State of Speech

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Let's try to have an adult conversation about speech. First thing off the bat, notice I didn't use the words "Free Speech". That is a concept that is U.S.-centric. Not all countries have free speech, or have the same lack of restrictions as the U.S. First Amendment.

Another reason I didn't use term "Free Speech", it's that I want to talk about corporate restriction on speech. Not only in the U.S., but also around the world. I think this is a conversation that needs to be had.

So, let me start by sharing a link talking about a sports caster who decided to defy her company by being political on her twitter page after she was almost suspended for accusing President Trump of being a white supremacist. http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/espn-suspends-jemele-hill-for-2-weeks-for-%E2%80%98second-violation%E2%80%99-of-company%E2%80%99s-social-media-policy/ar-AAtbMmQ?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Another is a long clip interviewing South Park creators and the President of Comedy Central. They have some interesting points about being censored by Subway Sandwich and MPAA.

Let's also be honest about how we, as a society, are hypocritical about speech. When someone agrees with our point of view, they have a right to express it. Regardless of how violent and hateful it is, *ahem* like Liberals are with Antifa *ahem* Yet, they are easily offended when they are confronted with opinions they don't agree with. Declaring they should be punished for expressing those opinions.

So, let's express our thoughts about this issue. Just as long it doesn't upset the people in charge of this website.

Well, the term "free speech" has become a far right dogwhistle in recent years which is working pretty well for them so, strategically speaking, using it the way they do was a smart move. But it's what the right does, they keep appropriating positive and wholesome concepts, subverting their meaning in a way that is convenient to them and then they run with them. "Freedom" means economic deregulation at the cost of human rights. "Free speech" means hate speech without consequence. "Pride" means asserting supremacy. Likewise, they keep inventing sinister sounding terms for positive things. Equal rights are "Cultural Marxism". Immigration is either an "Invasion" or, an oddly consistent terms, an effort to "import" foreigners, the term itself objectifying and dehumanizing, for some implicit sinister purpose. Individualism and personal freedom are "degeneracy". I could go on for pretty long aboutthis. Doesn't apply to expressions alone. Also certain pictures. Take Pepe, a character from an obscure webcomic. There's nothing political about him, nor has there been after he became a popular reaction image, Trump, a figurehead of the extreme right, retweeted one of these images and he became a symbol associated with the far right. And it's not an attribute of the new right either, Neo-Nazis have been appropriating Skinhead fashion for ages now to a point that skinheads have almost become synonymous with nazis, despite not being an inherently political subculture as far as I'm aware. Hell, not even the Swastika was invented by National Socialists.

So, excuse my tangent but free speech doesn't mean speech without consequence. You have that... sense of moral relativism these days as communication is becoming more and more open an with people being able to say everything to as many people they want, whenever they want over the internet. If I can go and refer to people as n*ggers or f*gs when talking to my friends why shouldn't I be able to do so on Facebook or Twitter or a forum like this one? It's all part of my right to free speech, is it not? The idea that it might be morally objectionable doesn't even occur to many people unless they have to face consequences and even then, instead of learning from it they don't entertain the idea that they might have made a mistake and that it might be harmful to go around calling people n*ggers and f*gs they lash out at the people enforcing these consequences because obviously they themselves can't be wrong, those who are wrong are the ones trying to stop them from calling people the aforementioned things. And I thinks that's really the point here, sure, in an ideal world people would be aware that saying certain things is morally objectionable, harmful and, if it reaches and is repeated by too many people, even dangerous. And we wouldn't have people going around using slurs, repeating antidemocratic propaganda, calling for violence, spreading religious extremism and so on because most would recognize it as wrong just like they recognize stealing or commiting acts of physical violence as wrong.

But it's not the world we live in and therefore there need to be consequences to stop these things. Consequences the state or private entities need to enforce. It's just not correct to think that words, written words especially and written words displayed publically more than anything else, can't be dangerous. You can't just, say, call for a genocide on your Facebook profile and not expect it to attract negative attention, you're making a public statement there. The same authorities that stop you from calling for a genocide on your Facebook page are the same authorities that stop the people you're calling for a genocide against to pay you a visit and... well, do something a lot harsher.

I think you're obsessed with the Antifans hiding under your bed. The basic facts so far seems to fit that theory.

I'm in Ukraine.

You're all adorable.

Watch "Winter On Fire" and see what the people I'm interacting with are used to.

KissingSunlight:

So, let's express our thoughts about this issue.

My thought is that this post is just completely banal.

