American Politics Thread

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,607]

13 minutes ago, That Venice Bitch said:

Not defending the opposite position at all, but asking why they want to do that isn’t something you can expect a rational answer from. Asking someone WHY they’re open to allowing/defending hate speech will get the answer that hate speech is free speech. Which isn’t wrong constitutionally, but each on of us can individually stand against hate speech and ensure that those who use it face repercussions. 

 

If Meta, X, whatever wants to remove guidelines that protect against hate speech, then it’s up to us to push back against those who use it. We can’t be complacent for the next 4 years while things will inevitably get worse.

 

This all being said I don’t understand why normal human beings are so obsessed with the American Constitution. Like from a moral standpoint, why are people so happy and quick to defend hate speech just because it’s indirectly protected by the Constitution…

 

Why don’t you want to be a nice person and not have hateful opinions … Where is the fun in hating people or being mean 

 Protecting free speech has nothing to do with the constitution. They want it in other countries too. 
cruel people are going to be cruel whether they’re on the internet or not. 

i agree that there isn’t anything fun about being cruel and mean. I was bullied all through my childhood. It sucks. It’s evil. 
 

I think people with hateful opinions are shit people.

 

do I think I have a right to control what they put on the internet? No. Most people on the internet arent psychos like Alex Jones who start weird mobs of dick heads who have zero common sense. 

[That Venice Bitch 29,168]

16 minutes ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

 Protecting free speech has nothing to do with the constitution. They want it in other countries too. 
cruel people are going to be cruel whether they’re on the internet or not. 

i agree that there isn’t anything fun about being cruel and mean. I was bullied all through my childhood. It sucks. It’s evil. 
 

I think people with hateful opinions are shit people.

 

do I think I have a right to control what they put on the internet? No. Most people on the internet arent psychos like Alex Jones who start weird mobs of dick heads who have zero common sense. 

 

Well the discussion at hand was started from users saying the American Constitution explicitly protects hate speech as a form of free speech. 

 

Hate speech is explicitly banned in many countries and often carry criminal offenses. That is not the case in America. Protecting hate speech protects hateful people and I don’t know why anyone would advocate for and defend those who commit hate speech. Imo, you can’t be against hate speech while being okay with others to commit it 
 

Our different perspectives on the idea of free speech divide us on this, which is okay, but I think a lot the argument is hypocritical when we’re being propped up by “free speech billionaire patriots” who run our social media platforms and get their thongs in a twist over the word “cisgender” 

[Mer 63,354]

Freedom of speech, constitutionally, gives Americans the right to freedom from censorship from the government. 
 

So, yes, the government cannot force Meta or X or LanaBoards to moderate anyone’s speech. But that does not mean Meta or X or LanaBoards cannot create their own moderation rules and protect their users against hate speech. Nor will doing so infringe on anyone’s freedom of speech. 
 

Additionally, freedom of speech (constitutionally or otherwise) does not equal freedom of platform. You do not have the right to be able to post on Meta or X or LanaBoards. 

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

16 hours ago, bluechemtrails said:

Just compare it with Lanaboards. There must be certain rules to keep the peace in the forum. It is possible to express your free opinion as long as you do not hurt the rights or feelings of others.

 

this analogy doesn't stand because i think at least half of the rules on here are atrocious af (and only enforced when the mods active at the time personally don't like an opinion)    i've been given warnings and put on mod queue so many fucking times and (imo) the only valid ones were the two times i accidentally shared high definition FLAC links to songs that were copyrighted (my bad ellybelly it won't happen again pls tell ur mods to leave me alone)

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

16 hours ago, bluechemtrails said:

it is possible to express your free opinion as long as you do not hurt the rights or feelings of others

 

feelings are subjective.. there shouldn't be any rules about "hurt feelings" on social media platforms because how hurt one's feelings get by a given statement is HUGELY (perhaps solely) dependent on their insecurities and sensitivity level

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

6 hours ago, baddisease said:

Why are you defending abhorrent behavior? The "free speech" people are not thinking about the big picture effect on minorities. They aren't.

