Serious Political and economic discussion thread

[earl]

Why do people always bring up Venezuela (which isn't even a democracy, the elections have been rigged for quite a while at this point) when it comes to socialism failing and then never mention Norway (and by extension most Nordic countries), which regularly ranks very high in happiness, has higher GDP per capita than the US, is still (actually) democratic, and has a functional and productive economy. But yes lets cherrypick the strongman controlled oil-reliant country instead because that's much more reflective of what the US would look like with socialist policies.

 

[Dece1t]

Why do people always bring up Venezuela (which isn't even a democracy, the elections have been rigged for quite a while at this point) when it comes to socialism failing and then never mention Norway (and by extension most Nordic countries), which regularly ranks very high in happiness, has higher GDP per capita than the US, is still (actually) democratic, and has a functional and productive economy. But yes lets cherrypick the strongman controlled oil-reliant country instead because that's much more reflective of what the US would look like with socialist policies.

Because Norway is not a true Socialist country (and I'd disagree, even people still bring Norway up as an example of successful socialism). I believe Helix brought this up, at first, socialism does work in the short term. In the long term, when you have no more money to steal from the rich, that's when things fall into disarray like Venezuela. From a moral standpoint, I don't like the idea of taking a large portion of someone's money that they very well could've earned through hard work. It was on that way to being a prosperous capitalist country thanks to it's abundant resources and oil, and now it's been ruined. Socialism has time and time again failed, Venezuela is not the only example. Frankly it's dangerous to Democracy and the belief of meritocracy (the ability for people to get ahead). That's why Norway just elected a more Conservative government to attempt to roll-back their debt caused by the socialist programs they ran.

Also, just for future reference, this is NOT me insulting you in the slightest mate, it's "strawman," not "strongman."

So this really seems to be the underlying concept of this argument, this stringent belief you have in the expansiveness of free speech.

Can you explain for me precisely what you believe free speech entails, the lengths to which that freedom stretches, any constraints upon it, and what protections from abuse should exist.

I suspect our beliefs on this matter are not as far apart as they may seem but that we differ on the degrees of protection people should have.

I promised you I would reply to this, so here's my belief in free speech. I am more than ok with almost entirely unlimited speech, unless it directly insights violence (examples: calling for someone to get hurt, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc.). I think the US first amendment should be upheld. Whether that is through a more Authoritarian route or Libertarian route I haven't fully decided myself to be completely frank with you (although I would probably lean towards the Libertarian approach to defending speech I think). The reason I support this is because I'm a fan of diversity of ideas and the freedom to express them. It allows us to be much more educated as a whole. In short, I do not want the government controlling what we can or can't say, other than that exception, alongside lying under oath, child pornography, false advertising under commercial speech, and defamation (these are all things the US currently exempts from the first amendment). If you hear something you don't like, you have the right to protest or argue back, or simply ignore it and move on with your life as normal. Words shouldn't impact people as much as we make it out to be nowadays, however I fully believe action speaks much louder.

Now, in saying all that, I do not personally support someone saying, for instance, "Hitler should have burned all of the jews," or "You're a waste of human life." Obviously those are pretty garbage statements, and no one likes to hear stuff like that. At the same time, free speech either has to go both ways, or no ways at all imo. You can't have grey area (to give room for hypocrisy) and have a morally just policy at the exact same time. I think it's much safer to say we'd much rather have free speech go both ways, as offensive as speech may be to hear. That is still you're right to say it, notwithstanding me not agreeing with it in the slightest, but that's something I personally can compromise with in order to have a more educated and overall free society. I can ignore it, and honestly, I can grow as a person. The world doesn't always go you're way, I think we can both agree with that, but sometimes you need that experience of opposition in order to learn. That's life in general.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

See I don't think it matters at all what the government says about free speech I think it's a basic, universal, human matter to oppose the kinds of speech that incite hatred or contribute towards a message of hatred that results in increased hostility and violence across all kinds of subgroups. I do not agree that there is any educational value to be gained from such types of segregationist vitriol.