People have a bad habit of taking an absolutist stance on things like free speech, even though they end up being very selective about which parts of free speech gets defended. For instance, it is generally accepted that people shouldn't be allowed to shout fire in theatres, or for banks and doctors to hand out your private information to strangers, or for people to commit slander and fraud, or the publication of paedophilic content - these are all restrictions on speech that are there to serve a common good.

And yet those same people who take these limitations for granted insist that there should ideally be no concessions or dilutions to free speech. Case in point, Parker and Stone pointing out not being allowed to depict Mohammed on their cartoon show, whilst conveniently forgetting the whole raft of things they also aren't allowed to depict.

PsychedelicDiamond:
snip

I appreciate your thoughts on this. However, you just demonstrated why I wasn't talking about "free speech". Even though, in the United States, we are guaranteed free speech without government interference. The thing we should have kept an eye on was corporate interference with free speech.

One thing I do want to correct you on is that concern about free speech isn't a "right wing dog whistle". I consider myself liberal. I have been concerned about free speech for a really long time. When I express disgust with the extreme liberals attack on speech, It isn't because I am conservative. I believe everybody has a right to be heard. Even people I disagree with.

As I mentioned in the OP, liberals are guilty of hypocrisy about speech. First, they complain that "Free Speech = Hate Speech". Then, they openly support people who harass, bully, and/or commit violence against people they disagree with.

I agree with you there are more outlets for people to express themselves. They are not government protected outlets for speech. As I observed in the OP, we are free to express ourselves here. As long it doesn't upset the people who runs this website. However, judging from your remarks, you are perfectly fine with speech being regulated. However, I noticed you didn't advocate that the same standards should be applied to liberals. Would you be OK, if a website, company, or any other private institutions censor you for expressing liberal beliefs?

KissingSunlight:

PsychedelicDiamond:
snip

I appreciate your thoughts on this. However, you just demonstrated why I wasn't talking about "free speech". Even though, in the United States, we are guaranteed free speech without government interference. The thing we should have kept an eye on was corporate interference with free speech.

One thing I do want to correct you on is that concern about free speech isn't a "right wing dog whistle". I consider myself liberal. I have been concerned about free speech for a really long time. When I express disgust with the extreme liberals attack on speech, It isn't because I am conservative. I believe everybody has a right to be heard. Even people I disagree with.

As I mentioned in the OP, liberals are guilty of hypocrisy about speech. First, they complain that "Free Speech = Hate Speech". Then, they openly support people who harass, bully, and/or commit violence against people they disagree with.

I agree with you there are more outlets for people to express themselves. They are not government protected outlets for speech. As I observed in the OP, we are free to express ourselves here. As long it doesn't upset the people who runs this website. However, judging from your remarks, you are perfectly fine with speech being regulated. However, I noticed you didn't advocate that the same standards should be applied to liberals. Would you be OK, if a website, company, or any other private institutions censor you for expressing liberal beliefs?

Well, if it means anything to you I think calls to violence against conservatives should be just as much of an offense as calls for violence against liberals are and just as I'm fine with people calling for Trumps impeachment on television, I would have been finde with people calling for Obama's impeachment on television, even though I wouldn't have personally agreed with it.

Would I be fine with a private platform censoring me for expressing left wing beliefs? Sure, I guess, I just wouldn't use it then, because a site that goes out of its way to censor the left while turning a blind eye to the right would obviously be one I probably wouldn't fit in very well. And that's perfectly fine. I wouldn't go to, like, Stormfront or something and expect them to tolerate me.

The thing is that how harmful speech is is very hard to define. While there are some obvious onse like calling on violence or insults it gets murkier when things like legitimate opinions or actual facts (crime rates in the USA by race for example).
The notion of punishment is also questionable as there are people see no problem with mob enforced policing (legitimizing it as "technically not government" so it's justified).

KissingSunlight:

As I mentioned in the OP, liberals are guilty of hypocrisy about speech. First, they complain that "Free Speech = Hate Speech". Then, they openly support people who harass, bully, and/or commit violence against people they disagree with.

This is not a criticism unique to liberals, and you're likely to make more headway if you don't couch it as a condemnation of one side.

inu-kun:

The notion of punishment is also questionable as there are people see no problem with mob enforced policing (legitimizing it as "technically not government" so it's justified).

By "policing", what are we actually talking about here? I'm pretty sure almost everybody has a problem with private individuals putting others in unofficial prisons, and that nobody would justify that on the grounds that its not the government doing it.

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

The notion of punishment is also questionable as there are people see no problem with mob enforced policing (legitimizing it as "technically not government" so it's justified).

