Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
The Maelstrom of Violence - Printable Version

+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: The Maelstrom of Violence (/thread-824.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-06-2017

(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.

Absolutely clear.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-06-2017

(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.
How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What's your (the liberal) view of the world? Is it realistic or dream like?

Good questions.

In many ways, I strive to be one of balance.  You have to be realistic, yet calling yourself a Whig you can't let the basic Enlightenment values go.  Democracy, human rights, sharing risks and costs, helping one's fellow man, all that fits in.  A government works for the common welfare, not for the few.

There is also a notion that there is always a rich elite, that no matter how much they have they want more, that they always strive to control the government, and that only occasionally will the many get upset enough to contest the rich getting richer.  Often in the sequence of S&H Anglo American crisis, a new elite favoring a new technology will align with the working guy to push Whig values.  This is not coming together well this time around, at least not yet.

Nast's vile stereotype of Tweed might stand as a base for how I am ready to view the rich and few as natural enemies of the working many.  I do remember when our high school band doing an exchange concert placing me with a richer family.  It was a tradition, giving members of one band and chorus an opportunity to meet their opposites.  "Oh, let's go visit my father's hanger, and tour his collection of historic airplanes."  No one was as fat as Nast portrayed them, or Marx explained them.  Still, there is an assumption that there are traditional historic bad guys, tempered by an impression of how ordinary the seemed to be, or at least how ordinary they could look on the surface.

I guess Reagan's vile stereotype of the black pregnant welfare queen, treating government generosity as a way of life, might stand opposite Nast's Boss Tweed.  Balance means not getting too obsessed with either, yet trying to take the precautions to prevent the worst abuses coming from anywhere.

Regarding war, I am personally concerned with Powell's questions.  If we are going to go in, let there be well identified goals, a way to achieve them, and a way out.  Bush 43's war demonstrated how much resistance a sole superpower and wannabe neo colonialist will meet, the problems with insurgent war, and how easily unintended consequences leak in.  In short, I am very dubious about foreign intervention.

And yet containment, the domino theory, isn't entirely bogus.  You don't want to give autocratic governments a free and easy expansionist path.  The choices aren't trivial and easy.

And there is the basic balance.  We have a huge division of wealth, which implies the ability to increase taxes.  One party pushes military spending, the other domestic.  Yet, if our military is to be of a certain size, shouldn't they be funded well enough for proper maintenance and training?  Do we want the rich getting richer?  Can we afford a floor, something like UDHR 25's protection so we won't let our own slip below a certain level of basic food, clothing, shelter and health care?  

I don't think I need explain or defend the basic liberal view on most of that.  For the most part, I'm leaning blue.

And the above is before getting into the urban - rural divide.  I’m afraid I can’t give you a short answer.  Please accept the basics, ask questions, and re-read a few of my old posts.

(09-05-2017, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a general rule, I don't have issues defending my values because most people are able to identify them and share them and don't attack them. I spend more time brushing off liberal stereotypes (both vile and ignorant generalizations) than I do defending values.

I might go a step further.  As a liberal in Massachusetts, I seldom have to brush off stereotypes or defend values.

This forum seems to have different rules.  It seems you are supposed to test values, to push against others.  Conversations that involve strange values and vile stereotypes are far more common than in real world.

This almost makes me reluctant to answer your question.  I expect strawmen.  I half expect someone to come in and say no, I lie, all liberals believe (insert absurd vile easily defeated argument here) and (insert the defeat of the easily defeated argument.)  The idea that the opposition might have though things out and be fighting for worthy cause can seem strange to many people.

Do you (or does anyone else) have an equivalent set of opposing values?  Can you critique my values honestly without going into strawmen?

And then, the way you asked the question reminds me of...

Ted Kennedy Wrote:And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again. And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

I am a part of all that I have met
Tho much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are–
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Agreed, and that speech is a landmark. PBS has used it to promote their American Experience show for decades now. The positive Uranus and Neptune levels of values-memes, as I call them, are still basic in many ways.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-06-2017

(09-05-2017, 09:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 08:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 07:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 05:06 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: These dudes are spouting many talking points I have heard on "Right Wing" talk radio and read on "Right Wing" forums.

The whole "Blacks voting mostly Dem means being on the Dem plantation" meme, for instance. Hey look, I'm happy to acknowledge Black Conservatives. But the fact is, most Blacks are not Conservatives. There are reasons.