 

and ?? are people not allowed to endorse values independent of how some other people who share that same value happen to act ?? supporting free speech isn't equivalent to defending other people who also support free speech and happen to use it to denigrate minorities.. free speech as a concept makes sense in and of itself.. to defend the suppression of it only through contrast by alluding to psycho MAGA worshippers who happen to be racist and insane says a lot about the weakness of any arguments that suggest restricting free speech incurs only largely positive effects  

[baddisease 18,065]

1 hour ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

and ?? are people not allowed to endorse values independent of how some other people who share that same value happen to act ?? supporting free speech isn't equivalent to defending other people who also support free speech and happen to use it to denigrate minorities.. free speech as a concept makes sense in and of itself.. to defend the suppression of it only through contrast by alluding to psycho MAGA worshippers who happen to be racist and insane says a lot about the weakness of any arguments that suggest restricting free speech incurs only largely positive effects  

 

As long as societal marginalization, suppression, and inequality of ethnic, religious, gender, and sexual minorities exist, absolute free speech (that is, free speech that protects hate speech) will always only harm those groups. It reinforces everything that keeps them down. The history of hate speech proves that, at least in the USA.  I would prefer suppression of some forms of speech over absolute free speech because the well-being of those groups, and thus society at large in the end, is more important to me. Absolute free speech does not take into account the social conditions of the groups that hate speech impacts or the history of those groups. It allows a culture where they are harmed to flourish are rarely contributes to stopping that culture.

[Deadly Nightshade 13,038]

this comes as a problem in eu because in many eu countries hate speech is forbidden and many times punishable by a criminal court 

so we do have different worldviews on it , freedom of speech is a human right but can be restricted at times , especially when it targets a specific group due to its specific characteristics 

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

44 minutes ago, baddisease said:

As long as societal marginalization, suppression, and inequality of ethnic, religious, gender, and sexual minorities exist, absolute free speech (that is, free speech that protects hate speech) will always only harm those groups. It reinforces everything that keeps them down.

 

those things are always going to exist. they're going to exist in every single society, country, and continent for the foreseeable future because unfortunately it's human nature to create mental hierarchies in order to classify people and things. that doesn't mean that free speech ONLY harms those vulnerable groups

 

in order to eventually change society's nature in the sense of abolishing the idea that ideological hierarchies accurately represent society, these groups who feel oppressed in any sense need to find logical arguments they can use to defend themselves against idiots. you guys can't just sit there and advocate for the suppression of free speech while illogically maintaining that ur view is the right one to have, just because it is.

 

can you not use free speech to advocate against the people who don't believe in equality? why should dumb people with wrong opinions be silenced? the only way to encourage a society to disagree with certain values is to show them, in actuality and through logical arguments, the stupidity of those values. you can't just tell them to "shhhhhh" because that makes it seem, to the general public, that you're afraid of hearing other opinions that could prove yours wrong  

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

34 minutes ago, baddisease said:

Absolute free speech does not take into account the social conditions of the groups that hate speech impacts or the history of those groups

 

exactly.. because if it did, the speech wouldn't be free anymore..  free speech on social media means you can say whatever the fuck you want (beyond threats) as it has been consistently shown that counter-speech is FAR more effective than censorship in spreading political ideas.. ppl should be able to provide their own arguments as to why certain things are right/wrong

 

[baddisease 18,065]

1 minute ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

exactly.. because if it did, the speech wouldn't be free anymore..  free speech on social media means you can say whatever the fuck you want (beyond threats) as it has been consistently shown that counter-speech is FAR more effective than censorship in spreading political ideas.. ppl should be able to provide their own arguments as to why certain things are right/wrong

 

 

You don't have the right of "free speech" on social media. You have to abide be their rules. And providing those arguments, no matter how strong, doesn't really seem to lead the people who are wrong to change.

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

6 minutes ago, baddisease said:

You don't have the right of "free speech" on social media. You have to abide be their rules.

 

well yes.. as i said (and i quote) in this thread 22 hours ago

 

"obviously social media companies are private so our constitution doesn't apply to them but i think it's fair to say that it would make logical sense for the largest social media companies (which act as the center of the public exchange of ideas in today's society) to strive to reflect the ideals of the constitution at least in the sense of not restricting speech and expression"  

[baddisease 18,065]

13 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

those things are always going to exist. they're going to exist in every single society, country, and continent for the foreseeable future because unfortunately it's human nature to create mental hierarchies in order to classify people and things. that doesn't mean that free speech ONLY harms those vulnerable groups

 

in order to eventually change society's nature in the sense of abolishing the idea that ideological hierarchies accurately represent society, these groups who feel oppressed in any sense need to find logical arguments they can use to defend themselves against idiots. you guys can't just sit there and advocate for the suppression of free speech while illogically maintaining that ur view is the right one to have, just because it is.

