obvious bullshit, and too many people already see it, too many have seen enough of it, and too many people are leaving the Democrat Party everyday the left does and says another stupid thing.

Richard Hanania.

Just invoking his name is enough for members of this mob to simply dismiss me outright. The most frightening think about this kind of groupthink is the certitude. — Jeremy Murray

That is a problem. The left can’t tolerate true diversity. The left drops all balls they think matter, and never picks up the balls that actually do matter.

I will say, I have less fear of those who are certain. What bothers me is what such people do when their certainty is challenged. If you are certain, ok, but if someone disagrees with you, you can shut the opponent down, or you can engage and convince them of the truth you are so certain about. I just want engagement, and certainly not more shutting down and shouting down. Rational certainty is fine (and should indeed be rare). Emotionally driven certainty - makes for a terrible conversation.

It feels as though the woke mob has turned a blind eye. It's not that they choose not to see - it is that they cannot. They no longer have the capacity. — Jeremy Murray

Yes! And they have turned a blind eye towards their own self - they will not look in the mirror. The woke are now the most asleep among us. And it is a loss to all of us, and to healthy debate.

woke ideology may, in some clear ways, across a variety of issues, be causing harm to the groups it is meant to empower. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, but I wouldn’t say “may” - I’d just say “clearly”. How about gender, and children? How about women athletes? How about Jewish people? How about poor inner city folks? How about language - basic words are no longer supposed to have meaning. What does “woman” or “fascist” really mean anymore - when the examples they give of each are unrecognizable )or purposefully hollow)?

The world would be better off with a healthy, moral, intellectually and politically viable left. — Jeremy Murray

100%. Liberal thought gave us the US constitution and the modern nation-state. Liberal thought gave us more faith in science and reason. You have to have some liberal in you to be an artist, and art is vital. There is a lot more work to be done, and the creative spirit of liberalism is always going to be needed. So I fully agree here.

But the left is too greedy with power and control to risk humility and partnership with anyone who isn’t a parrot. The left would say my praise for the goods of liberalism are not enough, and so useless and shrug me off.

The left is destroying the good of liberalism, as it destroys everything it touches. In the name of sexual freedom, they promote and push chopping off body parts, and their reasoning is to “affirm gender” - so clearly irrational, or at least, chopping off adolescent body parts is valid as a debate topic. Except to a wokeist.

FWIW, I think MAGA is an insane movement too. — Jeremy Murray

I know you do. Which is why I appreciate your voice of reason here on the forum. And thanks for making sure I knew that - that is your good faith and honesty coming through, which I already knew (but thanks).

The media image of Maga is insane, and there are millions of idiots to choose from as examples of what is wrong with MAGA. That is a worthy analysis to undergo.

The caricature of the conservative is so deeply ingrained in western culture, it is easy to find people who appear to be just another redneck, Nazi republican. It it so clear, in the media, who the bad guys are, and they (we) are so vilified, that the constant browbeating fuels actual bad guys, the worst elements of Maga.

But if you look closer, there are tens of millions of folks like me. We are lumped in with the media boogeyman that is conservatism, and with MAGA. But most of us are slightly less ignorant, not the least bit fascist, and not interested in race or whatever adults want to do with other adults in their pants and skirts. The conservative (not MAGA) movement can think, and we see through the slogans and posturing and ridiculous ideas on both sides. (but due to the destructiveness of wokeism are focused on the left’s bad ideas). There are armies of black people, and immigrants and women who are firm, politically literate conservative thinkers. To us, MAGA is just a campaign slogan.

People just want to be proud of where they live and their country. It should be ok to want to make your country great. It shouldn’t immediate be distrusted by Americans.

Americanism and American culture (for Americans) is supposed to be a shared value. The left would never say that, and that alone is a problem. It’s not reality to think America is nearly as bad as the left says America is. It’s just not the case. Millions of immigrants understand that better than the Democrat party does.

That should give pause that the left never seems to take, even after a convicted felon who boasts about assaulting women wins election twice - that’s how wrong voters see the left and they won’t self-assess.

I imagine the majority of posters here think me a conservative. I just find it too easy for people to dismiss me via perceived political ideology. — Jeremy Murray

The vast majority of human beings have some conservative ideas and impulses. That doesn’t make everyone conservative. So any posters who think you are “a conservative” are not paying attention. I see you as more of a classic liberal. Like liberals were in the 1980s. Reagan was still called a Nazi then, but liberals had way more internal consistency (rationality) and way more respect and ability to debate back them.

Today’s left doesn’t tolerate debate with the right, and in the same breath they squander credibility as they shrink their tent, and leave reasonable people like you out.

There are a lot of people like you. The left has no tools or means to win you back because they don’t have to win arguments - they only have to indoctrinate youth and shout down opposition, and tear down institutions - that’s what victory is to them. Bad ideas masquerading as moral goodness defeating evil white Christian men.

But I agree - I wish there were more liberals like you. Independent liberal thinkers. Who show good faith and accept good faith from their opponents. And who want to create/discuss practical solutions for all people not just moralize about who is good and who is bad.

Cheers.

I am still looking for a way to actually connect on something (anything) with folks like @praxis and @Mijin, who would rather not say want woke IS, while being so sure whatever I think IS NOT true, for some reason.

They want to take away all the cake from everyone, and eat it too.

But they must think I, a conservative who can actually find good things about Trump, I must like raping women, hurting trans people, and I must want to enslave all non-whites. That I am unreasonable, and willfully blind to facts. So I can’t really blame them for not actually treating me with any respect or honesty. They may not know it, but I wouldn’t debate with Hitler either, if that is what I thought about my opponent.

They may not want to admit, but we Westerners have a lot of good things in common with each other. We, and the culture that has been entrusted to us, is worth ironing out to include the left and the right.

The left needs to soul search and they are too prideful to do it.

How about this: MAGA wants to make things great again. Woke wants to make things great for the first time.

So let’s show guys like Trump and girls like AOC some respect and just make things great period. Together.

(But, I know, we are all too invested in fighting to take that shit seriously…). Such a shame.

The progressives can’t fathom a different opinion than their own.
— Fire Ologist

I can understand different opinions. It’s not that difficult. — praxis

That is the closest you’ve come to just saying you are a progressive. I appreciate the openness.

You are right. What I said above was imprecise. I should say this instead: On many issues relating to political power, culture and human interaction, Progressives can’t fathom a good person could possibly hold conservative, Republican opinions.

It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism. — Jeremy Murray

Gotta admit, there are people who misjudge, and therefore abuse, the Kirk situation from both sides.

But the vast majority of people on the right see it as only tragic. But tragic for all sides. Bad for the country, and bad for liberty and peace, and for life itself. (The frickin guy bled from his neck to death for using a microphone at school.) Many on the left get the picture too. But not enough it seems.

This Kirk thing will be around for a while. This is like an MLK. The left doesn’t understand how browbeaten conservatives have been, because they are the last people to admit it.

Kirk is going to represent a new vocalization of conservative values, and a sort of last straw.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to be labeled fascist, racist, sexist Hitler wannabes. Since President Nixon and the 1960s really.

I think the media will all be forced to show another side of conservatives and republicans. The media no longer can contain a more realistic image of the average conservative, hidden behind the caricature the progressive left wants to portray.

Kirk just doesn’t look like a racist sexist, person, and because the left won’t look at him, they are the only ones who can’t see that.

The irony is, it’s like the right has become woke - awoken to the need to deny being a racist, and repudiate the harmful folly of DEI, and speak the truth of proven traditions.

There are terrible things in the past, but those are all the left sees. And they make up new terrible things and boogiemen and want to talk about them as well - and all republicans always go in the same bucks the rest of th terrible things they only want to look at. At once, morally superior as they burn down everyone who is not monolithically with them.

No longer will that be the only conversation. Kimmel and Colbert, and many other screaming wokeists just don’t function like they used to.

If things remain on the current trajectory for another year, and things get better in the economy at all, and there is no “blue wave” (Democrat takeover of Congress) next November, the media (maybe even Hollywood) will have to pivot.

Once in a while, the world might see a lovable conservative. Maybe someday…

The hand on the scale is wavering.

But the schools will have to turn around a bit, and that will be tough as that is really where leftism/ wokeism seems most comfortable, and apparently, bold and militant.

BTW, you are borderline heroic to me in your efforts in this thread. — Jeremy Murray

I didn’t think anyone was even following, so thanks for noticing the feeble effort. You are making a lot of sense to me as well.

government thing — jorndoe

Maybe, but I was talking about your average progressive Democrat. Not the government. (At least not currently.)

If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave — Trump

Sounds like a tough meeting for the top brass. I’m sure our military leaders can handle tough confrontations, don’t you think? That meeting inspired and emboldened, as much as it drew any petty outrage or fear, and as much as it annoyed the media-leftist-democrat (woke) complex. More good than harm done there, if you ask me.

