31–40 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 10 per year across 2 countries? You know, Google also says that 20-30 people die of lightning strikes per year in the US alone. Lightning injury rates are higher still. The more you know!
[flagged]
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your ideology involves hurting people, to a point, you should be left alone by the government. but by that same principle, others should be left alone too when they show similar levels of hostility or worse. You shouldn't lose your fundamental human rights, up to a point, that point is when you start believing and spreading a belief that other people should lose their fundamental human rights.
If only it were that simple. People seem to have to constantly argue about what human rights actually are. They use free speech to argue for all kinds of censorship for example. Censoring and harassing people who think differently will rarely do more than make them angry. Philosophers even centuries ago figured out that free speech is a most essential freedom and must be nearly unlimited in a free society, but it's a…
There are rights that are fundamental for various reasons, but human rights are NOT rights afforded to humans, but are instead rights humans already have, simply by virtue of being humans. But since even the right to be alive can be taken away, they are universally applied to all humans, but are not universally kept by all humans. The right to live, pursue life and to pursue security of that life are some human rights, and by life or living, i mean merely existing, not dying. at the point of birth, such things are afforded to all humans. This does not mean that the rights can't be taken away, but that to take them away, one needs a reason and an authority to do so. If one commits genocide for example, there is no reason to kill random people you don't know, you may have a reason, but that reason is not related to specific individuals.
I think this is very important, because lots of really important rights exist, but they are not human rights. For example to be treated fairly, to be afforded a fair trial, to only hold sane people accountable for their actions,etc.. these are legal rights of individuals that exist within the confines of specific national structures. It maybe morally correct to treat fairly everyone, but it isn't so merely as a consequence of them being human, although I would agree that all people everywhere have that right, because it is the just thing to do.
Ultimately, it comes down to what all belief systems of all societies have in common. The things they all agree are rights of humans given to humans simply for being human, those are human rights. For a vast majority of human existence, free speech was not even a civil or governmental right, so it is hard to argue that it is a human right today. But if some day all human governments agree that all humans are afforded free speech, simply because they are humans, then it can become a human right.
Human laws are matters of humans agreeing something is a law, rights are in effects laws unto themselves, and laws that can't be enforced are just wish lists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only it were that simple. People seem to have to constantly argue about what human rights actually are. They use free speech to argue for all kinds of censorship for example. Censoring and harassing people who think differently will rarely do more than make them angry. Philosophers even centuries ago figured out that free speech is a most essential freedom and must be nearly unlimited in a free society, but it's a…
Free speech is always “free speech under some limits set by laws”, “free speech absolutism” is nonsense (and is only being claimed by people who will censor everything without laws and due process at the instant when they reach power, see Trump and Vance who are currently imposing a censorship never seen in the US in peacetime, or Musk and Twitter).
Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part. To the extent he does censor for personal reasons, I must submit that liberals asked for this treatment before he bought it with their constant chanting of "It's a private platform, so free speech does not apply!" I cannot listen to complaints about this until liberals admit that they did censor conservatives, and that they are sorry.
The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel. I don't like this at all but these censorious policies will probably be knocked down eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got that impression too. Gatekeeping sensitive information is not necessarily bad, but the entire thing is sketchy. For example, is it legal or ethical for this group to have Washington Post data that was leaked or stolen? Are we really supposed to be against something called "Free Speech Union" because of the owners having controversial views? There is clearly a political angle to most of the stuff I've seen at a…
Most evil groups have "good" and "innocent" names in order to attract a following. The "Worker's Party of Korea" sounds like a great party for all Koreans out there to vote on. Likewise, the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" sounds, on paper, like a great political party for the German labourers out there. Unfortunately, both the WPK and the NSDAP are very evil organisations, with no real intentions of helpi…
>The "Free Speech Union" don't just have "controversial views", they are actively spreading disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
The whole point of free speech rights is to protect speech that is disagreeable! COVID-19 "misinformation" censorship is a major pet peeve of mine. Just as with your point about names, people lie all the time about what constitutes "misinformation", "harmful", etc. Doctors and researchers were paid off and had their careers threatened for daring to question government policy in this case. Everyone else was threatened to force them to comply. This is not how science or freedom works. We're not talking about some zombie virus. We're talking about a disease with a very low mortality rate even at its peak, and a vaccine that objectively did not stop the spread. If a researcher did want to criticize the vax, they'd risk their career. So get f'd or get paid, some hard decision right? If politicians can be bought then so can researchers.
