Live data from Hacker News

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

washingtonpost.com

241–250 of 284 posts

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the single best argument I have ever heard against the supreme court.

Is it? Considering that the 13th amendment was pushed through by the Union in the closing months of the Civil War, which itself was fought by conscripts, it's hard to justify an interpretation that outlaws conscription.

The majority of Civil War troops were volunteer. The Civil War draft, an issue at the end of the war, was never challenged on constitutionality. It should be noted that the Conscription Act of 1863 was considered unconstitutional by the populace and resulted in riots.

It's questionable whether many would support it given the way it worked is you paid a $300 fee in order not to go. Usually a poor recent immigrant to the US would be sent in your place. Do you think this scheme would fly these days and be considered legitimate?

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The decision was an extremely bad one and the passage by Holmes was inflammatory rhetoric since the case was clearly never about shouting fire in a theatre, it was about peacefully and reasonably protesting unconstitutional action by the government. It's an interesting theory that the thirteenth amendment prohibits conscription, but it's never been upheld in court.

Which is the single best argument I have ever heard against the supreme court.

The Supreme Court has not evaluated this issue. During Vietnam there were a few cases that looked like they were going to get to the Supreme Court, and the conscripts were released with honorable discharges in order to avoid the court being able to rule on the cases as the issues were made moot through the discharges.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#243
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WTC attacks were committed by people who were in the country legally, either at the time or they had overstayed a visa. Those attacks would not have happened if the individuals involved weren't granted visas.

Are you telling me I should not be allowed in the USA of which I am a law abiding citizen because of my ethnicity? Its okay, be strait with me. You won't hurt my feelings.

The US is under no obligation to accept immigrants from anywhere. We're under no obligation to be "fair". And yes, I'm telling you we should be keeping a list of countries with significant anti-US terrorist movements and not allowing immigration from those countries. If you're from KSA or Yemen or Pakistan I would not have allowed you to immigrate.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we fix it?

Yes. Stop paying them.

Thoreau did and was put in jail for stopping such payments. However its the 21st century now. I propose a little checkbox to check where do I want my taxes to go. As a matter of free expression of my taxpayers will.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're massively over-represented in crime statistics. Can you show data?

Sure. First, note that there are roughly three times as many Russians in Finland as there are Somalis: http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2011/vaerak_2011_2012-03-16_ku... Then, look at this: http://www.stat.fi/til/polrik/2011/polrik_2011_2012-04-02_ta... Unfortunately that's only in Finnish, but here are some key words: - "Suomen kansalaiset" = "Finnish citizens". - "Venäjä, entinen Neuvostoliitto" = "Russia, former Sovi…

Woah woah woah. Slow down there, you're trying to take a flying leap across a giant statistical chasm.

The logic here is so bad I'm not sure where to start.

There's a very bad assumption here, which is that the "other foreigners" category contains only the 13 groups listed, and that membership in none of the others implies membership in the Somalis group.

In other words, what you're saying is, in government statistics re: rape, everyone in the "other nationality" category is Somali unless they can be attributed to 12 other ethnic groups. This seems specious at best, horrifying twisting of fact at worst.

Do you have any evidence that this is what the data says? Or are you reading this out of the data due to your own preexisting prejudices? I'm starting to see what _delirium is describing re: European racism.

In other news, there are 100 cars in the parking lot outside. There are 2 Toyotas, 3 Hondas, and 95 "other" cars. Clearly these 95 cars are Fords.

[edit] Also need to address this:

> "Let's be "generous" and assume they account for 3 rapes each, much like Russians and Swedes, even though they're much smaller minorities so the numbers are probably much lower."

You can't do this with stats and still claim to remain impartial, or correct. You're trying to use numbers to give legitimacy to your claims, yet right in the middle of the argument you inject huge assumptions with no attempt at even making an educated guess.

The moment the words "probably" and "let's be generous" come out of your mouth re: statistics, your numbers have lost almost all meaning. When you're trying to justify incredibly racist views, back of the napkin calculations do not cut it.

Let me be frank: GP was skeptical of your claims and asked for substantiation, you have provided numbers that in no way substantiates your claims, and are incredibly vague and full of bad assumptions made in bad faith.

