Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Cope]

And then what? Where does it say you can say unflattering things about other countries?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Freedom of speech and unsubstantiated accusations are two different things. Your congress doesn't give you that right. If I say that US is more authoritarian than North Korea, and then I give references to the laws of the Russian Parliament, then I will look stupid in your eyes.

Unsubstantiated accusations would not be protected by the First Amendment if they were tantamount to defamation. That is not the case here (most obviously because the claim made by Legio_Italica is true).

And stop talking about freedom of speech here. Return the account to Trump to begin with.

Trump's social media accounts should be restored, but the First Amendment only protects speech from state censorship.

[Alexander78]

@Cope
Listen, friend. If you're telling me that the so-called First Amendment gives you or anyone else the right to speak unflatteringly of my country, you're deeply mistaken. I can also freely say that Legio words about Russia are defamation. I do not know, and I do not care what he thinks, but I interpret his words as an insult to my country.
Also I would argue deleting the account of the current president, as well as the accounts and statements of people who support him, is nothing but a violation of the rights and freedom of speech. When Nancy Pelosi in her speech after the capture of the Capitol says a few times the name Putin is paranoid, and not freedom of speech. Does she think that the people who came to the Capitol were agents of the Kremlin? I wouldn't be surprised. You then have 74 million agents of the Kremlin, congratulations. So you can spend your whole life telling me about the First Amendment and what it means, but you're not one iota closer to free speech. Russia has many internal problems, just like America. So I think you have a lot to do besides talking about the authoritarianism of other countries, especially now.


I will add that I apologize to people who may be offended by my words. I have seen with my own eyes what authoritarianism and human rights violations are. I've seen very bad things that are really scary. And believe me, none of this applies to my country. I have something to compare it with. I end this conversation and close the door behind me.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Defamation means false statements that cause material or reputational damage. It is true and self evident that Russia and China are far more repressive and authoritarian with worse human rights and democratic records than than Korea, not to mention militaristic and expansionist. Thus my statement is not defamatory even if one were to construe defamation as a universal exception to free speech under the First Amendment, which it isn’t.

[athanaric]

@Cope
Listen, friend. If you're telling me that the so-called First Amendment gives you or anyone else the right to speak unflatteringly of my country, you're deeply mistaken.

He's not. The First Amendment guarantees anyone the right to talk about any country, including the US, within US jurisdiction. I presume Cope lives in said country, and this forum is probably hosted there as well.

[Cyclops]

My position comes from my background in anthropology and my extensive first hand interactions with people from a variety of non-European cultures. The claim that traditions which promote gendered division of labor arise out of hatred for women is simply ignorant....

Even the little I've studied of "other" cultures has been a confusing but worthwhile experience, but it makes it hard to discuss aspects of other cultures seen as hateful or wrong.

The most aware I've ever been of what people call "white privilege" was the scorn I felt for Muslim communities over the female Genital Mutilation issue which 10-20 years ago caused a fuss in Australia. I had a relative involved in Lawyers Against Female Genital Mutilation, and they were trying to make cutting little girls for cultural reasons a criminal offence. Look they got their way (mostly with education and the carrot of better health outcomes) but the legislative route is pretty traumatic and erases traditional cultural practices with a big stick: in other contexts it would be called forced assimilation.

I think the early discussions revealed most convictions would be of elderly Somali women. The men knew very little about the practice and were not involved. The Somali community members I know mostly date other Somalis but when there's dating with "white" women and Somali men (not a lot of these, a lot of families came out because the men were killed and the children go to school and become good little Aussies drinking alcohol and playing football) no-one is disgusted or horrified. If it was misogyny then it was woman on woman misogyny, or maybe "internalised patriarchy".

The debate raised the usual "what about male circumcision that's a crime against humanity too" crowd. Once again the poor old Australian aboriginal communities got dragged in. FGM in aboriginal communities was "stamped out" by horrified missionaries years ago but the men sometimes still do...stuff...that would make your hair curl. No I mean it, do not google subincision. This doesn't get blamed on women.

@Sumskillz: You can try so hard as you want to limit Misogyny to hatred of woman, it is not limited to this definition.

The meanings do chain together like a word train. We need some newer terms like "cultural artefacts that exclude women from access to human rights like power sharing and resource access". That rolls off the tongue don't it.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Or simple no genderbased discrimination at home, school, work?

Everything what make fancy, but unhandy greek words obsolete, improve discussions and make such terms more handy.

[Cyclops]

Or simple no genderbased discrimination at home, school, work?

Everything what make fancy, but unhandy greek words obsolete, improve discussions and make such terms more handy.

I am in almost complete agreement with you.

As a non-STEM graduate i worry about the trajectories our word-trains drag us onto.

[Infidel144]

@Cope
Listen, friend. If you're telling me that the so-called First Amendment gives you or anyone else the right to speak unflatteringly of my country, you're deeply mistaken.

Actually it does. In the USA. At least for now.

I can also freely say that Legio words about Russia are defamation.