“Outsider” is an odd term to use. — praxis

Why is that? There are many outsiders to leftist progressives. Identity politics, a vital progressive tactic, creates outsiders and insiders by its very nature. (The right also uses identity politics - it’s a shitty tactic just as well. The right could screw up this moment easily with their own othering, but I’m still trying to talk about the woke left.)

Unintentionally (with no self awareness) progressives are the kings of othering and dehumanizing and shouting down the outsider (fascist! Racist! sexist rapist, Hitler, Nazi, hater, gestapo, republican, white man, deplorable, redneck (rural-flyover country) etc…). And outside the buckets, the left makes outsiders on a case by case basis too. Plenty of progressives and democrats in the 1980s were pro life, but not any more. If you think you are left but think abortion is killing a person, are you welcome to the Democrat party? Or if you think men and women are just different, you can’t be woke or left or progressive anymore. Today we no longer know if feminists are woke enough, because they seem to conflict with trans and general cutting edge sexist analysis.

Are you an American? I always find it strange how the entire WEIRD world seems to have imported the binary of Republican / Democrat. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, I’m an American. From Philadelphia - the cradle of liberty. The US’s Democrat/ Repub division of the political parties does seem to be fairly universal. There are all types of people on an individual basis, but generally, the left-leaning/progressive thinkers are Democrats here, and the right-leaning/conservative thinkers are republicans. All nuanced and truly independent thought unfortunately often (not always) gets trampled by these two mobs, but I think it is becoming clear that the left finds more strength in the mob than they do in their own ideas. So the independent folks are being trampled by the left and turned away from the left. They have no where else to go but the Republican Party, and it helps republicans win elections.

the impact of woke is to silence the centre. T
— Jeremy Murray — Fire Ologist

That is really interesting. I heard an anecdote the other day that points to this same observation of yours.

This woman said she was probably 70% liberal/progressive, and 30% conservative. But she was a registered Independent. So she mostly disagreed with the republicans, and would argue with them constantly, but on the few issues where they could agree, they would be able to connect, and even bond. So in the end they generally got along dispute mostly disagreeing. But when she was with the democrats, the Dems didn’t care how much they agreed, they would shut her down and kick her out for not conforming on all issues.

The progressives can’t fathom a different opinion than their own. Any outsider on any issue must be a facist/racist/sexist, and all of those who hold any opinion that opposes them, indicates to them a person who cannot be trusted on anything. Such people are to be feared, hated and silenced.

This is the left’s biggest problem - it’s become mob rule at its worst.

Hume's anthropology/psychology is what justifies his skeptical positions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could the same point be made by saying instead “Hume uses anthropology/psychology to justify his skeptical positions.”? This leaves open the question of whether his anthropology/psychology was any good to actually justify his skepticism.

But I could see our experience of our own mind being different than our sense based experience.
— Fire Ologist

I don't see how this helps. In virtue of what is Hume's introspection more right than those of pre-modern thinkers or modern phenomenologists, etc. such that we should dismiss their understanding of how the mind works and accept Hume's? Consider also the idea that the act of understanding is luminous (reflexive). Hume can deny this on the grounds of introspection, but why ought we believe he introspects more correctly than his opponents? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t agree with Hume’s conclusions.

When I said “experience of our own mind being different than our sense experience” I was precisely referring to the fact of reflection in the mind (luminous understanding). Sense impression as a basis for all mental reflection is a great empirically based theory, but Hume was too enamored of this theory. Knowing the mind and ideas is just different than knowing a sense object. Knowing qua knowing is not merely knowing qua sensing. What the eye and brain do when seeing is analogous to what the mind does in itself when reflecting, but it’s only an analogy. From what I can tell, one needs a completely different mechanism (epistemology that involves essences) to explain reflection, not just one involving Hume’s faded recollections.

How do you mean Hume can deny this on the grounds of introspection?

Hume didn’t explain habitualness. Hume didn’t satisfactorily explain whatever might make some habit more functional than another - he just asserted we had no way to know this. It’s great how the billiard balls moved the way he predicted, but he ultimately wasn’t talking about billiard balls when he made any predictions, since their existence and behavior were experiences of his sense perceptions, not experiences of any thing in the world on which these sense impressions were verifiably (justifiably) based.

How different is the picture Hume ultimately creates than the picture Plato creates of the man chained in the cave seeing shadows of things, but not seeing things? Plato just added the possibility of breaking free of the chains. And I would say, an act of reflection itself involves some break from the pre-reflective, chained self that seeks to know.

skepticism cannot be escaped if we accept the premises. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which, ironically, makes experience something of a miracle.

He cannot know the reality of how the mind works for the same reason he cannot know causes in the classical sense, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you explain that further?

Maybe Hume just didn’t get into it? But I could see our experience of our own mind being different than our sense based experience. (I guess that is what Kant did.).

what makes them legitimate if they are not justified by reason? — JuanZu

Nothing. What makes the notion of “legitimate” coherent and applicable divorced from reason? Nothing.

If you believe as Hume does that constant conjunction has little or nothing to do with necessary connection, then belief in the necessary connection between two constantly conjoined things, is fancy, or practical for now, or whatever else you want to believe about it. It’s not actually true or actually legitimate.

Ask Hume, what do vivid impressions cause? He has to say “stop asking stupid questions.” But to “impress” is to transfer something, from one, to another. Light impresses itself upon my eyeballs. Do my eyeballs and the light cause anything? Or do I just constantly connect them to my “visions” out of habit (can’t say “force of habit” because “force” sounds like a cause)? He had to say that light and eyeballs don’t cause - causation is a figment of our minds. But for some reason he allows constant conjunction and “recurrent association” to be prior to a judgment of belief - like a cause is prior to some effect. (I guess if we just avoid using the word “cause” and stand on “recurrent” we can lift up a rational “conclusion” of “legitimacy” - without sounding as naive as people who still believe and say “cause” and believe they actually know something about the world.)

I agree with Hume that “cause” itself is a metaphysical concept. But I agree with Aristotle that metaphysical concepts, formal causes, exist - minds alone can sense or grasp or discern or understand or constitute, or believe them…

What the hell — Tom Storm

I find this cloying — Tom Storm

Nazis and the Communists — Tom Storm

Well mass murder and war are also venerable — Tom Storm

I’m guessing the above isn’t quite what you were trying to inspire? :joke:

I appreciate the spirit.

I think you are reifying empathy a bit much. “Collective consciousness” and the “heartbeat of Mother Earth” sound like a new religion. Is this what you meant to conjure up?

But I feel how big it all is too.

And I like these a lot:

Active Listening: Engage with others' perspectives, without judgment, to build understanding and trust.

Small Acts of Kindness: Offer help or a kind word to strengthen community bonds. Small kindness holds the very principles of giving without needing anything in return. (Smallest lesson in life have the biggest effects when learned). — RadicalJoe

I am listening to you there. And as an act of kindness, I’ll say, keep putting out the hopeful vibes brother.

Aren’t we lucky to be alive today? It’s too late for me - I will forever be grateful. I have great hope too. Let’s take all of the shit, and show what great works we can do with it!

Peace.

It appears to me that there are no coherent, shared moral principles around which Woke states can organize themselves that do not lead to increased polarization and a rejection of the local community in favor of a shared global community of values found on screens. — Jeremy Murray

I agree.

Too often any discussion platform becomes shout down, shut out, (even duck and seek cover it seems). Everyone is too comfortable with the polarization. We just throw the opposition into their appropriate, factually incorrect, buckets of deplorables and shout at them. All tribes do this.

No one wants to apply any self-awareness about how we exacerbate what we fear. We scream “fire fire!” while reaching for the gasoline.

There is so precious little good faith left between the sides. And it is not just extremists on both sides. It’s everyone. The line between Republican and Democrat is stark (woke securely on the progressive side, and conservatives squarely republican) like a border wall.

No one even sees or hears each other anymore. Or wants to.

I agree there are some coherent moral principles shared between the two sides. Like free speech is a good one. Everyone knows free political speech is an essential right. But instead of building on that shared principle, we’ve all been too demonized to trust anything the opposition says (in both directions). The conversation about free speech is “yeah, but you cheered when Kirk was shot!” Versus “yeah, but you cheered when the FCC shut down Kimmel!”

Another is due process before the law and fairness. We all agree on that.

And if people take a breath and say “I agree with you - how to do we come together with a consistent response to attacks on free speech?” It all falls to crap with “how could you possibly agree with me because of ten other grievances - I don’t trust you at all.”

No one takes an argument from the other side at face value.

And our politicians are playing a game to score points with their bases in order to gain votes to extend their political careers. At least that is what a lot of them sound like to me. Just in another game, and not serious.

