Well, I would assume an AMERICAN attitude is uniquely American. Can you explain that attitude?
I donāt think we have enough police left to busy themselves with anything that doesnāt bring in money, like speed offences or moving on homeless people.
I believe weāve embraced the ability to enforce hate speech laws, if not the actual will or finances. I can definitely see a āslippery slopeā argument there. I think the underlying issue here may be that my version of Libertarianism could be summarised by what my dad used to tell me: ādo what you want, until you start hurting other peopleā. I guess if I had to sum up my views on free speech it would be: āpro free speech, anti hate speechā and the (admittedly blury) line that divides the two in my mind would be the hurting others bit (Notice, I said hurting, not offending).
Nope, never. Iām sorry to hear that. I should have known that getting into a conversation about freedom with Americans would end up in an argument about guns. I believe weāve had this one before and neither of us won. I agree to disagree with your position on firearms control.
1 Like
Iām not clear on what youāre trying to say here?
You seem to have a near religious attachment to your guns. I think this is pretty well demonstrated by the fact that, despite me trying to avoid the whole gun control debate, here we are. Iāll just be upfront now and say Iām not really interested in having that debate again.
1 Like
Saying that an American attitude is uniquely American is saying nothing at all. I was looking for specifics.
I disagree. I donāt know of anyone that worships guns.
Weāre not having a gun control debate at all.
Well this is a thread about American rights, but Iām not here to beat a dead horse.
The debate is settled on the facts, btw. We have decades of data to draw from now. We can see the effects of all kinds of laws in all kinds of situations both home and abroad.
All thatās really being debated at this point is whether peopleās feelings and uninformed opinions matter more than facts about guns and violence.
1 Like
are a construct resulting from your white privilege.
1 Like
Uniquely American, in that it is not shared (to my knowledge), by other countries. The American attitude to lawnmowers, for example, would not be uniquely American.
Good
I would assume American rights extend to a lot more than lack of gun control though, right? Letās talk about those other things, because I think I was learning stuff there. Iām much more interested in your thoughts on freedom of speech and where/if you should draw a line.
But what is the attitude?
I donāt believe speech should be limited in any way.
In America, the cities with the most gun control laws have the highest gun related crimesā¦therefore, gun control laws are useless if they are not enforcedā¦i.eā¦Chigago, New York City, just to name a couple
1 Like
I believe in free speech, but I think it might still be good to have some limits.
There are quite a bit of research suggesting that words do actually have power, and when applied poorly, can cause significant damage
What I do agree with is that WHO sets the limits is important.
Interesting. Why do you believe so? Are there no lines you believe shouldnāt be crossed? Apologies for the obvious Devils Advocate example, but do you believe that 1930s style National Socialism is fine to preach?
And who makes that decisionā¦with the woke and cancel culture going on as we speakā¦its becoming a very dangerous slippery slope
At that point, there is no more slope. Youāve already slid to the bottom. There is no such thing as hate speech. Not in the sense people donāt say hateful things, they do. But once you start prosecuting people for saying mean stuff, itās over.
6 Likes
Because no one has to listen.
No.
Yes.
4 Likes
This sums it up. If you say āI believe in free speech, butā¦ā then you dont believe in free speech.
2 Likes
Right where we have it now in the USA is pretty good.
Hate speech is a can of worms I donāt think should ever be opened. Thatās how you get people thrown in jail for stupid dog videos in the UK and grotesque speech codes like bill C-16 in Canada.
In the US free speech primarily excludes direct, unambiguous calls to violence or other criminal acts. Incitement, basically.
Iām sure other technicalities exist but that the big one that comes to mind.
Of course, the transnational media conglomerates that control the majority of modern communication donāt share that notion, which is why you can get banned for saying true things that others donāt like or simply expressing mainstream conservative opinions. The Democrats generally support this notion, which is why they are overjoyed at the prospect of achieving speech control via their ideological partners in the private sector. It bypasses the first amendment for the same end result.
Luckily you can spout off whatever leftist woke nonsense you want no matter how petty, short sighted or hateful it may beā¦
4 Likes
I agree. No one HAS to, but for better or worse, people apparently do
To me, mean stuff is very different to hate speech. Making fun of a religion is fine, saying that people of said religion should all be killed is not. Conflating wokeness with hate speech is (to me) a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.
1 Like
Exactly, the specific call to action is the line in the US.
I swear to God if anyone say the āFire in a crowded theaterā thing I will lose my God damn mind.
2 Likes