True, under the First Amendment you can. In theory, you could also sue him. In the US, you would lose.

I do not know, and I do not care what he thinks, but I interpret his words as an insult to my country.
Also I would argue deleting the account of the current president, as well as the accounts and statements of people who support him, is nothing but a violation of the rights and freedom of speech. When Nancy Pelosi in her speech after the capture of the Capitol says a few times the name Putin is paranoid, and not freedom of speech. Does she think that the people who came to the Capitol were agents of the Kremlin? I wouldn't be surprised. You then have 74 million agents of the Kremlin, congratulations. So you can spend your whole life telling me about the First Amendment and what it means, but you're not one iota closer to free speech. Russia has many internal problems, just like America. So I think you have a lot to do besides talking about the authoritarianism of other countries, especially now.

Stretch Pelosi has had her brains squeezed out by too many facelifts. However, she also has First Amendment rights.

I will add that I apologize to people who may be offended by my words. I have seen with my own eyes what authoritarianism and human rights violations are. I've seen very bad things that are really scary. And believe me, none of this applies to my country. I have something to compare it with. I end this conversation and close the door behind me.

That is the reason for the First Amendment. If no one ever said anything someone else found offensive, there would be no need for it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The arrest of far left activist John Sullivan is bound to complicate the Capitol riot narrative. Right wing media is barely stopping short of calling him the smoking gun for an inside job.

[Cope]

The arrest of far left activist John Sullivan is bound to complicate the Capitol riot narrative. Right wing media is barely stopping short of calling him the smoking gun for an inside job.

The involvement of a far-right "boogaloo" activist in the arson attack against the MPD precinct back in May had a similar effect. Though there won't be any narrative shifting; the sides are already entrenched.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The involvement of a far-right "boogaloo" activist in the arson attack against the MPD precinct back in May had a similar effect. Though there won't be any narrative shifting; the sides are already entrenched.

Sure, but this gives the right their appeal to purity as a tool for distancing the mainstream from criticism. “Real [Republicans, Trump supporters, etc] didn’t start the riot/breach.” As you note, there are counter examples. I’m thinking of “Umbrella man,” used by BLM and supporters to distance the group from the riots.” The “Antifa is just an idea” talking point is an adaptation of the tactic.

[Cope]

Sure, but this gives the right their appeal to purity as a tool for distancing the mainstream from criticism. “Real [Republicans, Trump supporters, etc] didn’t start the riot/breach.” As you note, there are counter examples. I’m thinking of “Umbrella man,” used by BLM and supporters to distance the group from the riots.” The “Antifa is just an idea” talking point is an adaptation of the tactic.

In a rational world, mainstream voters wouldn't be denounced for the actions of a minority. There would be no need for conservatives to distance themselves from criticism if major networks didn't use guilt by association to conflate seventy-four million Republican voters with Nazis, the KKK and the alt-right.

[Lord Thesaurian]

In a rational world, mainstream voters wouldn't be denounced for the actions of a minority. There would be no need for conservatives to distance themselves from criticism if major networks didn't use guilt by association to conflate seventy-four million Republican voters with Nazis, the KKK and the alt-right.

And there were quite a few far right individuals involved in the Capitol riots, so the left will have every incentive to maintain that position offensively and defensively. In an online world of viral moments, the actions of individuals have the potential to define a personal or collective brand. Just the world we live in.

[Infidel144]

Yeah shot all evil communists. USA USA über allem...

Well, commies do have this habit of indulging in the mass murder of anyone who is not a commie.
(Commies will even do it to other commies. But you know, win-win in that case...)
Could always just use the Antifa standard but for commies (only more accurately than what the ignorant Antifa ideology identifies as "fa")...

[Prodromos]

Makes you think

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Democracy establishs inequality before the law. The subject of government in the economic field is less social justice for the whole common people. What does less social justice mean? It means hire and fire at any time, unfair low wages, poor homes. It means preservation of status quo and the rule of a rich upperclass forever.

Anonymous GOP Philosoph

Makes you think...

[Prodromos]

That's my point, though: that the GOP platform is the total opposite of fascism. You literally just made my point for me.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

At your service.

[mishkin]

The arrest of far left activist John Sullivan is bound to complicate the Capitol riot narrative. Right wing media is barely stopping short of calling him the smoking gun for an inside job.

With this you try to endorse the theory that "The Left" is behind the act of terrorism committed by the extreme right in the capitol or what?

-------------------

Really enjoying the latest fashion here, "if you don't have an exhaustive or first-hand knowledge of the reality of a country you cannot criticize any aspect of it."

[sumskilz]

Really enjoying the latest fashion here, "if you don't have an exhaustive or first-hand knowledge of the reality of a country you cannot criticize any aspect of it."

Making relative assessments of countries’ foreign policy and human rights records is fairly different than making sweeping generalizations about cultures based on minimal knowledge and prejudices, but as I recall, no one here ever claimed that you don't have the right to do the latter.