Lanfear
Mildly Dipped
This thread is a legitimate cesspit and I feel dirty for having engaged in it.
Feminism and why it's bad.
- Thread starter Beaushizzle
- Start date
Mildly Dipped
Yeah, Feminism should be about equallity.
All politics should be about dividing the public and pitting us against each others, and keep us distracted with petty squabbles while we continue to act as the mass consumerists that we are. We should not only hate each others, right here, but we should hate people far away, in order for our arms industry to keep blossoming. We should then pit ourselves against immigrants, who will add to mass consumption while also serving as an unwilling agent of further division, further distraction, and further misdirected hatred.
Drink Pepsi!
Drink Pepsi!
Divide and conquer!
Tom Bishop
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Just so you know, Crni Vuk, hate speech is legal in the U.S. It's nasty, but courts have ruled that it's free speech.
If you say so. I am not a professional jourist and expert on the first amendment.
However, I have my doubts that you can just get on CNN and call out for concentration camps, gasing and wiping out of mexicans/hispanics in the US, simply because they are Untermenschen in your eyes.
While people like Trump - and many others - are very radical and agressive in their speech, they, to my knowledge, don't ask for the extermination of a whole minority. As much of an idiot he is, but he's not Hitler after all.
There is a big difference if let us say you would like to see all the homosexuals, mexicans, jews, blacks etc. burn and die in gas champers. Or if you simply say that you don't like, maybe even hate, a certain minority and don't want to have them around you. Not that I agree with any of it, but yeah, people have a right to be xenophobic. Even in Germany. And you know what, as long people don't demand for violence, that is something I have to accept. That's what I see as "freedom of spech".
I will give you an example of Facebook comments in Germany:
The issue with all of this is, in my opinion, a certain confusion. A confusion that is used by some individuals and even groups, to justify their extremely harmfull behaviour. Because otherwhise, they would have to face serious consequences.
Hate spech is to free spech the same as rioting is to the right of the people peaceably to assemble (...).
I don't give minorities or anyone else, black or not, a free pass either if they riot, destroying shops and eventually harming citizens/police officers. Just beacause they feel opressed or claim that it would be for a good cause. So with saying this, I don't see the Black Panther movement or Malcom X, without some criticism either. But that's a different story. - Still I would never place the Black Panther movement on the same level as the KKK, just to make that clear. They are not the two sides of the same coin!
In my opinion? You can't just run around, preaching to >kill them niggers and jews!< all day either. And if someone suddenly does it, because of your preaching, just say, oh well but you know I didn't mean it literaly! - That's at least true for Germany. Thankefully we have laws about that here. And if one nation knows how dangerous hate speech can be, it's probably Germany. For obvious reasons.
And yes, sometimes people get away with this in the US, but sometimes they don't. Particularly if you're a person with some authority over a group of people. And I am pretty sure there have been instances in the court, where people have been found liable for what they said in the public.
However, I have my doubts that you can just get on CNN and call out for concentration camps, gasing and wiping out of mexicans/hispanics in the US, simply because they are Untermenschen in your eyes.
While people like Trump - and many others - are very radical and agressive in their speech, they, to my knowledge, don't ask for the extermination of a whole minority. As much of an idiot he is, but he's not Hitler after all.
There is a big difference if let us say you would like to see all the homosexuals, mexicans, jews, blacks etc. burn and die in gas champers. Or if you simply say that you don't like, maybe even hate, a certain minority and don't want to have them around you. Not that I agree with any of it, but yeah, people have a right to be xenophobic. Even in Germany. And you know what, as long people don't demand for violence, that is something I have to accept. That's what I see as "freedom of spech".
I will give you an example of Facebook comments in Germany:
- People that say, they don't want refugees in Germany and think the Islam is bad, that's ok. Their opinion. You will not see any punishment for that.
- People that say, burn all refugees and throw them in gas chambers? That's not opinion anymore. That's simply agitation. And thus, you will get fined.
The issue with all of this is, in my opinion, a certain confusion. A confusion that is used by some individuals and even groups, to justify their extremely harmfull behaviour. Because otherwhise, they would have to face serious consequences.