You would hope the philosophic types around here would be able to parse through the emotional knee-jerk mess a little better, identify facts, and stay logical and reasonable with the analysis and conclusions. But even here, people just overlook each other, and look through the text for dog-whistles and lies, and seek ways to avoid or downplay bad facts instead of just dealing with the best arguments. I’m sure many who read this and know I’m conservative, are thinking of all the ways to shred it for ill-intent, and to show how I am somehow being fascist (because fascism and conservatism must go hand in hand), and how I must not be a reasonable person.

No one wants to believe we really have the capability to do much better. Things are dire because leadership (Trump, JD Vance, AOC, Jeffries, etc.) cannot help themselves from fanning flames. Flames score points.

especially for young people who see our naked emperor. — Jeremy Murray

Is the naked emperor on both sides? Is wokism the naked emperor, along with conservatives’ often excessive and cold-hearted ways?

’m baffled by your once again separating politics from ethics/morality. — javra

I thought you wanted to separate out the politics.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Because I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I’m baffled myself.

you previously agreed the two are entwined — javra

Well, morality is entwined in every human interaction.

This would mean not separate. — javra

But we can separate things to talk about them. I thought that was what you were trying to do.

So back to non-legally sanctioned systems of checks and balances. — javra

Exactly.

hate speech is bad for society, — javra

Yes.

it is dangerous to criminalize — javra

Yes (and, to me, discussion around this point is the heart of discussion of the term “hate speech”)

and the preservation of free speech should bring about a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate [hate speech]. — javra

Close enough. (We probably agree here too. I might say here that, by keeping political debate free, we protect an opportunity resolve differences. So not so reliant on the emergence of checks and balances, but just opportunity to argue it out.

For my part, I’ll leave it at that. — javra

I’ll consider it left. :up:

Two men stand beside a woman. The first man turns to the second, and says "Shoot her." The second man looks shocked, then raises a gun and shoots the woman. — Banno

I think it should be clear by now that speech isn’t always political. You can do other things besides debate using words, like giving commands to shoot.

We went through this analysis above with “incites physical violence.”
See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1014774

Speech that incites physical violence can be regulated and punished. We all agree there.

in response to assertions that utterances could not injure. You asked if Hitler injured people through his utterances. — Banno

I was so thorough about that, @javra had to tell me stop talking about it. Speech that incites violence gets regulated. Hitler did murder. No one contests that.

But we don’t need to define “hate speech” to regulate anything that incites violence, and all we need to do is look at the violence to understand how to regulate it. It can be emotionless speech (as in “shoot her”) and it becomes illegal if someone attempts or effectuates murder because of it.

But Banno, and @Tom Storm, what happens if the second man doesn’t shoot anyone? The Austin hypo is pretty stark - I mean such a cold “shoot her” - but what about something more realistic. Someone is spewing hate, stirring up a vigilante gang to go do murder, and everyone just mocks the guy and goes home. I agree the police need to check the obvious mental health and safety based on that scene, but do you want to just arrest him?

Dont you think we can regulate this without getting into the content of people’s speech? Or do we need banned words like Facebook?

Is there a forum for adults where absolutely everything and anything can legally be spoken, or do you think that is dangerous? I see more danger in NOT having a forum for all political speech.

I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I'm partly concerned about speech that dehumanizes, in and of itself. — javra

Ok, so just be sure we are eye to eye, in the former phrase “speech that dehumanizes and incites physical violence” you are more interested in addressing the “speech that dehumanizes” part, not the “incites violence” part. Which makes sense, because I think we dispensed with the “incites violence” part as a legal issue that is already addressed in the law and need have nothing to do with hate speech, which we’ve clarified has to do with “speech that dehumanizes”.

So now, this seems to me, would not be a political discussion but is a moral/ethical one. Maybe psychological or developmental. Maybe even linguistic, or aesthetic.

But all of this speech we are taking about is free - because we aren’t begging the government show up because of any violence that was incited by the speech.

physical defense against a physical assailant … and …a mass murderer shooting people on the streets ….. Both are perverse interpretations of what is ethical: — javra

Focused on ethics, got it. I stripped this down. But I don’t agree there is no such thing as ethical self-defense. Nor would I agree sniping from a roof top, unless a soldier in war, could ever be deemed self-defense.

Not sure I am following here.

The victim becomes “the victimizer” and the victimizer “the victim”. — javra

So does the victim become the victimizer, meaning circumstances change as x-victim becomes x-victimizer, or are you saying x was never really a victim? I think the former. But since you equated self defense with murder, I am not sure. So maybe I misunderstand. Can you restate your point here? How is self defense that leads to death the same as murder, if that is part of your idea here?

Something quite common in authoritarian systems and mindsets. — javra

“physical defense against a physical assailant … and …a murderer” seem common to humanity. We seem to be veering back towards who is fascist and the political again (which begs questions of law and government intervention, legal systems).

is it anyone’s belief hereabout that more hate speech will mitigate the hate speech that might otherwise occur?

Here’s an analogy that I so far don’t find faulty: one rotten apple will spoil the bunch; — javra

So one hate speaker spawns a whole bunch of hate speakers. That’s called social media these days. :joke: But the trick is to respond to hate speech with… rational speech. Then, the rotten apple either heals and becomes healthy, or it continues to rot on its own - but responsible adults need not fear being spoiled because of someone else’s speech. I don’t think we can somehow ban all rotten apples. We need to deal with them. And if they incite violence, well, we already agree there.

can you then explain how hatred toward a dehumanized other (and an increased occurrence of it in opposing directions) can bring about greater equality of rights for all within the given community? — javra

I couldn’t explain that. That sounds more like it would lead to civil war, not greater equality.

does anyone hereabout endorse the use of hate speech as beneficial? — javra

Well, no. But who gets to decide what is hateful and what is not? Free speech is beneficial. If someone uses that freedom to spew hate, that’s now open to rebuttal.

I think we have to recall there are various things people can do and can incite when they speak. Hitler used words to effect genocidal murder all across Europe. Those words were not “free speech”. He wasn’t debating, arguing, convincing, defining - he was ordering, directing action, murdering...

Free speech is sacrosanct when it is political speech - debate among policy makers and elected officials and in political campaigns, and between two adults in a lounge.

[...] I’ve heard a lot of disparaging in my life of political correctness. The tyranny of such and so forth. So if we take away all political correctness, what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides? — javra

I agree with the thrust of where you are going here - the term “political correctness” is a misused weaponized frisbee. Many disparage the term itself. People usually use the term when they disagree with what they perceive the majority is demanding they think or say. Like “it’s politically correct to say ‘women can do anything men can do’ but I disagree.” That’s when you see the term “politically correct” - when someone disagrees with what they see as the majority (polis) opinion of correctness.

But you are right. Political correctness is akin to simply being polite. If we took away all sense of political correctness, we would descend into verbal war, and likely incite violence.

That said, we just have to remember that we can’t make laws about what is politically correct or incorrect to say. And I personally don’t need any hard and fast rules. The law is that we can say anything. With that freedom we need to work out a polite society, together, hearing all opinions. And in that free process, we are going to hear some hateful shit. I believe that is unfortunately the best we can do.

[...] what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides? — javra

See, you just slipped in “can easily lead”. Do you really need a check for speech, meaning a mechanism to stop speech, if that speech merely “can” possibly lead to….anything? I mean what else can a speech lead to? We’ll never know if we stop it before we hear it.

You sound to me like you are trying to find away to regulate the speech of other people. Not by government maybe, but that there are things that, if even spoken, by default, require some sort of approbation or punishment.

What I would say is, we all know that crap when we hear it (because we know how to be polite). I’d rather hear it, and deal with it with more speech, then come up with some system that states it can never be spoken.

Are there any methods, practices, or approaches that truly help a person appreciate what they already have — Astorre

I wish - sign me up.

I like @180 Proof answer - dancing. Just force yourself to act joyous, listening to a favorite jam, and gratitude and laughter follow.

It’s why arts education from children on up is so important - that is the gravy or icing on top that forces gratitude.

But doing good for others is the best way to experience gratitude, I think. When you show real charity, you are always humbled by how much you receive from it. You can never do enough charity, and that makes you realize how blessed you are. You might think you get guilty since you can never do enough, but if you are really open to things, you are grateful saving the whole world isn’t your responsibility.

So I think gratitude follows mostly from doing, not from learning.

And gratitude can be a basis for a relationship with God and the transcendent and the eternal - when there is no one left to thank and you still feel such great gratitude, God can show up.

So incitement is possible? Glad you came around in the end. — Michael

Totally true.

you do have some ‘splaining to do.

On the other thread you would never have said this:

…speech incites violence… — NOS4A2

You do realize “to incite” is “to cause”.

So I agree with WHAT you are concluding here on this thread, but I have a feeling I still disagree with HOW you come to this conclusion per the other thread.

hate preachers, holocaust deniers, and racists of all types are viewed as cranks in American culture. Chomsky makes this point, that anyone can publish works of holocaust denial in the US and no one really pays them much notice. If you do that in Europe, where it is often illegal, their work gets all sorts of press. — NOS4A2

:up:

That shows one of the disconnects between progressive intentions and the actual effects of progressive policy on hate speech. There are others.