By "policing", what are we actually talking about here? I'm pretty sure almost everybody has a problem with private individuals putting others in unofficial prisons, and that nobody would justify that on the grounds that its not the government doing it.

Things like working to get people fired out of their jobs, wouldn't be surprised if it would also extend to actually contacting their neighbours.

Silvanus:

KissingSunlight:

As I mentioned in the OP, liberals are guilty of hypocrisy about speech. First, they complain that "Free Speech = Hate Speech". Then, they openly support people who harass, bully, and/or commit violence against people they disagree with.

This is not a criticism unique to liberals, and you're likely to make more headway if you don't couch it as a condemnation of one side.

Read the OP, I didn't apply it just to liberals. I said, both sides are guilty of hypocrisy. That quote was in response to someone who wanted conservatives' speech to be regulated, because they advocate hate speech.

KissingSunlight:

PsychedelicDiamond:
snip

I appreciate your thoughts on this. However, you just demonstrated why I wasn't talking about "free speech". Even though, in the United States, we are guaranteed free speech without government interference. The thing we should have kept an eye on was corporate interference with free speech.

One thing I do want to correct you on is that concern about free speech isn't a "right wing dog whistle". I consider myself liberal. I have been concerned about free speech for a really long time. When I express disgust with the extreme liberals attack on speech, It isn't because I am conservative. I believe everybody has a right to be heard. Even people I disagree with.

As I mentioned in the OP, liberals are guilty of hypocrisy about speech. First, they complain that "Free Speech = Hate Speech". Then, they openly support people who harass, bully, and/or commit violence against people they disagree with.

I agree with you there are more outlets for people to express themselves. They are not government protected outlets for speech. As I observed in the OP, we are free to express ourselves here. As long it doesn't upset the people who runs this website. However, judging from your remarks, you are perfectly fine with speech being regulated. However, I noticed you didn't advocate that the same standards should be applied to liberals. Would you be OK, if a website, company, or any other private institutions censor you for expressing liberal beliefs?

You supported the harassment, bullying, and violence against a man who paid an airline for a ticket to use their services.

inu-kun:

Things like working to get people fired out of their jobs [...]

Do you mean by contacting their employers? Can I have an example of the instances we're talking about, here?

inu-kun:
[...] wouldn't be surprised if it would also extend to actually contacting their neighbours.

Where is this coming from? This is a rather huge accusation of wrongdoing, and it doesn't even seem to be targeted at anyone specifically.

KissingSunlight:
Read the OP, I didn't apply it just to liberals. I said, both sides are guilty of hypocrisy. That quote was in response to someone who wanted conservatives' speech to be regulated, because they advocate hate speech.

No, he didn't say that at all. He didn't even mention "conservatives"-- he mentioned hate speech regulation. There was no mention of expanding that to cover people who are simply conservative. You dreamt that part.

You're the only one, here, who has specified one side of the political divide for censure.

inu-kun:

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

The notion of punishment is also questionable as there are people see no problem with mob enforced policing (legitimizing it as "technically not government" so it's justified).

By "policing", what are we actually talking about here? I'm pretty sure almost everybody has a problem with private individuals putting others in unofficial prisons, and that nobody would justify that on the grounds that its not the government doing it.

Things like working to get people fired out of their jobs, wouldn't be surprised if it would also extend to actually contacting their neighbours.

Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

Saelune:
You also made this thread which seems to go against your point in this topic.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.948957-Why-Are-People-Against-Personal-Accountabilty-For-Individuals-Who-Behave-Badly

Not too surprising. I find that "free speech" usually tends to mean "free speech for me and everyone who agrees with me, everyone else shuts up and if they don't, we make them."

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

Things like working to get people fired out of their jobs [...]

Do you mean by contacting their employers? Can I have an example of the instances we're talking about, here?

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

inu-kun:
[...] wouldn't be surprised if it would also extend to actually contacting their neighbours.

Where is this coming from? This is a rather huge accusation of wrongdoing, and it doesn't even seem to be targeted at anyone specifically.

mainly speculation but considering doxxing is a thing, taking the extra step to inform people close to the person seems likely.

Saelune:
Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

I don't really get your point, as well as removing protections isn't really considered actively working for a cause. If someone wants to be a shitty person blame the person itself rather the platform that enables is shitty behaviour.

inu-kun:

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

Things like working to get people fired out of their jobs [...]

Do you mean by contacting their employers? Can I have an example of the instances we're talking about, here?

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

inu-kun:
[...] wouldn't be surprised if it would also extend to actually contacting their neighbours.

