Restricting Violent Speech [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

August

01-13-11, 06:28 PM

I meant this title to read Restricting Violent Speech

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/13/opinion-should-we-ban-violent-speech/

In the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last weekend, some legislators are considering new bans on speech that supposedly uses violent metaphors or imagery.

"The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," is how Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., put it, though there's no evidence that the killer was at all influenced by any such speech.

There's no specific text yet, so it's not clear exactly what language or images the bills would try to criminalize. What is clear, however, is that any such proposal either would be repetitive of existing law or would violate the First Amendment.Now it seems to me that, as the article says, restricting political speech to non violent imagery is something any free society would want to avoid, but Skybirds post in the Giffords thread lamenting our nearly unrestricted American rights in this area tells me that perhaps there is a valid argument to make for some degree of restriction. Opinions?

The Third Man

01-13-11, 06:39 PM

The left wants restriction on political speech now that they are in the minority in the House. Before the 2010 election were heard things like...I won, I make the agenda, etc.

Now that the tables have turned, it is about bi-partisainship, working together for the people ...etc.

Nothing happens through bi-partisainship.

Freiwillige

01-13-11, 07:02 PM

But of course a person with a (D) next to their name wants to restrict our speech, But what the heck its for the greater good!

SARCASM<-spelt out for those who didn't get it.:x

Penguin

01-13-11, 07:19 PM

sticks and stones...

If you take a look at countries with more restricted speech - or countries where it is totally forbidden - you won't see less (political) violence
If (hate) speech is only executed in dark cellars it is still the same. Especially in today's information age, it is no problem to access any kind of bull and propaganda - in this forum is a good example :O:

ETR3(SS)

01-13-11, 07:21 PM

Typical politician trying to make a name for himself to justify staying in office to his constituents. The First Amendment is what really sets us apart form the rest of the world I believe. There is no need to pass legislation on something that already has a law in place. Enforcement is the answer, not more legislation. Also I agree wholly with both SCOTUS decisions mentioned in the article.

I would like to see -although I know it's really just wishful thinking- a bi-partisan effort at toning down rhetoric on both sides of the fence. Perhaps Rep. Brady would be so daring a man.:hmmm:

August

01-13-11, 07:22 PM

The left wants...

And the right is just as guilty of it.

I'd rather have a reasonable discussion instead of political posturing so why don't you go back to the Giffords thread and continue arguing with the other troll. :salute:

CaptainHaplo

01-13-11, 07:34 PM

This isn't about "the left" wanting to do this now.... to be honest the "left" has been screaming for the "Fairness Doctrine" for years - which would abridge free speech rights as well. While I agree the "THEORY' is sound - who decides what constitutes "violent imagery"?

Slippery slope at its best and worst....

What we need is a government that is responsive to the people - thus the people have no taste for violent speak against those in government.....

Of the People, By the People, For the People - and thus PROTECTED by the PEOPLE.... Its the way its supposed to be.... And both sides have gotten us very far from that.....

Tribesman

01-13-11, 07:41 PM

I'd rather have a reasonable discussion instead of political posturing so why don't you go back to the Giffords thread and continue arguing with the other troll.
But the other troll already posted with his political posturing.
Looky here.....
This isn't about "the left" wanting to do this now.... to be honest the "left" has been screaming for the "Fairness Doctrine" for years :yeah:

mookiemookie

01-13-11, 07:54 PM

I meant this title to read Restricting Violent Speech

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/13/opinion-should-we-ban-violent-speech/

Now it seems to me that, as the article says, restricting political speech to non violent imagery is something any free society would want to avoid, but Skybirds post in the Giffords thread lamenting our nearly unrestricted American rights in this area tells me that perhaps there is a valid argument to make for some degree of restriction. Opinions?

This is a terrible idea. It's a kneejerk reaction to a situation that didn't happen. It opens the door to more and more encroachment on free speech. Who gets to decide what's violent speech?

We've already seen what happens when you allow the government to abuse the idea of what's "terrorism" and what's not. Giving them the power to abuse what's "violent" and what's not just doesn't seem like a good idea. I think our existing laws against making threats and the like will suffice.

And furthermore, I think it's time that Neal had another troll housecleaning.

August

01-13-11, 07:57 PM

And furthermore, I think it's time that Neal had another troll housecleaning.

I agree and it brings up another point. Would "Keelhauling" be considered violent imagery?

If so I approve! :DL

razark

01-13-11, 07:58 PM

There's no reason that anyone should even need to consider making a law restricting speech over this. Both sides should be able to use common sense to realize that making ridiculous statements doesn't help the debate at all. Even if this weekend's event was not triggered by either side's rhetoric, it's quite possible that in the future, it could.

Tribesman

01-13-11, 08:01 PM

Who gets to decide what's violent speech?

That would have to be the courts, so really its the same as it is now and there is no need to change anything.