Some of the powers that be would love you to give them the authority to censor people to influence your pet issues. They would declare your views to be misinformation or hate speech just as soon as you become inconvenient to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only it were that simple. People seem to have to constantly argue about what human rights actually are. They use free speech to argue for all kinds of censorship for example. Censoring and harassing people who think differently will rarely do more than make them angry. Philosophers even centuries ago figured out that free speech is a most essential freedom and must be nearly unlimited in a free society, but it's a…
I think it's more that the term "fundamental right" is very powerful so all sorts of parties latch on to it to push their agenda. Free speech is not a fundamental human right. It is a fundamental right of an individual in a democracy however, very important distinction there. There are rights that are fundamental for various reasons, but human rights are NOT rights afforded to humans, but are instead rights humans al…
Why are these natural capabilities and tendencies given the status of "rights"? It boils down to the simple belief that we each have the right to try to be happy and have autonomy. We can't have a free society if people are not allowed to express negative emotions. Likewise, nobody would stand for a civilization that did not grant individuals the legal protections required to be physically safe. That means that the right to self-defense must be respected.
We happen to have legal procedures to protect people against defamation and certain other kinds of speech, but the speech in question must be provably false or somehow violating intellectual property and the damages must be significant for anything to be done about it. I think these exceptions can easily get out of hand to the point where free speech is a distant dream. Anyway, I guess the right to free speech has always relied on people to be wise and tolerant enough to not censor each other. Philosophizing about how much censorship is justifiable will not matter if a majority of your neighbors are willing to censor you over random subjective issues like how you make them feel or whether they think your opinions are correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is always “free speech under some limits set by laws”, “free speech absolutism” is nonsense (and is only being claimed by people who will censor everything without laws and due process at the instant when they reach power, see Trump and Vance who are currently imposing a censorship never seen in the US in peacetime, or Musk and Twitter).
You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the…
The government an allow you to say whatever you want and still censor that speech, technically you were allowed to speak, and others were allowed to hear what you said, but in certain communication media where access to that media is not a right, but a privilege, it can do whatever it wants, that's lawful censorship.
> Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part > The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel.
If you've not been living under a rock for the past half a year or so, seriously, shame on you for defending this current administration in any capacity. truly, one human to another, shame on you! they're literally hunting down critics, breaking into their homes without a warrant and kidnapping them -- we're talking about blond and blue eyed US-born americans here. Trump just started a prosecution of the fed chair (do you know how unthinkable that is??) over renovations or some made up b.s. , and that's not even a political organization, he just doesn't like how the facts of the economy makes him look bad. They're deporting and planning de-naturalizing anyone criticizing the current administration.
I don't really have any argument or debate for people like you, how can you tolerate the betrayal of your own country, your own people. the mistreatment of so many people, and the marching on into endless wars and conflicts like this? You don't even get anything out of it, you think you do, but you don't. everyone hurts this way, you lose your country and your home. Please feel some shame. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, i voted for the conservatives myself, this has to do with you and your loyalty to your country first, and patriotism towards your own country. an abandonment of basic humanity. I don't get it, what do you think you will have left even for your own self after all this? You can't even have the bare minimum pride in your country that the poorest trashiest third world countries have after this. I am not speaking in hyperbole at all, are you perhaps stuck in some sort of an informational bubble? a victim of some deliberate disinformation campaign? Even in 2024 I could have given you the benefit of the doubt, but it truly is confounding right now, how you can hold such beliefs without feeling any shame, or any fear or the cataclysm ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is always “free speech under some limits set by laws”, “free speech absolutism” is nonsense (and is only being claimed by people who will censor everything without laws and due process at the instant when they reach power, see Trump and Vance who are currently imposing a censorship never seen in the US in peacetime, or Musk and Twitter).