Sure, no one should be denying the holocaust - it’s a horrible, painfully provable fact. So any fool who denies facts should stick to their mom’s basement and listen to people when they tell him to shut up.

But progressive outrage leading to hate speech law to silence idiotic bullshit, ends up highlighting the idiotic bullshit - dragging it through court for a full hearing, answer the media’s questions so they can do an Op Ed. And in the end, the hate speech policy intended to silence hate speech, advertises and promotes it.

If you haven’t yet caught on to what I’ve been saying in my posts, I agree that making laws against hate speech in the US can easily become utterly dystopian. — javra

I did understand that, and so I should have said in my last post “so let me put the legal status of ‘hate speech’ to bed, and show why I agree with you that this need not be a legal issue.”

I am curious if you agree that “dehumanizes” is superfluous to how a proposed hate speech law would be enforced. Or that giving the government the power to adjudicate what is hateful and what isn’t creates the dystopia you just referenced. You agree with those two things?

Should there be a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate speech which dehumanizes and incites violence against others? And, if so, what ought these checks and balances within society be? — javra

No. We don’t need a “system” for this. We need more speech. We need the same exact system that allows for all speech. Hate speech is checked by reasonable rebuttal. Haters are always unreasonable, always ignorant, easy to prove they are incoherent and self-contradictory and ignorant. We all owe each other more respect and humility than a hate speaker can muster, so hating is a breakdown within the hater. And it is only defeated by changing minds and hearts through more speech.

But you said speech “which dehumanizes and incites violence”. Why do you keep bringing up “incites violence”? If it “incites violence” it’s a legal issue again, and we already have a system to put the violence in check.

I think you are worried about this: “speech that dehumanizes and could possibly incite terrible violence”.

Is that more accurate? If you keep bringing “incites violence” into it, then yes, we need the legal system we have in place to check against such incitement. We don’t need a hate speech law, we have laws to handle anything that incites violence.

If you take out actual incitement, evidenced by actual violence, and just have someone spewing hate speech, then no new system makes any sense to me, just more speech, and common sense and rebuttal and education - maybe forgiveness and mercy are needed.

How would we systematize peaceful dialogue? The only way I see is to hear out the haters. And hear out everyone else.

The response to hate speech is rebuttal speech, it seems to me.

If you are not talking about the legal system, I don’t know what social system you imagine could effectively stop a hater from hating out loud. Besides common courtesy, education in respect, education in love and forgiveness - all basically more speech.

The only real system to defeat hate is a moral system. Society has been trying to set that system up since the first Shaman said “listen to me”.

We each get to be Shaman in a free society, so I think the only system to combat hate speech is more speech.

As soon as hate invites violence, then the government pounces. Then the issue is no longer the speech or the hate though, it’s the violence.

———

Do you think speech IS violence when it is hate speech?

I have a few questions up above, so, I appreciate your time.

the lowest class…always talking about persons. — Attributed to Henry Thomas Buckle

Interesting idea, but really, what person are you talking about? :joke:

speech that dehumanizes others and incites physical violence against them — javra

This is a great working definition for ‘hate speech.’ And it is clear enough to be an enforceable law.

But when we go to enforce this law, it looks to me like the “dehumanizes” part becomes superfluous. And the enforceable law ends up merely “speech that incites violence.”

As a test case:

In town, there is a rich white man who owns a Tesla Dealership. A woman stands on the corner and yells: “I hate all white men, those dogs need to be put down. I mean dead! Musk and Trump are murderers for cutting USAID - everyone destroy the white man’s Tesla dealership!!”
Everyone who heard the speech screams “hell yeah!!” and turns the dealership into rubble.

Silly. I’ve made some poor woman my foil.

But we are proposing as law: It shall be unlawful to make…

…speech that dehumanizes others and incites physical violence against them.

So we press charges not only against the people who sacked Tesla for destruction of property, but we charge the woman who yelled on the corner with a new Hate Speech violation.

1. The ‘white men are dogs’ speech seems to meet the ‘speech that dehumanizes others’ prong of the law;
2. The people who where incited to ‘destroy the dealership’ are brought in to satisfy the ‘incites’ prong;
3. And the actually demolished dealership meets the ‘physical violence’ prong.

It looks like, on these facts, we have a decent chance we meet all prongs of the law and we can get a conviction for hate speech.

But let’s say instead, the woman makes the same speech on the corner, and nobody gives a crap. Nothing happens, and Richie White-man goes on selling Teslas.

Can we charge the woman with the hate crime now?

Without inciting any violence, she just gave a speech. Like every other politician does. She just went into the public square and floated an idea. Nobody happened to care.

With some speeches, people are incited to cheer. With others people are incited to tune out. Others, we think about. Others incite us to respond with our own speeches and writings. Maybe argument and debate. Speeches begetting speeches… Others inspire us to do things it is legal to do.

The government should have no ability to regulate any of that activity at all. And even more emphatically than that, the government should never seek to regulate speech based on the content of the speech. We don’t want the government picking what is good to say and what is hateful, and then looking at the content of what we say and determining for us “what you said there was good, and what you said there was bad”. In the basic political forum of adults speaking with adults, government doesn’t get to judge the content of what we say. We get to say “the government is shit, and everyone needs to be thrown out of office and we need new judges and we need new policemen” and the entire government has to let me say whatever the hell we want.

But then, some speeches incite people to destroy property. Only at this point, do we allow the government step in, by making a law against ‘speech that incites violence.’

Any speech, hate speech, love speech, convincing logical argument, whatever - if speech directly leads to, or incites violence, that speech is a crime.

(And I think you can get caught inciting a crime even if the crime is thwarted mid-stream, if the “violence” itself is slight, only because it was stopped by a security guard or something... digression…)

There is no need to look at whether the woman hated anyone. We don’t need to know her motivation. Dehumanizing words may explain why all those white-men-haters were so inspired and incited to destroy the dealership, but we don’t need to know their motivations either, because the woman’s words “destroy the dealership” and the rubble, with the violent mob connecting them, we can show that speech incited violence and arrest people.

So the “that dehumanizes others” is superfluous in application of the law.

Unless you are trying to make a law that allows government to arrest and convict people for speech before it leads to actual ‘physical violence’.

That’s too minority report. Now the government gets to judge how successful your incitement was likely to be. New definition is “Dehumanizing words, that could lead to physical violence”.

Now the law is hopelessly subjective/vague around the “incites” prong, and the “physical violence against them” part is superfluous.

Instead of working with the more specific “hate” speech that incites violence, we add add an “aggravated” speech that incites violence version of the law. If someone is a vile, hateful racist, you don’t need to prove what dehumanizes, and instead just need to show generally how the hate aggravated things, and give a lot of leeway for harsh sentences - like incitement to violence is 2-12 years, and aggravated, is 10-30 years..

——

The UK is putting people in jail because they post extremely violent and dehumanizing rap lyrics on Facebook. A woman’s son died, and it was his favorite song, she posted the lyrics, and she was in jail and before the court, and back in prison for months. So wrong. That’s hate speech legislation applied.

There is no need to give the government so much power - power to screw up - and to give away our free speech rights just so that the government can take this power, and inevitably screw up application of the law, or worse, intentionally weaponize the law against political opposition.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? (e.g. the victimization of conservatives by the left and the victimization of liberals by the right) — javra

It’s a great question. I think it gets to the heart of what is wrong with hate speech legislation.

The important issue here is not the victims of hate speech. It’s that we have to protect our ability to accuse our political opposition.

Libs need to be able to say repubs are scum, and vice versa. If it “victimizes them” that is their problem. We don’t want the government to be able to take away anyone’s ability to reply and respond to an accusation with their own speech. And with this principle, allowing anything and everything be said in a political context, it becomes impossible to make laws that proscribe any political statement without shredding our ability to respond to the opposition. If the opposition is helping rapists and murderers and fostering destruction, we need to be able to call them rape lovers and murdering animals, to call them out, to muster political support to do something about the raping and the murdering.

People who support hate speech laws are trying to deal with the scenario where speech is not in a political context, but it is just say, a white supremacist on the street terrorizing people who are just trying to go to a store. He is calling them every racist, sexist nasty word and truly scaring them and hurting them emotionally, making them not be able to enter the store for fear of their lives. But this can be handled many ways and laws against words or speech are disproportionately destructive to political debate to deal with this asshole.

If we make a law that curtails speech instead of making a law that curtails behavior, we simultaneously limit the ability to argue whatever needs to be said in a political arena. And the good intentions behind hate speech laws become a practical issue. A comedian makes a joke about a murderer, and murder is funny. So maybe we can make laws that limit time and place and setting, like no F-bombs in G rated movies for instance. But for any group to tell any group what words are beyond all pale, and therefore illegal, incurring punishment - that is the end of healthy political debate.

