Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My split of opinion with you comes when you Outline your views on progressivism. There is a huge divide between liberalism which promotes individual freedom and progressivism which inherently destroys freedom and dictates which voices should have those freedoms to speak. All people deserve a voice! The privilege to voice your opinions are what makes our country so special and different. After the actions that will transpire this weekend all over the country, I want to re-ask you the question of which side you are on!I know that my ideas can be progressive. That doesn't mean that having a country (and more specifically two parties) that embrace more moderate ideals wouldn't be preferable to what we have now, which is a whipsaw between heavily conservative and heavily liberal every 8 years. Also, I think many of my ideals would be supported by the vast majority of Americans if they were just moderated slightly. They're just not supported by the politicians that are feeding them.
I think my most contentious stances are probably on Guns and on the Constitution's Inadequacy in Addressing Modern Problems. Besides that, I try to be pretty open minded to at least considering the objections of fiscal conservatives, business interests in regards to environmentalism / over regulation, and family values. My greatest desire would be for the country to learn how to compromise again. We seem to have forgotten that art.
My ideal of progressivism has nothing to do with the freedom of speech except in reference to public hate speech. And that's only in reference to things that are inherent to a person's character such as nationality, sex, race, or religion.My split of opinion with you comes when you Outline your views on progressivism. There is a huge divide between liberalism which promotes individual freedom and progressivism which inherently destroys freedom and dictates which voices should have those freedoms to speak. All people deserve a voice! The privilege to voice your opinions are what makes our country so special and different. After the actions that will transpire this weekend all over the country, I want to re-ask you the question of which side you are on!
The problem with Hitler is that moderate Germans were UNSUCCESSFUL in silencing him, sometimes due to similar laws as ours. Germany doesn't seem to have a massive issue with this in modern times. I don't know why you think it's a slippery slope. They seem to be doing better than we are regarding this modern hate speech.Suppressing “hate” speech is a slippery slope as we’ve seen on numerous colleges campuses around the country. It’s far to easy to call speech we disagree with “hate” in order to silence those speakers. Glad you brought up Hitler. He successfully used similar tactics to silence his critics. All but extreme speech must be allowed. Far to dangerous to eliminate the voices of those with who we disagree.
Who determines hate?
The problem with Hitler is that moderate Germans were UNSUCCESSFUL in silencing him, sometimes due to similar laws as ours. Germany doesn't seem to have a massive issue with this in modern times. I don't know why you think it's a slippery slope. They seem to be doing better than we are regarding this modern hate speech.
If Hitler had been silenced more effectively, earlier on, maybe millions of lives would have been spared.
He didn’t use speech laws to silence his critics though. He used national security laws, and straight up covert violence. Not sure why anyone who follows history would not support such a thing.Or if Hitler weren’t able to silence his critics we might have seen millions of lives saved. Silencing speech has been one of the primary tool of dictators and other repressive regimes throughout history. Not sure why anyone who follows history would support such a thing.
This. Germany didn’t go through the blood and suffering of our revolution. And didn’t reap its rewards, including freedom of expression.Or if Hitler weren’t able to silence his critics we might have seen millions of lives saved. Silencing speech has been one of the primary tool of dictators and other repressive regimes throughout history. Not sure why anyone who follows history would support such a thing.
In a country split by their political views, and the liberal side (who also owns the information domain) desperately trying to gain power, who should be in charge of determining what hate speech is? Anyone who goes against the narrative is silenced. We have seen what silencing the oppositions voice looks like and even used it to exploit and overthrow other governments. When you silence the opposition, the real war begins! We can never get rid of Radical Islam and we will never get rid of hate. Silencing their voices doesn’t work!My ideal of progressivism has nothing to do with the freedom of speech except in reference to public hate speech. And that's only in reference to things that are inherent to a person's character such as nationality, sex, race, or religion.
There's no instance in our country's history where hate speech has been productive.
The Germans learned this after Hitler (with our help btw). They have a legal idea called 'Volksverhetzung' which translates to 'instigation of the people' (or officially in the German Penal Code as 'incitement to hatred')
It refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.
I don't think that's too big of a limit on free speech, any more than I think not being allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater is too big a limit on free speech. In fact, until 1969, that idea was the presiding ruling of the Supreme Court.