Hate spech is to free spech the same as rioting is to the right of the people peaceably to assemble (...).
I don't give minorities or anyone else, black or not, a free pass either if they riot, destroying shops and eventually harming citizens/police officers. Just beacause they feel opressed or claim that it would be for a good cause. So with saying this, I don't see the Black Panther movement or Malcom X, without some criticism either. But that's a different story. - Still I would never place the Black Panther movement on the same level as the KKK, just to make that clear. They are not the two sides of the same coin!
In my opinion? You can't just run around, preaching to >kill them niggers and jews!< all day either. And if someone suddenly does it, because of your preaching, just say, oh well but you know I didn't mean it literaly! - That's at least true for Germany. Thankefully we have laws about that here. And if one nation knows how dangerous hate speech can be, it's probably Germany. For obvious reasons.
And yes, sometimes people get away with this in the US, but sometimes they don't. Particularly if you're a person with some authority over a group of people. And I am pretty sure there have been instances in the court, where people have been found liable for what they said in the public.
Last edited:
In the US, afaik, you can say pretty much anything. It's a big country though, so its more difficult to get that media attention. But the Westboro Baptist Church are a pretty good example of completely free speech in action, and luckily, they are mostly ridiculed. KKK and neo-nazi marches are another example.
Incitement to violence is where free speech blurs away even in the US, it's basically when you begin to specify the exact day and hour that all [insert population] should be hanged. The "Allright, let's go get them! HYAAAAAH!"-moment
Incitement to violence is where free speech blurs away even in the US, it's basically when you begin to specify the exact day and hour that all [insert population] should be hanged. The "Allright, let's go get them! HYAAAAAH!"-moment
Unlike Germany or the UK, the U.S. really has no legal basis to prosecute people for hate speech, no matter how much you doubt it.
Yeah. Like if you're in the navy and, say, plead your allegiance to Hitler, found something called "American Nazi Party" and drive a VW "hate bus" to protest desegregation of public buses whilst wearing brownshirt uniforms with swastika armbands you might be regarded "not employable" for your racist views and be (honorably) discharged.
*shrugs* I stand corrected.
But, even more reason to be glad that we have actually laws for it in Germany. But like I said, I am not some kind of schoolar with the bill of rights.
It just would seem very strange that, even the US, doesn't know SOME limitations. Even if only from case to case. Looking closer at it, it seems that Hate Speech, is not excluded from the protection. Though it is also true, that it is not outright protected by it.
But I am not sure anyway, if Franklin and Jefferson actually foresaw the Hollocaust. And how almost always, hate speech is the step before genocide - see Rwanda Genocide 1994, for months, even years the radio stations and media described the Tutsi as filth, dangerous and worthless.
As far as Hate Speech and Free Speech goes though:
First let’s get the obvious out of the way: The concept of "hate speech" -- speech that negatively targets people based on personal traits like religion or race -- is not addressed in the Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution, included in the Bill of Rights, says:
"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."(...)
That may seem cut and dried, but as with the rest of the Constitution, there are nuances to the concept of free speech. In the course of interpreting the amendment, courts have decided that certain speech does not fall under protections offered by the First Amendment.
Unprotected speech includes things such as threats, child pornography and "fighting words" (speech that would likely draw someone into a fight, such as personal insults). But hate speech is not included in that list.
However, sometimes hate speech can also be considered "fighting words" or a threat. In those cases, hate speech would be excluded from protections offered by the First Amendment, said James Weinstein, an expert in free speech at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...hris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/
I guess you can say that it depends heavily on the judge and situation.
Anyway, the 50s and 60s have been a different time. Historically speaking. This chase and witchhunt for people in fear of communism, while ignorning many right-wing-agression and even terrorism, was simply put, a dark part of recent US history in my opinion.
But, even more reason to be glad that we have actually laws for it in Germany. But like I said, I am not some kind of schoolar with the bill of rights.
It just would seem very strange that, even the US, doesn't know SOME limitations. Even if only from case to case. Looking closer at it, it seems that Hate Speech, is not excluded from the protection. Though it is also true, that it is not outright protected by it.
