Political Discussion

[Chucktshoes]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

H.L. Mencken

The problem was summed up succinctly a century ago by Mencken. That type of atrocious speech is exactly what the first amendment protects. It has to otherwise it will soon be rendered meaningless. It’s why the ACLU has many times defended the right of the KKK to demonstrate.

To fall outside of the 1A, threats or incitements to violence must be specific and directed. It’s the difference between “kill all the _____” which is protected and “kill that specific _____ right there” which is not.

Does it lead to folks having to deal with situations described like the one here, unfortunately it does. That said, while there is a protected right to free speech, there’s no right to not be appalled or offended by the speech of another. Uncomfortable as it may be at times, it’s far preferable to the alternative.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

Remember the Joint Venture Between Berkshire Hathaway, JP Morgan Chase and Amazon a few years back to create affordable healthcare?

It was all over the news and then we never heard more about it.

Last month Warren Buffett acknowledged it failed. Here is what he had to say about it.

"Healthcare is the Tapeworm of the US Economy and the TAPEWORM WON."

Additionally, Warren Buffett Goes on to Say that 'Prestigious' Members of the Community Run Hospital Boards and These People Are 'Fairly Happy' with the Healthcare System the Way It Currently Is.

This video digs more into what Warren Buffett's statements mean:


Basically my take is the 'Prestigious people'(wealthy people) who sit on the boards of health care systems are happy with how the systems work today and don't want to see change. Likely they don't want to agree with the proposed plan or be in-network and agree to any negotiated prices.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I get first amendment rights

No, you don’t if you have to ask this question. This person sounds like a vile racist piece of shit. Their racist redneck bumper sticker should still be protected under the First Amendment and 911 is for emergency purposes. This person should have done what most everyone else would have done, snap some photos and post it on social media, not tied up the emergency response line.

 

[Joe Mac]

Gunna say this living in a very free society with not quite as open a free speech right it’s yet another facet of America that makes me think “Yep, ok then, glad I live where I do“

 

[Chucktshoes]

Gunna say this living in a very free society with not quite as open a free speech right it’s yet another facet of America that makes me think “Yep, ok then, glad I live where I do“

I agree for exactly the same reasons.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[debianlinux]

Gunna say this living in a very free society with not quite as open a free speech right it’s yet another facet of America that makes me think “Yep, ok then, glad I live where I do“

I kinda like that the assholes have no legal limit on how much they can advertise to the rest of us how big of an asshole they are. There is no way to have that on the back of your vehicle and have any real worthwhile social network to speak of.

 

[Joe Mac]

I agree for exactly the same reasons.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

I kinda like that the assholes have no legal limit on how much they can advertise to the rest of us how big of an asshole they are. There is no way to have that on the back of your vehicle and have any real worthwhile social network to speak of.

I don’t feel like my liberty is even remotely curtailed. In fact I feel more protected by proper enforceable defamation laws and there being consequences for such naked hateful provocation than I ever have felt restricted in anything that I’ve wanted to say.

As for Jefferson I wonder how entitled to free speech he believed his slaves were?

 

[Dtknuckles]

I was just listening to the People’s Party podcast. Talib Kweli had his brother in it. He’s a constitutional scholar and law professor at Columbia University. He just wrote a book about how rights are talked about in the US. I thought about picking it up. It kind of goes into the discussion about the absolutist ways people interpret rights. Each side has pet rights that they believe are absolute and discussions around those right are not constructive because of that. When the courts have carved out exceptions for behaviors that could be considered under the umbrella of specific right that can violate other’s rights. This seems to apply to the current discussion about free speech.

 

[Chucktshoes]

I don’t feel like my liberty is even remotely curtailed. In fact I feel more protected by proper enforceable defamation laws and there being consequences for such naked hateful provocation than I ever have felt restricted in anything that I’ve wanted to say.

As for Jefferson I wonder how entitled to free speech he believed his slaves were?

I get it. To y’all the First Amendment is bonkers.

Jefferson, like all of the founders and many great people throughout history were the products of their times. They, like all of us, could be very contradictory in words and actions. Both great and terrible at once. I don’t condone the wrongs they did, but at the same time I don’t condemn the good things either simply because they flowed from deeply flawed individuals.

This modern idea that to do any good one must be virtuous in all ways at all times is, to put it bluntly, fucking moronic.