You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the…
“it must be absolute except…”, it's a nice contradiction you have here.
As you acknowledge without even realizing it, free speech cannot be absolute, it's just nonsensical and your sentence above proves it.
> You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration.
That's a very poor whatabotism. How many representative and senators where prosecuted for their speech under the Biden admin? How many tourists where rejected from the US for their social media tweets criticizing Joe Biden? How many foreign students where deported for having express their opinions online? How many US citizens where arrested in the middle of a TV interview for criticizing the government? All of that against the laws.
That every government will at some point abuse their power, and it's regrettable, must never be an excuse for the egregious behavior from the current administration. It really is unprecedented in the last decades. It's not even close.
> Musk may rub people wrong but he is a free speech advocate for the most part.
He never was, he's just posturing. He is a man child who cannot stand criticism and has been retaliating against critical speech as soon as he gained some power. First it was about canceling Tesla orders, then deleting Twitter accounts (of activists, journalists and even video game streamers when they called his BS on its alleged PoE world first, you can't make that up).
> The only actual censorship the current government seems to be pursuing is censorship and harassment of critics of Israel
No, criticism of Trump himself or his admin get people people see their tourism trip to the US canceled after social media profile scanning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the…
wait, are you saying people who work for a political administration have the right to say whatever they want and keep their jobs, is that your understanding of free speech? Or am I misunderstanding you? I think you should reed the 1st amendment of the US constitution, free speech in general means the government cannot pass laws to restrict speech made in good-faith. It is solely restricted to the passing of laws and…
Elected politicians have very limited restrictions on their rights to free speech. I don't remember the exceptions off the top of my head. The exceptions have little to do with the complaints people are constantly raising against Trump.
>It [the first amendment] has nothing to do with employer-employee relationships, executive policy or censorship.
Actually it does, when the government is involved. The government cannot in general legally retaliate against its employees for reasons of speech. There are exceptions to this for political appointees and elected officials. I'm not going to debate the details of this with you, because I don't know them and I don't think they are relevant to your specific gripes.
>The government an allow you to say whatever you want and still censor that speech, technically you were allowed to speak, and others were allowed to hear what you said, but in certain communication media where access to that media is not a right, but a privilege, it can do whatever it wants, that's lawful censorship.
The government could "allow" me to shout into a pillow all alone in my room and call that free speech, but that does not make it so. The government is not allowed to infringe on the right to speech, and that includes impeding the free dispersal of ideas whether they make laws about it or not. They have no general right to deny you the right to publish online or in print, or to transmit your ideas vocally in any way. Of course in practice they do it anyway. Even though it does get away with this sometimes, the government cannot in fact do what it wants without limit. The Constitution is an attempt to peacefully put limits on the government. I suggest you go read up on the history and motivations behind the right to free speech, because you clearly don't understand what it is or why so-called "absolutists" are right.
>they're literally hunting down critics, breaking into their homes without a warrant and kidnapping them -- we're talking about blond and blue eyed US-born americans here.
I don't believe this. If it has ever happened, it was surely an accident. You can't evict 10 million people who were wrongfully allowed to enter the country without breaking a few eggs. Liberals greatly exacerbated our problems with illegal and fraudulent immigration, and Trump is probably not going to even get close to solving it. It's refreshing to see the border crossings stop, at least.
>Trump just started a prosecution of the fed chair (do you know how unthinkable that is??) over renovations or some made up b.s.
Bro, they prosecuted Trump for all kinds of made up bullshit, including a loan that he paid back where the lender had zero complaints. Where was your outrage about politically-motivated prosecution then? I'm willing to let the man cook for a while.