Voters. And by extension, lawmakers and courts.In a country split by their political views, and the liberal side (who also owns the information domain) desperately trying to gain power, who should be in charge of determining what hate speech is? Anyone who goes against the narrative is silenced. We have seen what silencing the oppositions voice looks like and even used it to exploit and overthrow other governments. When you silence the opposition, the real war begins! We can never get rid of Radical Islam and we will never get rid of hate. Silencing their voices doesn’t work!
If the system isn’t broken, don’t fix it! The country was founded on Christian views. Right and wrong was taught in our culture based on Christian beliefs. Extreme Liberalism (right, wrong, indifferent) eroded the moral foundation of the country. Progressivism has tried to correct liberalism by establishing a new system which is what we see in the streets today in ANTIFA and BLM. We only have two choices to right the ship. Throw the old system out or move back to conservatism.Voters. And by extension, lawmakers and courts.
What do we have a judicial system for at all? Who determines if crimes were premeditated? Who determines malicious intent? Answer: Lawmakers, Judges, and Juries.
Left - rewards bad behavior.If the system isn’t broken, don’t fix it! The country was founded on Christian views. Right and wrong was taught in our culture based up Christian beliefs. Extreme Liberalism (right, wrong, indifferent) eroded the moral foundation of the country. Progressivism has tried to correct liberalism by establishing a new system. We only have two choices to right the ship. Throw the old system out or move back to conservatism.
Voters. And by extension, lawmakers and courts.
If you talk long enough, the real agenda always finds a way of coming out!A self proclaimed progressive arguing that the majority and their representatives should have the power to silence the speech of the minority and in turns their rights? Never thought I would hear that. Surely you can see Tre danger of this simply based in history
I love reading aston. I always learn how not to think.A self proclaimed progressive arguing that the majority and their representatives should have the power to silence the speech of the minority and in turn their rights? Never thought I would hear that. Surely you can see Tre danger of this simply based in history
Intent is someone’s opinion and we adjudicate that relatively fineSo now people get put on trial for what they say?
Murder is pretty cut and dry, hate speech is someones opinion.
This is such a straw man bullcrap argument by you. I never said suppress the rights on minorities to speak. I said suppress the rights of people who slander or denegrate others with for the contents of their character largely beyond their control. (Sex, race,religion).A self proclaimed progressive arguing that the majority and their representatives should have the power to silence the speech of the minority and in turn their rights? Never thought I would hear that. Surely you can see Tre danger of this simply based in history
This is such a straw man bullcrap argument by you. I never said suppress the rights on minorities to speak. I said suppress the rights of people who slander or denegrate others with for the contents of their character largely beyond their control. (Sex, race,religion).
If your logic was sound, then there should be no forms of suppression to speech, even in cases of clear and present danger (like falsely yelling fire in a theater) just because you suppress the speech of people that are acting in malice doesn’t mean you want to suppress the speech of minorities. Anymore than you’re suppressing the right of “minorities” to drive after they’ve been convicted of DUI’s.
I love conservatives defending the free speech rights of the Klan. You’re the same people that would have been saying “you have to let Hitler speak at his next rally”. “You can’t take away his right to build hatred towards Jews just because you don’t share his opinion that they’re vermin and they deserve to be eradicated”
Idiots all. Just like people that defend the “right” of murders to murder, are complicit in murder...People that defend the rights of racists to promote racism, are racists themselves.
The left is running the campaign of shame. You are no no longer able to have your own thoughts. agree with me or else. kneel or else.Intent is someone’s opinion and we adjudicate that relatively fine
You could yell hate at me all day long. If that’s the way you feel, by all means express yourself bc in this country, I have the ability to express myself too. Gathering to share messages of like minded individuals is not illegal. If what I say something that offends you as i gather, so what! Go somewhere else or scream me down. The Lines get crossed when one side starts Rioting, destroying people’s property, plotting a government takeover is illegal. I’m trying to give you a lifeline to save yourself but you keep digging deeper and deeper. If you share this with us, I’m convinced you share deeper more radical views on other forums. If I were to literally replace your beliefs in socialism/communism and insert the word radical Islam, it’s scary how similar you sound in comparison.This is such a straw man bullcrap argument by you. I never said suppress the rights on minorities to speak. I said suppress the rights of people who slander or denegrate others with for the contents of their character largely beyond their control. (Sex, race,religion).