But I am not sure anyway, if Franklin and Jefferson actually foresaw the Hollocaust. And how almost always, hate speech is the step before genocide - see Rwanda Genocide 1994, for months, even years the radio stations and media described the Tutsi as filth, dangerous and worthless.
As far as Hate Speech and Free Speech goes though:
First let’s get the obvious out of the way: The concept of "hate speech" -- speech that negatively targets people based on personal traits like religion or race -- is not addressed in the Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution, included in the Bill of Rights, says:
"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."
That may seem cut and dried, but as with the rest of the Constitution, there are nuances to the concept of free speech. In the course of interpreting the amendment, courts have decided that certain speech does not fall under protections offered by the First Amendment.
Unprotected speech includes things such as threats, child pornography and "fighting words" (speech that would likely draw someone into a fight, such as personal insults). But hate speech is not included in that list.
However, sometimes hate speech can also be considered "fighting words" or a threat. In those cases, hate speech would be excluded from protections offered by the First Amendment, said James Weinstein, an expert in free speech at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...hris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/
I guess you can say that it depends heavily on the judge and situation.
It seems our douche Goerge, was at least observed by the FBI. I guess that does say something. Even though, I am not sure what ...
Anyway, the 50s and 60s have been a different time. Historically speaking. This chase and witchhunt for people in fear of communism, while ignorning many right-wing-agression and even terrorism, was simply put, a dark part of recent US history in my opinion.
Now that you mention it. Yeah, we have issues with that here as well. Religion is very often used as a shield to say and do what ever you want, as long it's on the pulpit. Highly controversial in my opinion. But well.
Last edited:
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
There's no point in us discussing the issue of speech any longer.
But, to keep the "irrelevant shitposting" alive, I must ask - why do you call the Donald an idiot?
If you want to know it, because of this
*Don't get the idea though that I am a huge fan of Bernie. But I would give rather him my voice than Trump, so much for sure.
*Don't get the idea though that I am a huge fan of Bernie. But I would give rather him my voice than Trump, so much for sure.
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
I can't help notice that most of your video arguments come from comedians. And this one isn't even about Trump.
But focusing only on the things Trump said, he called Bernie a socialist/communist (isn't Bernie a self-proclaimed socialist?) and said that Bernie is going to raise the taxes to 90 % to fund his socialist programs. Which isn't far off, considering the magnitude of Bernie's promises.
If I remember correctly, even Maher claimed that Bernie's promises would be impossible to fund.
Trump is an "ultrapopulist", he is just saying shit, quite litterally, in order to "reach" the "everyman". It's just as stupid as all the stupid shit Bush said (which isn't as stupid as it is carefully calculated)
The more outlandish the statements, the more "everymanish" he becomes, and the more popular with the populist crowds.
Like "we're gonna ban all Muslims from entering the US, untill we can figure out what the hell is going on." Untill when exactly? Basically "We're gonna ban Muslims - indefinitely" as in "We're gonna ban Muslims."
It is a well known, tried and tested tactic.
The more outlandish the statements, the more "everymanish" he becomes, and the more popular with the populist crowds.
Like "we're gonna ban all Muslims from entering the US, untill we can figure out what the hell is going on." Untill when exactly? Basically "We're gonna ban Muslims - indefinitely" as in "We're gonna ban Muslims."
It is a well known, tried and tested tactic.
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
He didn't say he's going to all ban Muslims from entering the US, temporarily banning immigration is not the same as banning all muslims. It doesn't apply to citizens and tourists.
Trump's outrageous claim tactic is in fact genius. It's his way of making the mainstream media talk about what he wants them to talk about by attacking his claim. He didn't get to be a billionaire by being stupid.
So? Who cares. If they done their homework. They can't be worse than Bill O'Reilly. Anyway, the point was more that Trump is a populist and shit talking about people without always checking the facts - and how hard can that be in the day of google?
Which is what the video explains, unless you can show me that Bernie wants to tax the rich with 90%. I have no clue why Trump would make such a claim, even though he must know that this is not truth. And that's what Maher accurately is joking about. He never made a secret about the fact that he is biased against the republicans. That doesn't make all of his points moot though.
