Trump's newest tweet is really scary

[verneforchat 139]

4 hours ago, eieio said:

Plenty of videos out there showing liberals trying to and sometimes successfully so, shutting down free speech. I could post them...but I would be given another break.....as they are profanity laced.

You have a very poor understanding of the 1st amendment.

"  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

 

Congress. Not liberals, Not republicans, not white supremacists, not green men, but Congress.

[verneforchat 139]

4 hours ago, eieio said:

I never said liberals were sane

Are you diagnosing an entire population of people with liberal beliefs to be not sane?

 

Did you get your armchair psychology degree from Trump University?

 

How about this? How about you post rational logical posts without calling people lunatic or insane? 

Edited February 6, 2017 by verneforchat

[JayJayH 546]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

Examples please?

 

In case you have forgotten:

 

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

 

And remember we are talking about LITERAL readings of that sentence only. No interpretations. As you said, it is "under attack" from the left. Please provide examples of where the left has attacked the LITERAL meaning of that sentence.

 

 

4 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

If they were credible, they wouldn't be profanity laced. 

I would say we have a problem when some 40% of millennials believe in "banning hate speech." Particularly when that mentality makes its way into academia. It's killing intellectual diversity.

I don't think this is a result due to sinister Democrats, so much as it is an unintended consequence of legislation and rulemaking.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-glaring-evidence-that-free-speech-is-threatened-on-campus/471825/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

 

What's unfortunate is that many Democrats have largely neglected to face this issue, and/or taken advantage of it.

 

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Why is it scary to you all of a sudden? It always was scary and it's been there for years. The truth is, he's just repeating the things his base has thought about the judicial branch for a very long time. You think he's trying to discredit it? No no... it's already discredited in the eyes of his supporters. He's just saying exactly what they think, validating their views all along. The Constitution and rule of law only matters when it's something they like, when it's the interpretation that's the ''right'' way. The right way being the way that benefits them, without realizing how very quickly the tables could turn. I believe that there is a very good chance that SCOTUS could rule the EO an illegal order - not in full, but in part. And, I believe even more conservative judges would see things that way. There is a real case for argument here on several fronts, and we'll see what happens.

 

I'm not worried about Donald Trump disagreeing with a particular judge or a particular ruling - He's president now. Putting into question, not the judge or ruling in particular, but the hierarchy of government discredits all of it. The government only works because agencies, elected officials, the military etc. follow the rules set out. For example, DHS and DOS under Kelly and Tillerson followed the court decision. Discrediting that process is a very slippery slope toward system breakdown and Erdogan / Putinesque semi-dictatorship. Particularly if tens of millions of Trump supporters begin to question whether federal agencies should bother to adhere to court orders.

 

As far as the legality of the EO, I agree. Some provisions are well within the president's power. Some are questionable. There seem to be some goo arguments either way. If it's constitutional, SCOTUS will uphold it.

[verneforchat 139]

6 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

I would say we have a problem when some 40% of millennials believe in "banning hate speech." Particularly when that mentality makes its way into academia. It's killing intellectual diversity.

I don't think this is a result due to sinister Democrats, so much as it is an unintended consequence of legislation and rulemaking.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-glaring-evidence-that-free-speech-is-threatened-on-campus/471825/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

 

What's unfortunate is that many Democrats have largely neglected to face this issue, and/or taken advantage of it.

 

 

I'm not worried about Donald Trump disagreeing with a particular judge or a particular ruling - He's president now. Putting into question, not the judge or ruling in particular, but the hierarchy of government discredits all of it. The government only works because agencies, elected officials, the military etc. follow the rules set out. For example, DHS and DOS under Kelly and Tillerson followed the court decision. Discrediting that process is a very slippery slope toward system breakdown and Erdogan / Putinesque semi-dictatorship. Particularly if tens of millions of Trump supporters begin to question whether federal agencies should bother to adhere to court orders.

