Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
French Patriot

Would it be possible to have a conversation regarding the toleration of pussy grabbing presidents and pedophile protecting popes?

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a made up term for people who need to excuse bad behaviour because having manners threatens them.

No, it's not. It's a term for people who think the world simply boils down to oppressor vs. oppressed, moving the goalposts from economics after the Soviet Union discredited that marxist gobblty gook, to the realm of social issues, thinking no one would notice.

Free speech is more important than manners, anyone who says otherwise and believes only the oppressed should be allowed to speak freely while oppressors check their privilege and listen to enlightened oppressed folk , is clearly a Cultural Marxist.They have infected academia, and the media in particular, trying to control the narrative with their anti-freedom propaganda because political correctness trumps all in the eyes of the social justice warriors who are really just Communists without the balls to call themselves what they actually are.

To cultural marxists individuality is irrelevant, all that matters is group identity, and anyone whose opinion differs from the consensus of the "oppressed" groups who the cultural marxists agree with, is to be punished for wrongspeak.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Cultural Marxism has infected every western nation, the only nation who has adequately resisted it thus far is America.

Your definition of those terms are not the same as mine.

America, call it what you will, is the worst free world system at the moment. Check your jail, education and health stats to see the truth in that. That and it is now the laughing stock of the world thanks to Trump.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. It's a term for people who think the world simply boils down to oppressor vs. oppressed, moving the goalposts from economics after the Soviet Union discredited that marxist gobblty gook, to the realm of social issues, thinking no one would notice.

2. Free speech is more important than manners, 

3. social justice warriors who are really just Communists without the balls to call themselves what they actually are.

4. To cultural marxists individuality is irrelevant, all that matters is group identity, and anyone whose opinion differs from the consensus of the "oppressed" groups who the cultural marxists agree with, is to be punished for wrongspeak.

1. This characterization was written by opponents, and is flawed beyond redemption.

2. Ridiculous blanket statement.  These things are always weighed.

3. See number 1.

4. See number 3.

It's really no fun to discuss politics with someone who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them should be ignored or censored.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo the left created Trump.

The liberals keep going further left where it's now hard to tell the difference between liberals and socialists or leftists.

Any person to the right of liberals are instantly labeled racists, white nationalists, islamaphobes etc.

This isnt helpful.  The left is seemingly trying to outlaw or guilt out any thought that isnt left.  

This pushes right wing types further right as a mirror of the left going further left.

I resist both these types of thought.  I dont fit in entirely left nor entirely right.  Im open to learning and having my opinions broadened or outright changed.

The left are closed off to that.  They exist largely in an echo chamber.  Not wanting to allow any ideas except left ideas.  Wanting to shut down any opinions except those the left largely agree with.

This is a problem.  We cannot solve society issues if one side is unable or unwilling to listen to the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 7:31 AM, French Patriot said:

Would it be possible to have a conversation regarding the toleration of pussy grabbing presidents and pedophile protecting popes?

 

The right wing has shown the world their best examples of representatives; Trump and Pope Francis.

The right has given us Pope Francis and President Trump. The lowest of the low; if moral fibre is looked at.

 

If that's what you call "the lowest of the low" that just speaks to your own ignorance.

Trump grabbed vaginas: he didn't chop the heads off of people who surrendered, force their wives and children into slavery and say that it was legal to rape them, and make it legal for middle-aged men to marry young girls and have sex with them.

 

I get that you don't like Trump, but you're trying to compare him to the most evil people who have ever lived. You live in a bubble.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This characterization was written by opponents, and is flawed beyond redemption.

2. Ridiculous blanket statement.  These things are always weighed.

3. See number 1.

4. See number 3.

It's really no fun to discuss politics with someone who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them should be ignored or censored.

2. No it's not weighted, censorship is not acceptable, manners be damned.

You are the one wanting those you disagree with censored because of poor manners, free speech hater. I want no one censored because of bad manners, that's all you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Donnie said:

Imo the left created Trump.

The liberals keep going further left where it's now hard to tell the difference between liberals and socialists or leftists.