 

can you not use free speech to advocate against the people who don't believe inequality? why should dumb people with wrong opinions be silenced? the only way to encourage a society to disagree with certain values is to show them, in actuality and through logical arguments, the stupidity of those values. you can't just tell them to "shhhhhh" because that makes it seem, to the general public, that you're afraid of hearing other opinions that could prove yours wrong  

 

"Human nature" isn't really a good argument here. There are societies and have been societies that restricted free speech that did, in fact, protect minorities in a way that kept the from bearing the full brunt of oppression and marginalization. Additionally, cultures are different and certain types of marginalization didn't always exist in some cultures but was introduced by an external force. This is true of queer people. There have been and are societies that didn't harm is or harm us as much until the European Christian West colonized or otherwise genocided them.

 

"Logical arguments against they can use against idiots" implies that bigotry - both individual and systemic - is logical and can be reasoned with out of existence. It can't be. The antisemitic arguments both in Nazi Germany and all the ones that led up to it, for instance, were illogical and based on fake sciences, religion, and twisting of historical facts. Those people couldn't be reasoned with. It took a war to stop it. And even then they needed ideological reeducation and restructuring (both societal and ideological). Same with anti black racism. Logic and free speech didn't stop slavery or the Klan. The Civil War, Reconstruction, and suppression of organizations like the KKK (though not entirely successful) were what helped to alleviate that for a time period. 

 

You can use free speech to advocate against those people but typically it only comes back with a vengeance eventually. The resurgence of queerphobia under Trump and overt racism in the Obama era proves that. It's not "being afraid that other opinions could prove us wrong", it's that history has consistently shown that allowing those opinions to thrive only allows them to fester and grow even as active attempts to challenge them in the court of public opinion happen.

 

The Paradox of Tolerance applies here: a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance bc to allow intolerance would destroy tolerance completely.

 

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

10 minutes ago, baddisease said:

"Human nature" isn't really a good argument here. There are societies and have been societies that restricted free speech that did, in fact, protect minorities in a way that kept the from bearing the full brunt of oppression and marginalization

 

oh really ?? which countries in particular did this without also oppressing certain groups ?? china and the soviet union definitely can't say that. and even if some restrictions on free speech would work in the sense of protecting ppl for a limited amount of time who is to say that those restrictions won't ever be extended by nefarious governments and be used against those same people they were meant to protect ?? the only thing that guarantees this are SOLID free speech laws that aren't up for debate. ppl should always be able to say what they want as long as they aren't making threats. who decides what speech in particular should be restricted ?? and how do you know these restrictions wouldn't work against the protection of minority groups (take a look at the protests in singapore, specifically in 2017 and 2019 https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/singapore-new-prime-minister-continues-policy-of-silencing-dissent-by-criminalising-protesters-and-harassing-critics/) ?? 

 

 

[baddisease 18,065]

3 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

oh really ?? which countries in particular did this without also oppressing certain groups ?? china and the soviet union definitely can't say that. and even if some restrictions on free speech would work in the sense of protecting ppl for a limited amount of time who is to say that those restrictions won't ever be extended by nefarious governments and be used against those same people they were meant to protect ?? the only thing that guarantees this are SOLID free speech laws that aren't up for debate. ppl should always be able to say what they want as long as they aren't making threats. who decides what speech in particular should be restricted ?? and how do you know these restrictions wouldn't work against the protection of minority groups (take a look at the protests in singapore, specifically in 2017 and 2019 https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/singapore-new-prime-minister-continues-policy-of-silencing-dissent-by-criminalising-protesters-and-harassing-critics/) ?? 

 

 

 

Like I said earlier, I value minorities and oppressed groups over the right of people to spout bullshit. I do. I've yet to see any argument that could budge me from that position. And like I said, bigotry and hate speech doesn't come from logic,  so no amount of speech will stop it.

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

1 hour ago, baddisease said:

The Paradox of Tolerance applies here: a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance bc to allow intolerance would destroy tolerance completely.

 

using karl popper's (a jewish man) theory that was established to explain the objective horrors of the holocaust to support ur misguided and just wrong opinion is CRAZY and a joke 😭 like what.... who determines what quantifies a "tolerant" person to you ??