>and that's not even a political organization [re: the fed], he just doesn't like how the facts of the economy makes him look bad
You are right to some extent here but the Fed is political. They cut interest rates based on bullshit numbers when Biden was in office just to screw Trump over. What I'm saying is the stats were cooked before and they tried to set Trump up to look bad. Now he is cooking them to try to make himself look good. It's going to backfire. I think he should just level with people and say, we are suffering for past mistakes but he's working hard to try to turn it around. I don't know if any politician could actually turn things around at this point, but it's better to be honest.
>I don't really have any argument or debate for people like you, how can you tolerate the betrayal of your own country, your own people.
The Democrats betrayed this country by leaving the borders wide open, working directly to incite racial hatred, censoring their opposition, trying to take our gun rights, eroding property rights, higher taxes, blowout spending on government grift programs, etc. I don't want to live in a communist shithole either. There are so many reasons why I cannot support them. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are not really what I want either, but they are much closer to it than Democrats. Your complaints are way overblown and you don't seem to see the issues with the other side.
>the mistreatment of so many people, and the marching on into endless wars and conflicts like this?
Liberals mistreated conservatives for years. It's nearly impossible to date now as an average guy unless you want to chime in and agree with the liberal delusions about Trump being a Nazi. Straight white men were discriminated against on many fronts, especially if they were perceived to be conservative. When liberals are hyping themselves up to murder conservatives, and openly cheering over their deaths, you know we're not on the right track. The so-called "insurrection" of January 6, 2020 was another debacle where liberals openly lied and hyped themselves up to go arrest grandmas who were in the area. Even after extensive video evidence released to show just how peaceful of a protest it was with cops allowing people to walk through open doors, the Democrats are still gaslighting us about it. The crowd was allowed to get out of control to lodge an accusation of an insurrection, as detailed by Nanci Pelosi on video where she said something like "we've been waiting for this!" after denying the necessary reinforcements to contain the crowd safely. There's much more to say on this topic, but I'm not in the mood to write a book, and I doubt you would read or accept it as fact either.
As for conflicts around the world, this country has always pursued them for the past 100 years or more. Your vote does not matter as much as you think it does when it comes to this. The Biden/Harris administration was totally in favor of war. (So were Obama and Hillary Clinton.) Harris made it clear she would continue with near-unlimited support for Ukraine. We now live in a crazy timeline where historically anti-war liberals are chomping at the bit to keep the Ukraine war going and potentially start a nuclear apocalypse over a regional issue.
Only Trump said he would try to end the conflict. In his first term, he started no new wars and was working to get us out of Afghanistan, so he is/was credible in that regard. But we might be forced to take military action now for strategic reasons, to prevent Russia or China from getting the upper hand. These military issues are complex and can have multiple layers of intrigue to them. The version of events we receive from our media is heavily propagandized. The most common true reasons for war might boil down to "We need to do this to deter enemies" or "We need to do this for resources" or "We will never get money to fund the weapons we need unless we get rid of the ones we already have" and people have trouble accepting the conflict between international policy and their own interpersonal moral code which includes rules like "Don't steal" and "Don't murder"...
>i voted for the conservatives myself, this has to do with you and your loyalty to your country first, and patriotism towards your own country.
This surprises me. But I know there are a small number of conservatives that bought the lies about Trump. You sound exactly like a liberal here, with the exact same complaints.
>You can't even have the bare minimum pride in your country that the poorest trashiest third world countries have after this.
This country has been getting poorer and trashier for decades, throughout my whole life. We've been importing the third world for years. Muslims and communists are taking over. The Bill of Rights is constantly under attack, to the point where even a "conservative voter" like yourself seems to not understand the founding principles of the country or the FIRST Amendment. Our culture is going to hell, money is rapidly devaluing, we can't manufacture much of anything in the US anymore. You are worried about Trump, I'm worried about what is going to happen when the wheels fall off this wagon and a world where China is #1, and all the entitled people in this country suffer a dramatic reduction in quality of life.
>I am not speaking in hyperbole at all, are you perhaps stuck in some sort of an informational bubble? a victim of some deliberate disinformation campaign? Even in 2024 I could have given you the benefit of the doubt, but it truly is confounding right now, how you can hold such beliefs without feeling any shame, or any fear or the cataclysm ahead.