I don't mean this to come off as aggressive or harsh, but to say that "Words shouldn't impact people as much as we make it out to be" is an incredibly naive position that simply ignores the situations that many subgroups, predominantly minorities, face every day when they are subject to slurs and pejoratives and extended even to the implicitly racist statements made by the ignorant when they, well-meaning, reinforce the stereotypes they have been taught are true. Words have power and meaning that carry their message deeply and there are a lot of negative messages that are built in to a society that developed unaware of the negative stigmas those messages caused. We know better now, and we can do better than simply turning a cheek to those messages that serve to radicalize and divide us.

I truly understand where you are coming from in your position and it's honestly very close to the kinds of positions I held myself four, five years ago when I was younger and still being exposed to concepts and ideas that didn't fit my existing world view. I can only hope that, intelligent as you evidently are, you continue to develop your empathy, as I have, to gain deeper understanding of the struggles that others have faced and continue to face in this society.

If you want to summarize my position on this matter, in brief, it's to say that I believe we have a moral obligation to stand up and oppose the statements and positions of people who seek to spread division and hate, not to stand accomplice idly by.

 

[earl]

Also, just for future reference, this is NOT me insulting you in the slightest mate, it's "strawman," not "strongman."

I wasn't saying it was a strawman fallacy. I was saying the country was run by a strongman.

edit: unless you were trying to call me out for using a strawman, but I don't believe I simplified/twisted the already simple argument of "Venezuela sucking = socialism sucking" to suit me

 

[v]

this thread is a fever dream

 

[Dece1t]

See I don't think it matters at all what the government says about free speech I think it's a basic, universal, human matter to oppose the kinds of speech that incite hatred or contribute towards a message of hatred that results in increased hostility and violence across all kinds of subgroups. I do not agree that there is any educational value to be gained from such types of segregationist vitriol.

I don't mean this to come off as aggressive or harsh, but to say that "Words shouldn't impact people as much as we make it out to be" is an incredibly naive position that simply ignores the situations that many subgroups, predominantly minorities, face every day when they are subject to slurs and pejoratives and extended even to the implicitly racist statements made by the ignorant when they, well-meaning, reinforce the stereotypes they have been taught are true. Words have power and meaning that carry their message deeply and there are a lot of negative messages that are built in to a society that developed unaware of the negative stigmas those messages caused. We know better now, and we can do better than simply turning a cheek to those messages that serve to radicalize and divide us.

I truly understand where you are coming from in your position and it's honestly very close to the kinds of positions I held myself four, five years ago when I was younger and still being exposed to concepts and ideas that didn't fit my existing world view. I can only hope that, intelligent as you evidently are, you continue to develop your empathy, as I have, to gain deeper understanding of the struggles that others have faced and continue to face in this society.

If you want to summarize my position on this matter, in brief, it's to say that I believe we have a moral obligation to stand up and oppose the statements and positions of people who seek to spread division and hate, not to stand accomplice idly by.

Hey man that is more than fair. I think on a personal level, as humans we do have that obligation to find the truth and call out wrongdoing, I couldn't agree more on that note. I think where we disagree is whether the government itself should be involved in that issue or not. I think a lot of it comes down to us as human beings developing thicker skin to offensive speech; I get it sucks to hear something that can really bring people down, but I do truly believe you have the ability to grow from that as opposed to always taking things you disagree with/may be hurtful to you to hear. Thats why I haven't stopped replying on this thread, because whether I agree with what's said or I'm offended or not (personal attacks are not fun lol), I want to learn more about another side (whether it'd be to change my views or to strengthen my arguments for future use). I do really appreciate the respect on this issue though, quite a bit. This is actually starting to get somewhere and I've been having a lot of fun participating.


EDITS:
I can't say I don't have sympathy for those suffering, whether you'd like to believe that or not. I just don't think, on a personal note, it's safe to mix empathy with objective law. In most cases, that's not what tends to produce results from what I've observed. My world view has changed over time too after hearing something different from a liberal echo chamber, and even then I was an incredibly moderate liberal. I'd consider myself now more Centrist, if not maybe a moderate conservative nowadays after hearing from multiple and varied sources.

Welcome to the world of politics!

P.S respect try-hards and those who debate with a competitive spirit even with opposing views.

In all fairness, guilty is charged. I am very competitive, and that's why I get a kick out of it lol

 

[Ashaebi]

this thread is a fever dream

Welcome to the world of politics!

