Political Discussion

RenegadeMonster said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hate to be the “ackshully” guy, but that’s not true. Whether or not you have the actual intention or ability to carry out that threat (have to have both) does absolutely matter in regards to whether the threat is considered legitimate and therefore legally actionable or not.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I think you're making a different argument. Purity/perfection are aspirations (unreachable ones). Abrahamic religions are actually quite full of stories of people whose faithfulness and godliness are reaffirmed *despite* their flaws and the sins they commit.
Click to expand...

Possibly and not that I really think about it my framing around Abrahamic religions was unfair. I think it is a normal human instinct strive and hold as an ideal perfection regardless of the structure of religion. I guess my biggest beef with the original statement was that this was a modern thing.
 
Chucktshoes said:
I hate to be the “ackshully” guy, but that’s not true. Whether or not you had the actual intention or ability to carry out that threat does absolutely matter in regards to whether the threat is considered legitimate and therefore legally actionable or not.
Click to expand...

True, I guess I was thinking along the lines of if someone overheard you say it and believed in the moment it was actionable charges would be filed. But if there is no actual intention or ability and it's not a legitimate threat charges are dropped. At the bare minimum they are bringing you in for questioning if someone perceived it as a threat.

When it comes to what's on the back of that car and when it comes to racism, often nothing is done. The threat is protected free speech and that is where I have issue.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
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.
Click to expand...

The speech that the person posted on their truck does intimidate people and like I said before if pervasive could limit others rights. It’s interesting to think about how that line is crossed, If intent is a necessary portion of the equation, and how it would be punished.
 
debianlinux said:
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.
Click to expand...

No I think you’re misconstruing me. I am pointing out what I see as a hypocrisy, not making an argument. I consider both to he acts of sedition, their both declarations or calls to harm another element of society based upon their race/creed/background. I see both as punishable. I honestly don’t care what you choose to do with your own country but I don’t believe that any right is absolute and that there is scope to legislate against an absolute interpretation of it with the constitutional courts as an arbiter of whether you’ve gone to far or not. Everything goes because we have the right to doesn’t wash with me.
 
Joe Mac said:
No I think you’re misconstruing me. I am pointing out what I see as a hypocrisy, not making an argument. I consider both to he acts of sedition, their both declarations or calls to harm another element of society based upon their race/creed/background. I see both as punishable. I honestly don’t care what you choose to do with your own country but I don’t believe that any right is absolute and that there is scope to legislate against an absolute interpretation of it with the constitutional courts as an arbiter of whether you’ve gone to far or not. Everything goes because we have the right to doesn’t wash with me.
Click to expand...
Wait, while one (preaching jihad) *may* meet the definition of sedition, how does the other?
 
Last edited:
RenegadeMonster said:
Well, there goes virtually every rap song.

I don't think it can be as simple as a word, that would to broad. Phrases perhaps. I was thinking more along the lines of intent.
Click to expand...

intent is a hard one. Intent is only expressed through behavior and people interpret behavior in different ways.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Well, there goes virtually every rap song.

I don't think it can be as simple as a word, that would to broad. Phrases perhaps. I was thinking more along the lines of intent.
Click to expand...

The big question we need to solve as a society and this particular quandary highlights is how do we solve this type of tribalism? Does punishment change people’s minds about this?

I remember listening to a podcast from Everything is Stories about a black drummer that had enough conversations with KKK members to such an extent that they would eventually turn in their hoods to him and leave the KKK.
 
Dtknuckles said:
The big question we need to solve as a society and this particular quandary highlights is how do we solve this type of tribalism? Does punishment change people’s minds about this?

I remember listening to a podcast from Everything is Stories about a black drummer that had enough conversations with KKK members to such an extent that they would eventually turn in their hoods to him and leave the KKK.
Click to expand...
Daryl Davis.


NPR article
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I think the part that is modern is that all of the comments we make are being preserved and archived in perpetuity, and people can be called to account for things they've said and done again and again when their worst deeds and words are only a few clicks away.
Click to expand...