I rarely accuse people directly on these forums. You sir, are racist. For the sake of all of us, please re-evaluate your views.

Understanding and tolerating them my ass.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Considering that the 13th amendment was pushed through by the Union in the closing months of the Civil War, which itself was fought by conscripts, it's hard to justify an interpretation that outlaws conscription.

The majority of Civil War troops were volunteer. The Civil War draft, an issue at the end of the war, was never challenged on constitutionality. It should be noted that the Conscription Act of 1863 was considered unconstitutional by the populace and resulted in riots. It's questionable whether many would support it given the way it worked is you paid a $300 fee in order not to go. Usually a poor recent immigrant to t…

Of course that scheme was unfair, which is one of the reasons they did it differently for World War I and World War II. Also, it arguably violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, but that wasn't in place until after the Civil War.

US law actually designates most adult male citizens under the age of 45 as members of the "unorganized militia", and the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to call up the militia for active military service. Defending your country when called upon is also generally seen as one of the duties of citizenship. It occurs to me, offhandedly, that universal conscription would both satisfy the equal protection clause and reinforce the notion that military service was one of the duties of citizenship.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the single best argument I have ever heard against the supreme court.

The Supreme Court has not evaluated this issue. During Vietnam there were a few cases that looked like they were going to get to the Supreme Court, and the conscripts were released with honorable discharges in order to avoid the court being able to rule on the cases as the issues were made moot through the discharges.

They did, in 1918: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Draft_Law_Cases

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#248
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The violence is there for other reasons. Religion is an outlet. That's what I'm talking about. Why do you assume this? Why do you assume people who have been beheading each other for blasphemy going on 1500 years have suddenly decided God can take care of himself and it's all really an excuse? >Should I assume that you're "a devout Muslim of one of the more violent sects"? Why would you assume that too? What differe…

Perhaps because scholarly research into the last five or so decades of conflicts has shown that politics is the main cause of violence, and that groups from the European fascists, anarchists to todays militants have been using similar technicques of warfare, organisation, propaganda, and follow conflicts follow similar trajectories.

>Perhaps because scholarly research into the last five or so decades of conflicts has shown that politics is the main cause of violence...

How could you possibly trust "research" into the minds of millions of people? Doesn't your bullshit detector even twitch a little when you read something like that?

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court has not evaluated this issue. During Vietnam there were a few cases that looked like they were going to get to the Supreme Court, and the conscripts were released with honorable discharges in order to avoid the court being able to rule on the cases as the issues were made moot through the discharges.

They did, in 1918: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Draft_Law_Cases

OK, thanks you are right. Interesting how they cite the 14th's change in the concept of US citizenship to be primary over state citizenship as strengthening this presumed right of federal conscription.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#250
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why the age of a civilization should be a matter of pride. This is an entirely arbitrary point of distinction and has no real relevance to the conversation at hand. > And your inability to literal make any meaningful statements other than ad hominem attacks against me suggests that you need to go back to high school and study logic and debate. It is arrogant to assume a single countries path is c…

> It is arrogant to assume a single countries path is correct vs a much older civilisation, given that single country has not stood the same test of time. Once again, the point flew over your head. This has nothing to do with correctness, it has to do with maintaining America's global hegemony. And Arab "civilization" is a tenuous concept. Many modern Arab countries didn't exist until less than a century ago. Given t…

No, the point flew over your head.

The point is that America's global hegemony shouldn't be maintained.

Quite apart from the jackass immorality of it, maintaining hegemony implies indebting America to the point of economic collapse while generating more and more enemies.

The objective instead should be to maintain the quality of life of American citizens.

And there are all kinds of countries, from Japan to Switzerland to Norway to Slovenia, none of which attempt world domination, where citizens can live fine.

(Oh yeah, and as a result of not attempting world domination they also tend not to get attacked by terrorists.)

Many across the spectrum, from Dennis Kucinich to Stephen Walt to Ron Paul, have explained this better than I can here; if you are interested in the geopolitics I suggest you look them up.

Your points about history are equally preposterous. Just because modern middle eastern states are young it does not mean that middle eastern civilisation is young. By that logic, China and Greece are both younger than the USA.

Post reply on HN