P.S respect try-hards and those who debate with a competitive spirit even with opposing views.

 

[v]

lmao

 

[Ashaebi]

lmao

Well the more a topic is discussed/debated the more likely the truth comes out. It's not a bad thing to have a thread like this by all means. Just saying :]

 

[Shrug]

demonstrably untrue

 

[JALMONT]

I don't believe he has said any garbage like "evolution has not been observed," or really anything that is truly offensive, mind you. He hasn't said any nonesense either, to me at least a lot of what he's been saying has been common sense. I agree with him. If you play the race card on someone, majority of the time, that is, by dictionary definition, racist. That's a big reason why the two of us were arguing against white privilege in the modern era in earlier pages on the thread, because it is completely racist and untrue. If you want to talk about racism though, I'll gladly give you a very mock history lesson, because I did actually take a pretty good amount of American History.

History

So, racism has, does, and will always I'd imagine, exist. We all are pretty unanimous on that. I think the best point to start here is the Civil War. The war was originally fought to preserve the union, as quoted by Abraham Lincoln. Southern Democrats voted to secede in order to preserve slavery, which was the biggest thing keeping the south's agricultural economy afloat. Abraham Lincoln threatened that by the Republican Party's platform, which is to stop the spread of slavery into new territories (not abolish it completely, at first). The south fires first at Fort Sumter, and the bloodiest war on American soil begins. Fast-forward to the end of the war, the Emancipation Proclamation, a military move, was used to free southern-owned slaves in union-captured southern territories, the 13th amendment is passed to the anguish of the Southern Democrats and Northern sympathizers, and Reconstruction begins. A good thing to note, at this time, only one Republican in office has ever owned a slave in their lives. Ulysses Grant, soon to be president, was the only one, but it's also good to note he was previously a Democrat who had a wife from the deep South who was also a previous slave-owner.

Soon after Lincoln is assassinated, black males are also given the right to vote as free citizens. Black communities then did prosper for a little while because in a lot of communities, blacks were in charge. Andrew Johnson, a Northern Democrat and Southern sympathizer, was in charge of reconstructing the south. Veering from Lincoln's original plans, he accepted money from Southern sympathizers, and turned a blind eye to any laws that were passed to lessen black voting power (grandfather clause, the literacy test, etc.). The KKK was also created under Nathaniel Forrest, to create fear and scare blacks out of voting. White racist Democrats take back control, and the era of Jim Crowe is about to begin.

A big thing people like to bring up to most conservatives being "racist," they like to refer to the southern strategy (the plan Nixon supposedly used to almost win a few states in the deep south, without, funny enough, using any racist rhetoric or promises to appeal to racist whites) and how that started the party "switch." Ironically enough, a switch didn't even begin until the late 1930s when FDR was in office. Why did blacks vote for a Democrat that was still decently racist and had a lot of policy against them? Because they were given a copious amount of welfare through the Great Depression. Their families had support. Going to the 1960s, mainly the time of the civil rights act (another thing people site), despite a Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, in office, 23 southern Democrats voted against the Civil rights act. Republicans were 80% in favor of it, and Johnson caved in. He even said himself "I'll have those n****** voting for us for decades." How many of those Democrats switched to the Republican party afterwards? Only one. Again, where is this massive switch? Jump to 1994, where the consensus is that the South switched to Republican. What happened? Did it take a span of 60 years for racist white democrats to decide the republicans are better for their causes? No, there was a new generation of people that probably didn't even have a grandparent that lived through slavery. Let's look at today now, but before I do, let's put aside the fact that KKK and neo-nazis support the Republican party because no Republican has taken any donations, any lobbying, or really have given any significant support to those groups. That being said, we can consider those irrelevant. You can make the same argument for Antifa for the modern Democrats, so I think it is very fair to ignore the extremes here. Which party is the one that STILL brings up the race card in any of its platforms? I'll leave that one for you to answer, but here's the hint, one of them doesn't give a shit about race at all, period.

If you want to hear more about this, look into who Dinesh D'Souza is. He just made an entire movie about everything I just outlined, and thensome. If you don't feel like paying money to see a movie, he's also talked about this in lectures that can be found on YouTube that are very enticing. Here's one, he gets to where I talk about at ~36:00

Hope that helps!