As a matter of fact, I am the victim of a disinformation campaign: the one against Trump that's been running for 10 years now. I used to believe the stuff that they said about Trump, but the more I looked into it the more inconsistencies and outright lies I saw. Although I don't believe the disinformation anymore, I am seemingly beset on all sides by other victims of the disinformation who drag me down.
What was done to Trump is not new in character (they've done it to other politicians such as George Bush and Bernie Sanders), but it is new in scale. The Democrats got drunk on power and tried to ruin Trump every way they could. Have you forgotten the assassinations and assassination attempts, shootings targeting conservatives, censorship of conservatives, political prosecutions, etc.? I'm fairly conservative myself I hesitate to tell people because I don't want to hear their gripes about Trump. He's more or less doing what I wanted him to do: to reign in deranged leftists and communists by denying them the presidency, to reduce or eliminate persecution of conservatives, to reduce absurdities such as free sex changes for prisoners and recruiting of mentally ill and/or incompetent air traffic controllers, to reduce race-driven rhetoric and grievance farming aimed to divide the country, to deport the culturally-incompatible and dangerous invaders allowed in through corrupt processes, to work on national security, to try something new to bring industry back to this country, to end the wars if possible, and a lot of smaller stuff that is worth celebrating.
I wish that the left could appreciate their mistakes and the work that Trump is doing on our behalf, but they just keep doubling down on toxic rhetoric. It's going to get people killed, like Charlie Kirk, the victims of mentally ill trans shooters, that lady who hit the ICE agent recently with her car and got shot while doing it, etc. These deaths would not happen but for insane Democrat rhetoric. The people following ICE agents around to impede law enforcement will have to be arrested, and any local politician who refuses to go along with this will have to be talked down or prosecuted. In the worst case he will have to send the national guard or army to restore order. I support that but I would hate to see it go so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs censored a lot of people for his whole administration. Outside of speech that creates harmful and immediate situations like yelling "Fire" in a theater, free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at all. This was all well-known philosophy but it seems every new generation has to fight about the…
> Outside of speech that […] free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at at all. “it must be absolute except…”, it's a nice contradiction you have here. As you acknowledge without even realizing it, free speech cannot be absolute, it's just nonsensical and your sentence above proves it. > You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs cens…
You are technically correct. We don't have absolute free speech in practice, but we know what it is. Free speech is nearly a Platonic ideal. Just as there are no true circles or squares in the universe, there is no perfect free speech. But we have a pretty good model for free speech based on what is enforceable and popular enough to be accepted as policy.
>That's a very poor whatabotism.
No it's not. Biden censored the hell out of people and oversaw prosecution of his opposition. He then issued a blanket pardon of his own son after lying about his son taking bribes for years. This is on top of his unpopular policies and other failings. I don't think his senility is enough to excuse all of that, and indeed I don't think he was even making many of his own decisions during his term. I got a good chuckle when he wore that Trump hat though after dropping out of the race.
>How many representative and senators where prosecuted for their speech under the Biden admin?
Joe Biden and his pals effectively censored reports that Hunter Biden was taking bribes along with a lot of discussion of it online. They then proceeded to prosecute Trump and everyone associated with him over J6 and every other thing they could imagine such as repayment of a loan in which the lender was fully satisfied with the deal. They even went to work disbarring and prosecuting lawyers trying to defend him in court. They went after Trump's pool boy. Don't forget that there was another witch hunt in his first term too. The whole Mueller investigation was started by a report that Hillary Clinton funded to smear Trump around 2015. Despite all the shit he had to put up with, including having his campaign wiretapped in his first run, he did not prosecute Hillary. Apparently that was a mistake.
Censorship of so-called private platforms for many political reasons was coordinated by the government through backdoor web portals to major social media companies throughout the Biden term. They harassed Elon Musk and started smearing him once he pushed back even 10% on the Democrat program, and really went wild when he announced he would buy Twitter to remove the censorship. This is practically unforgivable. Democrats have not acknowledged this or apologized. If you can find one to admit that it was done, they usually double down and say "F your free speech!"
