Sfdebris.net

Bernkastel wrote:Ignoring whether Yougov has merit as a news source, that link specifies hate speech. I hope you are not trying to treat efforts to stop people from encouraging mistreatment of others based on stuff like being gay as being equivalent to, as an example, Trump acting as though the Press does not have the right to seriously criticize him. On a related note, I assume you are therefore against efforts to regulate efforts to stir up hatred of, for the sake of a few examples, black people and LGBT people?

Threatening with violence should be illegal but that's about it. You cannot treat grownups like 4th graders.

So, encouraging the ostracisation of LGBT people should be okay? Lying about LGBT people for the sake of encouraging fear/hatred of them or denial of basic rights should be okay? In practise, that would mean that those of groups likely to be the targets of hate crime, such as the LGBT community, have no choice but to just accept getting treated as inferior and sometimes even actively harassed by those who hate them as just something they are stuck with.

The Romulan Republic wrote: Well, I wouldn't call the bulk of the Democratic Party authoritarian. Not compared to the Republicans, and not by most standards unless you define authoritarian as "anyone not a libertarian" (which seems to be how libertarians define it).

the current democratic party is VERY pro war and very pro-corporate - they are almost as bad as the Republicans in both regards to the point where traditionally very pro-democrat outlets recent attempts to warm people back up to GWB and Cheney. Also just in the way they've treated anyone who calls them out for much like the Republicans primarily serving their donors is it any wonder they are LESS popular then trump in some polls? The right and the left have been running campaigns mostly on their individual version of PC outrage rather that policy substance. there was a poll by Vox showing Clinton in particular had less than half of her ads showing even threadbare policy proposals.

https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status ... 3970760704

http://www.today.com/news/george-w-bush ... el-t108627

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-h ... ar-n739391

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ton-tv-ads

Bernkastel wrote:So, encouraging the ostracisation of LGBT people should be okay? Lying about LGBT people for the sake of encouraging fear/hatred of them or denial of basic rights should be okay? In practise, that would mean that those of groups likely to be the targets of hate crime, such as the LGBT community, have no choice but to just accept getting treated as inferior and sometimes even actively harassed by those who hate them as just something they are stuck with.

I don't think it should be okay but i don't want laws about everything i don't like.

For me, the matter is simple. Do you think minorities who are badly mistreated deserve to live their lives without getting extra shit dumped on them or to be treated as inferiors by parts of society for simply existing? If so, there is no opinion that will not involve limiting speech in some way.

This isn't about what you or I don't like. It's about whether we want a society that does that whole " not judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character" that Martin Luther King wanted and whether we are willing to make the sacrifices needed to move towards that.

Bernkastel wrote:For me, the matter is simple. Do you think minorities who are badly mistreated deserve to live their lives without getting extra shit dumped on them or to be treated as inferiors by parts of society for simply existing? If so, there is no opinion that will not involve limiting speech in some way.

This isn't about what you or I don't like. It's about whether we want a society that does that whole " not judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character" that Martin Luther King wanted and whether we are willing to make the sacrifices needed to move towards that.

Are you really mistreated if you got the same legal rights as everyone else? Are the other form s of mistreatment not just classism mixed with some instances of tribalism. i swear if aliens would have access to the most trafficked news sites they would think that white males are some sort of underclass since roughly 2013-14.

Right now, I hope there's just some miscommunication going on.

Based on the above, it's okay for a group of people, such as blacks, to be treated inferior to others, so long as it's not illegal to do so. Also, if we spot that current laws and legal rights are insufficient in some way, such as allowing groups of people to be ostracised for simply existing or allowing a de facto state of unequal treatment for a group (such as LGBT or ethnic minority people), we should not try to rectify that with new laws. As long as any of that does not break existing rules, it's fine.

Admiral X wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

Pretty much the only things the neo-fascist cabal is "liberal" about is groping models and cheating on their spouses.

What do you mean fascist? Kinda tired of the word being thrown around for everything.

Anyone they don't agree with, because "Right" means evil.

I said what I meant, but it didn't stop you putting words in my mouth.

And you know, I'm getting real tired of the Right wing persecution complex (you know, the one where conservative straight Christian white men are being persecuted because they don't have 100 percent control over all facets of society). Control two (soon to be three) branches of the Federal government and most of the state governments, but its never enough.

Considering that I stated what I meant by fascist in the post immediately above your little bit of snideness, I'm going to attribute this to deliberate misrepresentation.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Admiral X wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

Pretty much the only things the neo-fascist cabal is "liberal" about is groping models and cheating on their spouses.

What do you mean fascist? Kinda tired of the word being thrown around for everything.

Anyone they don't agree with, because "Right" means evil.

I said what I meant, but it didn't stop you putting words in my mouth.

And you know, I'm getting real tired of the Right wing persecution complex (you know, the one where conservative straight Christian white men are being persecuted because they don't have 100 percent control over all facets of society). Control two (soon to be three) branches of the Federal government and most of the state governments, but its never enough.

Considering that I stated what I meant by fascist in the post immediately above your little bit of snideness, I'm going to attribute this to deliberate misrepresentation.

So the USA was a fascist country fighting fascists?

Bernkastel wrote:Right now, I hope there's just some miscommunication going on.

Based on the above, it's okay for a group of people, such as blacks, to be treated inferior to others, so long as it's not illegal to do so. Also, if we spot that current laws and legal rights are insufficient in some way, such as allowing groups of people to be ostracised for simply existing or allowing a de facto state of unequal treatment for a group (such as LGBT or ethnic minority people), we should not try to rectify that with new laws. As long as any of that does not break existing rules, it's fine.

I don't consider okay but it should be legal unless it's a government does it because of mission creep bs. Why all this focus on color and sexual identity? Plenty of people became corpses in history for thinking the wrong thing.

"Why all this focus on color and sexual identity?"

Because those are the basis on which people belonging to those groups are treated unjustly. As for the government handling the task, what else has the power needed to stop it, to ensure all discriminated people can live their lives without having to deal with the extra bullshit of, for example, being hassled by the police more than others because of their race. Well, actually, I'd like to ask you what solution you'd prefer. What do you see as the solution to discrimination and ostracisation based on race/gender/sexual tastes? How do you envision the path by which those groups can be treated fairly and not, as an example, as potential bathroom rapists (transgender people)?

The kind of society we should be aiming for is one where being gay or black is no more of an obstacle to living a normal life than having blond hair or being taller than average. I hope you agree with that. So, how are we going to achieve that?