Please don't respond to my posts if you haven't read them or don't understand them. I know for a fact you don't know what I'm talking about because he has said that about evolution.

Let me just make this clear what my problem is: equating "playing the race card" with actual racism is just not reality. Pointing out racist attitudes, whether real or imagined, is in no way the same as actual racist beliefs. Racist attitudes should be challenged wherever seen and society is better off whenever those attitudes are challenged. I don't think this requires that much of an argument, I feel as if this is/should be pretty self-evident. If you genuinely believe that racism is equivalent to the "race card" or whatever, then I don't know what to say except that there's no point to this conversation. Sorry.

In any case, I don't really know why you directed all this at me or who you are making these comments towards or why anyone should even give a fuck about this point you're making because for one I didn't ask for it and two I didn't make any of these arguments then you seem to be refuting and three they aren't really relevant to anything??? And I mean, I hate to break it to you but it barely took me any time at all and a couple of google searches to figure out that Mr. D'Souza is a retard (who funnily enough also seems to play the race card himself...) who has 0 credibility and shouldn't and for the most part isn't taken seriously by anyone remotely intelligent (I'll even give you an example: D'Souza claims that Hitler was a left-winger because he tolerated homophobia. it's not even funny, it's disturbing lol...).

I don't know man, like isn't it concerning that no one takes this man seriously and his films and ideas are deeply flawed and other people have pointed out those flaws? Why are you so focused on this republic/democrat split? Why can't we just accept the idea that racism is bad and should be attacked? I understand that you don't like the ways in which it is identified/attacked but you veer so far to the opposite side in seemingly rejecting the need to attack racism that I can't help but wonder.

 

[Dece1t]

Please don't respond to my posts if you haven't read them or don't understand them. I know for a fact you don't know what I'm talking about because he has said that about evolution.

Let me just make this clear what my problem is: equating "playing the race card" with actual racism is just not reality. Pointing out racist attitudes, whether real or imagined, is in no way the same as actual racist beliefs. Racist attitudes should be challenged wherever seen and society is better off whenever those attitudes are challenged. I don't think this requires that much of an argument, I feel as if this is/should be pretty self-evident. If you genuinely believe that racism is equivalent to the "race card" or whatever, then I don't know what to say except that there's no point to this conversation. Sorry.

In any case, I don't really know why you directed all this at me or who you are making these comments towards or why anyone should even give a fuck about this point you're making because for one I didn't ask for it and two I didn't make any of these arguments then you seem to be refuting and three they aren't really relevant to anything??? And I mean, I hate to break it to you but it barely took me any time at all and a couple of google searches to figure out that Mr. D'Souza is a retard (who funnily enough also seems to play the race card himself...) who has 0 credibility and shouldn't and for the most part isn't taken seriously by anyone remotely intelligent (I'll even give you an example: D'Souza claims that Hitler was a left-winger because he tolerated homophobia. it's not even funny, it's disturbing lol...).

I don't know man, like isn't it concerning that no one takes this man seriously and his films and ideas are deeply flawed and other people have pointed out those flaws? Why are you so focused on this republic/democrat split? Why can't we just accept the idea that racism is bad and should be attacked? I understand that you don't like the ways in which it is identified/attacked but you veer so far to the opposite side in seemingly rejecting the need to attack racism that I can't help but wonder.

Before I go ahead and reply to what you just said, I want to make this very clear to you. You're in a debate thread, expect to be replied to. I don't see any issue with that, and I do not believe I directed any aggressive comments towards you aside from countering some of your points, which is what you do in a debate. Additionally, point to me where he said anything about denying evolution, please correct me here if I'm wrong, go ahead. One more thing, please don't accuse "you didn't read," because frankly that is rude, and I took a pretty fair amount of time to read you (and everyone else's posts so far) and try to keep a level-headed and civil argument. I need you to know it is more than ok to disagree and keep some respect in this conversation (I don't think you are racist or evil, and I sure hope you don't think I am given you don't know me all that well).

Anyways, playing the race card does tend to be racist (i.e. pointing out someone is a white male, for instance, to use that to make yourself look more like a victim). I get the intent is to combat racism, my point is that doing that doesn't work because doing that does make you yourself racist in turn (I don't mean you in particular either, I mean in general. If you want an example, refer to the later post of mine about Sarah Jeong, albiet a more extreme example). Why can't we just see each other as human beings instead of obsessing with skin color is where I'm trying to go with this conversation.

