GOP brought this plague on itself

[BenDan]

Interpretation is everything....yours is well noted here, regularly.

Here in Greece we permit our local neo Nazi party...The Golden Dawn...to sit in parliament where they debate, and offer their solutions. Apart from their supporters no one here takes them seriously. The democratic process should include those whom the reasonable man does not support, nor should the reasonable man deny the extremists of all persuasions their democratic right to offer opinions, and contest parliamentary elections.

Tom Paine correctly reminds us that unappealing views should be heard, with the understanding that we can switch off the radio, or television when Trump speaks. Others may wish to listen....that's their democratic privilege.

Of course you're right

On college campuses across the US many progressive students have attempted to shut down dialogue about particular topics - ironic as they are at academic institutions of higher learning

Shutting down dissent or ideas that don't match your own is absurd

The best way to determine if an idea is bad or evil or fill in the blanks ....... is to hear it out not silence it

Supporters of said ideas come out of the woodwork and are exposed as well - and that's a good thing

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

You can do what I do...don't listen to people whose ideas offend you....it's that simple....

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. If you want to have racist, sexist, homophobic views, good on ya. When you want to expel those views on other people and treat people differently socially and through law, then I will call them out on it.

 

[kallipolis]

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. If you want to have racist, sexist, homophobic views, good on ya. When you want to expel those views on other people and treat people differently socially and through law, then I will call them out on it.

Opinions that differ from our own should not be grounds for banning opposing opinions, or denying them a public platform.

To arrive at a just solution to resolve any contentious issue that is in the public arena there should be open discussion.

 

[otters]

Opinions that differ from our own should not be grounds for banning opposing opinions, or denying them a public platform.

To arrive at a just solution to resolve any contentious issue that is in the public arena there should be open discussion.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

Noam Chomsky, as quoted in The Big Little Book of Jewish Wit & Wisdom (2000) by Sally Ann Berk and Maria Carluccio, p. 228

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Opinions that differ from our own should not be grounds for banning opposing opinions, or denying them a public platform.

To arrive at a just solution to resolve any contentious issue that is in the public arena there should be open discussion.

You are the one bringing up banning opposing opinions. I have said anything but and I disagree that any prejudice, bigoted views need to be open for discussion on a public platform. History has shown again and again what happens when we let that happen.

Sorry but you are twisting my words being about having a problem with different opposing views when my problem is bigoted and prejudice views.

 

[peeonme]

Put it in your yard. Put it on your car.

And the government does curtail free speech. First world nations only differ in degrees of interpretation, but frequently the degree of interpretation is substantial. You can't yell fire in a theater. You can't use a public venue to instruct people to murder someone and give them all the directions and details they need to do it. You can't slander someone. You can't incite a riot.

Hate groups like the Westboro Baptists are not even allowed to enter Canada, and likely their antics would fall under hate speech laws in half or more of Europe as well.

First, let me make it clear that you would never see the things that you refer to in my yard or car... never. If my neighbor had it in his or her yard I wouldn't like it, but I would respect their right to freedom of expression.

Many Americans point to other countries, if that's what you want you to the best of my understanding have 2 choices, 1. Get involved with or organize a movement to amend the US constitution. 2. Move.
I highly recommend the latter.

 

[kallipolis]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

Noam Chomsky, as quoted in The Big Little Book of Jewish Wit & Wisdom (2000) by Sally Ann Berk and Maria Carluccio, p. 228

I'm a big fan of Noam Chomsky ideas, as are many other regulars here

 

[kallipolis]

You are the one bringing up banning opposing opinions. I have said anything but and I disagree that any prejudice, bigoted views need to be open for discussion on a public platform. History has shown again and again what happens when we let that happen.

Sorry but you are twisting my words being about having a problem with different opposing views when my problem is bigoted and prejudice views.

Read back over this thread for you have just moved the goal posts.

 

[Kabluey]

Opinions that differ from our own should not be grounds for banning opposing opinions, or denying them a public platform.

To arrive at a just solution to resolve any contentious issue that is in the public arena there should be open discussion.

The problem is when the speaker incites harm against others.

There's two ways that can happen;
One by assigning blame for problems to a group or individual.
Or two, by instructing people to target and cause harm to a group or individual.

The second form is more identifiably connected to things like terrorist acts at current.

 

[eastofeden]

I have to agree with kallipolis about giving everyone a voice at the table.....

My reasoning is also similar but specifically for me...I credit the Westboro Klan with the passage of gay marriage and the unprecedented change in public opinion over such a short period of time...

