ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Trump absolutely was elected legally. I wasn't going to engage with this [Removed by Support],

ah, the ancient greek understanding of "democracy", i get you. you are the citizen, i am a pleb, okay.

[Removed by Support]

"

鬼殺し wrote:

nothing is more democratic than being able to say 'Fuck the elected president' with no fear of repercussion.

thats not democratic, thats bad manners, rude and it makes you look like a sore loser. which noone likes.
the democratic thing is to deal with it: yeah, i dont like it, but i have to tolerate (certainly you, as a writer, are aware of the etymology of the word "tolerare") it.
the term "fuck XXX" is not an tolerating one but one of complete rejection and disregard.
it is also not a term of criticism.
again, semantics.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

You want to blather on about free speech and perhaps the false impression that it is a license to say vile, racist, misogynistic things...well, no.

you are postig a lot of vile things. but you are targeting the "bad guys", so its fine, hm?
how can you write THIS after claiming that democracy and freedom of speech meant being able to just randomly exclaim: "fuck XXX"? Lol.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

It's mostly about freedom of press (and we're all at that level nowadays) to criticise and critique the government. Not that it really applies globally but let's assume there's some equivalent to the First Amendment in most developed nations. It's a common sense check effected to ensure no one is above criticism or critique. No one is a Supreme Leader.

rofl, thats kindergarten-epistemology.
so...its the press thats criticizing the government? so what constitutes the press is their political agenda? Lol. thats why some p*rnstar is all the talk, thats political, yes?
[Removed by Support]

"

鬼殺し wrote:

So me saying 'Fuck Trump' is neither contrary to whether or not he was legally elected nor undemocratic.

it is undemocratic for sure. by saying this you insult everyone who voted for him. not that you mean to, you dont think that far.
by the same token, the term "crooked hillary" or "look her up" are democratic too? let me guess, thats not how your democracy works?

[Removed by Support]
even if it was neither of those - you are content with targeting some excentric individual rather than the system or circumstances that allowed him to do what he does and go where he goes.

thats the same as claiming that it was 100% adolf hitler who was responsible for the third reich.
you need to learn to think in a way that considers systems and structures over individuals.
your naive "humanism" is as outdated as it is dangerous and just false.

intellectually, its the same as believing that some creator made and shaped the world as it is and holds absolute power over it. lol.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I hear it a lot. I really do. And from people who until this term were quite apolitical. I never said Fuck Obama or Fuck W or Fuck Clinton or Fuck Bush...and I'd say both Obama and W occupy a space where I was much more forcibly exposed to the results of US politics. If you don't think that's telling, then that's fine. I do.

its very telling. you and your people say it because it fashionable and because you are affected emotionally (somehow) more than politically.
isnt that very nice about trump? you can say sooo much about him, partake in the "trump-discourse" without knowing a single bit about politics. very inclusive, nice.

again: THIS is how democracy dies.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I wouldn't call that a problem, I'd call it a panacea. Our perspective isn't unique because it's almost global by now. Only idiots and selfish people 'hail' President Trump, and the latter only until he inevitably reveals that his own greed doesn't extend their way. The problem is the last Trump thread was rightfully locked because of pretty much the same thing this thread is doing: going way off topic, veering into contentious territory and drawing battle lines. Again, this is inevitable, by virtue of what the topic is.

I should also note I technically named this thread because after Rachel locked the last one, I made a thread named 'ALL HAIL THE QUEEN' and of course some smartarse here went and immediately copied that, starting everything up all over again.

Don't let right-wing Americans play the 'you're from another country, what would you know' card, Matt. Don't let them get all indignant and whinge that this is their problem, not ours. Yeah, fuck that and fuck Trump dude. He's everywhere because not only is he the President of the United States, he's the unofficial mascot of Twitter. He's on the world stage, constantly. He has some big-mouthed comment about anyone and everyone, not just Americans. So many of his 'policies', his approaches to MAGA, involve how the US treats other countries. Don't be mistaken, my friend. Trump is a global issue. It's not some fishbowl situation. He's not some crazy little dictator of Whogivseafuckistan.

He's Trump. And he wants the whole world to know and remember his name.

So I say, so I repeat:

Fuck Trump.

(†

Between Trump's Drug Dealers, Criminals, Rapists, white supremacists' KILL ALL JEWS, Muslims' INFIDELS MUST DIE and Trumpists' ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP.

Fuck Trump is so lame. Can't people do better?
I DON'T APPROVE. GO back and try again.

Tougher, meaner and more vulgar. Where is your anger?

"

PaoloPinkel wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

You want to blather on about free speech and perhaps the false impression that it is a license to say vile, racist, misogynistic things...well, no. It's mostly about freedom of press (and we're all at that level nowadays) to criticise and critique the government. Not that it really applies globally but let's assume there's some equivalent to the First Amendment in most developed nations. It's a common sense check effected to ensure no one is above criticism or critique. No one is a Supreme Leader.

rofl, thats kindergarten-epistemology.
so...its the press thats criticizing the government? so what constitutes the press is their political agenda? Lol. thats why some p*rnstar is all the talk, thats political, yes?
[Removed by Support]

I added the preceding sentence to your quote of Charan to provide the context for "It's" in the second quoted sentence.