If that's all the research you did on D'Souza, I think you're missing out imo. He's actually an incredibly intelligent author and movie maker. He's done quite a bit of lectures, I highly recommend you find those if you ever have the time (or look at the one I posted, here it is again for your convenience). For the record, yes, Hitler by definition was an Authoritarian Liberal Socialist. You'd be able to see that in his policy and the platform of the Nazi party (and do NOT assume I'm comparing Hitler to all leftists, because I see that's exactly where you're taking this, and you're taking way too much offense than you need to).

The reason I'm focused at least at the Democrat/Republican split (I cannot speak for everyone else), is because that's the split in politics, and I believe that's where the issue of racism lies (if you read my history spiel, you would have figured that out). The Democratic party did not, and still has not, have a good reputation when it comes to race imo. They constantly focus on race even today, and I personally believe that is not healthy for society as a whole. Evil in general should be opposed by humanity, I could not agree more. However, you have to account for the bunch that are evil and do not choose to be swayed (this is why Humanitarianism, for instance, tends to not work). You need that fail-safe for those types of people, so here's the solution I'd use. Let bygones be bygones, so long as they're not directly harming you or anyone else, one, don't give them even the attention, two, and three, on the chance that they do directly harm you or someone else, act peacefully and put them to justice. That's my general take, if you want to get into more specifics about evil that perhaps may need a different approach, I'd be more than happy to go into it with you. Martin Luther King Jr. stood by that thinking, and if you haven't noticed, that produced serious long term results, even though it may not have worked immediately in the short term.

 

[AM]

Let bygones be bygones, so long as they're not directly harming you or anyone else, one, don't give them even the attention, two, and three, on the chance that they do directly harm you or someone else, act peacefully and put them to justice.

This is not realistic and you’re implying direct harm as some sort of objective parameter in terms of physical harm when language that is prejudice, racist, homophobic, etc. can incite people to justify the use of physical harm. This view point isn’t the real world we live in.

 

[Dece1t]

This is not realistic and you’re implying direct harm as some sort of objective parameter in terms of physical harm when language that is prejudice, racist, homophobic, etc. can incite people to justify the use of physical harm. This view point isn’t the real world we live in.

You can just as easily give it no attention, and it'll probably never be heard. It is the world we live in; it's called life is tough, focus on you and your growth as an individual, and make the best out of your life in order to benefit others.

 

[AM]

You can just as easily give it no attention, and it'll probably never be heard. It is the world we live in; it's called life is tough, focus on you and your growth as an individual, and make the best out of your life in order to benefit others.

You can’t give it no attention if you’re reliant on instutions that help with your development and growth as an individual, the same instutions that subliminally or straight advocate the use of negative language or actions that are not causing direct physical harm but stunt personal development of you and others. Life is tough, but it shouldn’t be made harder because of someone elses negative behavior.

 

[Dece1t]

You can’t give it no attention if you’re reliant on instutions that help with your development and growth as an individual, the same instutions that subliminally or straight advocate the use of negative language or actions that are not causing direct physical harm but stunt personal development of you and others. Life is tough, but it shouldn’t be made harder because of someone elses negative behavior.

Which institutions exactly mate?

 

[Asek]

i encourgae people not to repond t the bloke whos political insights come from fox news, youtube 'intelletctuals' (this means pewdiepie) and some weird indian racist guy who amongst other stuff ud think a 10 yar old would have etter insight on (direct quote from his works cied on wiipedia here) thinks that "The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well". thank u.

 

[Myzozoa]

tfw when your argument, broken down over several pages of posts, is literally 'abraham lincoln was a republican therefore the left is racist'

 

[Dece1t]

tfw when your argument, broken down over several pages of posts, is literally 'abraham lincoln was a republican therefore the left is racist'

Ummm, not what I said at all lmfao. Please excuse me while I kms over how hilarious that accusation is, I can't breathe.

i encourgae people not to repond t the bloke whos political insights come from fox news, youtube 'intelletctuals' (this means pewdiepie) and some weird indian racist guy who amongst other stuff ud think a 10 yar old would have etter insight on (direct quote from his works cied on wiipedia here) thinks that "The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well". thank u.