Any person to the right of liberals are instantly labeled racists, white nationalists, islamaphobes etc.

This isnt helpful.  The left is seemingly trying to outlaw or guilt out any thought that isnt left.  

This pushes right wing types further right as a mirror of the left going further left.

I resist both these types of thought.  I dont fit in entirely left nor entirely right.  Im open to learning and having my opinions broadened or outright changed.

The left are closed off to that.  They exist largely in an echo chamber.  Not wanting to allow any ideas except left ideas.  Wanting to shut down any opinions except those the left largely agree with.

This is a problem.  We cannot solve society issues if one side is unable or unwilling to listen to the other side.

Which is exactly what is killing the U.S.

I like the 80 20 rule, but that rule has been thrown out by your polarizing tribal based instead of issue based system.

As a Canadian, I see your right wing as loonier than the left as I like our government run and paid for health system, that incidentally is a lot cheaper and better than yours. Sure we have to wait sometimes for service, but we do not go bankrupt when we get there the way so many Americans do.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If that's what you call "the lowest of the low" that just speaks to your own ignorance.

Trump grabbed vaginas: he didn't chop the heads off of people who surrendered, force their wives and children into slavery and say that it was legal to rape them, and make it legal for middle-aged men to marry young girls and have sex with them.

 

I get that you don't like Trump, but you're trying to compare him to the most evil people who have ever lived. You live in a bubble.

 

I like you judgments but think you raise those mentioned too high.

I was speaking of the living. Not the dead.

Your own bubble must have been foggy. 

Regards

DL

 

Edited by French Patriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

2. No it's not weighted, censorship is not acceptable, manners be damned.

You are the one wanting those you disagree with censored because of poor manners, free speech hater. I want no one censored because of bad manners, that's all you.

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. No it's not weighted, censorship is not acceptable, manners be damned.

2. You are the one wanting those you disagree with censored because of poor manners,

3. free speech hater.

4. I want no one censored because of bad manners, that's all you.

1. Can you come up with a single example of censorship being acceptable or having value ?

2. Not because I disagree, but because the utility of the speech is negative.

3. Name calling tsk. tsk.

4. Name calling, coming up with reasons why your opponent is invalid, devaluing people you don't agree with are as bad as censorship.  You're basically lying about me, how is that better than censoring me ?  I could characterize your speech in a way that dehumanizes you and I'm sure you would find that unfair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Donnie said:

1. The liberals keep going further left where it's now hard to tell the difference between liberals and socialists or leftists.

2. Any person to the right of liberals are instantly labeled racists, white nationalists, islamaphobes etc.

1. Political correctness wasn't even a term in common use until the 1980s.  Socialism has been around for much longer.  You can't just mix everything up that you disagree with and describe it  with the same words.

2. The masses have become so vain that they (you) are unable to accept criticism or even the idea that they can be criticized.  It's beyond vanity - it's narcissism.  :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Political correctness wasn't even a term in common use until the 1980s.  Socialism has been around for much longer.  You can't just mix everything up that you disagree with and describe it  with the same words.

2. The masses have become so vain that they (you) are unable to accept criticism or even the idea that they can be criticized.  It's beyond vanity - it's narcissism.  :D 

1. Im not talking about political correctness.  Im talking about divisive identity politics.  This helps no one.  The left is obsessed with labels and categorizing people.  The left rewards people based on what group they lump people into.  This is wrong headed.

2.   I said the exact opposite of what you're saying here.

The left as a group is largely unable to look at anything objectively.  Nearly everything is do or die for the left.  Outrage culture perfectly describes the left.  Anything slighy right makes them lose their minds.  They cannot see past their own noses.   If a conservative takes a position, they disagree and take the opposite side regardless of how insane it is.  Instead of doing the correct thing they think they know best for society.

Basically they treat adults like babies.  I dont need government in my life.  The left thinks it's the government's job to solve all their problems.