 

As far as the legality of the EO, I agree. Some provisions are well within the president's power. Some are questionable. There seem to be some goo arguments either way. If it's constitutional, SCOTUS will uphold it.

I don't think banning hate speech affects  intellectual diversity. Unless you want hate speech to prominently figure in intellectual diversity.

 

There is a difference in dissent of opinion, criticism; and speech inciting hate based on discrimination. Intellectualism does not increase based on discrimination, but on rational and logical dissent and freedom to criticize.

 

There is no place for hate speech, except in your inner mind dialogue.

[smilesammich 10,727]

11 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

I would say we have a problem when some 40% of millennials believe in "banning hate speech."  Particularly when that mentality makes its way into academia. It's killing intellectual diversity.

how does hate speech contribute to intellectual diversity?

[verneforchat 139]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

how does hate speech contribute to intellectual diversity?

By providing enough mental gymnastics?

 

Hate speech is so worth the mental exercise! Keeps the brain lean. And Diverse.

 

[JayJayH 546]

22 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

I don't think banning hate speech affects  intellectual diversity. Unless you want hate speech to prominently figure in intellectual diversity.

 

There is a difference in dissent of opinion, criticism; and speech inciting hate based on discrimination. Intellectualism does not increase based on discrimination, but on rational and logical dissent and freedom to criticize.

 

There is no place for hate speech, except in your inner mind dialogue.

 

13 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

how does hate speech contribute to intellectual diversity?

What is 'hate speech'? How do you quantify it? When the Southern Poverty Law Center lists secular Muslim author Maajid Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim extremist", and female genital mutilation survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali is disinvited from college campuses for 'hate speech', I'd say we have a problem. When Ben Shapiro (conservative, yes. hater? no) is met with scores of college kids carrying signs saying "hate speech is not free speech" - I'd say we have a problem.

 

When a Canadian bill (and similar NYC bill) pass to make "mis-gendering" someone a hate crime, I'd say that should serve as a warning for a very dangerous slippery slope.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/college-campus-free-speech-thought-police-463536.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

Edited February 6, 2017 by JayJayH

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, verneforchat said:

By providing enough mental gymnastics?

 

Hate speech is so worth the mental exercise! Keeps the brain lean. And Diverse.

 

can anyone tell me why any college should welcome a speaker who espouses 'ideas' about women being 'capped' in stem professions at 5-10% unless it were one of trumps fake colleges? hate speech serves no purpose, imo, except making it easier for folks like me to weed out the scum.

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

What is 'hate speech'? How do you quantify it? When the Southern Poverty Law Center lists secular Muslim author Maajid Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim extremist", and female genital mutilation survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali is disinvited from college campuses for 'hate speech', I'd say we have a problem. When Ben Shapiro (conservative, yes. hater? no) is met with scores of college kids carrying signs saying "hate speech is not free speech" - I'd say we have a problem.

 

When a Canadian bill (and similar NYC bill) pass to make "mis-gendering" someone a hate crime, I'd say that should serve as a warning for a very dangerous slippery slope.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/college-campus-free-speech-thought-police-463536.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

you're always talking about a slippery slope..but when i read you above all i see is you not agreeing with opinions different than yours. how is that a problem, i mean it's a personal problem for you, but how is people/college kids defending their gender, their religion, their personal right to speech a problem?

 

terrible links btw.

[verneforchat 139]

15 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

What is 'hate speech'? How do you quantify it? When the Southern Poverty Law Center lists secular Muslim author Maajid Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim extremist", and female genital mutilation survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali is disinvited from college campuses for 'hate speech', I'd say we have a problem. When Ben Shapiro (conservative, yes. hater? no) is met with scores of college kids carrying signs saying "hate speech is not free speech" - I'd say we have a problem.

 

When a Canadian bill (and similar NYC bill) pass to make "mis-gendering" someone a hate crime, I'd say that should serve as a warning for a very dangerous slippery slope.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/college-campus-free-speech-thought-police-463536.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

You make a valid point. Regarding the quantifying of hate speech, not the links. Those links are terrible.

