Using "HATE" laws to silence dissent

[Mac1958]

Did Mac just thank Trump for beefing the court up against the lib agenda he voted for.....too funny

He's trying to make a great switch.

It ain't happening.

Mac sidled up to toro for far too long to be anything but another snake infiltrator.

You guys and your binary little worlds.

If I'm not an obedient Trumpster, I must be a commie.

How simple that must be for you!

No, but I'd bet you voted for one.

No, I voted for Biden.

I realize that, in your world, he's a "commie". But that's your world only.

Thank you for the brilliant illustration of the adage: "Birds of a feather......."

Not sure what that means, but you're most welcome!

 

[Mac-7]

If you say so. We all know you gots da troof 'n stuff.

Just expressing my opinion as you do about trump voters

 

[JoeB131]

It's called calling dumbasses like you out with the appropriate level of scorn and disdain.

By engaging in hysterics? Interesting strategy.

You are having delusions of adequacy again, Joey.

Um, yeah... you mean other than your weird following me around tagging all my posts, I'm totally not living in your head rent free.

If you say so. We all know you gots da troof 'n stuff.

And that's different from you, how? Frankly, you put anyone who contradicts your facts on 'ignore".

 

[martybegan]

It's called calling dumbasses like you out with the appropriate level of scorn and disdain.

By engaging in hysterics? Interesting strategy.

You are having delusions of adequacy again, Joey.

Um, yeah... you mean other than your weird following me around tagging all my posts, I'm totally not living in your head rent free.

If you say so. We all know you gots da troof 'n stuff.

And that's different from you, how? Frankly, you put anyone who contradicts your facts on 'ignore".

you do know hysterics is a non woke word right?

 

[JoeB131]

you do know hysterics is a non woke word right?

But it applies to you so well... you seem genuinely hormonal most of the time.

 

[martybegan]

you do know hysterics is a non woke word right?

But it applies to you so well... you seem genuinely hormonal most of the time.

You mistake disgust for hormones.

 

[Rigby5]

There is NOTHING "liberal" about the Dem party. Its nothing but LINOs

Now, there is one I haven't heard before.

I tend to agree that Democrats are no longer liberal or progressive.
Started with Clinton, the 1993 proposal for health care that mandated private health insurance, the 1994 federal crime bill that federalized the war on drugs, 3 Strikes, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

You mistake disgust for hormones.

Naw, man, you get absolutely nutty sometimes, especially when I make fun of the wifebeater who claims he was for Jesus, or something like that.

I tend to agree that Democrats are no longer liberal or progressive.
Started with Clinton, the 1993 proposal for health care that mandated private health insurance, the 1994 federal crime bill that federalized the war on drugs, 3 Strikes, etc.

Except that's not really what the 1993 proposal was. The 1993 proposal was to create a government run program, and if a company didn't offer health insurance, they would pay into a fund for it.

The problem there was Hillary, being Hillary, was totally tone deaf to the struggles of small business. If they couldn't afford health insurance, the couldn't afford to pay into her fund.

Using the usual tone-deafness that gave us Trump, she responded, "I can't be resonsible for undercapitalized businesses."

Now, nobody was going to go along with Single Payer in 1993, no one was going to do it in 2008, and frankly it's not going to happen now, even after Covid has exposed the clear weaknesses in the system that relies on employers to subsidize health care.

 

[Rigby5]

You mistake disgust for hormones.

Naw, man, you get absolutely nutty sometimes, especially when I make fun of the wifebeater who claims he was for Jesus, or something like that.

I tend to agree that Democrats are no longer liberal or progressive.
Started with Clinton, the 1993 proposal for health care that mandated private health insurance, the 1994 federal crime bill that federalized the war on drugs, 3 Strikes, etc.

Except that's not really what the 1993 proposal was. The 1993 proposal was to create a government run program, and if a company didn't offer health insurance, they would pay into a fund for it.

The problem there was Hillary, being Hillary, was totally tone deaf to the struggles of small business. If they couldn't afford health insurance, the couldn't afford to pay into her fund.

Using the usual tone-deafness that gave us Trump, she responded, "I can't be resonsible for undercapitalized businesses."