 

[debianlinux]

I was just listening to the People’s Party podcast. Talib Kweli had his brother in it. He’s a constitutional scholar and law professor at Columbia University. He just wrote a book about how rights are talked about in the US. I thought about picking it up. It kind of goes into the discussion about the absolutist ways people interpret rights. Each side has pet rights that they believe are absolute and discussions around those right are not constructive because of that. When the courts have carved out exceptions for behaviors that could be considered under the umbrella of specific right that can violate other’s rights. This seems to apply to the current discussion about free speech.

Maybe you missed the part where the supreme court has repeatedly reassessed and remains firm on hate speech being protected speech? this isn't just some rigid thinking on our part.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Is this really a modern idea? This is rooted in Abrahamic religions.

This modern idea that to do any good one must be virtuous in all ways at all times is, to put it bluntly, fucking moronic.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Maybe you missed the part where the supreme court has repeatedly reassessed and remains firm on hate speech being protected speech? this isn't just some rigid thinking on our part.

I didn’t assert one view or the other. I summarized the source of the conflict. I will say that if hate speech such as in the example above was pervasive in society to such a degree that it limited other ability to participate in society I would have a problem with the legality of it. I get the people are wary of government making these decisions, but if they don’t what other system will?

 

[Chucktshoes]

Is this really a modern idea? This is rooted in Abrahamic religions.

If you believe that, then you don’t understand the source material. I don’t blame you, as the way it is taught has become very twisted in its use to justify worldly power structures. That said, it’s not even remotely close to accurate. The story of the Gospel as relayed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures lays out exactly how flawed and broken we are without God. We are incapable of being holy and righteous in his eyes by our own actions. Yet, even with how broken we are, He chooses to use the flawed creatures we are to act as vessels for His working.

King David is just about the perfect example of this. To understand his story, is to understand the simultaneous human frailty and potential greatness that resides in us all.

 

[nolalady]

Remember the Joint Venture Between Berkshire Hathaway, JP Morgan Chase and Amazon a few years back to create affordable healthcare?

It was all over the news and then we never heard more about it.

Last month Warren Buffett acknowledged it failed. Here is what he had to say about it.

"Healthcare is the Tapeworm of the US Economy and the TAPEWORM WON."

Additionally, Warren Buffett Goes on to Say that 'Prestigious' Members of the Community Run Hospital Boards and These People Are 'Fairly Happy' with the Healthcare System the Way It Currently Is.

This video digs more into what Warren Buffett's statements mean:


Basically my take is the 'Prestigious people'(wealthy people) who sit on the boards of health care systems are happy with how the systems work today and don't want to see change. Likely they don't want to agree with the proposed plan or be in-network and agree to any negotiated prices.

So first off, I watched Haven carefully.
I was monitoring who they were hiring and where because if this did turn into something great, I was definitely going to apply. But I also watched it to see when they would come to the exact conclusions they came to--because I was also very, very skeptical of a bunch of businessmen thinking that they know diddly squat about how the healthcare industry runs in America. The problem will always be cost containment. And two of the biggest expenses are professional salaries and pharmaceuticals (there's also durable medical equipment and that's costly as well but it isn't nearly as bad as pharmaceuticals thanks to the pharmabros that bought up patents and charged a ton more for drugs that used to be reasonably priced). If we didn't make doctors take out such high loans for school and instead paid their school and employed them (similar to the NIH in the UK), we could start containing costs. We also need to use the might of the US population to buy in bulk from pharmaceutical companies and DME manufacturers to help with those costs. But all of this would require a national strategy and it has very little room for any contractors, which is not how we do anything in healthcare right now.

But honestly, I don't think healthcare is a tapeworm--I think people like pharmabros and others that game this system are tapeworms. I think that like most things, the rising price of healthcare and people being able to pay for healthcare is largely a problem due to stagnant wages for blue collar workers for 40 years and stagnant wages for white collar workers for 20 years. He is right about the fact that too many people at the top are complicit in this system, because it makes them a ton of money. They are also largely complicit because the only other real option is Medicare for All, and none of the 1% want that sort of redistribution happening.

