tbh I would start actually debating things instead of trying to soothe the savage baby but if I bring up one of the core issues that I deeply and personally support (cracking down on hate speech) then that'll just summon shamzie from whatever piss-filled abyss he lives in when he's AFK
Being asked to show hard evidence isn't "lying" nor avoiding the issue. You say there's evidence of mass voter fraud, but when asked, you keep deflecting. Show some actual sources, show some actual evidence, it shouldn't be too hard to provide actual evidence to your claims. You are the one making the claims, you are the one who even has a signature saying you believe in election fraud, you are the one responsible for backing up your claims. So, where's the evidence?
This is a difficult one. I won't get into it too much but I'll try to stay as fair as possible.
Tabzer, you should be embarrassed by your obvious attempt at deflection. You baselessly accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, but you're the one who has engaged in conspiratorial thinking, you are the one who says the truth doesn't matter in politics, you are the one spewing unsubstantiated nonsense about 2020 election fraud, and you are the one who will arbitrarily defend 2016 election meddling when it benefits a Republican while embracing fake 2020 election claims despite lack of corroborating evidence because it allegedly benefits the Democrat.
How so?
Sacrificing fundamental rights on the altar of a nebulous "Greater Good" makes hair stand on the back of my neck. The "Greater Good" is like a combine harvester - it turns people who happen to be in the way into mulch. I consider the right to bear arms to be fundamental, impossible to divorce from the right to self-defense, and I weep over the fact that large swathes of the western world have been stripped of it in favour of a government monopoly on gun ownership. Defensive gun use in the U.S. is at least as common as offensive use by criminals, even going by conservative statistics.
the entire reason that saner nations do crack down on hate speech is that it DOES cause harm- when it's spread, it leads to wider-spread discrimination, including bigotry-motivated violence
Speech does not equal action. You're more than welcome to criminalise violent conduct, or speech that incites such violent conduct, but not speech itself. I will always err on the side of freedom in this regard - private entities can decide what is and is not acceptable on the premises, I'm comfortable with the government not having that right. I've seen the alternative in action and I don't like it one bit - police cyber squads combing through people's social media in search of wrong-think, as is the case in Scotland, are precisely what I would describe as a police state distopia.
In this case, the golden mean fallacy isn't a fallacy- the ideal solution would be a significantly milder version of what you're saying Scotland does. Someone being a bigoted asshole is fine, but someone being a bigoted asshole and inciting violence because of said bigotry? Shut that shit down in an instant.
Inciting violence is already illegal in the United States under a variety of statutes. You could argue that it'snnot policed adequately, and I might be keen on agreeing with you there given the sheer amount of vitriol found on social media. I don't think we disagree here - inciting violence = bad. This might be a matter of wording. As long as the standard is clearly understood and we're talking about "incitement", not nebulous "dog whistles" or other assorted speech that is open to interpretation, I'd be happy to accept it.
I disagree. Censoring discriminatory opinions just fuels the fire and it makes more people think they have a point. I think this can be proven by the fact that tolerance of minorities has been continually increasing from the 50s despite discriminatory talk becoming socially unacceptable as late as only 30 years ago or so, and now intolerance is increasing again, which just so happens to coincide with the introduction of 'hate speech' into the law of many western countries, as well as the advent of cancel culture. If people are left alone, nobody cares about what minorities do, but when you start telling them that they can't say certain things, they begin to question and possibly resent such minorities. SJWs, third wave feminists and Antifa all attacked long before MAGA did.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. When paint dries, sometimes you see an exciting and unexpected bubble show up.
It's more my style to have some witty retort, but I gotta be honest: I wholeheartedly and unironically agree.
I have yet to see someone believe this unironically, but if I'm gonna find someone like that, this is the thread to be in....I just cried a bit
This is really being believed and spreading on Telegram by MAGA/Qanons
ngl now I'm imagining a world where social media data collection is used not to systematically advertise to consumers or other forms of "we know what you want" money-draining, but to constantly add to a freely viewable government-maintained Wall of Shame