But I guess Zegh is right, and Trump - but he is by far not the only politican, is just trash talking about others, beacuse he knows it makes people angry and gets him voters.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video
The Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump reads a statement issued by his campaign office on Monday calling for a ‘total and complete shutdown’ on Muslims entering the US. Stating that ‘we have no choice’, Trump goes on to say that the authorities should be looking at mosques as there is ‘anger’ within them, and calls on the audience to report ‘violations’ without regard for being accused of ‘profiling’
*Shrugs* No one ever claimed that. But he sure didn't get a billionaire all by him self either it seems.
http://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune:_inheritance_from_dad_and_the_government's_protection_mostly_did_the_trick
In March 2011 Forbes estimated Donald Trump's net worth to be $2.7 billion, with a $60 million salary. Many praise and analyze his “success” as if it were self-made, and they fail to attribute the proper credit to others in society where it is deserved. Despite what Trump may espouse, his success would have been in no way possible without his father, the general public, and the US government. Unfortunately, Trump decided to forget or selectively ignore these truths while forming his political philosophy, a sentiment made particularly clear during his brief bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Last edited:
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
The statement he is reading was published under the title Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration. He suggests nothing illegal, nor anything that hasn't been done by presidents in the past. Even Jimmy Carter banned Iranians.
Coming from a rich family helped his career, sure. But going from millionaire to billionaire is no small thing. In regards to "society and the government" making him rich... People investing in your business isn't society saving you. I'd comment more, but the article is clearly biased and not very well written. They even went for the story with the old woman and eminent domain without mentioning that Trump chose to leave her alone when she declined his offers.
Presenting the correct numbers and facts isn't part of the tactic. If he did that, the media wouldn't jump in to correct him first chance they got, giving him even better publicity. Which is also free.
As for Bernie, take what he's saying here...
And compare it to information provided in this video (mostly the second half):
So if Bernie doesn't intend to raise taxes dramatically, he intends to go even deeper into debt. Or maybe just print more dollars, which is just as bad.
Last edited:
I think Sanders does intent to raise the taxes dramatically, but not necessarily for the lower and middle class folks. Mostly for big companies, and closing loopholes.
Hey, I am not saying I am a fan of Bernie in particular. I am just saying, chossing between him and Trump, it's just going for the lesser evil.
Why?
Issues with money don't give me sleepless nights, it's just money. Runing out of resources, that's what bothers me. Not if Germany has 1 or 1 000 000 billion euros in debt. It's numbers on bank accounts. Runing out of water tomorrow, or crops dieing everywhere. Now we're talking. Do you think someone in the third Reich in particular was worried about German dept in 1945? Or where he could fill up his bucket with clean water and where to find the next dead horse to cut some chunk of meat out of it.
Anyway, where did Bernie said he want's to get deeper in to debt? I mean I could be wrong, but he seems to be sure that he can finance it, like health care and free education. What ever if his plans are good or not, is a whole different question of course.
If you use that kind of logic to everything ... you must be the dream for every car mechanic or doctor out there.
I sincerly hope that you have at least higher standards with them. Do you really feel secure with someone rellying on demagoguery to achieve presidency? I would not. But that's just me. I want honest people, which don't fabricate stuff just to gather attention. Again, that's just populism. And that's what Trump basically is, a very popular demagogue. And it's not even sure if he will really win the presidency anyway.
But at least you know why I think that Trump is an idiot. You say he is very intelligent. Sure. I don't object to that. So, then he is an intelligent idiot.
Last edited:
Scipio the Elder
Whiskey Blues
Last time I checked Germany is ran by an emotional idiot. So we might as well elect a radical to even the already low playing field while Putin eats half of Europe. Who knows maybe ISIS will visit more of Europe this year.
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
There's no surer way I can think of to achieve power in a democracy than demagoguery. No serious contender can avoid it. Bernie's statements are just as populist, only with half the charisma.
He doesn't have to say he's going to go further into debt, it's the only option. Taking ALL the money from the rich wouldn't cover America's expenses in 2011, when they were lower than they are now, and way lower than what Bernie intends to make them.
Debt isn't just "numbers on bank accounts". Just because it isn't on people's minds in life or death situations doesn't mean it's not important.