Where is this coming from? This is a rather huge accusation of wrongdoing, and it doesn't even seem to be targeted at anyone specifically.

mainly speculation but considering doxxing is a thing, taking the extra step to inform people close to the person seems likely.

Saelune:
Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

I don't really get your point, as well as removing protections isn't really considered actively working for a cause. If someone wants to be a shitty person blame the person itself rather the platform that enables is shitty behaviour.

How would you feel if you got fired from your job because you arent Muslim and your government let them get away with it?

Saelune:
How would you feel if you got fired from your job because you arent Muslim and your government let them get away with it?

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

inu-kun:

Saelune:
How would you feel if you got fired from your job because you arent Muslim and your government let them get away with it?

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

Because the government let it. The government should be taking care of and protecting their people, not turning a blind eye as they rip each other apart, particularly for bigoted reasons.

If a cop stands around and doesnt stop a mugging that is in front of them, do you think the cop is at fault too or not?

Saelune:

inu-kun:

Saelune:
How would you feel if you got fired from your job because you arent Muslim and your government let them get away with it?

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

Because the government let it. The government should be taking care of and protecting their people, not turning a blind eye as they rip each other apart, particularly for bigoted reasons.

If a cop stands around and doesnt stop a mugging that is in front of them, do you think the cop is at fault too or not?

That's not the job of the government, it's an ideal you percieve they should aspire to. To babysit the citizens is not mandatory.

Unless that cop told the mugger to do it he isn't at fault for actively causing the act.

People here have misinterpreted "Free Speech" to no end.

The Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So no, nobody's obligated to give you a platform, and nobody has to put up with what you say, the government just can't stop you from saying things.
Notable exceptions: Things like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. You're not making a statement, you're just flagrantly endangering people. As such it's recognized as a crime.

inu-kun:

Saelune:

inu-kun:

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

Because the government let it. The government should be taking care of and protecting their people, not turning a blind eye as they rip each other apart, particularly for bigoted reasons.

If a cop stands around and doesnt stop a mugging that is in front of them, do you think the cop is at fault too or not?

That's not the job of the government, it's an ideal you percieve they should aspire to. To babysit the citizens is not mandatory.

Unless that cop told the mugger to do it he isn't at fault for actively causing the act.

image

I will never understand you.

It's mandatory if they dont want to be overthrown, especially in what is supposed to be a democracy.

inu-kun:

Saelune:

inu-kun:

That I worked in a spectaculary shitty place that would have likely bullied me to it anyways.

Still don't get the point, the place I would have worked for fired me, not the government itself.

Because the government let it. The government should be taking care of and protecting their people, not turning a blind eye as they rip each other apart, particularly for bigoted reasons.

If a cop stands around and doesnt stop a mugging that is in front of them, do you think the cop is at fault too or not?

That's not the job of the government, it's an ideal you percieve they should aspire to. To babysit the citizens is not mandatory.

Unless that cop told the mugger to do it he isn't at fault for actively causing the act.

We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

DrownedAmmet:
We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

Looking at the web weren't those actively pushing segregation?

Saelune:
snip

Yay, I get to use the argument I preemtively thought of: A USA citizen gets captured by a terrorist organization (let's say in Afganishtan for example and the person was with a humantarian aid group) the USA can get the person out but they value there can be dozens of innocents Afhganistan people who might die in the operation. Would you say that the government would hurt its duty of "taking care of and protecting their people" if they decide not to risk the life of dozens of non-citizens (which they have no duty to protect)?

inu-kun:

DrownedAmmet:
We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

Looking at the web weren't those actively pushing segregation?

Saelune:
snip

Yay, I get to use the argument I preemtively thought of: A USA citizen gets captured by a terrorist organization (let's say in Afganishtan for example and the person was with a humantarian aid group) the USA can get the person out but they value there can be dozens of innocents Afhganistan people who might die in the operation? Would you say that the government would hurt its duty of "taking care of and protecting their people" if they decide not to risk the life of dozens of non-citizens (which they have no duty to protect)?

Would be nice if both country's governments cared about the wellbeing of their people that both worked together to protect all the innocent people.

And when LGBT people not being fired risks innocent people's lives, then maybe there will be grounds to allow them to be fired, but so far, no, LGBT people working does not risk lives.

inu-kun:

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

His Twitter suspension, or his ejection from "Free Thought"? Neither are terribly worrisome: both platforms come with implicit obligations about what one can write.

inu-kun:

I don't really get your point, as well as removing protections isn't really considered actively working for a cause. If someone wants to be a shitty person blame the person itself rather the platform that enables is shitty behaviour.