If your logic was sound, then there should be no forms of suppression to speech, even in cases of clear and present danger (like falsely yelling fire in a theater) just because you suppress the speech of people that are acting in malice doesn’t mean you want to suppress the speech of minorities. Anymore than you’re suppressing the right of “minorities” to drive after they’ve been convicted of DUI’s.
I love conservatives defending the free speech rights of the Klan. You’re the same people that would have been saying “you have to let Hitler speak at his next rally”. “You can’t take away his right to build hatred towards Jews just because you don’t share his opinion that they’re vermin and they deserve to be eradicated”
Idiots all. Just like people that defend the “right” of murders to murder, are complicit in murder...People that defend the rights of racists to promote racism, are racists themselves.
LMAO. You’re calling me both an ultra liberal and at the same time an ultra conservative. Which end of the spectrum do you want me to be on? I’m really I’m on neither end of the spectrum. I’m just someone who believes in logic and justice above all else.You could yell hate at me all day long. If that’s the way you feel, by all means express yourself bc in this country, I have the ability to express myself too. Gathering to share messages of like minded individuals is not illegal. If what I say something that offends you as i gather, so what! Go somewhere else or scream me down. The Lines get crossed when one side starts Rioting, destroying people’s property, plotting a government takeover is illegal. I’m trying to give you a lifeline to save yourself but you keep digging deeper and deeper. If you share this with us, I’m convinced you share deeper more radical views on other forums. If I were to literally replace your beliefs in socialism/communism and insert the word radical Islam, it’s scary how similar you sound in comparison.
the
The left is running the campaign of shame. You are no no longer able to have your own thoughts. agree with me or else. kneel or else.
When one side is arguing that an action will result in a slippery slope towards tyranny, I think it’s both fair and appropriate to use an ACTUAL slippery slope that’s been observed historically when the action WAS NOT taken to refute such an argument. If you’re going to appeal to extreme, then so should I. In addition I provided evidence (modern Germany, post WWII) to prove that your slippery slope isn’t guaranteed to occur given the action (restriction of hate speech).Typical Aston argument. Let’s use the most extreme example possible to defend what is an indefensible position. No one is talking about the Klan or Hitler here yet you see fit to bring both into the conversation. Try criticizing BLM on a college campus and see how quickly your speech is shut down. Hell...go on twitter or post an article criticizing the movement on FB and watch the post disappear. Doesn’t even matter that there a legitimate criticisms which should not only be heard and addressed. Yet progressives support this suppression because it’s speech which they disagree. The shouting fire in a theater example is likewise a red herring as its entirely subjective on how offended a group of people become from certain speech. What is alarming is the rapid acceleration of the types of speech which promoted outrage. A group should not be able to continuously expand their outrage as a means for suppressing speech. Something we are seeing today. I love “progressives” supporting the silencing of more and more speech because it makes them more upset as time passes. This is anything but progressive.
What I’m saying is based on your explanation of your personal views and the views of this progressive movement, you are the radicals that seem to be moving in parallel with the movement Hitler spearheaded. Your leadership was previously defeated, used an awful event to seize power, confiscated the weapons, dismantled the police, burned the books (Information warfare via Media), silenced the critics (censorship via Facebook/Twitter), and now are going for the complete overhaul of the government via rigged elections. Everything about your views are extreme. You say you want your side to think more critically but when you want to seize power, you have to do it by any means necessary and that’s why there never can be a compromise.When one side is arguing that an action will result in a slippery slope towards tyranny, I think it’s both fair and appropriate to use an ACTUAL slippery slope that’s been observed historically when the action WAS NOT taken to refute such an argument. If you’re going to appeal to extreme, then so should I. In addition I provided evidence (modern Germany, post WWII) to prove that your slippery slope isn’t guaranteed to occur given the action (restriction of hate speech).
You apparently don't understand history at all. Nor do you understand what my views are. I'm done talking with you Kanye. You live in your own world and I'm sorry that I'm never going to be able remove you from it.