Sometimes people need mirrors...and groups like the Westies and even the Nazis, KKK and all the other hate groups sorta marginalize themselves and do a service to others by showing people what hate looks like in case they forget...

Take away their voice...THAT is when they grow stronger as their propaganda goes underground and they can use "fascism" as the reason to further their cause and increase their numbers.

More importantly...putting it on the table in the open gives everyone an opportunity to address things like anti-Semitism, Racism, Homophobia, Sexism...you name it..because without the extremists...it is rare to hear anyone own their shit. They give the rest of us a platform to have a dialogue... for better or worse.

 

[peeonme]

The problem is when the speaker incites harm against others.

There's two ways that can happen;
One by assigning blame for problems to a group or individual.
Or two, by instructing people to target and cause harm to a group or individual.

The second form is more identifiably connected to things like terrorist acts at current.

Doesn't everyone do this to some degree?
The liberals blame the greedy rich for the plight of the needy
The conservatives blame the needy and call them lazy.
Just 2 examples.

 

[kallipolis]

The problem is when the speaker incites harm against others.

There's two ways that can happen;
One by assigning blame for problems to a group or individual.
Or two, by instructing people to target and cause harm to a group or individual.

The second form is more identifiably connected to things like terrorist acts at current.

There are people who are easily offended...by the spoken, or written word. I'm not one of those who is easily offended.

There is a risk that freedom of expression can be shut down, simply by appealing to the sensitivities of those who are easily offended, or pretend to be offended by the words of a speaker whose views are opposed by them.

Hateful speech is not monopolised by extremists on the far left, or the far right.

Incitement to violence is another reality that the authorities should deal with in accordance with the laws of the land.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Again your example of freedom of expression when it comes from The Goldeb Dawn means nothing though. By your words no one takes them seriously, so then it really means nothing that they are in a discussion.

This is not a reality if we gave every hate monger freedom of expression and this shows with Donald Trump with how uncaring and hateful people are.

People can argue that the hateful language might make some one relflect and I can totally see that, but at the same notion it can bring it out where people act on that hatred too.

 

[otters]

@ MakeDigitalLove:
I suppose, you misunderstand kallipolis since you perhaps aren't aware that most European countries have a multi-party system, and in fact the lunatic fringe parties are minorities.

Evidently, the current US-situation is different.

I don't know whether or not The Donald is planning to install a Nazi-like dictatorship, but in fact his speeches are definitely populism and demagogy.

 

[peeonme]

If we stand solidly in our beliefs then we should not be afraid of an opposing point of view.
When I was a young adult I was sure that I was right, I forced myself to read of and listen to ideas that were diametrically opposed to
what my thoughts were, my thought was if it is the truth it will stand.

Low and behold, I found that I was not as right as I had thought. An open mind is required to grow and learn, it must be exposed to all ideas, not just the comfortable ones.

 

[jbrown329]

For those not able to watch the vid I posted, here's the YouTube version. The quality isn't as clear.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Read back over this thread for you have just moved the goal posts.

We haven't really. You just view the issue only in terms of "annoyance/disagreement."

I have subscribed lifelong to "your freedom to swing your fist ends when it hits the next man's nose."

Freedom for someone to swing their fist no matter how many noses it hits and repeating to the noses a platitude about democracy falls a bit flat.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The problem is when the speaker incites harm against others.

There's two ways that can happen;
One by assigning blame for problems to a group or individual.
Or two, by instructing people to target and cause harm to a group or individual.

The second form is more identifiably connected to things like terrorist acts at current.

This comes closest to what I am speaking about-- possibly Digital Love as well.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If we stand solidly in our beliefs then we should not be afraid of an opposing point of view.
When I was a young adult I was sure that I was right, I forced myself to read of and listen to ideas that were diametrically opposed to
what my thoughts were, my thought was if it is the truth it will stand.

Low and behold, I found that I was not as right as I had thought. An open mind is required to grow and learn, it must be exposed to all ideas, not just the comfortable ones.

Did you grow and learn and expand your personal development from Congresswoman Giffords being shot in the head after Sarah Palin put up a political hit list?

Even if you did I'd hardly say that was a price she should have paid for it.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

The problem here is that people are skewing simple ideas and opinions with hatred that actually carries weight. Not everyone that is bothered by these "opinions" of hatred are people who are too sensitive or not accepting of ideas, believing that is just disingenuous. The only thing we need to learn from hatred people have of others is that we need to move on from it as a society, not forget it, but move on and grow up.