The truth is, in the main, the GOP is the party of White Men. The stats are abundantly clear on this point.
True, I'd say that most blacks aren't Republican voters or Conservatives as you say and the stats are abundantly clear on that point. I was born a white American and there ain't much I'm able to do about that or able to change about that fact. I'm not going to darken my skin, discard my heritage or my values in order to relate and identify with you or any other black person. I'm sure  the average black American's values aren't much different than my values.

Uh,  some cream has hidden coffee.  Some coffee has hidden cream. Big Grin 





Cream with hidden coffee here ...

Funny, ha ha! I don't know how accurate those tests are; where do you draw the line regarding nationality? At what generation? Go back farther and we're all the same anyway.... We're ALL Africans.....

With me, I know my ancestry going back to thrice great all the way around; no coffee. However, my great great great grandmother was simply known as Mrs. A. Lincoln (married to Abraham's distant cousin), with no other info, so (ironically perhaps) you never know. Those people in my family tree came from the Ohio Valley, so not that far away from the plantations; one never knows....


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

Yeah, that's another crazy theory upheld on the right and the extreme left too. No, government is not held in check by an armed populace. How often has the supreme court ruled to protect our rights because armed men were standing outside with guns pointed at them? How many times has congress or the legislature voted to lower taxes and regulations, protect voting rights, or uphold the rights of workers and consumers because activists were pointing guns at them? No, the government and the police protect our rights. If they don't (and yes they violate our rights too often), then black panthers or militias do not straighten them out. And shooting them doesn't make them behave either. Only a politically-active population (and that means movements and not just "individuals") can keep our government in check. That's what's missing, because too many people vote for politicians who trample on our rights, or don't vote and don't speak up. And--- black lives matter.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996. So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.
I'd say that the vast majority of Americans value law and order.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?
Why are so many American states able to have broad freedoms and liberal guns laws? I assume that the American people are better, more capable and more trust worthy than the people in Canada? I'd like to know why you feel so comfortable and safe in your cozy blue home while surrounded by an armed/pro gun population.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Classic-Xer - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996.  So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.
How hard would it be for Australia to be turned into a fascist state? How many battles would the fascists have to fight and win? How many fascists would be needed? I know one thing, there isn't enough fascists, socialists and communists in America to defeat the 60 plus million Americans who voted for Trump.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

It doesn't imply that at all.

Rather, the argument is that without guns in the hands of the populace to keep the government in check, the government would become increasingly totalitarian.

"Law and order" and "rights" are not naturally aligned; they are often in opposition.  Government tends to value "law and order" even if it means trampling on "rights".  It's only individuals that value "rights".  Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle.  Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.

Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 03:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 06:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

How many of those rights would you have or be able to keep without the right to bear arms?

People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996.  So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.
How hard would it be for Australia to be turned into a fascist state? How many battles would the fascists have to fight and win? How many fascists would be needed? I know one thing, there isn't enough fascists, socialists and communists in America to defeat the 60 plus million Americans who voted for Trump.


Japanese conquest in World War II, something that seemed highly possible at certain times in 1941 and 1942, would have turned Australia into a colony of a brutal fascist state. Thank God and the Allies for victories at Guadalcanal and Midway!

I would guess today that if Australians had to choose between the semi-fascist America of Donald Judas Trump and the conformist, exotic Japan that has a genuine democracy, the Australians would choose Japan as an ally. That is how much the world has changed. Yes, Japan is very repressive -- of crime. Japanese criminals emigrate. Criminals in Japan face mind control techniques similar to those imposed upon political dissidents in China.

As for the Trump supporters -- do you mean the people who voted for the demagogue, or those who still believe in him?  With Trump as President I can see more cause to have a gun than under Obama. Civil unrest will become a genuine danger in the next three years.

"DIS" below is disapproval rating in the latest polling data that I have for the states, with "80" as a cautious guess for the District of Columbia.

DEM  REP  DIS   ΔEV    STATES
000  538   80   03      DC
003  535   71   58      CA VT
061  477   66   11      MA
072  466   65   14      NJ
086  452   64   10      MD
096  442   62   29      NY  
125  413   61   13      VA
138  400   59   24      CT HI WA
161  377   58   20      IL
181  357   57   45      CO MI MN WI
222  312   56   15      DE NM OR

241  297   55   32      ME* NH PA RI TIPPING POINT/ZONE
273  265   54   11      AZ
284  254   53   06      NV
290  248   52   53      FL IA OH
343  195   51   36      TX

381  157   50   37      GA NC UT

418  120   48   16      IN WV
434  104   47   06      AR
440  098   46   19      MS MO MT
459  079   44   12      ND SC

471  067   43   16      LA NE* SD
487  051   42   29      ID KS KY TN
516  022   39   22      AL OK WY
538  000


*Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes.