All that said, just because it should be legal to say anything at all in a political debate, doesn’t mean the politician who demonizes the opposition is an effective politician. That is up to us to vote for such a person.

We should focus laws on regulating the behavior, not the content of the speech. If someone is yelling in my ear at the top of their lungs, who cares what they are saying - the harm to my ear can be regulated as an assault. But the only harm to me is that they are saying words that I don’t like to hear - that is not harm enough to limit free political speech.

So no, I don’t think we can address the issue of hate speech without accounting for the victims of hatred. But in my experience, the one who hates is victim of his own hatred, and the one who is victim because of words is responsible for his own victimization - so to legislate against “hate speech” is utterly misguided and needlessly, pointlessly, takes a huge chunk away from our freedom.

(And not to mention, you put a law against certain speech, it will allow corrupt politicians in power to silence their opposition who is not in power. And it will never be applied accurately and fairly. I would be amazed that the UN floated such legal concept, but the UN has lots of bad ideas, and they all know their words are meaningless and cannot be enforced.)

And the stuff I’ve heard from them regarding the left, as I previously mentioned, has often times been quite hateful in what I took to be unjust ways—sometimes a hell of a lot more than others (this without hearing anything alike in turn from the left toward the right). Shit, a small portion of these have even welcomed me into their house with a Nazi salute or else championed fascism (and Hitler) while visiting — javra

The hatefulness goes both ways, so none of that surprises me. That’s human, tribal psychology. But the Nazi salute and fascism and Hitler stuff - just vile. I never ran into that in my life. I knew of people like that, but no one I knew ever thought much of such losers. It just has nothing to do with conservatism (but I’m sure I can’t convince you or anyone of that unfortunately). It’s like saying the gulag is essential to communism. It’s been essential to the way communism has always been implemented, but it’s not an essential component to the ideology.

But here we are again, taking about how conservatives are mini-Hitlers.

the loudmouthed extremists do not represent the majority on either side, at least not by my current appraisals. — javra

See, Nazis and white supremacists are not extreme republicans or conservatives. They are just fucking mutants. It’s not conservative to give a crap about race. It just isn’t. Racists give a crap about race.

A focus on race is not conservative. Maybe it used to be for some in the 1950s. But it just isn’t the topic among regular conservative people anymore. The story you told above is an anomaly, not nearly the norm for the 70 million people who vote republican. I will say race seems important to liberals. They seem to draw attention to race often in order to discuss their priority issues.

Issues like, are all republicans racists.

- Hate speech—when interpreted in the spirit of what the UN intended, this being the spoken prelude to active genocides—is bad/immoral/wrong. — javra

I agree hate speech is morally wrong even if it isn’t spoken as a prelude to murder. But if you want to make it legally wrong, it needs to be more directly connected to things like murder and legal badness. It needs to be connected to harrassment, or obstructing the right of way, or trespassing, or fraud or libel or slander and leading to physical measurable harm. It can’t just be offiensive to my ears and heart. We have to be able to say anything we want when the adults are talking about policy and laws and priorities and what is crime, and who is good for political office. The only way to protect that type of speech is absolutely - in a political debate context, absolutely anything and everything must be allowed. If it sounds like hateful shit, great, we call it hateful shit and tell the speaker now that they are done to piss off.

And instead of regulating speech, we regulate harrassment, obstructing the right of way, trespassing, fraud or libel or slander. If hate speech is a prelude to more badness, it is conspiracy to commit a crime, it is evidence of a criminal enterprise, it is incitement to criminality. So in that case, it is not the content of what is hated in the hateful speech that should matter to the government, it is the criminality of what the speech directly leads to that should matter to the government. We don’t want the current administration judging speech for criminality. Right?

He wants to be a dictator, that's for sure, — Mijin

For sure about that? Like Descartes for sure with certainty sure? Sure about what a dictator is, for some reason? Trump is clearly a dictator wannabe. All crystal clear. What does that mean a republican is, all 70 plus million of them? Besides you and the others who hate Trump with you, all those republicans must be stupid, or must want to be a fascist with Trump.

You are sure about all that.
But a working definition, or some sort of parameters for what woke is or means, or how it works…that is just “incoherent”. Still totally stumped.

You think "woke" means everything has to be relative or subjective or something? — Mijin

No. I see pretty clearly what woke is. I defined it before - I probably said something about a focus on identity based power relations played out as race, sex, religion, all to be managed under values of diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s fairly rigid and predictable. But one of its tactics is to play relativist with definitions it doesn’t want to argue about. It is very woke to avoid defending key concepts, like “woman” or “truth” or ”woke”.

But I see things more clearly than that. Not perfectly of course - there has to be room for even a paradigm shift to creep in. But for now, if someone says they are a climate activist, we immediately know about ten things they certainly believe. All woke thoughts, well-trained slogans in support of each one. Climate activist for some reason means Palestine supporter, democrat, anti-capitalist, free healthcare for all, free immigration, somewhere on the socialist-communist spectrum, etc, etc. All woke for the most part.

MAGA, that’s easy to define for the woke side. Right? MAGA is easy. So many ways to exemplify maga. All of them also exemplifying badness as well.

But wokeness - totally incoherent.
The woke coined the term “woke”. Which is ironic now that they flee from the term. It’s CRT. It’s my body my choice. It’s breaking the glass ceiling. It’s occupy Wall Street and Antifa and BLM. All sharing space with wokeness. It’s defund the police. It’s Catholic Nancy Pellosi’s stance on abortion.

It’s live and let live (except for republicans and anyone who challenges them).
It’s care for the victims (except for republicans).
It’s everyone is a victim (except white cis men).
It’s tolerate diversity (just no, it’s not, I take that back).
It’s freedom of speech (except for republicans aka “hate speakers”) (and actually, no, it used to be about free speech in the 1960s, but not anymore - too much thought police that is essential to wokeness - what’s your pronoun or should you be canceled - screw freedom.)

Have you taken a moment to consider the possibility that maybe the problem is with your understanding? — Mijin

I was about to say the same thing. But yes I have. TPF is where I beg for a challenge.

I read your linked list of fascism. Pretty good. Much of the list applied to Biden and Harris and Dems too. Fascism is too state power for me to fit with the republicans or even Trump. It misses the mark. Many items on the list didn’t apply to Trump at all. But your list doesn’t argue your point for you. Trump has all the power he needs right now. He’s making moves all around the world. He’s not gonna be a dictator and neither is any republican. America is not Europe. It never was. Hitler and his socialist party is not instructive of what Trump is or what is happening today.

Have you ever considered that if you really don’t get woke, you don’t get Trump either?

I predict if more Dems don’t figure this out, they will lose even more seats in the mid terms. So far, there is no blue wave coming. Probably the opposite. If the Dems don’t take the House next year, JD Vance is likely the next president.

Repubs have been taken for granted for 30 years. That’s over now.

If anything could really expose wokeism and actually end it, it is this killing of Kirk. Conservatives always had the better arguments. Now conservatives are emboldened. Many more people will no longer be afraid to offend some new identity group, or to use the wrong pronoun, or to trigger someone in their safe space at the drag queen children’s book reading event. The spin to cover up bad ideas, the refusal to face reality (like the fact that woke really is a thing), isn’t working any more.

People are turning away from the Democrat party because of wokeism. If you believe in it you should engage with it more - provide positive substance supporting and clarifying the good woke way, and not just say “Trump is a douche” as your key platform piece and best argument for not-maga.

Maybe wokeism will actually die after all. (Doubt it - it so ingrained and well-funded, the death rattle will take years with plenty of opportunity to be resuscitated.).

The struggle to be born that is the US continues…

Not seeing what “woke” is, is very woke.
— Fire Ologist

If you had meant this as a joke, I'd salute you as thread winner.
But, sadly, it seems more likely that you're being serious. — Mijin

Dead serious.

What is funny is that the same people who can’t see what wokeness is, somehow see with absolute clarity that Kirk was racist. Or Trump is a fascist dictator. Nothing vague to puzzle over about those things.

But wokeness… can’t imagine what all the fuss is about.

have a good deal of resentment toward everything that is not conservative. — javra

I see where you are coming from about my tone. But it’s not resentment. It’s frustration. It’s tiresome convincing people that I don’t like Hitler, or that I don’t secretly like oppressing women or something. Because there is no way to satisfy any request for such proof. Only a confession will do. And the debate on the issues is over before it started. Conservatives have let themselves be framed as racist sexist pigs for so long it’s a foregone conclusion. It’s frustrating to deal with that in good faith.

But the actual progressive views and policies, some of them make total sense. No resentment from me when someone else has a better view. I don’t write off anyone because of their politics. I answered your question about Hitler. I try to show I am arguing in good faith, but, because I am clearly not progressive, usually political conversations stay around Hitler and Nazis and how racist I must be. Same for all conservatives. Same since the 1980’s.