Platapus

01-13-11, 08:03 PM

Even though I have not seen the wording of this legislation, it just sounds like a poorly thought out plan.

This type of legislation is not the solution.

I hope this bill dies in committee like the majority of bills.

tater

01-13-11, 08:10 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No limits, period.

Sometimes we have to hear stuff we don't like. People need to get over it.

What part of "Congress shall make no law" do the idiots in Washington have trouble understanding?

August

01-13-11, 08:38 PM

What part of "Congress shall make no law" do the idiots in Washington have trouble understanding?

Agree. But how do we discourage them from continuing to try?

Takeda Shingen

01-13-11, 08:39 PM

I think that enough of the guys on this forum, August, Haplo, Aramike and tater to name a few, have laid out the case that vitriol is not new and it is certainly not worse than it was in the past. Jefferson was accused of favoring gang rapes, cannibalism and forced incest during campaign season. I am guitly as anyone in being biased against the political through simply being burnt out on it, and I think that this is the key.

Jefferson didn't have 24-hour news channels, internet blogs and twitter. The 18th century voter wasn't bombarded by knee-jerk pundits and news anchors trying to make a name of themselves through 'gotcha' questions. It was the media that fed this vitriol in the name of ratings, and now that they created the monster they suddenly want to disown it. So no, restricting political speech accomplishes nothing, as the problem is still there. The media will continue it's frenzied search for the juiciest soundbytes, the biggest slip-up, the most inflamatory speech.

CaptainHaplo

01-13-11, 08:50 PM

Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is.

I do agree with your point - its going to happen. Its unfortunate - but its not the cause of violence. IF - God forfend - IF civilians take up arms against the government, it will be because the government has failed the people, not because of some extremist on either side telling people to do it.

Tater - Congress and the Judiciary threw out "free speech" when they got involved in allowing Congress to try and institute incumbent re-election insurance oops sorry thats election "reform".

Takeda Shingen

01-13-11, 09:00 PM

Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is.

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/jefferson/essays/biography/3

Go to the second section entitled 'The Campaign and Election of 1800'. It's in the third paragraph:

Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes

Here's a collection of some others with reference links:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/29/sources-for-attack-ads-circa-1

And someone posted a mock attack ad on YouTube using the various quotes. Very, very funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

mookiemookie

01-13-11, 09:30 PM

:haha: "Hatchet faced nutmeg dealer"

Aramike

01-13-11, 09:34 PM

Here's my take, for what it's worth:

Speech shouldn't be abridged, I agree wholeheartedly with the Constitution on that one. We also have laws against conspiracy, accessory, etc so that covers those who would intentionally try to incite violence through speech.

Should there be more laws put in place? Nope - there are literally thousands and thousands of politicians, pundits, advocates, lobbyists, etc. engaging in political vitriol daily - and hardly any violence has occurred as a result (the latest incident was NOT motivated by such speech).

We scream loud and shout over each other because we can, it's part of the way of a free society built upon discourse. A part of me suspects that should such speech be repressed, an outlet will be gone perhaps leading to more violence, but that's just speculative.

In the final analysis there has been acts of violence in response to speech and policy for as long as there's been speech and policy. Those acts are thankfully rare. Nutjobs will be nutjobs regardless. Letting our lowest common denominators force a free society into even a mild repression of its most fundamental right should be out of the question.

August

01-13-11, 09:37 PM

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff. :DL

...and target icons are nothing. How about coffins?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Coffin_handbill.jpg

TLAM Strike

01-13-11, 09:47 PM

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff. :DL

Damn, I think I got my campaign platform for when I run for office! Thanks August!!

tater

01-13-11, 09:57 PM

No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

August

01-13-11, 10:04 PM

tater

01-13-11, 10:08 PM

Another funny youtube ad (Federalist (many of the same quotes in more context)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPRnsgFxOU

Takeda Shingen

01-13-11, 10:13 PM

Another funny youtube ad (Federalist (many of the same quotes in more context)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPRnsgFxOU

I think that the actress is Mary Pickford.

Ducimus

01-13-11, 10:13 PM

All i have to say is those that lead, or are in leadership positions, need to be mindful of what they say, and how they say it because what they say/ and do, has reaching effects.

http://www.josesandoval.com/images/waterRipples.jpg

Those who lead, should do so by example, and aspire to be respected for their abilities, and not due to just their position.

As to restricting political speech, im not sure what to think. On one hand, It is after all, illegal to say the word "bomb" in an airport. And those who give the order to do something violent (either directly, or implied), are just as culpable as the person executing the order.

On the other hand, the first amendment should not have it's integrity compromised. Once you've made it a bendable, and compromising, it becomes tantamount to putty that will be fixed and formed to fit whatever those in power want it to be. Then, we ALL lose.

So i guess it falls back to leadership, and those in leadership positions to rely on tact and to realize their role, and the effect of their words, actions and deeds in the big picture. It's a Pity we have to look to politicans for that. The scumbags.