XD
Real good mate, how about you give me your point now or actually refute or argue with the points you disagree with. You've done anything but that thus far.

 

[tcr]

deceit your entire argument hinges on the fact that you believe that hate speech can just simply be ignored, the old adage of "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" but that idea is just not true. There have been many studies that have shown that language has a direct impact on different neurotransmitters released in the brain, and even more research on hate speech and its impacts on society. Most importantly, hate speech is a predictor of violence. I would recommend checking out this study or this paper if you wish to actually get a full on lengthy answer on why hate speech is not an OK phenomenon and moreover why it is just dangerous as pre-conceived notions of harm. The short answer is that hate speech, or negative speech in general but mostly hate speech for its exaggerated effect, force neurotransmitters to be released in the brain, often from the amygdala, and that this ends up clouding rational thought from the frontal lobe. Why is this important? The stress induced from this "fear intoxicated" state is a direct link to increasing depression, clinical anxiety, self-harm, and even suicide. It's very easy to say "oh just don't listen to it" but your brain still gets that information relayed. It still hears someone calling you the n word, and from then on that hate speech giving person is a threat. The first step to genocide is to dehumanize the populace you are attempting to eradicate, so people are "ok" with the very contrarian idea of murder. Hate speech not only emboldens people to speak the negative thoughts its also a signal to let those in the "other" group know that they are not safe. This is why hate speech is being pushed to be banned, not because of "liberal feels" but because it legitimately has a negative impact on the human frame of mind, and is extremely dangerous to the mental state of others.

When people say "Free Speech" they are encompassing the abstract idea of society as a whole to have the ability to express themselves how they wished. It is a societal not individual trait. You do not have the individual ability to shout "Fire" in a movie theater, society has deemed that not OK because you incite panic. How then, can you argue that "hate speech" itself, knowing that it incites panic in the "other" that the speech is directed towards, is perfectly fine and should be voiced? Society does not have to let every single idea surface and be given a platform, in fact quite the opposite. It is in society's best interest to quell certain concepts from the sphere of thought, because the masses are easily moved and language is easily abused. I would assume you are for the advancement of society for the welfare of people, and so cannot see how you could see any societal net gain from allowing racists, bigots, and other like-minded individuals to be given platforms to voice their ideas that are inherently dangerous to their fellow humans. Unless, you don't believe that depression, anxiety, stress, and suicide are real issues? As you said, "the world is tough," but why should it be made any tougher than it already is? Why are you so pro-hate speech?

 

[v]

"there are some who cannot be reached with words alone"
-android 16

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

deceit your entire argument hinges on the fact that you believe that hate speech can just simply be ignored, the old adage of "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" but that idea is just not true. There have been many studies that have shown that language has a direct impact on different neurotransmitters released in the brain, and even more research on hate speech and its impacts on society. Most importantly, hate speech is a predictor of violence. I would recommend checking out this study or this paper if you wish to actually get a full on lengthy answer on why hate speech is not an OK phenomenon and moreover why it is just dangerous as pre-conceived notions of harm. The short answer is that hate speech, or negative speech in general but mostly hate speech for its exaggerated effect, force neurotransmitters to be released in the brain, often from the amygdala, and that this ends up clouding rational thought from the frontal lobe. Why is this important? The stress induced from this "fear intoxicated" state is a direct link to increasing depression, clinical anxiety, self-harm, and even suicide. It's very easy to say "oh just don't listen to it" but your brain still gets that information relayed. It still hears someone calling you the n word, and from then on that hate speech giving person is a threat. The first step to genocide is to dehumanize the populace you are attempting to eradicate, so people are "ok" with the very contrarian idea of murder. Hate speech not only emboldens people to speak the negative thoughts its also a signal to let those in the "other" group know that they are not safe. This is why hate speech is being pushed to be banned, not because of "liberal feels" but because it legitimately has a negative impact on the human frame of mind, and is extremely dangerous to the mental state of others.

