FEDIT POLITICS Thread

treason?

 

so not treason then?

 

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.
But treason?
Dont they hang people for that?
Treason should not be a word that so easily falls out of peoples mouths.
IMO it just goes to show how much folks get whipped up by the media and just repeat stuff they ould normally never say if they had stopped to think about for more than a minute.

 

Orange County?
I know times have changed, and the 90's brought in a wider mix of people into the OC... but a former bastion of germanic republicans still remains.

 

can't speak for the current
but i worked there in the early 2000's and that was definitely still the case ... irvine, ftn valley, westminster, hb, garbage grove, orange...

 

Sarah Silverman calling for a military coup to oust him. That's almost the same thing.

Although she was probably trolling, but still. That's a little much, even for a d-list celebrity that thinks surveyor markings are swastikas.

 

The reaction to Silverman's tweet is pretty damn funny...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/12/sarah-silverman-mistakes-sidewalk-utility-markings-for-swastikas/

 

I like XKCD too, but this doesn't accurately reflect the UC Berkeley situation.
You don't have have a right to free speech on private property, so if you get banned from fb or twitter, or Blue Moose's house that's fine.
If people boycott you, or your sponsors, or your employers that's fine.
If a place chooses not to invite you to speak, that's fine too.
But that's not what happened.

Milo *was* invited to speak by the University. He had a right right be there and he had a right to speak, even if people don't like it.
Trying to silence his message with property destruction, the threat of violence, and actual violence is a violation of free speech.
Trying to defend the violence after the fact is equally repellent.
When you try to silence someone, you are the fascist.
And the whole "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" has become a neo-fascist dog whistle for silencing thoughts they don't like.

 

1) You have the freedom of speech, everything you say can and will be used against you. And that is how you should view how that freedom works. Like that right to remain silent.
2) The freedom is a license that is issued by a government. You can speak, and they generally won't stop you.
Anyone else can stop you. Where is it written that I have to respect your so called freedom of speech?
Only the government is required to respect it.
Of course, unless the government thinks its not worth it and puts your speech into one of the restricted categories (protect rights or reputation of others, protection of national security or of public order, protection of public health or morals).

We believe in a lot of myths.

 

Governments don't give you freedom. They take it away.
The function of a decent government is to keep others from taking your freedom away.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
You don't have to respect it. But to stop someone usually requires violence. Are you going to use violence to stop someone you don't like from speaking?

 

What kind of freedom would you have without government?
There is always some type of government. And it is there to allow certain things and disallow others.
And that is how you can actually have freedom. Or would you rather a dude be allowed to jump into a movie theater and yell fire or stand behind a curtain and play a track of loud gunfire out his wireless speakers in that same theater?
Speech is like gravity. It has consequences.
And it is a natural law.
You have a right to say whatever you want.
You also have a right to say stuff that you know may put you in danger of violent opposition.
Does the other guy have the right to be violent towards you?
Violence is sometimes the appropriate speech to have.
And while it may not be a human right it is a natural right. Because it is natural law.
If you know you are going to piss people off to the point of violence, you know this, and you do it... you just might get your ass kicked.
Not saying they are entitled to kick your ass, that it is their inalienable right, that violence is ok
Some guy might kick your ass, and he more than likely will go to jail. You'r rights would have been i guess vindicated by having the violent trespasser of your rights removed of his and put in a cell.
But you still got your ass kicked.
The fact that you may get your ass kicked actually means that you may have a salient point.
And that your speech means something and is worth the right to get your ass kicked for it.
Because if you go out to say something and expect not to have people want to kick your ass then what are you really saying?