>How many US citizens where arrested in the middle of a TV interview for criticizing the government?
I've never seen this even once. If you're talking about some protestor giving a statement while committing a crime (which can include, refusing to move when asked), then I don't care about that. You people are lucky that Trump isn't the fascist you imagine he is.
>That every government will at some point abuse their power, and it's regrettable, must never be an excuse for the egregious behavior from the current administration. It really is unprecedented in the last decades. It's not even close.
The only unprecedented thing here is the level of actually violent rhetoric and revulsion against Trump. The only lull in the rhetoric was when Trump was tied up in court and not engaging with the public.
>He never was, he's just posturing.
He's done more for free speech than any liberal I've seen in my lifetime by destroying the censorship apparatus that the government and Democrat-adjacent activists had installed in Twitter.
>He is a man child who cannot stand criticism and has been retaliating against critical speech as soon as he gained some power. First it was about canceling Tesla orders, then deleting Twitter accounts (of activists, journalists and even video game streamers when they called his BS on its alleged PoE world first, you can't make that up).
Yes, that is against free speech, I agree. But you people didn't do shit to protect the rights of others YOU disagree with to have free speech and in fact celebrated it. You said "It's a private platform". OK, then the man will not tolerate smearing of himself or his companies on his private platform. That's a small price to pay for otherwise free speech. Deal with it.
>No, criticism of Trump himself or his admin get people people see their tourism trip to the US canceled after social media profile scanning.
I'm not exactly happy about this social media scanning, especially if people are denied for simply having mediocre opinions about the president. But if you're a foreigner then I suppose it is not wrong for the government to do a bit of research to know whether they are letting in some kind of extremist element or crazy person. If you are VERY unhappy with our politicians or anything else about the country, perhaps you should not come here. When US citizens go to other countries, they can get in trouble easily for saying the wrong things. They are also not allowed to deny searches and interrogations, because other countries generally have no exact equivalent of the Bill of Rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Outside of speech that […] free speech needs to be absolute or it is not free at at all. “it must be absolute except…”, it's a nice contradiction you have here. As you acknowledge without even realizing it, free speech cannot be absolute, it's just nonsensical and your sentence above proves it. > You are very mistaken if you think the current administration is uniquely bad for free speech. Biden and other libs cens…
>As you acknowledge without even realizing it, free speech cannot be absolute, it's just nonsensical and your sentence above proves it. You are technically correct. We don't have absolute free speech in practice, but we know what it is. Free speech is nearly a Platonic ideal. Just as there are no true circles or squares in the universe, there is no perfect free speech. But we have a pretty good model for free speech…
Not at all. It's literally the opposite: what speech deserve free speech protection is definitionally a political topic (I don't mean partisan, but political in its definition under democratic institutions: something everyone has its own opinion on and that must be decided through democratic deliberation): and as such, laws around freedom of speech are very variable between countries. You say that Nazi deserve free speech protection, but German people overwhelmingly disagree with you, and you're not any righter than them.
> He then issued a blanket pardon of his own son after lying about his son taking bribes for years.
This has nothing to do with free speech. Hunter Biden is a crook and Biden pardoning him is a scandal, but it had nothing to do with the discussion at stake, at all!
> They then proceeded to prosecute Trump and everyone associated with him over J6
Come on, Jan the 6th was a coup attempt with police officers being killed in the process (blue lives don't always matter, it seems), of course he was prosecuted and it's a shame the Biden admin wasn't diligent enough in these prosecution.
I'm stopping here as it's now very clear I'm talking to a brainwashed dude and I'm not in the business of helping people escaping from cults.
I can only advise you to shut down the internet and seek help IRL.
Good day.
Closing note:
> I've never seen this even once. If you're talking about some protestor giving a statement while committing a crime (which can include, refusing to move when asked), then I don't care about that. You people are lucky that Trump isn't the fascist you imagine he is.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=asokhLApFc8
(6 days ago, this has gained plenty of international coverage, as it deserves)
Now you have, and you will never be able to say you haven't, without lying.