When people say "Free Speech" they are encompassing the abstract idea of society as a whole to have the ability to express themselves how they wished. It is a societal not individual trait. You do not have the individual ability to shout "Fire" in a movie theater, society has deemed that not OK because you incite panic. How then, can you argue that "hate speech" itself, knowing that it incites panic in the "other" that the speech is directed towards, is perfectly fine and should be voiced? Society does not have to let every single idea surface and be given a platform, in fact quite the opposite. It is in society's best interest to quell certain concepts from the sphere of thought, because the masses are easily moved and language is easily abused. I would assume you are for the advancement of society for the welfare of people, and so cannot see how you could see any societal net gain from allowing racists, bigots, and other like-minded individuals to be given platforms to voice their ideas that are inherently dangerous to their fellow humans. Unless, you don't believe that depression, anxiety, stress, and suicide are real issues? As you said, "the world is tough," but why should it be made any tougher than it already is? Why are you so pro-hate speech?

With all due respect, if you think taking away a mad person's right to speak is going to stop them from venting then maybe you don't understand the problem, thoroughly. Usually, when a person is insane with illogical rage; I'd have to imagine following the law isn't a top priority. I'm not saying it is okay for people to speak with such ill intent but just saying that I don't think silencing it really combats the true issue. As you say...depression, anxiety, stress. These are a sickness of the mind and the last thing we need to do, imo, is invalidate the voices of the suffering. Nothing good can come of sweeping some of society's most prominent issues under the rug.

 

[tcr]

With all due respect, if you think taking away a mad person's right to speak is going to stop them from venting then maybe you don't understand the problem, thoroughly. Usually, when a person is insane with illogical rage; I'd have to imagine following the law isn't a top priority. I'm not saying it is okay for people to speak with such ill intent but just saying that I don't think silencing it really combats the true issue. As you say...depression, anxiety, stress. These are a sickness of the mind and the last thing we need to do, imo, is invalidate the voices of the suffering. Nothing good can come of sweeping some of society's most prominent issues under the rug.

is your argument really "why outlaw it bc people are going to break the law anyway"? why is murder illegal because its not like murderers are law abiding citizens? By that logic why regulate anything? This is not a good argument.

It's not about "sweeping it under the rug." How does legislating hate speech in a public-backed way constitute covering it up? The justice and legislation systems are supposed to be direct extensions of society's will and ideals, and if society acknowledges that yeah, hate speech is bad, and outlaws it, how exactly is that not helping? As long as the hate speech is given a platform it won't go away, its when those ideas are broadcasted to people that it indoctrinates them. Would you argue that Germany is in the wrong for "sweeping under the rug" any nazi propaganda? For example, iirc it is illegal to identify as a nazi in Germany or to spew any speech related to that era. What benefit does having this speech even have that it needs to be brought up in a discussion? Giving ideas platforms and the ability to be thrown to people implies that those ideas can provide some net benefit to society, otherwise unseen. That is why people argue for Free Speech, because it is absurd to suggest that people know everything and thus do not need new, sometimes not commonly accepted, ideas. That whole premise's foundation is that those ideas have some unknown positive benefit to society. I for one can see literally zero benefit in allowing people to spew hate speech. Could you please provide your thoughts to what benefit you see in allowing hate speech to exist, beyond a simple "its speech" argument.

 

[TheValkyries]

*descending from hell on a white winged dove* Debates do not actually do anything to advance the validity or truth of various ideas, they’re merely tests for the extent of our rhetorical knowledge~~~~~ Propping debate up as the real one and true battlefield of intellectual rigor is dishonest and manipulative and done mostly in service to those who do not debate in good faith, nor with any real intellectual honesty~~~~~~

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Why do people always bring up Venezuela (which isn't even a democracy, the elections have been rigged for quite a while at this point) when it comes to socialism failing and then never mention Norway (and by extension most Nordic countries), which regularly ranks very high in happiness, has higher GDP per capita than the US, is still (actually) democratic, and has a functional and productive economy. But yes lets cherrypick the strongman controlled oil-reliant country instead because that's much more reflective of what the US would look like with socialist policies.

nordic countries arent socialist

also i want you to keep in mind that those countries have been privatizing more and more things over the years with more and more positive results

Im a centrist and I want something like sweden and norway and i hate socialism, so one of us here has to be stupid and id like you to explain why its me and not you