And there is no grace allowed for knowledge, intent or personal growth. God forbid one holds a truly heterodox view, at that point the heretics must be burned at the stake for all to see the wages of their sins.
 
Last edited:
Dtknuckles said:
Yea this guy is part of the reason why I’m skeptical about punishment and/or government regulation being involved in this problem. I don’t think punishment will change people minds. It’s about relationships that people have that are different from them.
Click to expand...
We don’t often agree, but on this it appears that we do.

The heavier the sanctions one places upon the expression of ideas, even the most terrible ones, the more insular and secretive those holding them become. The more that happens, the more dangerous those people that hold them become. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant. Allow people to publicly make mistakes, express terrible thoughts, and then with calmness, grace and a lack of expectation express why you think their views are wrong. That will garner much more positive and long lasting results. Is it harder, yup. Does it require more from those doing the work, yup. Is it the right way to do it, also yup.
 
Chucktshoes said:
And there is no grace allowed for knowledge, intent, personal growth. God forbid one holds a heterodox view, at that point the heretics must be burned at the stake for all to see the wages of their sins.
Click to expand...

This only works if the person is willing to be introspective and empathetic. This is not they typical reaction when incidents occur. One side wants blood and the other doesn’t see a problem with what they did or said.
 
Dtknuckles said:
This only works if the person is willing to be introspective and empathetic. This is not they typical reaction when incidents occur. One side wants blood and the other doesn’t see a problem with what they did or said.
Click to expand...
All very true. I would like to introduce a little bit of nuance here. Sometimes neither party is truly wrong. We’ve just reduced everything to a zero sum game where it’s conform to the cultural bundling or die. There’s very little allowance for folks to simply have differing views and to make different choices for their lives.
 
Chucktshoes said:
All very true. I would like to introduce a little bit of nuance here. Sometimes neither party is truly wrong. We’ve just reduced everything to a zero sum game where it’s conform to the cultural bundling or die. There’s very little allowance for folks to simply have differing views and to make different choices for their lives.
Click to expand...

All of this falls under the term restorative justice. I’ve seen it tried at schools, but it requires building a community and that is no easy feat considering the resources at hand.

for me this kind of circles back to the question of how absolute a right should be. We are all trying to build a society that functions as much as it can for everyone. When does one person’s ability exercise a right prevent others from exercising their rights?

Edit: these questions are not always directed at you specifically.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Yea this guy is part of the reason why I’m skeptical about punishment and/or government regulation being involved in this problem. I don’t think punishment will change people minds. It’s about relationships that people have that are different from them.
Click to expand...

It just might though if their punishment was a fine that was being donated to something like BLM or funds for anti racism of any manner.

So by displaying racist hate they end up paying for efforts to educate against the very thing.

Just a simple punishment wont change their behaviors. But something like the above just might.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
It just might though if their punishment was a fine that was being donated to something like BLM or funds for anti racism of any manner.

So by displaying racist hate they end up paying for efforts to educate against the very thing.

Just a simple punishment wont change their behaviors. But something like the above just might.
Click to expand...

The scientific literature on punishment pretty much says that it will change people’s behavior, but there are all sorts of unwanted side effects. Sustainable behavior change is built around reinforcement for desired behavior. Granted these type of conclusions have not been drawn on large society wide scales.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
It just might though if their punishment was a fine that was being donated to something like BLM or funds for anti racism of any manner.

So by displaying racist hate they end up paying for efforts to educate against the very thing.

Just a simple punishment wont change their behaviors. But something like the above just might.
Click to expand...
Imma bout to get spicy here.

BLM as an idea is a great thing. BLM as an actual organization, not so much. Being forced to give money to help avowed Marxist leaders of a declared Marxist organization buy more houses isn’t going to result in the outcome you’re seeking.

*Edited to add*

Which is to say that any action taken must be well thought out for the seen and unseen outcomes. Easy answers that sound good on the surface often bring very different outcomes than what is intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top