Trump, the person who recently announced that it should be illegal for news outlets to speak negatively of him, not of an authoritarian mindset? — javra

So let’s be precise. Is Trump drafting legislation to make it illegal for the news to speak negatively of him? Because that would be stupid, and sounds like a dictator. The shit that comes out of his mouth sometimes. But I am sure such legislation can’t and won’t happen. Biden went so far as to set up the Disinformation Governance Board or something - much scarier to me, not because it was Biden, but because it had an enforcement structure to it, as opposed to crap Trump says.

Trump is not merely a chief executive officer enforcing laws and implementing policies. As you know I’m sure, every word he says does not cause there to be a new policy. People do resist the all powerful president when he’s an idiot. That’s how the checks and balances work. But He is still a politician, and a citizen, and gets to speak his mind, even when it is a stupid idea that goes against a free press. He has some dictatorial ideas for sure. That won’t lead to policy imposed on the public though. Obama and Biden deported a lot of illegal immigrants you know. Trump isn’t really a dictator.

There were people who said electing George W. Bush was going to be the end of democracy, that he wanted to allow women be raped, etc. But no president in my lifetime has been pilloried as badly as Trump. So if he gets overly sensitive and says “it should be illegal to make fun of me” I get it. But I’m sure we’ll see how that doesn’t go anywhere at all.

When it comes to economy, I am all for capitalism when it stand up to its ideal of meritocracy: each benefiting economically based on their earnest deserve (rather than based on the goal of maximizing corruption so as to make the biggest buck). And, I am likewise for the existence of an economic social net to protect from devastating accidental events which can befall us all - welfare as its typically called - seeing absolutely no entailed contradiction between the two. Does that make me a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat ... this stringent dichotomy is a bit bipolar for me. To me the discussion should not be about either or but about discussion what is best — javra

Basically full agreement on all points here. You sound conservative to me, no contradiction, but like you implied, who really cares about the label - the issue is what is best. (Plus I wouldn’t wish the disparaging title “conservative” on anyone unwillingly).

So let me show you some nuances from my perspective on what we basically agree, to make a point.
Merit based hiring drawing from a pool of all worthy applicants regardless of race, creed, sex, etc. Total agreement. It makes sense for there to be laws on the books to foster fair, merit based hiring practices. Many are good laws, some are too vague and misused, some are bad - needs to evolve and continue being debated, and tested in court, but call it liberal or call it conservative — merit based hiring is good, and many entities need to be regulated to keep it that way.

But DEI in corporations through the HR department - to avoid employment law issues - that is mostly crap and counterproductive. All it does is confuse common decency and humble respect owed between all people, by favoring one group and disfavoring another group. All it does is promote reverse racism and sexism. It’s been terrible policy. It has led to so much abuse. It has little to actually do with merit. It rewards bad behavior more often than it helps anyone.

So if someone thinks I am conservative, and hears me saying DEI is crap, they will assume I am racist and sexist, and will think I’m lying about merit based hiring for all races and sexes. Usually we don’t get past whether Hitler would have been in favor of DEI or not.

I also agree with welfare and Medicare and a net for unfortunate circumstances. But It’s the same on every issue though. For me to suggest some sort of parameter for how to distribute welfare, because I’m conservative, it is really just me showing how I don’t care about all black, hispanic and disabled people. If I suggest “no welfare for that” someone will say “but that person is black, so you are just hating black people again.” You see how it works?

The policy is always secondary to identity politics, and conservatives have the same identity as Hitler.

So let’s jump to hate speech legislation. I think it’s too vague and too impossible to enforce, and will lead to drastically inequitable outcomes, and will certainly be abused by politicians to silence their opposition. So hate speech legislation is crap. But because I am a conservative, what I must really mean is that I am okay with people hating trans, or gay, or immigrants. I don’t get to pass Go on that issue. I am a Nazi for some reason again because “hate speech legislation” is bad policy.

Or, like all republican politicians have to do, I have to answer for spreading hate all of the time if I want to have a policy discussion.

if "conservatism" to you basically means the preservation of traditional values, do you then take all traditional values which are to be preserved to be non-authoritarian? (I've, for one example, grown up learning in church that the husband is the metaphorical head of the family and the women is the metaphorically subservient body - which must obey the head without question if things are to be in order. So I so far find this to be a traditional value in western culture. And I don't deem it an egalitarian, hence non-authoritarian, mindset, at least as regards the interaction between the sexes. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.) — javra

So, lots to unpack. But first, I don’t see this as a political question. And that is important to understand. If it is not a political issue, then it cannot lead to any government policy. So the outcome of any debate about an authoritarian tradition like men heading the family and wives being subservient, doesn’t really matter in the public sphere. It’s for each family to figure out for themselves. The dynamics of a marriage between husband and wife is more a psychological discussion, sociology discussion, anthropology discussion, and a religious tradition conversation (Jewish, Christian, Islam all have opinions on this too). But it is not a political tradition. Not for at least 100 years.

So if you are asking me how I think government should insert itself into such a debate with policy (like a rule of thumb type law about how to beat your wife, or voting rights for women), I’d say the government has to treat all adults, men and women, equally and can make no law about the inner dynamics of a family. (And wife beating is abhorrent which should be needless to say, but again, I am a republican so I have to remind people that I don’t like wife beating). It was always wrong in the US for there to be slavery, and always wrong for women not to have the vote. We all used to be apes that had no need for governing. We’ve come a long way finally for women.

Women voting is fairly new, and one of the great contributions of progressive thinkers. It took too long for it to become policy.

But if you are just asking me, as a conservative, what do I think about “man as head of the household, and wife as subservient to her husband”? I like the way My Big Fat Greek Wedding put it: “The man is the head of the family, but the woman in the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she wants.” This was said by the wife. So I try to seek the wisdom in the traditions that brought us to today, and, in this case, the wisdom handed down from both my mother and my father, but I live in the world I live in today. Most women hear “wife to be subservient” and they think “you just keep telling yourself that.” And the family goes on just fine.

Lastly, yes that is an authoritarian tradition. It has the word subservient in the very tradition. But I am not oppressed by the rules I voluntarily submit to. Sometimes the certainty of law and authority set you free. Placing a man at the head of the family can be a burden and duty for the man, and liberation for the wife. It’s not a simple dynamic here that necessarily enslaves one while making a master of the other. And politically, the husband and wife must be treated absolutely as equals. Just like every other adult citizen.

I think modern society has a diseased view of authority, tradition and things like dogma. They seem unavoidable to me, and in need of integration into our lives, not mere resistance. We resist these things in adolescence, and we should question everything, but that is before we know some realities must be humbly accepted at times. We think for ourselves to determine which authority is good and right, and when to follow, and when to resist - but we also have to make our choices and act, and we don’t get to avoid the existence of authority over us in our actions. Facts are dictators. Death is a tyrant. Taxes must be paid, or prison awaits. At times, someone has to represent the family, or someone has to be held responsible for the family, whether it be the man or the wife. Religion, not the government, provides a tradition that helps people who ask what to do determine for themselves how the family dynamics work. I would not just sua sponte tell anyone they were wrong or what to do - but if they ask, I’d say there is wisdom in picking a head to the family at times, and a wisdom to making that head the man.

As far as not saying anything about your answer, what on Earth was this:

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak.
— javra — javra

Ok, my bad. I skimmed that part and must have missed it that you are glad we agree. I’m glad too.

But all speech is not political speech. When Hitler was campaigning and running for office and shouting at some pulpit, he was engaged in political speech and we should protect that type of free speech for all opinions. We get to debate every single idea we can think of.

But then Hitler became Chancellor, and at that point his speech was commands and orders, and enforcement of law, and setting of policy - not debate. These types of speech are heavily regulated and will always have to be. Checks and balances. That’s why “hate speech” laws are dangerous, because they give enforcement power to the government regarding anyone’s stupid opinion. And they allow the Furor to arrest those who say things he doesn’t like.

We need to let Hitler speak his mind, so we can know not to elect him and we can know what arguments to make to defeat his stupid ideology of hate (like the lefts stupid ideology of identity power struggles).

We don’t use the government to regulate political speech. That’s what Hitler did. He didn’t just speak. He did many things besides speak.

Not all speech is political. When I say “hey, watch out for that bus”. I’m not expressing a political opinion. Political opinions and debate have to be protected. When Hitler said “build that concentration camp and bomb Stalingrad” he wasn’t just speaking - he was enacting policy and committing murder like a maniac. If a cop says “drop that weapon” he isn’t offering suggestion - you better fall in line or get ready for a fight.

