Free speech

[vraiblonde]

I get seriously tired of this chit:

Me: I wish dysfunctional Hollyweirds and drug addicted entertainers would stop with the political rantings.
Progtard: How DARE you! They have free speech and they can say what they want!
Me: Wow, what a coincidence - I have free speech too and I'll criticize them if I want.

And they don't even see the hypocrisy. It's just amazing.

 

[Bird Dog]

I get seriously tired of this chit:

Me: I wish dysfunctional Hollyweirds and drug addicted entertainers would stop with the political rantings.
Progtard: How DARE you! They have free speech and they can say what they want!
Me: Wow, what a coincidence - I have free speech too and I'll criticize them if I want.

And they don't even see the hypocrisy. It's just amazing.

Unfortunately, free speech is not free.....

 

[Bann]

I get seriously tired of this chit:

Me: I wish dysfunctional Hollyweirds and drug addicted entertainers would stop with the political rantings.
Progtard: How DARE you! They have free speech and they can say what they want!
Me: Wow, what a coincidence - I have free speech too and I'll criticize them if I want.

And they don't even see the hypocrisy. It's just amazing.

Or the peace love & dippy hippy memes about everyone getting along.

Yeah, as long as you agree with their point of view. This is one that a liberal cousin of mine posted:



But then she posts or agrees with all the lefist crap that comes down the pike, like articles from HuffPo which declares people who voted for Trump as racist, facists, etc.


Yeah, peace, love, and kumbayah, my a**.

 

[Larry Gude]

Trump supporters should simply say "Thank you for your free speech. Could not have done it without you"

[video=youtube;jA_AxTzBBvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA_AxTzBBvI[/video]

 

[luvmygdaughters]

Yes, its funny how "Free Speech" is meant only for someone who agrees with you. If someone disagrees...they're a raving, facist, communist, racist, puppy kicking, kitten drowning, lunatic!!! In my opinion only, these self proclaimed, Hollywood, saviors would have a fit if the refugee's (?) were to set up camp in their neighborhoods.

 

[SamSpade]

I get seriously tired of this chit:

Me: I wish dysfunctional Hollyweirds and drug addicted entertainers would stop with the political rantings.
Progtard: How DARE you! They have free speech and they can say what they want!
Me: Wow, what a coincidence - I have free speech too and I'll criticize them if I want.

And they don't even see the hypocrisy. It's just amazing.

You know what's funny? I absolutely loved Babylon 5 when it was out, but conversing with its creator and primary writer online, I found his political views odious **BUT** ----

He had some great lines, and one of them, I've used and you've used it too -

"MY voice is as free as theirs".

In case you're wondering, that's where I got it.

 

[SamSpade]

Yes, its funny how "Free Speech" is meant only for someone who agrees with you. If someone disagrees...they're a raving, facist, communist, racist, puppy kicking, kitten drowning, lunatic!!! In my opinion only, these self proclaimed, Hollywood, saviors would have a fit if the refugee's (?) were to set up camp in their neighborhoods.

Hollywood just LOVES creativity and political exchange ---

So long as it all agrees.

 

[vraiblonde]

"MY voice is as free as theirs".

It seems we need to keep reminding some people of that.

A funny story:

One of my old beaus who've I've remained friends with (because I like to keep the good people in my life) was fretting hard about Trump on his FB. This was sort of out of character for him because he's like me, a libertarian liberal conservative, and I'd have thought Trump would be right up his alley. But he's in a prog city surrounded by progs, so he's in the belly of the beast and apparently being influenced. So we had some back and forth, and at one point his adult daughter jumped in (she, btw, is one of the reasons I said, um, yeah, no, to him) and wanted to know where I got my news and said, "No shade, I'd be interested in checking out some alternate viewpoints."

Because I'm stupid, I took her at her word and gave her a list of who might interest her (Milo, BillO, etc) and who to avoid because they're just shills (Rush, Hannity, etc). She came back and said she would NEVER!!! have anything to do with Fox News EVER!, that Breitbart was just Stalinist crap and Milo was their poster boy. Then she blocked me on FB so she didn't have to ever see my hate speech again.

So obviously she wasn't really interested in alternate viewpoints at all.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

 

[This_person]

So obviously she wasn't really interested in alternate viewpoints at all.

 

[SamSpade]

View attachment 117219

I've had my viewpoint changed due to discussion with others, and in a few cases, from someone who was quite liberal - but respectful and logical.

I can hear other viewpoints, but I have a short fuse when the explanation amounts to little more than a character assassination or mocking an entire group of people. It goes to my common interaction with liberals where they say : There's only one right opinion on a given subject, if you don't hold that opinion, you either don't know all the facts or disagree based on a character flaw (such as greed, bigotry, lack of compassion, narrow-mindedness) or you're stupid.

