59 police officers injured in Seattle this weekend
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
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!
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
Nazi Censorship mainly occurred AFTER Hitler used his hate speech to form the SA and to overthrow the German legislature via the burning of the Reichstag and to gain his emergency powers.
The problem wasn’t the fact that he censored people AFTER he came to power, it’s that he came to power at all. In many ways the Weimar Republic’s views on free speech mirrored the US’s today. Free speech isn’t going to hinder an heir apparent to Hitler if they ever might rise in our country, if anything free speech will drastically help them as they use our very protections against us.
One doesn’t have to look far beyond Trump to see where hate speech could severely detriment our society. If someone with similar rhetoric who was only slightly smarter than Trump and slightly more subversive got into office, we’ve already proved that there’s essentially no way to get them out if they take drastic action.
Last edited:
This. Germany didn’t go through the blood and suffering of our revolution. And didn’t reap its rewards, including freedom of expression.
It’s really disturbing the way young people in the last five years think that it’s even OK to just discuss the possibility of disrespecting the 22,000 women and men who fought and died in the revolution for your right to smoke pot all day and complain you didn’t graduate from college a millionaire. The idea, which is shockingly prevalent, that nobody before them in 200 years had the knowledge and virtue they do is really sickening. Who raised these kids? What were they taught? Who did them such a disservice? Why is anyone giving them a platform? Who could possibly entertain criminalizing speech in this country? It’s treasonous.
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.
Last edited:
So now people get put on trial for what they say?
Murder is pretty cut and dry, hate speech is someones opinion.
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
Last edited:
I love reading aston. I always learn how not to think.
Conservatives speakers invited to speak on college campuses have had to cancel due to progressives denying them their right.
progressives causing Colleges to cancel ROTC, and on campus military recruiting while opening the doors to right wing radical groups.
progressives causing Colleges to cancel ROTC, and on campus military recruiting while opening the doors to right wing radical groups.
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.
Last edited:
Hypothetical question: if you could jump in a time machine, and go back into the early 20th century, at what point would it be just to kill Hitler to change the outcome of millions of needless deaths?
Are you allowed to do it when he’s a child? How about when he’s a failing art student? How about when he’s a decorated war hero? How about when he along with other veterans try to overthrow the government and fail? How about when he writes a book outlining his evil plans? How about when he comes back from relative exile and begins professing hate again in public and promotes violence against his countrymen in the streets with a faux militia? How about when he burns down the legislature and seizes emergency power? How about when he squashes inner party resistance? How about when the first Jew is put on a train? How about when he invades Poland? France? Russia? How about when he kills Americans?
Are you allowed to do it when he’s a child? How about when he’s a failing art student? How about when he’s a decorated war hero? How about when he along with other veterans try to overthrow the government and fail? How about when he writes a book outlining his evil plans? How about when he comes back from relative exile and begins professing hate again in public and promotes violence against his countrymen in the streets with a faux militia? How about when he burns down the legislature and seizes emergency power? How about when he squashes inner party resistance? How about when the first Jew is put on a train? How about when he invades Poland? France? Russia? How about when he kills Americans?
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
All I’m hearing on this board is the typical “but muh freedom” argument which is blind to reality. You all choose to defend the stupidest, most indefensible, most dangerous, misuses of personal freedoms by malicious and evil radicals (people misusing gun rights, people misusing freedom of speech) while ignoring ACTUAL threats to liberty of normal citizens like the continuing corruption of our government (both elected and judicial) and repression of the right to protest that corruption peaceably.
You all argue about slippery slopes regarding speech without realizing you’re already on a decades long slide down a slippery slope towards tyranny and you’re apparently not smart enough to see it. What I’m in favor of are measures to arrest that slide towards tyranny.
Last edited:
“The Union is running a campaign of shame. You are no longer to determine the fate of your own property. Agree with me or else. Kneel or else.”
I use that as an example of what a southerner might have said when defending an outdated and corrupt view on his personal freedom to own men and women as property. Yes, there are certain extraordinary instances when the moral will of the majority supersedes the personal freedoms of the minority, because the personal freedoms of the minority are detrimental to society at large. We fought a civil war over that idea and your side lost.
Last edited:
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).
Last edited:
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?
I'm pretty sure the highly conservative ACLU defended the Klan's right to speak.. knowing full well that they would hang themselves with their own ropes..
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
You seem to know a lot about Hitler...
And.. you also seem to be a devout believer in your cause...
Hmmm....
Keep telling yourself that...
The Dems still enslave masses in golden chains of dependency and ignorance.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
🏀 Recruiting Tulsa hosts several basketball visitors from transfer portal- Latest: nevadanatural
-
-
-
