Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

I also think we have a problem (and maybe always have had a problem) with people internalizing all of their views. When your beliefs are integrated into your core being, people who disagree with you are going to seem evil and their voicing their disagreement is an attack upon you.

Instead of tolerating someone's opposing view, the reaction is that their view is evil and must be destroyed for the good of all. Seeing disagreement as a personal attack prevents rational debate and causes people to descend into emotional outbursts.

But humans are tribal creatures. This is only natural.
 
striker42 said:
I also think we have a problem (and maybe always have had a problem) with people internalizing all of their views. When your beliefs are integrated into your core being, people who disagree with you are going to seem evil and their voicing their disagreement is an attack upon you.

Instead of tolerating someone's opposing view, the reaction is that their view is evil and must be destroyed for the good of all. Seeing disagreement as a personal attack prevents rational debate and causes people to descend into emotional outbursts.

But humans are tribal creatures. This is only natural.
Click to expand...

This is a reasonable point but I find it dicey when we’re talking about things that are actually integrated into one’s core being, i.e. not simply beliefs. You might believe that someone’s allowed to think and say things that negate your equality or humanity, but might draw a line at their broadcasting them to a larger audience, etc. You might use whatever currency you have (your dollars, your voice) to oppose it. It’s somewhat harder for me to get worked up about that as a fatal flaw to society. Like, I’m not sure it’s a bad thing that there’s a societal cost to being a public bigot, for example.
 
Julio3000 said:
This is a reasonable point but I find it dicey when we’re talking about things that are actually integrated into one’s core being, i.e. not simply beliefs. You might believe that someone’s allowed to think and say things that negate your equality or humanity, but might draw a line at their broadcasting them to a larger audience, etc. You might use whatever currency you have (your dollars, your voice) to oppose it. It’s somewhat harder for me to get worked up about that as a fatal flaw to society. Like, I’m not sure it’s a bad thing that there’s a societal cost to being a public bigot, for example.
Click to expand...

I agree with both you and striker and would add that this is where civility comes into the discussion. People seem to have forgotten the notion that there is a time and place for everything and that the language used to transmit the main point of an argument can be modified to fit the environment where the information is being transmitted.

I don't know if I am particularly good at this, but I can tell you in my work as a lobbyist, I often use different language when speaking with Republicans, Democrats, independents when promoting my clients' views. The proposition I am promoting remains the same, but I realize that the selling points may differ depending upon my audience. But enough about me and I realize that my example is apples-and-oranges to the larger issue of the airing of contentious viewpoints in the public-at-large.

I guess my point is that in this era, everyone seems to go from zero-to-sixty with language when they should probably stop at thirty. I find Richard Spencer's views deplorable, but he has a right to his views. I just wish he would tone it down a bit. Same goes for Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. One can speak truth to power without constantly yelling it from the mountaintop. There is a time when yelling is appropriate, but when everyone yells all the time, the salient points of an argument tend to get lost in the noise.
 
Last edited:
I find false equivalancy Spenser and AOC.

She has skin in the game being electorally accountable.
He a provacatour no more no less and she an elected member of US House

A comparison to say Louis Gohmert would seem more apt
.........

Your comparison is the trap designed by the Hannitys and Trumps of the world
 
57Brave said:
I find false equivalancy Spenser and AOC.

She has skin in the game being electorally accountable.
He a provacatour no more no less and she an elected member of US House

A comparison to say Louis Gohmert would seem more apt
.........

Your comparison is the trap designed by the Hannitys and Trumps of the world
Click to expand...

Make whatever comparison you want. I was only speaking of the level of invective.
 
We disagree not only on the apples and oranges of the examples but what constitutes "level of invective "
 
Given the original example I feel the need to point out that this economic terrorisim tactic is used by Christians on Atheists far more than it is the other way around. I havent lookee at the surveys in years but Atheists were the least trusted group in America. Even lower than Muslims.
 