The one most effective in changing my mind was a friend - and he gave evidence, explanations, and wasn't snarky or insulting.

If your INTENT is to change someone's mind - you MUST give them a chance to choose another opinion. People don't have epiphanies in the middle of heated argument and suddenly proclaim "Oh my gosh - I've been wrong all my life. Thank you for showing me my mistake". If you take a ball from a child, he'll cooperate if you give him an alternative or a choice. If you don't, he will fight to keep a ball he might not want. Such it is with persuading people.

As the old saying goes, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

 

[GURPS]

I can hear other viewpoints, but I have a short fuse when the explanation amounts to little more than a character assassination or mocking an entire group of people. It goes to my common interaction with liberals where they say : There's only one right opinion on a given subject, if you don't hold that opinion, you either don't know all the facts or disagree based on a character flaw (such as greed, bigotry, lack of compassion, narrow-mindedness) or you're stupid.

SOP for Progressives

 

[Larry Gude]

I've had my viewpoint changed due to discussion with others, and in a few cases, from someone who was quite liberal - but respectful and logical.

I can hear other viewpoints, but I have a short fuse when the explanation amounts to little more than a character assassination or mocking an entire group of people. It goes to my common interaction with liberals where they say : There's only one right opinion on a given subject, if you don't hold that opinion, you either don't know all the facts or disagree based on a character flaw (such as greed, bigotry, lack of compassion, narrow-mindedness) or you're stupid.

The one most effective in changing my mind was a friend - and he gave evidence, explanations, and wasn't snarky or insulting.

If your INTENT is to change someone's mind - you MUST give them a chance to choose another opinion. People don't have epiphanies in the middle of heated argument and suddenly proclaim "Oh my gosh - I've been wrong all my life. Thank you for showing me my mistake". If you take a ball from a child, he'll cooperate if you give him an alternative or a choice. If you don't, he will fight to keep a ball he might not want. Such it is with persuading people.

As the old saying goes, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

It's the difference between conversation and debate. The goal of debate is to hold to your position no matter what. A conversation isn't a competition. Conversation is all we really have other than force.

 

[Wishbone]

Alternative Ideas are Dangerous!

Non Conformists need to be sent to Re-Education Camps!

All Hail Soros!

 

[SamSpade]

It's the difference between conversation and debate. The goal of debate is to hold to your position no matter what.

That sure wasn't true when I was in *formal* debate. In formal debate, the point was to persuade a third party that my position was the better one.
There were specific rules - some that really don't apply to normal discussion (such as 'topicality'). But it for all intents and purposes functioned like a courtroom. My job was to convince the judges that my position was the better choice.

Now - that MIGHT include defending my position. Practically speaking, that was the WEAKEST approach.

If the opposition was proposing a change to the status quo, the strongest argument to make was called "inherency" - the idea that what exists already would solve the problem addressed. The next strongest defense and affirmative offense was "plan meet need" or solvency. You had to prove your idea would work better - or not. Lastly - but not the last argument - the last best argument was "advantages". You had to prove YOUR idea solved the problem BETTER than what the opposition proposed.

Simply defending your idea was called "refutation" - you just stated that what your opponent stated was bull#### - although you'd better state it better than that or automatically forfeit. Insulting your opponent was the fastest path to losing. You could, point by point, prove or state your opponents arguments were false - but unless you had fantastic and indefatigable evidence - it was pointless. They could always bring up someone more authoritative that defeated your rebuttal.

Usually I try to persuade, here. A lot of the time, I just don't have the time to write everything - or the desire. Sometimes, I simply challenge data presented. If you present an argument on totally fallacious data, it's easy to dismiss. But arguments aren't like that.

Most of the time, I come here to discuss, because I always hope to learn something. If there's little to be learned, I usually don't bother.

 

[Larry Gude]

That sure wasn't true when I was in *formal* debate. In formal debate, the point was to persuade a third party that my position was the better one.
There were specific rules - some that really don't apply to normal discussion (such as 'topicality'). But it for all intents and purposes functioned like a courtroom. My job was to convince the judges that my position was the better choice.

Now - that MIGHT include defending my position. Practically speaking, that was the WEAKEST approach.

If the opposition was proposing a change to the status quo, the strongest argument to make was called "inherency" - the idea that what exists already would solve the problem addressed. The next strongest defense and affirmative offense was "plan meet need" or solvency. You had to prove your idea would work better - or not. Lastly - but not the last argument - the last best argument was "advantages". You had to prove YOUR idea solved the problem BETTER than what the opposition proposed.