 

like let's say person B, let's call her elle (hi) decides that person A, let's call him ultrabanisters (hi and pls leave me alone w the warnings) is exhibiting intolerant behavior and is therefore a threat to society.. so elle then decides that it's morally correct to act "intolerant" of john and treat him badly because she personally (subjectively) deems his behavior to be a societal threat.. but then person C, let's call him nikogo (hi and also pls leave me alone w the warnings) notices elle's intolerance and decides that it therefore must okay to be be an intolerant asshole to ultrabanisters bc elle does. and then person D, let's call him that venice bitch (no more warnings pls bae) also walks by and takes note and acts accordingly to nikogo's "intolerant" behavior to elle, fully thinking it's okay on every level

 

insane opinions easily spread from one to the other. don't you see how crazy opinions would widely spread if certain theories (the paradox of tolerance) were widely accepted????  

[That Venice Bitch 29,168]

Biden commutes sentences for nearly 2,500 non-violent drug offenders convicted on crack cocaine-related charges — CNN

 

Big win for sure

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

11 hours ago, Slutto said:

Meanwhile the Vivienne is dead due in no small part to the constant barrage of conservative hate she got

 

ohhh this is SO fucking gross.. using the incredibly recent death of a beloved drag legend and human to support ur misguided and delusional opinion is disgusting. you have no idea why james allegedly committed suicide and ur post is actually gross considering his entire family has asked for the public not to speculate on his death and give him privacy  

 

i've gone to seen james perform live MANY times and seeing people use his death to propel their wild political agendas makes me sick

[baddisease 18,065]

32 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

using karl popper's (a jewish man) theory that was established to explain the objective horrors of the holocaust to support ur misguided and just wrong opinion is CRAZY and a joke 😭 like what.... who determines what quantifies a "tolerant" person to you ??

 

like let's say person B, let's call her elle (hi) decides that person A, let's call him ultrabanisters (hi and pls leave me alone w the warnings) is exhibiting intolerant behavior and is therefore a threat to society.. so elle then decides that it's morally correct to act "intolerant" of john and treat him badly because she personally (subjectively) deems his behavior to be a societal threat.. but then person C, let's call him nikogo (hi and also pls leave me alone w the warnings) notices elle's intolerance and decides that it therefore must okay to be be an intolerant asshole to ultrabanisters bc elle does. but then person D, let's call him that venice bitch (no more warnings pls bae) also walks by and takes note and acts accordingly to nikogo's "intolerant" behavior to elle..

 

insane opinions easily spread from one to the other. don't you see how crazy opinions would widely spread if certain theories (the paradox of tolerance) were widely accepted????  

 

How is it crazy and wrong? I will never and can never be a free speech bro that thinks language and speech doesn't influence the world around them. And, as a specific example, anti-trans hate speech is contributing and has contributed to the systemic oppression of trans people and the Day 1 mission of Trump to "end transgender lunacy" with 4 specific policy actions  was directly influenced by hate speech targeting us and the very public and very popular call to "eradicate transgender ideology" in Washington DC  is supporting that. According to you and everyone who thinks like you that's completely okay for them to do and is enabled by that worldview.

 

They're going to almost certainly successfully obliterate trans identity and " free speech" bullshit birthed that. No amount of reasoned debate has stopped that. 

 

You're not even acknowledging the history of speech and it's influence on oppression bc the right to be hateful is more important to you. And I really hope you're not gay or bi bc once they're done with us, they'll get to you and no amount of speech will save you.

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,678]

53 minutes ago, baddisease said:

I really hope you're not gay or bi bc once they're done with us, they'll get to you and no amount of speech will save you.

 

????? girl i'm on a lana del rey forum the fuck do you think i am  

 

53 minutes ago, baddisease said:

They're going to almost certainly successfully obliterate trans identity and " free speech" bullshit birthed that. No amount of reasoned debate has stopped that. You're not even acknowledging the history of speech and it's influence on oppression bc the right to be hateful is more important to you.

 

what ?? i literally probably have more irl trans friends than you do.. like i know at least 30 trans adults (it's important to signify that they aren't minors) on a very close level and i'd say about 75% of them support absolute free speech - i only personally know like 6 trans ppl who don't believe they should be able to publicly present any opinion they feel represents their worldview and they're mostly public figures who only don't do so to not start drama and would think something very differently if they weren't public figures