I find it confused for you to say that “he never did anything else but speak.” This is the best way I can address you asking me how Hitler, who you say only used speech, was culpable for so many unjust deaths. Not all speech is political. So just because he used words to command his followers, he did much more than political speech.

the gender always perfectly fits biological sex, I've been around for over 30 years and have been hearing this throughout - never once hearing a rebuttle of "you're racist and sexist" because you think this. — javra

Philly’s DA, Larry Krasner, the chief law enforcement guy, just said at a town hall how republican policies are racist and sexist. First of all, who really cares, because the left’s policies are racist and sexist too. Race a sex issues are getting so old. But how about whether the policies are effective at achieving some sort of goal? Repubs or Dems effective policy makers? How about that discussion.

A despicable man like Trump was elected anyway because too many people are fed up with such blind stupidity.

And if the repubs start attacking free speech from the left, the repubs will get smacked by the conservatives. We don’t like government. Trump is liked because he isn’t a creature of politics.

Notice I didn’t just say “I like Trump because…”. I Used the passive voice “Trump is liked because….” This is my conditioning, by our left leaning media and DEI loving culture. Saying “I like Trump” can get you shot or fired. Certainly gets you hated.

Because I wonder if Trump thinks Hitler is culpable for murder? Hmmm… good question. How could anyone actually like Trump? He must sympathize with Hitler. Right?

It largely doesn't even make sense as a coherent concept
— Mijin
Quite so. — Banno

Not seeing what “woke” is, is very woke.

Hence, discrimination based on these categories is a barrier to the freedom of individuals to individuate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and this unwittingly puts the identity category, the ideology, first and foremost, before the individual. For example, one sees discrimination based on skin color, and then, without need to ask the individual who is discriminated against, one can judge the individual must identify with that skin based category so that individual must be being oppressed - you sort of know a person’s victim status and how oppressed they have been from individuating themselves, without need to consult with the actual individual, because of the identity category.

So white people get to feel good fighting with BLM whether black people agree with BLM or not.

Ethnicity, regionalism, and even religion might be thought to be more tied to place, and the ideal liberal citizen has transcended place, — Count Timothy von Icarus

And now we get all of the calls to break up the union into smaller states based on locale.

while each place itself also becomes every other place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So in the name of the “freedom to individuate” and to distinguish something individual, each place becomes the same as the last place. More unwitting contradiction and self-defeating policy.

It's the right now that seems to more often appeal to "elitism." — Count Timothy von Icarus

But isn’t that just the right’s lame attempt to fight fire with fire, as in if you can’t beat identity politics, make up your own version? It’s still weak and sourced to leftist tactics. Or maybe I should say tyrannical tactics enjoyed on both right extremes and left center and extremes.

It’s just so tiresome.
— Fire Ologist

I agree. — javra

Then why did you ask me if I think Hitler was a bad guy? Is it because I’m a conservative republican - is that why you needed me to confess my true feelings for Hitler?

Hitler was a national socialist. He seems to me to have much more in common with the tactics and goals of the left (state control and power, hating groups of people like republicans, censorship and cancellation/extermination) than with conservatives. But you had to ask me anyway. And you didn’t say anything about my answer.

So since you didn’t respond to my answer to your question, I don’t know whether you believe me or not. Most left leaning people don’t believe conservatives when they say they are not racist. That’s what they say to my face. The left can’t imagine it is coherent to want a strong border and to like Mexico. They think we are liars, and they think they know our true feelings. Which is prejudice and bigotry against conservatism, and unobservant. And just so wrong. About me. And there are millions of black, gay, women repubs - race is just not important at all to conservatism. The vast, vast majority of us know that Hitler is evil. Such a demeaning question. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but if Hitler isn’t morally culpable for unjust deaths, nothing makes any sense at all.

Now you never addressed my question:

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? — Fire Ologist

You want to answer that?

But back to hate speech laws…let’s look at the text you provided and I’ll give you my opinion (which is a form of speech called political that should be protected):

hate speech as "speech that demeans or promotes violence against groups based on attributes like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or other identity factors". — javra

“Demeans” is too vague. Get it out. “I don’t think your shoes go with that outfit” is demeaning to some, and sometimes the facts are embarrassing and demeaning. What is demeaning may bring moral approbation, but cannot equitably bring legal punishment. It’s too vague. So “demeans” has to be taken out (which you seem to agree).

“Promotes violence” is too vague. “Promotes” is in the eye of the beholder, and “violence” is too often used metaphorically. The phrase “buy a gun” promotes violence against squirrels and deer. The phrase “fight” meaning resist politically can be said to promote an insurrection, or maybe just voting and debating. The phrase “beat the Democrats” or “whip the republicans” speak for themselves. Some people are so frail, words alone are the violence. That is a psychological problem or maturity problem for them, not the basis of a law limiting political speech. The phrase “dog-whistle” scares me and makes me fear for my life and must be stopped as hateful. Such bullshit. Get “promotes violence” out of the law too. It’s too “Minority Report” and “thought police” for me to enforce fairly, and I am a a fair guy.

Promoting violence is already called “incitement to riot” or “conspiracy to commit a crime” - we already have laws and don’t need to find anyone demeaned or from a favored or “at risk” group in order to enforce these laws. Being mean and saying you wish others were dead is terrible, but not something I want or need the government picking and choosing to enforce this way and that way - what a total mess that would be. Like the UN is a total contradictory mess most of the time.

“Other identity factors?” Do these need to be explicit by the perpetrator of the “hate speech” - does he need to say them, or can some jury define the identity of who was being bullied? If the latter, if hatred of some group can be inferred and need not be expressly spoken by the hater, then “other identity factors” means anyone can make a case about a hate crime about anything. America, the ones who first implemented “freedom of speech”, has too much common sense to delude ourselves that any good will come from a hate speech law. Except for left leaning Americans, who for some reason wish Trump had “hate speech” laws on the books at his disposal.

It will never pass, unless enough republicans are silenced or shot.

"Death to all [people of your ethnicity]" such that group A greatly outnumbers the group to which their chanting "death to", — javra

Sounds like a free Palestine, or BLM. rally. Wasn’t there chanting about killing all pigs, meaning cops? But the chanting part, we have to allow.

Don’t you think we can deal with terrible people chanting by simply countering with more speech? Like by chanting “stop being assholes” or “wanting death means you are too stupid to debate” or something? Make some posters? Hate speech might better be defined as “a loud display of ignorance for all to hear.”

The problem is the assaults and the destruction of property and the killing during these peaceful protests. Not the language that is supposed to be behind them.

I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding. — javra

That is what most repubs have been doing for 30 plus years. Fearing cancelation for being racist and sexist because you think male and man are basically only biological terms and “he” points out anyone born with a penis. Total self-censorship of that view in the average public square. But that got everyone nowhere. And it led to a Trump victory despite all of the felony convictions and hatefulness he breeds.

Trump happened because conservatives can no longer stand watching what has unfolded.

Hate speech laws are all really about suppressing conservative speech, because everyone knows conservatives hate so many groups of people. Right?

You cannot censor thought. Let the thoughts come out so we can debate with the issues and show people how stupid their thoughts are. Otherwise we breed reactionaries and radicals in their mom’s basements.

Hate speech laws are dumb. I hate the idea.

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?

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.

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.)

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?

"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.

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.

q.v. — Banno

I don’t know what that means.

All kinds of speech is regulated - fraud, conspiracy, libel, slander, incitement.

But if in a political context, and the only harm we are talking about is hurt feelings, America should never let some politician regulate that. Why would we?

Are hurt feelings the reason speech should be regulated? What do you mean “speech that harms”?

Dude. You might want to be more precise and express in the points you are trying to make.

being able to express an opinion while not being permitted to incite or induce violence. Looking at other jurisdictions might show that the approach in the US, expressed hereabouts as a naïve acceptance of a refusal to forbid any speech, is fraught with inconsistency. We must acknowledge the capacity of speech to injure, beyond mere offence. — Banno

The capacity of speech to injure, or the capacity of speech to lead to injury? How can speech injure?

In a political context, like on the Senate floor or in a debate among adults, what exactly does “capacity of speech to injure” mean? What’s an example of political speech that, by simply speaking, another person is injured?

Conspiracy can be speech that leads to injury (as opposed to speech that causes injury). But a discussion about who is more hateful, a trans activist towards Charlie Kirk or vice versa, no matter what is said between them, cannot be speech that leads to injury. It is not possible. It’s just opinion and belief and facts analyzed and arguments tested - nothing for the government to regulate at all.

The distinction of a perlocution does not supplant and replace the judgment of the listener and her decisions to act, and it is only these acts that can cause harm - such actions happen after the debate stops. While the debate goes on, before anyone gets shot, illocution and perlocution are up for discussion, and have nothing to do with the “capacity of speech to injure.”

Inciting or “inducing” violence needs to be fairly clear, and is very contextual. Charlie would never meet the criteria for incitement. Neither would Kimmel or Colbert.