Is Tim Scott attacking free speech in this editorial?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ger-be-silent-bigotry/?utm_term=.947168ff66a3

Interesting point:

"When people with opinions similar to King’s open their mouths, they damage not only the Republican Party and the conservative brand but also our nation as a whole. They want to be treated with fairness for some perceived slights but refuse to return the favor to those on the other side."

Also interesting:

"Some in our party wonder why Republicans are constantly accused of racism — it is because of our silence when things like this are said. Immigration is the perfect example, in which somehow our affection for the rule of law has become conflated with a perceived racism against brown and black people."
 
Last edited:
OT, but I think any effort to manage the fallout of Steve King’s statements can only be taken seriously if there’s a straightforward acknowledgement of the fact that he didn’t turn into a racist and white supremacist yesterday. Yet he’s been a member in good standing of the party, and an influential one, since he’s from an early primary/caucus state. Hell, he was Ted Cruz’s state chair. He’s been saying **** like this for a while (and, fwiw, I’ve been pointing it out, to a chorus of crickets). After one of his statements, Ben Shapiro wrote an article about how silly liberals were calling it racist, when in fact blah blah blah...after this most recent flap, Shapiro’s now saying “yeah, this is obviously racist.” Guess what? Nothing about Steve King or his words changed substantially, he just inched one toe over the line into territory where what he said was considered so unambiguous that you can’t play trolly games to defend it.

Where Scott (whom I generally respect) is right on is that this is one reason the accusations of racism against Republicans are hard to brush off. When people are, at best, silent, and at worst, actively defending obvious racists, it tends to dilute the argument that the accusations are unwarranted. At best, it’s head-in-sand avoidance. At worst, it’s complicity and gaslighting. Where he’s wrong is in suggesting that Republican support for “the rule of law” wrt to the border is being “conflated with” racism. That may be the case for some individuals, but when the head of the party is making the argument in explicitly racist terms, it tends to shift the burden of proof.
 
At least in my own Twitter feed, I saw consistent reubuke from GOP law makers on Kings comments.

I rarely see any rebuke from the left on the rising anti-Semitism from new law makers and women's March leadership.

I think we should be consistent.

Steve King sucks by the way. I'm fully on board with term limits to get rid of these leaches
 
a under looked part of the 1st amendment is the right to assemble:



Indeed, when the union held a strike ballot in August 2018, 98 percent of the membership voted yes, and over a thousand teachers who were not yet members joined UTLA in order to cast their ballots too. Post-Janusunion density stands at an extraordinary 96 percent, the highest ever.

This kind of commitment could not exist without great community support, which the union had carefully nurtured through its “Bargaining for the Common Good” program that links union demands for better schools to the particular problems faced by L.A.’s often insecure immigrant community. In mid-December 50,000 Los Angelinos joined a demonstration in support of UTLA demands for smaller classes, higher wages, and a cap on charter schools.

If the LA teachers do strike, following last year’s wave of teacher strikes in mostly red states, as well as a historic charter school strike in Chicago, it will be a major moment for worker power and the strength of public education. We’ll see ..

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ngeles-teachers-can-strike-Monday-judge-rules
 
sturg33 said:
At least in my own Twitter feed, I saw consistent reubuke from GOP law makers on Kings comments.

I rarely see any rebuke from the left on the rising anti-Semitism from new law makers and women's March leadership.

I think we should be consistent.

Steve King sucks by the way. I'm fully on board with term limits to get rid of these leaches
Click to expand...

For the first part, what about the previous 10 times he’s said noxious things? As I mentioned, Ben Shapiro was defending him until he wiggles a toe over the line.

For the second, I’d suggest you aren’t paying attention.
 
Titania McGrath is definitely a spoof account that holds up the facade indefinitely.

But regarding this news....what a disgrace how we have to kowtow to a miniscule percentage of the mentally challenged population. But, its one of the basic steps in the Saul Alinsky playbook. Create victims and divide the population.
 
Among young Democrats, university students believe in restricting speech 37% more than non college students.

Interesting

[Tw]1098717417549778945[/tw]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top