I want much much less government.  They want more.  I value individual freedom.  They want top down clamp down on nearly everything.  If I say I dint care about that, the left says we will make you care.  Often at the end of a gun.  That's not freedom.  Thats fascism.

 

Edited by Donnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Can you come up with a single example of censorship being acceptable or having value ?

2. Not because I disagree, but because the utility of the speech is negative.

3. Name calling tsk. tsk.

4. Name calling, coming up with reasons why your opponent is invalid, devaluing people you don't agree with are as bad as censorship.  You're basically lying about me, how is that better than censoring me ?  I could characterize your speech in a way that dehumanizes you and I'm sure you would find that unfair.

 

Whether or not you think the utility of the speech is positive or negative does not impact whether it should be censored or not, your judgement is garbage, don't trust you to draw the line properly. You air on the side of censorship not free speech, because you are afraid that you cannot rebut bad ideas.

Lying is superior to censorship, because lying is protected free speech, unless slander or libel. What language you consider to be dehumanizing is irrelevant, that should not be grounds for censorship. Whether or not you find something offensive is irrelevant.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Free speech is not a vice, whether you find the speech of utility or not, and censoring hate speech in the name of good manners is not a virtue.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Donnie said:

1. Im not talking about political correctness.  Im talking about divisive identity politics.  This helps no one.  The left is obsessed with labels and categorizing people.  The left rewards people based on what group they lump people into.  This is wrong headed.

2.   I said the exact opposite of what you're saying here.

3. The left as a group is largely unable to look at anything objectively.  Nearly everything is do or die for the left.  Outrage culture perfectly describes the left.  Anything slighy right makes them lose their minds.  They cannot see past their own noses.   If a conservative takes a position, they disagree and take the opposite side regardless of how insane it is.  Instead of doing the correct thing they think they know best for society.

4. Basically they treat adults like babies.  I dont need government in my life.  The left thinks it's the government's job to solve all their problems. I want much much less government.  They want more.  I value individual freedom.  They want top down clamp down on nearly everything.  If I say I dint care about that, the left says we will make you care.  Often at the end of a gun.  That's not freedom.  Thats fascism.

 

1. Still, it's far newer than socialism and barely related.

2. I don't see how.

3. This is a generalization from your POV, but fine.  Do you see any good in left-of-centre viewpoint ?  Why do you think they exist ?

4. Normally I understand this point of view and even respect it to a degree.  But the 'new' right of the Trump pussy-grabbing party seems to love tariffs.  What's more governmental than that ?  Can you explain ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. Whether or not you think the utility of the speech is positive or negative does not impact whether it should be censored or not,

2. you judgement is garbage, don't trust you to draw the line properly. You air on the side of censorship not free speech,

3. because you are afraid that you cannot rebut bad ideas.

4. Lying is superior to censorship, because lying is protected free speech, unless slander or libel.

5. What language you consider to be dehumanizing is irrelevant, that should not be grounds for censorship.

6. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Free speech is not a vice, whether you find the speech of utility or not, and censoring hate speech in the name of good manners is not a virtue.

1.  I disagree and I look forward to any examples you have to prove this out.

2. Please do a spellcheck and grammar check of your posts moving forward. 

3. I can rebut bad ideas, please don't try to psychoanalyze me.

4. So slander and libel CAN be censored ?  Ok - seems like we have an example where you do support censorship ?  Or ... ?

5. Why ?  Why do we allow free speech that's damaging ?  Why do we allow lying ?

6. This blanket statement is generally overquoted by people who don't think far enough ahead.

You keep just posting your opinion and as such this conversation will just go nowhere.  I will pick apart your posts for logic, spelling and grammar and you will just post your opinions again.  No fun. 

Can you answer this or not: Can you come up with a single example of censorship being acceptable or having value ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I disagree and I look forward to any examples you have to prove this out.

2. Please do a spellcheck and grammar check of your posts moving forward. 

3. I can rebut bad ideas, please don't try to psychoanalyze me.

4. So slander and libel CAN be censored ?  Ok - seems like we have an example where you do support censorship ?  Or ... ?