 

[Dtknuckles]

If you believe that, then you don’t understand the source material. I don’t blame you, as the way it is taught has become very twisted in its use to justify worldly power structures. That said, it’s not even remotely close to accurate. The story of the Gospel as relayed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures lays out exactly how flawed and broken we are without God. We are incapable of being holy and righteous in his eyes by our own actions. Yet, even with how broken we are, He chooses to use the flawed creatures we are to act as vessels for His working.

King David is just about the perfect example of this. To understand his story, is to understand the simultaneous human frailty and potential greatness that resides in us all.

While yes the Abrahamic religions acknowledge that humans are imperfect it simultaneously teaches us to reach for purity. The imperfect are punished. Purity has been an ideal since the beginning of time. I would actually say that it’s part of how humans are made up.

 

[Chucktshoes]

While yes the Abrahamic religions acknowledge that humans are imperfect it simultaneously teaches us to reach for purity. The imperfect are punished. Purity has been an ideal since the beginning of time. I would actually say that it’s part of how humans are made up.

You always strive to be what God wishes for you, but you can’t lose sight of the fact that the purity isn’t of your making. It’s when the two things are separated that things go awry. The idea that “the imperfect are punished” is a misunderstanding, or in some cases an intentional mis-teaching to pervert the Gospel for nefarious ends. We are all imperfect and so the imperfect will both be blessed with forgiveness or punished. How that process happens is where major divergences happen in belief sadly to the point of wars.

*What a strange turn today’s conversation has taken.*

 

[Joe Mac]

I get it. To y’all the First Amendment is bonkers.

Jefferson, like all of the founders and many great people throughout history were the products of their times. They, like all of us, could be very contradictory in words and actions. Both great and terrible at once. I don’t condone the wrongs they did, but at the same time I don’t condemn the good things either simply because they flowed from deeply flawed individuals.

This modern idea that to do any good one must be virtuous in all ways at all times is, to put it bluntly, fucking moronic.

No the first amendment isn’t bonkers. Freedom of speech is a key tenet of any functioning democracy. Absolute rights construed absolutely are utterly bonkers. I agree with you on historical figures but take it a step forward and believe their lessons also need to be historical and it to be necessary to construe in them in light of the world we are in. I also see the rank hypocrisy in carting an imam preaching jihad to Guantanamo or wherever and just saying that is protected hate speech. I don’t necessarily disagree with both being punished but one and not the other?

 

[debianlinux]

No the first amendment isn’t bonkers. Freedom of speech is a key tenet of any functioning democracy. Absolute rights construed absolutely are utterly bonkers. I agree with you on historical figures but take it a step forward and believe their lessons also need to be historical and it to be necessary to construe in them in light of the world we are in. I also see the rank hypocrisy in carting an imam preaching jihad to Guantanamo or wherever and just saying that is protected hate speech. I don’t necessarily disagree with both being punished but one and not the other?

You can't have it both ways. The right is not absolute construed absolutely as you say. Sedition is one of the exceptions which jihad preachers are being carted off for. So do you want exceptions or not? If so, would you like a supreme judicial body to weigh what those exceptions can or cannot be based on whether or not the undermine the intent of the right to begin with? If so, well, that's what we've got going on.

 

[Chucktshoes]

No the first amendment isn’t bonkers. Freedom of speech is a key tenet of any functioning democracy. Absolute rights construed absolutely are utterly bonkers. I agree with you on historical figures but take it a step forward and believe their lessons also need to be historical and it to be necessary to construe in them in light of the world we are in. I also see the rank hypocrisy in carting an imam preaching jihad to Guantanamo or wherever and just saying that is protected hate speech. I don’t necessarily disagree with both being punished but one and not the other?

With regards to the imam preaching jihad, if he’s simply preaching it and not actively participating or facilitating it, he has committed no crime. Then again, the ways in which war is conducted in conflict zones and how matters are handled in the US are very different matters and not often analogous. Of course that’s a wholly different discussion.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

@RenegadeMonster what first amendment remedy would you seek?

I would like to see some kind of exception where hate speech that incites violence or threatens others can be forced to be removed or be a misdemeanor you can get a fine for.

Saying you want to kill someone is not protected free speech. That's a felony you can be charged for. It doesn't matter if you had any intentions of doing it or just said it in the heat of the moment or jokenly and someone overheard you.

A statement like what was plastered on the back of that car does threaten lives to some degree.