Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Fizzycswag, Aug 29, 2018.
@R.Graves thank you. Now let’s please never speak of this.
i don't enjoy making people feel like shit. again, sorry man.
well this thread went 37 different directions of fucked.
hey @Hassknecht do we vat this piece of shit yet or not?
@R.Graves. I do not agree with you, and nobody else does from the looks of it, but we've all said our opinion and I think we should leave it at that.
Stage2/3, don't say I didn't tell you
What I find funny is how americans think they have freedom of speech, because their constitution says so. Look at it in reality and look at it historically and you realize that you never had it. You're simply enjoying more liberty in what you can say without geting in trouble, than no clue 70% of the world out there. Which of course, is a good thing.
The point is, everyone of us has his 'limits' - we usually just don't see it as that, since we're not calling it cencorship but we use something else to justify it, for some conservative republican it might be protecting morals or ethics, or fighting terrorism, for democrats it's something else. When ever someone says, he's fighting for absolute free speech (like some on the alt-right) then I can only shake my head. They are either lying, hypocitical or naive. What we have in our societies, be it in Europe or the US is some kind of agreement. The agreement that you have 'mostly' free speech in the sense that you can freely exchange your ideas, your thoughts and apply criticism without the government cracking down on you. But even that happend a couple of times. We just again, don't see it always as cencorship. But if gays marched trough the streets as protest, and the government used the police to fight them, what else if not cencorship is it? Or look up the Selma to Montgomery marches.
Free speech is always limited for some groups, mainly those that are not in power, but the majority of course never sees their actions as cencorship, they simply defend 'their values', for them it's normal. The advantage of good democracies is that power is shared among many people, different institutions, politicans, lobbysists and voter interests. This makes it more difficult for one group to exploit it, it's simply checks and balances. Though a lot of things we consider as freedom of expression/free speech today could have goten you in real trouble during the 50s or 60s. The reality when you think about it, is that we never enjoyed as much freedom like today and also never as many ways to express our own thoughts, ideas like ever before and ways in how to share those with other people almost instantly.
Though I am afraid to say that you will never have a situation of unlimited free speech, even in the United States.
Crni...your ignorance is showing again.
Just as your lack of knowledge about historical events. I guess McCarthyism is unknown for you. Or the Japanese internment camps during WW2? Or how black people have been treated for no clue 150 years? Homosexuals? Ah, but that was not cencorship! Different times you see! What about the Patriot Act today? Or republicans which are currently in office and don't believe in evolution - so much for the seperation of religion and state, and would like to see it removed from public schools. Or the whole drama around abortions where people want to bann it.
You see, everyone has limits when it comes to what he tolerates and what he sees as unwanted. You just as anyone else.
I think that what Crni is trying to say is that while we have de jure freedom of speech, many of us have de facto limited speech.
Well in typical Crni fashion he uses a million words and still says it wrong.
Or the Italian or German internment camps. Nobody ever talks about them. Or how the interment camps were spurned on because actual American citizens of Japanese descent helped a downed Japanese pilot on a Hawaiian island right after the attack on pearl harbor by freeing him an attacking their own neighbors. But by all means take a very complex series of events and the people involved in them and make it all black and white and as simple as possible all the while writing a dissertation.
So your argument is that because the fascists had camps, it's ok for us to have them too?
This is what we call collective punishment. It's shitty and dumb.
And you can justify the camps as much as you want. It doesn't make them constitutional.
What a comprehensive, multifaceted analysis.
Good grief with the never-ending sanctimonious moralizing and the sermons and the catastrophism.
It's insufferably narrow-minded.
No I am referring to the US interning or limiting the movement American Citizens of Italian or German descent and nobody ever brings it up.
Yeah, those didn't get nearly as much press as the Japanese one, due to the differences in the scale of the internment camps, so not nearly as many people know about that.
That's because it was almost miniscule compared to the Japanese, which have been about 120 000, where as from the millions(!) of German Americans, only a handfull have ever been in camps - it was a lot more selective. And there was actually a relatively simple reason for this. Racism.
First, you say that I use millions of words and then you claim I say nothing, but right now you just kinda proved my point. That we always find ways to rationalize our decisions to avoid what can be described in my opinion as 'cognitive dissonance'. But be adviced, there are a few million words in it:
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.
See, when ever people say UNLIMITED FREE SPEECH! They are fooling them self. There is, never was and never will be absolute freedom of speech. We will always have limitations, be it from the society we live in, the work place we are in, from the government, you name it. Freedom of expression/speech is of course essential for any democracy, but it is still not static, it's not fixed because the society has always to negotiate the context in which free speech is happening. And each generation has their own way to decide it.
If it is only a few. it doesn't count. good to know where you stand on the subject.
Did I say it doesn't count? For christs sake, do I have to ALWAYS(!) mention that EVERY SINGLE CASE IS WRONG? Do you only read what you want to read? Your main problem in my opinion, without any offense is a display of selective perspective. You only take the informations out you accept and ignore the rest. I don't know if this is some kind of language issue or if you're having trouble to understand what I am trying to say.
Well I got to ask this is it because English is your second language you just don't get colloquial language and sarcasm or do you legit have a learning disability?
I give up man, you win.
saracasm is often hard to glean from just simple text especially in an otherwise serious conversation.