Simply defending your idea was called "refutation" - you just stated that what your opponent stated was bull#### - although you'd better state it better than that or automatically forfeit. Insulting your opponent was the fastest path to losing. You could, point by point, prove or state your opponents arguments were false - but unless you had fantastic and indefatigable evidence - it was pointless. They could always bring up someone more authoritative that defeated your rebuttal.

That would make for a fascinating actual, substantive presidential debate if they followed those rules.

 

[Wishbone]

That would make for a fascinating actual, substantive presidential debate if they followed those rules.

The debates would end up 6 hours long.

That would be a wash... This nation has a 45 second attention span.

 

[Larry Gude]

The debates would end up 6 hours long.

That would be a wash... This nation has a 45 second attention span.

True dat. We wanna make comments about their hair do and go back to...whatever it is we do when we don't want to pay much attention to things that could and would actually matter.

 

[acommondisaster]

I pretty much switch off my attention when someone starts name calling - libtard, teabagger, obummer, etc...I've got a friend from high school on FB who has gone beyond hate for Trump. She wont use his name and calls him every "phobe" in the book. She calls him Cheeto in Chief most of the time.

She sent me a scathing PM telling me she couldn't believe we grew up in the same town with the same teachers and experiences and have such different points of view. (I wanted to point out that it may have something to do with the fact that she's never left the little slab of liberal hell of southern WI) She reassured me that she was only going to "unfollow" me so that she didnt have to see my stupid brain dead conservative drivel and I had to have the brain of half a turnip to vote for him. In truth, she didn't unfollow me - she STALKED me on every post I made, every funny anti-Hillary meme that I "liked" or laughed at, she'd make comments, get in fights with friends of mine she didnt know. More than a couple of them PM'd me asking WTH was wrong with her and I'd tell them to ignore her or, if the mood struck them, to go ahead and spin her up.

One of her last public posts to me was "I can't wait to talk to you after the election, you're so stupid. Good luck losing, loser" Oddly, she's stopped stalking me and hasn't said boo since November.

 

[Larry Gude]

I pretty much switch off my attention when someone starts name calling - libtard, teabagger, obummer, etc...I've got a friend from high school on FB who has gone beyond hate for Trump. She wont use his name and calls him every "phobe" in the book. She calls him Cheeto in Chief most of the time.

She sent me a scathing PM telling me she couldn't believe we grew up in the same town with the same teachers and experiences and have such different points of view. (I wanted to point out that it may have something to do with the fact that she's never left the little slab of liberal hell of southern WI) She reassured me that she was only going to "unfollow" me so that she didnt have to see my stupid brain dead conservative drivel and I had to have the brain of half a turnip to vote for him. In truth, she didn't unfollow me - she STALKED me on every post I made, every funny anti-Hillary meme that I "liked" or laughed at, she'd make comments, get in fights with friends of mine she didnt know. More than a couple of them PM'd me asking WTH was wrong with her and I'd tell them to ignore her or, if the mood struck them, to go ahead and spin her up.

One of her last public posts to me was "I can't wait to talk to you after the election, you're so stupid. Good luck losing, loser" Oddly, she's stopped stalking me and hasn't said boo since November.

On the one hand, it is truly breath taking the venom and ugliness going on around the nation and I say this as one who is not a Trump supporter or fan.

On the other, I think the maturation of social media, the ability to express ourselves, to post comments, share so much, so readily, so rapidly, is at core here. I won't call it a problem because I love free speech and the ability it gives us to share meaningful information as well. So, to me, the thing is that there is nothing new to the venom, left and right. The ugly thoughts, the venting anger and frustrations. It just has much readier and effective outlets. Things that used to go unsaid or were said in tighter circles, or very tight circles, now go from mouth to universe in the time it took to type this. I suppose this is going to run for awhile, this venting, this mass group therapy and catharsis. I found myself becoming frustrated, for a couple of months since the election, at how far people seemed to be going into dark places over this but have since decided it simply WILL take time and to sorta sit back and enjoy the show and not try to exacerbate it. I have a broad cross sections of friends so I get everything from elation from people who are a lot happier than they ought to be considering what they say they want and what Trump is to the depths of despair for the exact equal and opposite reasons and that's the key thing that worries me and makes me hopeful; What both sides lack is even the pretense of self reflection. As bad as it could get, everyone is gonna run out of ability to double down on joy and/or anger, sooner or later, and start to have to deal with what enormous asses they're making of themselves because the words don't just go away. Then, we can start dealing with how much we have in common instead of this race to see how alien we are to one another.