People who hear ideas and then decide to shoot people or destroy property, or commit some other crime, have to be the ones held responsible first and foremost. That’s not speech leading to harm. That’s assholes, or criminals fully responsible for being assholes and criminals no matter what speech they heard or who said it. What adult thinks otherwise? Political speech and debate and opinion and discussion and rallies - have nothing to do with “the capacity of speech to injure”

Legally defined and enforced “hate speech” adds nothing beneficial to a society that believes in free speech. I can handle hearing any idea whatsoever, if it is a discussion, and I get to respond. That’s the political environment the US constitution built. “Hate” in a speech is just more content.

Why are liberal communities composed of sheep but your community isn’t? — Joshs

Sheep are all over the place for sure. The point was about the media. The shepherd. The media (when they don’t cave) will always cheerlead for the Dems. That’s the only reason Biden made it all the way to July’s debate - the media told us (sheep) he was fit. But now that the news media is losing credibility for some people, (because of things like Biden making it to July for instance) they aren’t going to be as effective anymore.

AOC just said on the floor of the Senate: “His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/aoc-defends-her-vote-against-165240740.html

Few things to make clear:

1. Although it should be needless to say, AOC and all Americans have a right to say and think every word of what AOC just said. That is “a straightforward matter,” at least it should be. We not only agree no one should be shot for saying things like this quote, but that no law can abridge saying it in any way.

Right? We all have to agree with that - it just basically restates the 1st Amendment.

2. In the protected quote, AOC says Kirk is ignorant, seeking not unity, but to disenfranchise. Ok, maybe so. But point 2 here is that, now AOC has engaged in debate. This second point is the reason for free speech, protected in point 1 above. We protect debate (political) speech no matter what, so that we each get to seek a hearing of exactly what we think. AOC’s constituents elected her to say what she thinks, and she disagrees strongly with Kirk, saying he was “ignorant” for instance. (Astute…)

3. Others get to agree or disagree, or debate, with AOC. It’s never one sided.

All three are important. The principle on 1, and the content exchanged in 2 and 3. That’s the bedrock foundation of our political system.

“Hate speech” is a notion for those who can’t or just won’t debate. Or those who bring a gun or a protest slogan and a bullhorn to a conversation….

Pam Bondi is an idiot. She’ll be gone in the next few months, unless she gets some kind of win soon.

We are not one country now — Joshs

We should keep metaphors and facts clear. Kimmel wasn’t silenced by the government, for instance, he was fired by his wimpy, cowardly boss, ABC/Disney. ABC has been doing it for years now.

If you say “we are not one country” is that a helpful rhetorical tactic? Towards what goal?

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.

I don’t think the metaphor that “we are not one country” helps. We are more than one country. For many, this is a question of whether we are one family or not. I think agreeable conversations can exist. Ask Van Jones.

We should learn something from the Kirk shooting, and together, turn over a new leaf.

But most of us probably won’t do either one.

Trump’s success isn’t due to urban America getting anything ‘wrong’, any more than Erdogan’s or Orban’s or Le Pen’s or Nigel Farage’s success is due to urbanites in those countries making some mistake of political calculation. — Joshs

I wouldn’t compare what is happening in America to what is happening in any other contemporary of America. I wouldn’t do that in 1780, 1880, 1980 or now. America is different than those other places. These generalizations of yours are not what I was saying.

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.

And what is lost? The argument. So now, having lost control of the debate, as a last attempt, we accuse our enemies of “hate speech”. The very notion of government enforced “hate speech” and “hate crimes” strangle debate and free speech. Or we shoot them the debaters in the neck.

Hate speech - what a shame. It’s embarrassing really. So hypocritical too. It’s only hate speech when you hate it, and when you hate something, where is the hate??? Not in the speech.

Just win the fucking debates. Try that - like AOC is trying to win about the resolution for Kirk, with her insights and wisdom.

Are you suggesting the assassin of Charlie Kirk didn't even really understand — Outlander

No. I’m talking about people and the media not understanding how bad it is to see a guy shot for having a discussion. Probably not something to treat callously. The same people who think firing Jimmy Kimmel is a travesty of justice and fills them with fear for democracy.

laws should indeed be moral — javra

Yes of course. To promote good and prevent or redress badness. But we look to the government to tell us what the law is, not what morality is.

good to hear that the white middle class males — Banno

Wait, should “good to hear” and “white middle class males” even be allowed in the same sentence? Sounds like a hate-filled dog-whistle. :joke: Do we need a law to ban such obviously hateful juxtapositions in our thinking?

Or should no law abridge free speech?

liberal bias has been evident, but it has been only a bias as typically any administration gets some roasting from the political comedians. — ssu

“Some” roasting? Demonstrably, stupendously false. Biden wasn’t roasted until the democrats rammed Kamala Harris down everyone’s throats. Liberals are shocked to hear right wing ideas because they hear them so infrequently in the media. Main stream media is normally a safe space. Like the university classroom.

To a liberal, a simple right wing idea is hate speech. “Deport illegal immigrants.” That’s hate. Even though it was the policy of Obama and Biden. Trump’s somehow just different.

Ridiculous. Inconsistent. Incoherent.

The truth of the deep leftward bias of all legacy and main stream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LA Times, Wash. Post, CNN, all things Hollywood) is the fulcrum behind Trump’s continued success and appeal - since 2016.

Libs refuse to see it. It’s a total blind spot. It’s why dems will continue losing outside of the areas where Al of their sheep flock.

The current legacy news media death rattle is due to their own inability to self-reflect honestly. They pander to half of the population. They are so biased. The right remains a sleeping underground of our culture. Even with Trump in office. It’s been stomped underground by the media for 30 plus years.

It’s still hateful to be republican. At least according to the media. And to expert libs.

And libs are so scared because of all the media bogeymen - instead of just talking to a right winger, like Kirk. Instead of talking to him, people are happy to celebrate his death.

The democrats have lost on substance with regard to immigration and the border, the economy, foreign policy, Ukraine, patriotism. The dems have no policies that address anything that matters to the country. And they are (currently, probably temporarily) losing the tactical advantage of being able to rely on the media to uncritically telegraph and parrot their agenda. It’s not because the media is moving right, but because the media is losing credibility. It’s because Jimmy Kimmel squandered his position. The media doesn’t know how to be fair about anything - they aren’t used to it. If they wanted to be fair they would have to fire half of their people, because everyone is a progressive. Absolute echo chamber.

Before Colbert and Kimmel (who aren’t making very much money, which affects the answer to the question: “are they worth all the grief?”), Roseanne Barr, was fired for saying some ignorant crap about the Obama administration and for sounding like a racist. Who gave a shit about democracy then? Who celebrated then? Was that so different? Was it any different? It was even ABC.

happy to occasionally be offended. — Banno

Offense is so done as a motivator for political action.

“Hate speech” is a joke, right? It’s not a law in the US because we all love to spew hate speech, right? From all sides. We love to offend. Almost as much as we cherish taking offense.

Offense is like pure gold for the left. No one ever cares how anyone else feels, but here is how I feel, and the more offended I am, the more interesting my instagram account will be.

Like adolescents. “You just don’t understand how much it hurts me….” And “this time it’s different.”

It’s no different. If Trump is limiting free speech, that is gravely bad. But what is so new to you libs? You who didn’t care about Biden’s Orwellian “Disinformation Governance Board”?

Government should stay out of all of it. Media should consistently and fairly report the facts. But they never did. Because libs give the government too much power, too many passes, and do not hold the media accountable at all.

Total irresponsibility.

so he shouldn't be allowed to make further comment...? — Banno

Kimmel hasn’t been arrested and thrown in jail. He was fired for being a highly paid ABC employee and talking shit too many times to too many members of ABC’s audience. He is going to make a ton of further comment. He is going to make a ton of money. He is an absolute rock star for the left now. Unless he begs for his job back. Because he is free to do that too.

If you are worried that the people are not being “allowed” to comment, were you concerned about speech when Kirk was shot? Oh that’s right, you reminded everyone Kirk supported the freedom to own guns.

Are you saying everyone needs to own a microphone and have a TV show?

Or should Twitter not be allowed to suspend Donald Trump’s twitter account? Are you saying that?

Zero coherence. Zero rigor in the analysis.

Shooting Kirk is just bad. For all of us. For all politics. For all cultures. It’s an easy topic. The left won’t look directly at the world they have created.

I don’t know what you are getting at.

We don’t need laws telling us what is good or bad. We need discussions and communities deciding what is good and bad. Then we need to agree on laws that support the good and laws that protect against the bad. But I don’t need a law telling me that “murder is bad”, or a law telling me that “cohort B are subhumans” is punishable hate speech and not just some stupid opinion.

I have no problem hearing out someone else’s stupid arguments and opinions. In fact, I want to protect that as a right.

Of itself it is only speech. And, as with a good portion of speech in general, it intends to influence the mindsets of others. — javra

So what? The fact that speech can influence others and lead to laws is how all good things happen too.

Hate speech is dumb and is for dumb people that I can deal with myself and don’t need the government, but the notion of legally defined hate speech is Orwellian.