First, let me say that I don't agree that freedom of speech/press means the freedom to say things that offend if and only if they are critical of the government. I insist that freedom of speech is about the right to be critical of anyone, government or not, and that the nature of a full freedom of criticism must by its nature include criticism that may offend its target. I don't believe it's even possible to critique without at least risking offense.

However, I'm not entirely sure Charan actually means that free speech doesn't apply to criticism of non-government entities. His saying "no one is above criticism or critique" seems to contradict his saying free speech is not "license to say vile, racist, misogynistic things," unless he means that certain protected groups, such as races or women, are above critique while individuals within those groups still are. Although that makes me wonder why government itself couldn't be a protected group. But I digress; the point is that it's not clear what the fuck he's actually saying here, and a request for clarification is in order prior to proceeding.

Second, I'm really struggling to see what epistemology has to do with free speech. As far as I'm concerned the branch of philosophy covering rights is ethics, not epistemology. What speech is allowed and what speech is prohibited seems to me to be rooted in risk assessment regarding the imminent use of physical force. There's a widespread misconception, among both the progressives of the left and the anarchocapitalists of the economic right, that the use of words or nonviolent physical movement (that is, language or body language) to convey a threat of physical force itself constitutes an initiation of physical force, such that a party that retaliates to said threat with physical force is just as moral as if the threatening party had used physical force instead of a threat. While this is obviously fallacious, it is nevertheless true that dead men don't shoot back and thus proactive defense against imminent and unjustified force is necessary; to this end, some forms of behavior, to include speech, that are nonviolent qua themselves yet reliable indicators of imminent violence, can be justifiably prohibited by force.

Once you get past the weasely attempts to define threatening yet nonviolent behaviors as proper violence, what the various activist groups are actually debating is which nonviolent behaviors are reasonable indicators of imminent violence, and here it is understandable that there would be room for reasonable disagreements between intellectually honest opponents. However, I think it's safe to say that the free speech advocates typically (but not always) associated with the right generally aim to prohibit only behaviors that are a step or two removed from actual violence, while the political correctness culture is willing to hypothetically trace a particular statement a greater number of steps from utterance to violence, and a la Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon soon find themselves wanting to ban pretty much all speech, excepting that speech which they optimistically believe leads only to retaliatory violence, because it opposes that which their opponents say.

I think it's fair to say the above argument isn't epistemological in the slightest, excepting its reliance on evidence and/or arguments to support the risk assessment of various forms of speech, etc (that is, no more epistemological than any other moral problem). By claiming that free speech has an epistemological component, you seem to imply that people derive knowledge not so much from their perception (that is, sense data) of objective and often inanimate reality as they derive it from their perception of the speech of others. I find such an epistemology to be strange indeed, as if the inanimate world is somehow less real than one's perception of other humans' opinions.

Third, "common sense" is merely an elitist eupemism for "that which is obvious to me but not necessarily obvious to others." It means nothing substantive.

Lastly, Charan actually has a good point regarding the fact that the press has, thanks to the internet, evolved into a body consisting of pretty much everyone, such that freedom of the press and freedom of speech have become increasingly intertwined. It's increasingly hard to separate the two these days.

Radical leftists are reaaaally pushing the "Trump is putting brown kids in concentration camps" narrative. Let's see how that works out for them.

"

PaoloPinkel wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

nothing is more democratic than being able to say 'Fuck the elected president' with no fear of repercussion.

thats not democratic, thats bad manners, rude and it makes you look like a sore loser. which noone likes.
the democratic thing is to deal with it: yeah, i dont like it, but i have to tolerate (certainly you, as a writer, are aware of the etymology of the word "tolerare") it.
the term "fuck XXX" is not an tolerating one but one of complete rejection and disregard.
it is also not a term of criticism.
again, semantics.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

You want to blather on about free speech and perhaps the false impression that it is a license to say vile, racist, misogynistic things...well, no.

you are postig a lot of vile things. but you are targeting the "bad guys", so its fine, hm?
how can you write THIS after claiming that democracy and freedom of speech meant being able to just randomly exclaim: "fuck XXX"? Lol.


again: THIS is how democracy dies.

Because saying 'Fuck you' to an individual is an expression of anger and exasperation, and that is fine.

Saying 'Fuck you, you stupid wh_te c_nt' is both being angry AND racist AND mysogynistic. Being angry is ok, being the other two isn't - unless your living back in the 1940's.

-Matt

"

Xavderion wrote:

Radical leftists are reaaaally pushing the "Trump is putting brown kids in concentration camps" narrative. Let's see how that works out for them.

They so readily believe it to be true (it's not) that they simply cannot conceive of the facts being otherwise. Those facts are gonna come back and bite 'em. =^[.]^=