Uhrm, no, blame both. Removing protections against workplace discrimination can be directly blamed for the harmful effects of workplace discrimination.

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

His Twitter suspension, or his ejection from "Free Thought"? Neither are terribly worrisome: both platforms come with implicit obligations about what one can write.

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

Uhrm, no, blame both. Removing protections against workplace discrimination can be directly blamed for the harmful effects of workplace discrimination.

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

Saelune:
Would be nice if both country's governments cared about the wellbeing of their people that both worked together to protect all the innocent people.

That's some fine circle strafing, now tell me if it counters your definition of the reason for government or not.

inu-kun:

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

His Twitter suspension, or his ejection from "Free Thought"? Neither are terribly worrisome: both platforms come with implicit obligations about what one can write.

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

Uhrm, no, blame both. Removing protections against workplace discrimination can be directly blamed for the harmful effects of workplace discrimination.

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

Saelune:
Would be nice if both country's governments cared about the wellbeing of their people that both worked together to protect all the innocent people.

That's some fine circle strafing, now tell me if it counters your definition of the reason for government or not.

I am not a robot and do not think like a robot. Absolutes do not work in human terms. I -want- the best and fairest outcome for everyone. And sometimes it upsets people when they are treated fairly and not allowed to abuse others just as others would not be allowed to abuse them. Perhaps you think too often in robotic absolutes?

inu-kun:

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

There was a famous example with thunderf00t.

His Twitter suspension, or his ejection from "Free Thought"? Neither are terribly worrisome: both platforms come with implicit obligations about what one can write.

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

That's the funny thing about free speech: that's an example of free speech too.

Your example is dishonest. If one is a public figure for a company, one has different expectations than otherwise. If a news reporter gets caught burning flags, for instance, they have no right to complain about getting fired - it's an industry about views and reputations, and if your behaviour is going to be detrimental to that then the company is within their rights to discipline you. Personal / professional social media accounts are also a grey area these days.

And it's the same at grunt level, just to a lesser severity.

inu-kun:

DrownedAmmet:
We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

Looking at the web weren't those actively pushing segregation?

What was actively pushing segregation?
My point was the government had to step in to "babysit" when there was rampant discrimination going on against minorities by white people. Had the government (which is of the people, by the people, for the people) not stepped in when they did, I can't imagine how many more people would have been discriminated against and harmed and killed
Now the government has to "babysit" to ensure all their citizens have the right to at least eat at the same goddamn restaurants as everybody else

inu-kun:

No it was someone mailing his bosses, accusing him of being a nazi and demanding him to be fired.

That comes under the right to reply, doesn't it? It's a blog platform. The whole purpose of it is communicating. If people read and respond, that rather falls under the brief.

inu-kun:

But in this case specified it was never there, nothing was removed (unless you mean the executive order). Anyways the whole topic kidna starts becoming contradiction rather than discussion (and it might be more philosphical question when I think about it)

The Civil Rights Act, as it stood, was used to protect against workplace discrimination. The US government ensuring that the Civil Rights Act does not provide that protection-- while simultaneously blocking any other legislative attempts to provide the same protections-- is definitely, inarguably, removing said protections. There's no two ways about that.

KissingSunlight:

As I mentioned in the OP, liberals are guilty of hypocrisy about speech. First, they complain that "Free Speech = Hate Speech". Then, they openly support people who harass, bully, and/or commit violence against people they disagree with.

Maybe I'm not in the right circles but the extreme left doesn't come across as Free Speech = Hate Speech. More like Free Speech can lead to Hate Speech. Currently, the conservatives in my country are using the same tagline to defend themselves from the 'hateful left.' So I felt that your argument doesn't really hold up (and I recognise the situation/ country I'm in might be a significant factor.)

I don't support anyone harassing another person. Punching a Nazi shouldn't be a thing. I don't know whether pointing out this is doing anything though. The right hasn't been any better. Or is more to do with the Left calls its self tolerant and this is a clear case of intolerance? Here's another thing - American free speech sounds like it should let the left speak these violent words.

DrownedAmmet:
We tried that here in America, we had Jim Crowe laws and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks and blacks were denied housing and jobs and had to deal with all sorts of discrimination
And then they got pissed and rioted and marched until the government stepped in and passed the Civil Right Acts, so now the little guy can turn to the government if he's getting shitted on

I find it funny how the people who liked the Jim Crowe laws back then hasn't realised that they made the federal government look like a saviour, much like the civil war. They only thought of how they could stay on top and thought no one would take them down despite evidence to the contrary from a few decades previous. Here's a motto - If you want a government not to interfere, stop treating people badly.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here