Awh come on Bueller! Don’t go getting all bent out of shape. Your a tough guy. Tough guys don’t tuck and run! We are just now really starting to understand each other! Who else would I debate if you stopped the conversation?You apparently don't understand history at all. Nor do you understand what my views are. I'm done talking with you Kanye. You live in your own world and I'm sorry that I'm never going to be able remove you from it.
This is such a straw man bullcrap argument by you. I never said suppress the rights on minorities to speak. I said suppress the rights of people who slander or denegrate others with for the contents of their character largely beyond their control. (Sex, race,religion).
If your logic was sound, then there should be no forms of suppression to speech, even in cases of clear and present danger (like falsely yelling fire in a theater) just because you suppress the speech of people that are acting in malice doesn’t mean you want to suppress the speech of minorities. Anymore than you’re suppressing the right of “minorities” to drive after they’ve been convicted of DUI’s.
I love conservatives defending the free speech rights of the Klan. You’re the same people that would have been saying “you have to let Hitler speak at his next rally”. “You can’t take away his right to build hatred towards Jews just because you don’t share his opinion that they’re vermin and they deserve to be eradicated”
Idiots all. Just like people that defend the “right” of murders to murder, are complicit in murder...People that defend the rights of racists to promote racism, are racists themselves.
We fought a civil war over that idea and your side lost.
The party ideals have very much flipped since the 19th century. There's no way on God's Green Earth that Lincoln would be a Republican today.I'm pretty sure the South was led by Democrats... so technically.. YOUR side lost..
However, based on the way your side treats minorities that go off script, i'm pretty sure the plantation masters still run the Democrat party.
Hitler was also given the Iron Cross 1st Class (One of 218K) which wasn't normally given to Lance Corporals. He was wounded in battle and begged to be returned to his regiment which lost something like 3,000 out of 3,600 men. I'm not saying that he was a good guy that turned bad, I'm saying that he wasn't born an evil dictatorial monster, but at some point he became one. Where are we able to draw that line?Just a little catching up, you called H a war hero in WWI.
He received a Iron Cross 2nd class. In WWI the Iron Cross 2nd class (EK in German) was awarded as follows, 5,196,000 EKIIs it was basically a War Service Medal. He did prison for the Beer Hall Putsch. You leave the impression that he was a good guy turned bad, when in fact he was a bad guy turned worse. Anyway your point is silly about going back and killing someone who has been dead for 75 years.
Hitler was also given the Iron Cross 1st Class (One of 218K) which wasn't normally given to Lance Corporals. He was wounded in battle and begged to be returned to his regiment which lost something like 3,000 out of 3,600 men. I'm not saying that he was a good guy that turned bad, I'm saying that he wasn't born an evil dictatorial monster, but at some point he became one. Where are we able to draw that line?
More importantly at what point can we draw the line where someone like Hitler becomes too dangerous to their country to be allowed to continue to profess their hateful beliefs to the masses? One could argue that by the time the Reichstag burns down it's already too late.
I think Hitler's real craziness came soon after WWI. He believed the stabbed-in-the-back theory that jews, marxists, etc... betrayed Germany to end the war when really Germany's fate was sealed from the moment they came into the war due to logistical constraints they had, like needing to use unrestricted submarine warfare to combat the British, which inevitably led to the US entering the war. As well as neglecting the fact that German high command were the ones that sowed the seeds of communism by putting Lenin on a train to Moscow in an attempt to end the conflict on the Eastern Front.
Hitler and many of his fellow veterans, much like some on this board, didn't want to listen to logical reality and have to think critically about events. They wanted someone to blame their sorrows on. When they started blaming their former leaders' misdeeds on the innocent (and broadly promoting that ideal) is when they were truly lost in my opinion.
It would be like an Iraq or Afghanistan war veteran coming home and blaming the failures in those conflicts on the socialists and liberals, when really the socialists and liberals had very little to do with the logistical difficulties involved in fighting such a complicated conflict with so many outside forces involved (Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Etc...)
It's very hard for someone that was a devout believer in the superiority of their cause to acknowledge that their leaders might have actually been responsible for the cause's failure. We see it in the Antebellum South. We see it in Inter War Germany.
The party ideals have very much flipped since the 19th century. There's no way on God's Green Earth that Lincoln would be a Republican today.