5. Why ?  Why do we allow free speech that's damaging ?  Why do we allow lying ?

6. This blanket statement is generally overquoted by people who don't think far enough ahead.

You keep just posting your opinion and as such this conversation will just go nowhere.  I will pick apart your posts for logic, spelling and grammar and you will just post your opinions again.  No fun. 

Can you answer this or not: Can you come up with a single example of censorship being acceptable or having value ?

 

Slander, libel, inciting violence are not protected speech. Simply lying or saying things you don't like is not damaging, if you think it's damaging, call it out as such, if you want to censor people because of that, that's on you to come up with a good reason to do that. 

Free speech is a right, you don't get to restrict rights without a good reason, just because you don't agree with my argument doesn't mean it's okay to censor people if I don't come up with a reason you like not to censor people. The burden of proof is on the side of those demanding censorship of human rights, not those demanding human rights be respected, whether you find someone's use of their rights offensive or not.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. Slander, libel, inciting violence are not protected speech. Simply lying or saying things you don't like is not damaging, if you think it's damaging, call it out as such, if you want to censor people because of that, that's on you to come up with a good reason to do that. 

2. Free speech is a right, you don't get to restrict rights without a good reason, just because you don't agree with my argument doesn't mean it's okay to censor people if I don't come up with a reason you like not to censor people. 

3. The burden of proof is on the side of those demanding censorship of human rights, not those demanding human rights be respected, whether you find someone's use of their rights offensive or not.

1. 2. 3. It sounds like you do favour censorship if the case can be made that the censored speech is actually damaging. I agree. I don't take such things lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Can you come up with a single example of censorship being acceptable or having value ?

Let me add prohibition of products, which I also do not like, to the notion of censorship.

I will support prohibition and censorship in the future when we will all have access to nuclear bomb making technology that can do massive harm.

Even today, I do not mind the prohibitions on buying dynamite.

I have confidence in most of my neighbors and am not particularly insecure but there are too many nut jobs out there.

Only such extreme cases should be considered for censorship prohibitions.

Just like free speech should not be hindered except for the more extreme cases where harm will come of it.

Regards

DL  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

3. This is a generalization from your POV, but fine.  Do you see any good in left-of-centre viewpoint ?  Why do you think they exist ?

 

Anytime Trump says anything.  The left loses their minds.  The POTUS is trolling the left.  Just like Obama did to the right.

The left has sanctuary cities so Trump said fine, we will truck them to you to deal with.  All of a sudden the left loses their minds.  Why? Because they dont want these people in their fancy communities.

Of course I would, could and have agreed with leftist talking points.  I look at each policy indivudually.  I dont shoot anything down right away.  I want to see a policy that I can agree or disagree with.  The right is far more likely to embrace a left policy than a lefty to embrace a right policy.

Hilary did agree with a wall in 2015 I believe.  Then during her campaign flip flopped.

Edited by Donnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Donnie said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Donnie said:

 

Of course I would, could and have agreed with leftist talking points.  I look at each policy indivudually.  I dont shoot anything down right away.   .

 

 Ok, great

 I would say that there is value in sometimes restricting speech, if it aids the common good.  I guess we would only quibble about when to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Ok, great

 I would say that there is value in sometimes restricting speech, if it aids the common good.  I guess we would only quibble about when to do that.

I could see banning the call to prayer, if it helps keep the noise down.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. 3. It sounds like you do favour censorship if the case can be made that the censored speech is actually damaging. I agree. I don't take such things lightly.

You go way too far. Hate speech should not be censored, offensive speech is not actually damaging, hurting someone's feelings doesn't count as inciting violence. Saying things that people are offended by isn't libel or slander either. Good manners should not be enforced by legislating against free speech.

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah they ban church bells so why not?

Ah, a quibble!  They can ban them as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You go way too far. Hate speech should not be censored.

I probably agree.  I would have to see a detailed description of what hate speech actually is, and where it is seen to crossover into incitement.  There's nothing wrong with hating, and nothing with hating publicly, but I draw the line at encouraging people to do things to those one might hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...