 

How do we quantify hate speech.

 

But that is the key thing. We don't need to allow hate speech, we may need to quantify hate speech better to term it as hate speech or not?

But we can all agree that discriminating and inciting hate based on color, religion, nationality and ethnicity is hate speech no matter how its thinly veiled?

Edited February 6, 2017 by verneforchat

[smilesammich 10,727]

gee, how do we quantify hate speech? start here...

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/05/gop-leader-apologizes-tweeting-time-another-kent-state/97525120/

[verneforchat 139]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

gee, how do we quantify hate speech? start here...

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/05/gop-leader-apologizes-tweeting-time-another-kent-state/97525120/

AKA "Lets spread peace by shooting the dissenters!"

 

Dead people start no riots.

They don't vote either.

 

 

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

I only wish I had the time to respond to all the incorrect assumptions about how the following work:

1. Checks and balances
2. Why federal judges get lifetime appointments
3. Why judges are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution
4. What judges do
5. Stare decisis
6. Congressional powers

But Imma just sit back and listen to what you think the law is. 

 

#mavenout

[JayJayH 546]

25 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you're always talking about a slippery slope..but when i read you above all i see is you not agreeing with opinions different than yours. how is that a problem, i mean it's a personal problem for you, but how is people/college kids defending their gender, their religion, their personal right to speech a problem?

 

terrible links btw.

 

24 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

You make a valid point. Regarding the quantifying of hate speech, not the links. Those links are terrible.

 

How do we quantify hate speech.

 

But that is the key thing. We don't need to allow hate speech, we may need to quantify hate speech better to term it as hate speech or not?

But we can all agree that discriminating and inciting hate based on color, religion, nationality and ethnicity is hate speech no matter how its thinly veiled?

 

Fine, fine, fine lol. They're terrible, I'm out voted.

 

When colleges start to have "free speech zones", you know there's a problem. This isn't a conservative problem. This is a problem of the far left, intended to shield people deemed by others to be "marginalized."

 

I fully support anyone's right to defend their gender, religion and their personal right to free speech. I also fully support anyone's right to scrutinize the living daylights out of anyone's religion or gender identity. (If you identify as male on Tuesday, female on Thursday, somewhere in between on Saturday and none of the above on Monday that is).

 

We can agree that incitement of hatred based on anything does not belong on college campuses. But "incitement of hatred" to some, is quite the contrary to others.

For example, is it "hate" if an art student draws Mohammed for an art project?

Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the idea of cultural appropriation?

Is it "hate" if a speaker argues against Black Lives Matter?

Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the notion of a gender wage gap? 

 

Where do you draw the line?

Edited February 6, 2017 by JayJayH

[OriZ 3,157]

14 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

 

Fine, fine, fine lol. They're terrible, I'm out voted.

 

When colleges start to have "free speech zones", you know there's a problem. This isn't a conservative problem. This is a problem of the far left, intended to shield people deemed by others to be "marginalized."

 

I fully support anyone's right to defend their gender, religion and their personal right to free speech. I also fully support anyone's right to scrutinize the living daylights out of anyone's religion or gender identity. (If you identify as male on Tuesday, female on Thursday, somewhere in between on Saturday and none of the above on Monday that is).

 

We can agree that incitement of hatred based on anything does not belong on college campuses. But "incitement of hatred" to some, is quite the contrary to others.

For example, is it "hate" if an art student draws Mohammed for an art project?

Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the idea of cultural appropriation?

Is it "hate" if a speaker argues against Black Lives Matter?

Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the notion of a gender wage gap? 

 

Where do you draw the line?

According to the liberal college noodlebrain thugs the line is drawn whenever someone has a different opinion than theirs. Then it's riot time, and time to call everyone sexist, mysogynist, homophobe, islammohobe, and all these other words there's so many of them I don't remember all of what we're even supposed to be called anymore lol

 

See this noodlebrain professor losing her mind? We're in good hands yo.