Now, nobody was going to go along with Single Payer in 1993, no one was going to do it in 2008, and frankly it's not going to happen now, even after Covid has exposed the clear weaknesses in the system that relies on employers to subsidize health care.

Except that would still be requiring employers to buy private health care insurance policies, which is all totally wrong. Private for profit insurance not only is a bad idea and could never be legal to mandate, but the whole idea of tax exemptions for employer benefits like heath insurance was always wrong and should have been illegal. Not only should employers have nothing to do with employees health care, so that they would not be bound to a particular employer, but employer health benefits are incredibly discriminatory since the poor do not get them and only the wealthy do.

The solution to avoid mandating single payer would be to just declare the current employer tax exemptions for employee benefits to be illegal, as it always should have been considered.
Then with no one having employer benefits any more, then everyone would have been on the same page as far as finding a better, new solution, and then single payer would have more of a chance.

 

[martybegan]

You mistake disgust for hormones.

Naw, man, you get absolutely nutty sometimes, especially when I make fun of the wifebeater who claims he was for Jesus, or something like that.

I tend to agree that Democrats are no longer liberal or progressive.
Started with Clinton, the 1993 proposal for health care that mandated private health insurance, the 1994 federal crime bill that federalized the war on drugs, 3 Strikes, etc.

Except that's not really what the 1993 proposal was. The 1993 proposal was to create a government run program, and if a company didn't offer health insurance, they would pay into a fund for it.

The problem there was Hillary, being Hillary, was totally tone deaf to the struggles of small business. If they couldn't afford health insurance, the couldn't afford to pay into her fund.

Using the usual tone-deafness that gave us Trump, she responded, "I can't be resonsible for undercapitalized businesses."

Now, nobody was going to go along with Single Payer in 1993, no one was going to do it in 2008, and frankly it's not going to happen now, even after Covid has exposed the clear weaknesses in the system that relies on employers to subsidize health care.

It's when you assume someone is a wifebeater with no actual evidence, just because you are an old mean dried up twat.

 

[Coyote]

It's a given that starting on January 20, the term "hate speech" will be expanded to include many comments that are currently allowed (even on Facebook & Twitter!). I am guessing that the first thing that the new Attorney General does is to put out a list of words or topics that are now forbidden to be said or written. The only exception to this new rule is if you say those words inside your home or write them in your diary.

I don't know that laws are required. This has been done primarily through the culture, and that has been plenty powerful enough.

Actually, isn’t culture where it should be done? Culture always used to be where the line was drawn on what sort of speech or actions went to far. The Westbrook Baptist’s had every right to protest, for example, but people’s responses to it (which did not infringe their rights) showed that our culture (then) did not condone it.

 

[JoeB131]

Except that would still be requiring employers to buy private health care insurance policies, which is all totally wrong. Private for profit insurance not only is a bad idea and could never be legal to mandate, but the whole idea of tax exemptions for employer benefits like heath insurance was always wrong and should have been illegal. Not only should employers have nothing to do with employees health care, so that they would not be bound to a particular employer, but employer health benefits are incredibly discriminatory since the poor do not get them and only the wealthy do.

The solution to avoid mandating single payer would be to just declare the current employer tax exemptions for employee benefits to be illegal, as it always should have been considered.
Then with no one having employer benefits any more, then everyone would have been on the same page as far as finding a better, new solution, and then single payer would have more of a chance.

Personally, I favor Single Payer. A lot of people don't. A lot of people like their Employer plans. If you are truly blessed, you belong to a union and they have awesome plans.

Of course, the alternative to employer insurance would be individual insurance, and that would be pretty much unworkable as well. The young could get really good rates, but oldsters like myself probably couldn't get good insurance for love or money.

The only way for single payer to work would be if the Government also gets involved in cost controls. Doctors wouldn't like that, neither would various industries like pharma or medical manufacturing. (The part of O-care people hated was the medical device tax.)

If I were doing it, this is how I would do it. Allow people over 55 to have the option to buy into Medicare. That will make life easier on the insurance companies as they will only be insuring younger, healthier people. Then take it down to 50. Then 45. Then everyone else.

 

[Mac1958]

It's a given that starting on January 20, the term "hate speech" will be expanded to include many comments that are currently allowed (even on Facebook & Twitter!). I am guessing that the first thing that the new Attorney General does is to put out a list of words or topics that are now forbidden to be said or written. The only exception to this new rule is if you say those words inside your home or write them in your diary.