ME-01 is more Democratic than Maine at large, which is more Democratic than ME-02 (which went to Donald Trump in 2016). Maine-01 is somewhat urban southern Maine, including Portland, and ME-02 is very rural, comprising central and northern Maine.

NE-02 (mostly Greater Omaha inside Nebraska) is less Democratic than ME-02, so in a normal election it is more likely that Maine gives an electoral vote for a Republican than that Nebraska gives an electoral vote to a Democrat. But NE-02 went for Barack Obama in 2008. It is much more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-01, eastern Nebraska (including Lincoln and some parts of Greater Omaha) is slightly more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-03, including very rural central and western Nebraska (including Scottsbluff and Grand Island) is one of the most Republican districts in the USA, and is so strongly Republican that

(1) it can easily swing the state at large Republican, and
(2) it could conceivably offer the single electoral vote for a Republican nominee for President.

Descriptions of the states and their districts are

ME-01 -- very strong D
ME at large  -- strong D
ME-02  -- very weak D
NE-02  --  weak R
NE-01  -- strong R
NE at large -- very strong R
NE-03 -- almost as reliably R as the District of Columbia is reliably D

Subtract disapproval from '100', and you get my crude estimate of the ceiling for the vote for Donald Trump in 2020 in any state.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-07-2017

(09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle.  Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.

Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.

Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech.  Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech.  It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech?  Me, I'm in favor of neither.  I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.

What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

Australia?  It is easy to anticipate that one's values will triumph.  It doesn't always go as dreamed.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle.  Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.

Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.

Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech.  Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech.  It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech?  Me, I'm in favor of neither.  I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.

Kinser would sing a different tune if the hate speech were "Bring back slavery" or "Kill all f@gs".

Quote:What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

Australia?  It is easy to anticipate that one's values will triumph.  It doesn't always go as dreamed.

I'm guessing that one can see Nazi stuff in the appropriate context for education, historical accuracy, and the like.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 09:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle.  Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.

Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.

Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech.  Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech.  It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech?  Me, I'm in favor of neither.  I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.

Kinser would sing a different tune if the hate speech were "Bring back slavery" or "Kill all f@gs".

That isn't clear.  If one claims that any typical adult can shrug off hate speech or cries for genocide, you can live in a society full of cries for genocide mixed with hate speech.  Me, that's not the sort of society I'm looking for.  Not all of us perceive the world as Kinser does.  It seems reasonable for legislatures to feel the same as I and act on it.  Canada is quite explicit and rational in banning certain specific things.  Under the principle that negative rights do not grant an ability to harm, if you think promoting genocide and hate is harmful, you have a consistent legal position.

The awakening's Civil Rights Act is based more on commerce than free speech.  If you are running a business, you can't discriminate.  Words while not running a business hits a different legal crack.  Me, I'm in favor of free speech, but not hate speech and definitely not genocide.  I feel the 'free speech' language is often a cover for those favoring genocide and hate.  If the Alt Right weren't acting as a cover for neo Nazi and Neo Confederates, it would be far easier to sympathies with the them on other forms speech.  As is, you have to wonder.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 09:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: That isn't clear.  If one claims that any typical adult can shrug off hate speech or cries for genocide, you can live in a society full of cries for genocide mixed with hate speech.  Me, that's not the sort of society I'm looking for.  Not all of us perceive the world as Kinser does.  It seems reasonable for legislatures to feel the same as I and act on it.  Canada is quite explicit and rational in banning certain specific things.  Under the principle that negative rights do not grant an ability to harm, if you think promoting genocide and hate is harmful, you have a consistent legal position.

I know enough to not try to form a Nazi group, raise my right arm in a Nazi salute, paint a swastika, or sing the Horst-Wessel-Lied in Germany or Austria. (You know where I stand on that. As a German-American I would choose converting to Judaism over becoming a Nazi -- because Judaism is compatible with my cultural and moral values, and Nazism isn't). But that is not much of a restriction, not much more severe than a prohibition on the use of cocaine. Both countries treat Nazism as something shameful, something that must never happen again. Germans and Austrians hate Nazis as if they were brutal, foreign occupiers.

Maybe it is in part because the Nazis were defeated after being exposed as the genocidal monsters that they were. Had history been inverted and while Nazis faded into near-oblivion in Germany while the Klan prevailed in America, and the international coalition defeated a genocidal KKK, would it be Klan groups, slogans, symbols, and songs that would be illegal in America?  I would think so. The Klan has much the same bigotry and much the same objects of hatred as Nazis, and a similar proclivity to violence.

