341–350 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The USA as the only nation in the world with true free speech protections. > Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare. There is at least a very good case to be made that the US has by far the strongest free speech guarantee. Commonwealth countries an…
Ahem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
Just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't give you the right to someone else's audience. It doesn't give you license to harrass. It doesn't give you license to trespass (including a properly licensed/permitted event on public property). It doesn't give you license to disruptively yell over whoever you might be protesting. It doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious for the same of getting attention, like blocking traffic.
Hijacking someone else's gathering is infringing on both their right to free speech and their right to peaceful assembly. Go have your own assembly somewhere else. There is no right to disrupt. If you can say the same message anywhere else in the country without restriction or repercussion, then you're freedom of speech hasn't been infringed.
That said, and even by that standard, the US is the most tolerant of free speech by far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go to Europe and say the holocaust didn't happen, see what occurs. In fact many countries in Europe have blasphemy laws and they uphold them: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
Meanwhile in America you are liable for insulting vegetables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws Point is, every country has exceptions, and indexing on irrelevant edge cases isn’t especially useful. America is pretty darn good at free speech. But so is, say, Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I believe MLM is the path towards achieving common goals of superabundance and unleashing human ability.
Cool, I'm gonna flag all your propagandistic bullshit comments.
Who knew CCP would be able to censor the west with, gulp, the might dollar. The irony.
Americans on any problem: "You've got to vote with your wallet to change the world! That's the spirit of the free market and liberal democracy!" China votes with wallet Americans: "This is 'authoritarianism'"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Government publicly shamed her over her post - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/86987479808781926... this lead to hardships for her[1] that I believe aren't debated? As per statements by the white house[2] and other branches[3] that twitter account is an official channel of US Government policy, I think this is reasonable and generally accepted[4]. 1. https://ew.com/news/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-dona…
If you don't like Donald Trump's conduct in office (I don't, incidentally) you and millions of others can organize and likely prevent him from getting reelected. If you don't like Xi Jinping's conduct in office...
I agree China and the US are in radically different places, but there are serious problems of some degree in many places right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comedy faces a greater threat from the "woke" #metoo crowd at colleges and online than any profit seeking corporate entity.
Why are we conflating "woke" PC culture with #metoo? One is about being offended by things, the other is about coming forward about having been sexually assaulted or showing solidarity for them. Let's keep clear and separate distinctions between people being offended and people being raped.
To me women's rights needs to be distinguished from #metoo for this reason, but in any event I don't think the gp comment was totally inappropriate in equating "wokeness" and #metoo as having a large social impression management component (even if you disagree with it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An autocratic government is inherently antithetical to the Rule of Law. They are mutually exclusive.
Please expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.
e.g.
> The Rule of Law is an intrinsically abstract idea, which finds itself grounded in philosophical and moral conceptions. One of its most basic tenants is that all people, whether they be at the lowest level of citizenship or the highest, being the sovereign or government ruler, are all equal under the law itself. This means that no one is above the law, and any law that is broken should be equally punished across the board, regardless of status in society or local community.
> It is also associated with the concept of natural law, which basically claims that because we all belong to the larger human community, everyone must be treated under the same laws and possess the same rights.
vs.
> In contrast, Rule by Law is a concept that sees the governing authority as somehow being above the law, and has the power to create and execute law where they find it to be convenient, despite the effect it has on larger freedoms that people enjoy. To expand on this idea, rule by law is a method that governments and people in power use to shape the behavior of people, and in terms of governing a country, mass groups of people. This usually has the end goal of psychologically or forcefully persuading people to agree with policy decisions they otherwise would not agree with.