I don't know that laws are required. This has been done primarily through the culture, and that has been plenty powerful enough.

Actually, isn’t culture where it should be done? Culture always used to be where the line was drawn on what sort of speech or actions went to far. The Westbrook Baptist’s had every right to protest, for example, but people’s responses to it (which did not infringe their rights) showed that our culture (then) did not condone it.

Yeah, we don't want to come from laws. And those who push this crap know that it couldn't be done through laws, so they've just pounded away at it, year after year, through the culture. They'll wreck lives and careers, intimidate and destroy, until they have the country so afraid to say a fucking word that they can control the conversation.

And when it gets far into the culture, it's much easier to turn it into law. As Maduro knows.

This has been playing out here for the last 20 years, clear as day. This ain't liberalism.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, we don't want to come from laws. And those who push this crap know that it couldn't be done through laws, so they've just pounded away at it, year after year, through the culture. They'll wreck lives and careers, intimidate and destroy, until they have the country so afraid to say a fucking word that they can control the conversation.

And when it gets far into the culture, it's much easier to turn it into law. As Maduro knows.

This has been playing out here for the last 20 years, clear as day. This ain't liberalism.

I was wondering how long it would take Mac to get back to whining about his lost white privilege.

Hey, here's the reality... we live in a world where thanks to Social Media and live cams, your stupidity will be on display for everyone.

So be careful what you post under your own name.... people will be paying attention.

 

[Coyote]

It's a given that starting on January 20, the term "hate speech" will be expanded to include many comments that are currently allowed (even on Facebook & Twitter!). I am guessing that the first thing that the new Attorney General does is to put out a list of words or topics that are now forbidden to be said or written. The only exception to this new rule is if you say those words inside your home or write them in your diary.

I don't know that laws are required. This has been done primarily through the culture, and that has been plenty powerful enough.

Actually, isn’t culture where it should be done? Culture always used to be where the line was drawn on what sort of speech or actions went to far. The Westbrook Baptist’s had every right to protest, for example, but people’s responses to it (which did not infringe their rights) showed that our culture (then) did not condone it.

Yeah, we don't want to come from laws. And those who push this crap know that it couldn't be done through laws, so they've just pounded away at it, year after year, through the culture. They'll wreck lives and careers, intimidate and destroy, until they have the country so afraid to say a fucking word that they can control the conversation.

And when it gets far into the culture, it's much easier to turn it into law. As Maduro knows.

This has been playing out here for the last 20 years, clear as day. This ain't liberalism.

I think, unlike Maduro, our Constitution is very strong in it's ability to protect free speech, so I don't see laws getting much traction unless it can be proven that the "hate speech" directly led to violence, libel, slander.

Culture is another thing. Eventually people get fed up and push back at excesses and we are seeing that. I read an article, from a liberal, on challenging the "call out/cancel culture" that has been growing.

Generally speaking though...not sure how to articulate this well, but when culture (as in following commonly accepted but unwritten norms and rules of behavior) fails to self regulate, we then need external rules or laws to maintain both civility and freedoms. We used to self regulate in what we said publicly and had a much smaller audience. Social media has changed that far faster than culture can catch up. Part of what we are seeing is not "free speech", it's "just because I can, I will". Part of THAT is pushback against the Culture of Perpetual Outrage/Cancel Culture/Call Out Culture. And that is creating another push back in the form of private companies censoring what is allowed and how it is allowed, on their platforms. Unless it's a monopoly, I have no objection to it, it's their choice to determine their rules of conduct as long as the government isn't imposing censorship.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, we don't want to come from laws. And those who push this crap know that it couldn't be done through laws, so they've just pounded away at it, year after year, through the culture. They'll wreck lives and careers, intimidate and destroy, until they have the country so afraid to say a fucking word that they can control the conversation.

And when it gets far into the culture, it's much easier to turn it into law. As Maduro knows.

This has been playing out here for the last 20 years, clear as day. This ain't liberalism.

I was wondering how long it would take Mac to get back to whining about his lost white privilege.

Hey, here's the reality... we live in a world where thanks to Social Media and live cams, your stupidity will be on display for everyone.