In my experience as a sub school teacher, I have never had a problem with referring a student to the principal's office for racial, sexual, or religious slurs. Do you think that there is freedom of speech in the classroom? Not really.  Students can get away with questioning my competence or correcting an error... but that is part of learning. I do not consider bureaucratic toadying a legitimate object of teaching in a K-12 classroom. But use fighting words against a fellow student, and you are out of the classroom.

Quote:The awakening's Civil Rights Act is based more on commerce than free speech.  If you are running a business, you can't discriminate.  Words while not running a business hits a different legal crack.  Me, I'm in favor of free speech, but not hate speech and definitely not genocide.  I feel the 'free speech' language is often a cover for those favoring genocide and hate.  If the Alt Right weren't acting as a cover for neo Nazi and Neo Confederates, it would be far easier to sympathies with the them on other forms speech.  As is, you have to wonder.

With commerce, ethnic equity requires that people get what is generally promised, and that does not mean implicitly 'only for white, straight Christians'. A business owner has a right to refuse to promote something disgusting that is not protected by the Constitution. As far as that goes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitutes the legislation necessary to enforce the provisions of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (among others) to the Constitution.

So we can discuss the "frosting of the cake". If I own the bakery, can I refuse to bake a cake for someone protected against discrimination? No -- so I had better offer a cake to the black family if it is willing to pay for it. Or if it is for a Bar Mitzvah? No.

So a wedding cake -- if it is for an interfaith, same-sex, or interracial marriage? If I can squeeze "Adam and Genevieve" on a cake, I can also frost "Adam and Steve". Even should I find a marriage between a black man and a pretty white girl disgusting, I had better put the statuette of such a couple on the cake if such is appropriate. Putting a cross and a Mogen David on the cake? I will do it.

So what can I refuse? Something disgusting for which there is no obvious protection. If it is a satanic curse or an underworld threat  (a cake made to look like a tombstone with the threat "Pay up or die!"... well, I say no. Something praising pedophilia or Nazi ideology? Certainly I wouldn't do it. Obscenity, as a depiction of a sex act? Heh, heh -- no way will I do that. "Donald Duck" on a birthday cake (when I do not have the rights)  instead of "Daffy Duck" (for which I have the rights)? I will not do trademark or copyright violations. As a practical matter, I will make a cake celebrating a win for Senator Snake on the opposite side of my partisan affiliation.

Humiliation of people on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is not a right.  Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience and does not deny one the right to avoid speaking.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 09-07-2017

(09-07-2017, 11:48 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Humiliation of people on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is not a right.  Freedom of speech does not mean the right to a pliant audience and does not deny one the right to avoid speaking.

Yep.  Pretty much with you there.

I also spent a bit of time looking up things like Massachusetts hate crimes and harassment in general.  Let's just say the idea that free speech blocks hate crimes is not a basic principle of US law.

The Ma Legislature, Section 43A. Wrote:(a)  Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The conduct or acts described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device or electronic communication device including, but not limited to, any device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications, instant messages or facsimile communications.

(b)  Whoever, after having been convicted of the crime of criminal harassment, commits a second or subsequent such crime, or whoever commits the crime of criminal harassment having previously been convicted of a violation of section 43, shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years.

While cakes may not be expressly mentioned, I think they are covered...   Smile

Also, just the inclusion of "substantial emotional distress" is at odds with some of the Alt Right's arguments.  If one accepts that substantial emotional distress can be inflicted with words, and such is harmful, and negative rights do not guarantee a right to inflict harm, a lot of 'free speech' arguments that supposedly protect verbal harm go away.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - tg63 - 09-07-2017

As a Canadian I can't say that I have ever encountered anyone on my side of the border who feels that our rights are somehow inhibited or encumbered as a result of the "reasonable limit" clause within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To the contrary, I feel that it protects the rights of the majority of the citizenry.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 09-07-2017

(09-05-2017, 04:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

One could reword that.  "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."

If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious.  If one does, you get to a different place.

If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.

The question seems to be who is the pope.

Words are not violence, Bob.  And no amount of sophistry will change that fact.

Some feel controlling violence is not the only thing the government should do.  No confusing of your opinion with universal fact will change that.

The main purpose of government is to ensure that my neighbor neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.  And most of the time they can't even do that adequately so why would I want them to do other things?