Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by Newjak
We can extrapolate but that doesn't mean your conclusion is the only possible outcome of that extrapolation.

It could have also exposed them for the people they were. Of course like you said we can't know for sure. Still we do know that from violent beginnings long lasting change has been achieved for the better sometimes.

I think there is an issue here because when we think of violently suppressing speech we think of authoritarian governments. Which is fair. You most likely won't find any times and places where this was a good thing.

On the flip side though we do have very real examples of where hate speech left unchecked as caused harm to others. Often times because hate speech by those with power become action. Still all we have to do is look at teen suicide rates for LGBTQ individuals. The number one cited reason is for not being accepted by society for who they are. So here we have an instance where unchecked hate speech causes harm which is a problem.

I also wouldn't necessarily call this violently suppressing speech as it protecting yourselves from violent ideas. Inherently hate speech exists to harm others for things beyond their control. Often these actions become systemic if the people have power to make their hate into law or have the law protect them instead of the people being harmed.

I think our current system has some of the right ideas. Instead of just banning speech if we punish the actions that stem from them like discriminatory business practices it helps.

Although if the people whose hateful beliefs have enough power they can just ignore these or tie them up. We've seen this a lot in the LGBTQ discrimination cases where businesses refuse service to them.

Germany also has had to deal with this so it's possibly a good idea to turn towards their system as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung#:~:text=For%20any%20hate%20speech%20to,dignity%20of%20others%20by%20reviling%2C

So, you agree with violently attacking people you disagree with?

Originally posted by Newjak
There are going to be thin lines on almost any topic. Even the freedom to commit violence exists within our society as self defense.

The problem with speech is people see it in a lot more abstract terms and often ignore the very real damage that speech backed by action can have.

Also I think people often think the freedom of speech means the freedom to say whatever whenever without consequences. Which even in America today is not true. You yell bomb in a crowded theater you're getting fined and going to jail most likely.

Once again though those have immediate impacts. Hate speech itself is harder for people to understand the repercussions of it because they aren't generally felt immediately.

In this regard I actually think Nazi Germany is a very apt metaphor. Hitler didn't start by saying kill all Jews. He and the Nazi party worked hard to begin small and sway the public opinion which lead to more direct harm later down the line.

Similar hate speech was used for segregation before the Civil Rights movements.

I do think it's a tricky conversation to have. Do I think the government should be in that business? Maybe from a discrimination stand point.

I think the bigger responsibility falls on the general public to not give them the appropriate forums to let their hateful ideas grow. Such as students boycotting and demanding they not be allowed to have events on college campuses or allowing them ad time on television networks.

The Transsexual discussion I think is more nuanced then we can probably get into here but I still think it is hate speech because it still used to undermine specific people by making it harder for them to gain acceptance. Often by people with very little to no understanding of actual biology or societal gender norms.

The issue is taking something that belongs to someone else.

I am not a gun owner, never plan on being, and don't like guns. I can still understand where they're coming from. They went through the proper channels, they followed all the laws, they paid the fees, they passed the background check.. So what's the problem? Do we really think they're a danger?

Newjack, read this here:

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/michael-bloomberg-calls-colorados-decision-on-legal-pot-stupid/

While speaking at the Aspen Institute, Mr. Bloomberg, 72, said 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: a male minority between the ages of 15 and 25, The Aspen Times reported.

Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, the former three-term mayor said, according to The Times.

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

Of course right wing rags picked this up to bash on Bloomberg. But this is the original context taken from the Aspen Times. It got me to thinking, is Gun Control being argued in good faith?

Or is the anti-second amendment really just cloak and shadows to hide an ulterior motive of disarming black people?

Of course, you can't argue blacks should be disarmed. So you argue guns are bad, and regulate them out of existence, to achieve your goal of disarming blacks.

Whether you agree or disagree on gun control issues, do you think I'm on to something?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, you agree with violently attacking people you disagree with?

Originally posted by cdtm
The issue is taking something that belongs to someone else.

I am not a gun owner, never plan on being, and don't like guns. I can still understand where they're coming from. They went through the proper channels, they followed all the laws, they paid the fees, they passed the background check.. So what's the problem? Do we really think they're a danger?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Why are you trying to create drama mate.

Why would people being honest when they answer my question create drama?

Originally posted by Newjak
I think you missed the entire point of why I brought that up lol

Nope

Originally posted by Newjak
I think you missed the entire point of why I brought that up lol

Originally posted by snowdragon
Nope

Agreed.

Originally posted by Surtur
Trigger warning, Tim Pool video:

Leftists Get Offended By Black Chef On Cream Of Wheat, DEMAND He Be Removed And They DO IT

YouTube video

This is a cult

How racist. So black people cannot be chef's, now?

As in, they are so incapable that do not possess the ability to even learn how to be chef's?

In the future, very near future, all marketing iconography and TMs will just be ambiguous symbols and words. But in the slightly later near future, those symbols will be cancelled because someone will find a similarity with something else that should be cancelled.

This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists. Just tell them to f*ck off and to boycott your stuff. Then continue selling it to the non-retards.

Originally posted by Newjak
If you think that rule gets followed I have a long history of dead civilians to show you :/

And that list is still increasing, even today, from actions the US Government is taking.

Originally posted by Newjak
The american revolution started with violent protests.

What do you mean? Thought the Son's of Liberty didn't start with violence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How racist. So black people cannot be chef's, now?

As in, they are so incapable that do not possess the ability to even learn how to be chef's?

In the future, very near future, all marketing iconography and TMs will just be ambiguous symbols and words. But in the slightly later near future, those symbols will be cancelled because someone will find a similarity with something else that should be cancelled.

This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists. Just tell them to f*ck off and to boycott your stuff. Then continue selling it to the non-retards.

Clearly all boxes of food should only contain depictions of white people.

Fact check: Satirical claim that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Ginsburg's death

Yes, they fact checked a Babylon Bee article saying the 9th circuit court overturned her death.

Bee responded:

USA Today Publishes Fact-Check On Whether A Priest, A Rabbi, And A Minister Really Walked Into A Bar Together

National Association of Scholars calls on Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke award given to '1619 Project' author

Lol

Originally posted by Surtur
National Association of Scholars calls on Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke award given to '1619 Project' author

Lol

Perhaps outright lies, corruption, and history-honesty-practice violations is not such a good idea.

I'm curious what you think about the movie Cuties.

There is this news:

Netflix indicted in Texas over 'lewd' depiction of children in 'Cuties'

Full disclosure: I have not seen Cuties. But I did watch this review by Barb:

YouTube video

It censors it, but she shows some clips and you can see the movie does up close shots of their crotches and asses. It's creepy.

It's Biden's favorite movie.

Spoof video ruthlessly mocks woke Spotify employees trying to censor Joe Rogan's podcast

YouTube video

Lol@ the elk stuff. Does he hunt elk and people don't like it?

Man f*ck elk.