So be careful what you post under your own name.... people will be paying attention.

I don't see what he is saying as stupid, in fact I tend to agree...it IS possible for the left (and I'm speaking as a member) to go too far, just as the right has been.

 

[Mac1958]

It's a given that starting on January 20, the term "hate speech" will be expanded to include many comments that are currently allowed (even on Facebook & Twitter!). I am guessing that the first thing that the new Attorney General does is to put out a list of words or topics that are now forbidden to be said or written. The only exception to this new rule is if you say those words inside your home or write them in your diary.

I don't know that laws are required. This has been done primarily through the culture, and that has been plenty powerful enough.

Actually, isn’t culture where it should be done? Culture always used to be where the line was drawn on what sort of speech or actions went to far. The Westbrook Baptist’s had every right to protest, for example, but people’s responses to it (which did not infringe their rights) showed that our culture (then) did not condone it.

Yeah, we don't want to come from laws. And those who push this crap know that it couldn't be done through laws, so they've just pounded away at it, year after year, through the culture. They'll wreck lives and careers, intimidate and destroy, until they have the country so afraid to say a fucking word that they can control the conversation.

And when it gets far into the culture, it's much easier to turn it into law. As Maduro knows.

This has been playing out here for the last 20 years, clear as day. This ain't liberalism.

I think, unlike Maduro, our Constitution is very strong in it's ability to protect free speech, so I don't see laws getting much traction unless it can be proven that the "hate speech" directly led to violence, libel, slander.

Culture is another thing. Eventually people get fed up and push back at excesses and we are seeing that. I read an article, from a liberal, on challenging the "call out/cancel culture" that has been growing.

Generally speaking though...not sure how to articulate this well, but when culture (as in following commonly accepted but unwritten norms and rules of behavior) fails to self regulate, we then need external rules or laws to maintain both civility and freedoms. We used to self regulate in what we said publicly and had a much smaller audience. Social media has changed that far faster than culture can catch up. Part of what we are seeing is not "free speech", it's "just because I can, I will". Part of THAT is pushback against the Culture of Perpetual Outrage/Cancel Culture/Call Out Culture. And that is creating another push back in the form of private companies censoring what is allowed and how it is allowed, on their platforms. Unless it's a monopoly, I have no objection to it, it's their choice to determine their rules of conduct as long as the government isn't imposing censorship.

The bugaboo is always in the definitions, such as "civility" and "freedoms". My biggest problem with the PC culture -- among a few -- is that the intimidation of freedom of expression is antithetical to open thought. It's open thought that drives ideas and innovation, and it's open thought that shines a light on real issues to be addressed. Look at the way Trump has emboldened the white nationalists in this country to come out of the shadows. To me, in the long run, that's a GOOD thing, because it's an issue we MUST address. Without that, it festers and only gets worse.

I can't tell you why this is, but I can STILL see my grade school teacher at the blackboard one day, telling us about the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". That seemed so AMERICAN to me. It like it hit me in the face with a freakin' shovel, and that feeling has never gone away.

 

[Mac-7]

Look at the way Trump has emboldened the white nationalists in this country to come out of the shadows.

Can you define what “white nationalism” means to you?

 

[martybegan]

Look at the way Trump has emboldened the white nationalists in this country to come out of the shadows.

Can you define what “white nationalism” means to you?

I can, according to progressives it's anything to the Right of Mitt Romney.

 

[donttread]

Actually I had a good home partly because dad worked 3 jobs and mom always knew where we were. I will not apologize for that. I drank myself to lows and THEN used the bootstraps. I was middle class because my parents busted their assess to make it so.

Uh, you were middle class because of the racial inequalities that exist in this society. Even the poorest white person is better off than most black people in the way they are treated by employers, law enforcement, etc. even today. It was a LOT worse 50 years ago.

There were few black people in my part of the state back then so just who were the under privileged? Oh yeah there are poor white folks heavy with social ills too!
You know what almost killed me? The toxcity of blame.

Sounds like you are trying to blame other people for your own mistakes.

Actually I am denouncing blame as a toxic feeling. How did you not get that? It's like this. You cannot lift up a group of people without their consent. WE've been trying for 60 years, the arrogance of the ultra libs is stunning. Did they even ask the blacks how they wanted to be helped? NO