CaptainHaplo

01-13-11, 10:18 PM

Takeda - thank you - some really great insights that I was unaware of! :yeah:

Sailor Steve

01-13-11, 10:30 PM

What part of "Congress shall make no law" do the idiots in Washington have trouble understanding?
And yet it's against the law to threaten the life of any public official.

On the other hand the much-maligned-by-the-Right Justice Hugo Black used to use that exact same "What part of..." phrase when challenged on Separation.

After watching the YouTube clip (and several others), I stumbled upon some clips from the wonderful John Adams miniseries. One of them was of President Adams and Vice-President Jefferson discussing the Sedition Act of 1798, which actually made it illegal to write anything negative about the President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-2pQuR4Zy8&feature=related

Castout

01-13-11, 10:40 PM

Since when political speech became hate speech?

US politics have degenerated from graceful and respectful to ugly and insulting and embarrassing since Obama came to office.

The Republicans found themselves as if sitting on a frying pan while watching Obama in the white house. They found themselves that their butts are on fire and they go all the way out using every media channel they have to start this ugly political division. Some people took it as it is some others naively bought everything that's been said.

Both parties need to realize they are supposed to work for the country's best interest rather than for their own political party. The feuding is childish and embarrassing and I view it with certain disgust and shows to great extent that even great many of American politicians are not so ready to be democratic and play politics gracefully with ethics. It wasn't like this before. When Bill Clinton took office the Republicans seemed to be able to accept that a democrat was now taking office. Stop inciting hate when making political speech. The enemy is not your fellow countrymen. Tough economy outlook and deteriorating character in general are your main problem.

One corrupt man in a country of a thousand may think he's privileged to be corrupt but sooner of later his behavior will be copied and suddenly the numbers multiply a hundred times and the country will become corrupt in general. Out of this deteriorating situation the general population soon will learn that character is unappreciated and may even impede one's advantage and copy the corrupt behavior they see in their leaders and the whole society will degenerate into chaos and crumbles. That's how great civilizations and empires came to an end. If only historians had been more detailed in their record keeping we would've learned this ages ago. There's motive to every historic fact. The facts get recorded the motives don't unfortunately.

disclaimer: But then again this is only my 2 cents worth.

Sailor Steve

01-13-11, 10:47 PM

US politics have degenerated from graceful and respectful to ugly and insulting and embarrassing since Obama came to office.
Did you somehow manage to miss this entire page? US politics has never been "graceful and respectful", and is in fact much milder that it was in the past.

Ducimus

01-13-11, 10:57 PM

Did you somehow manage to miss this entire page? US politics has never been "graceful and respectful",

Agree.

and is in fact much milder that it was in the past.
Disagree. Been way too much rhetoric, slander, acqusations, and other misc BS over the last couple years. If not in quantity, certainly in the amount of emotion behind them.

Sailor Steve

01-13-11, 11:03 PM

Disagree. Been way too much rhetoric, slander, acqusations, and other misc BS over the last couple years. If not in quantity, certainly in the amount of emotion behind them.
True, but since the thread is about restricting such speech, I think it's a point that no newspaper today would ever print the kinds of things they did then.

Castout

01-13-11, 11:07 PM

Did you somehow manage to miss this entire page? US politics has never been "graceful and respectful", and is in fact much milder that it was in the past.

To that I simply say I disagree :DL

As stated by Ducimus too

Disagree. Been way too much rhetoric, slander, acqusations, and other misc BS over the last couple years. If not in quantity, certainly in the amount of emotion behind them.

Sailor Steve

01-13-11, 11:17 PM

To that I simply say I disagree :DL

As stated by Ducimus too
He disagreed with my contention that it is not as bad now. If you truly think it was ever nice and respectful, you need to watch all the videos and read up on the campaign of 1800. And 1828. And 1860. And 1864.

Even the argument over who stole what in 2000 is predated by the election of 1888.
http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/88.2/summers.html

Ducimus may be right in his contention that it's just as bad now (and I don't deny that it is bad), but this is certainly nothing new. It was never nice, and never pretty.

Castout

01-13-11, 11:39 PM

He disagreed with my contention that it is not as bad now. If you truly think it was ever nice and respectful, you need to watch all the videos and read up on the campaign of 1800. And 1828. And 1860. And 1864.

Even the argument over who stole what in 2000 is predated by the election of 1888.
http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/88.2/summers.html

Ducimus may be right in his contention that it's just as bad now (and I don't deny that it is bad), but this is certainly nothing new. It was never nice, and never pretty.

Aye I've now read some 'ugly' tactics in the articles I must have missed them when skimming it earlier. It sounded ugly then in the 1800s but post 1950 seemed to be respectful enough . . . until lately. When you see a very ugly person a substantially less ugly person could be thought of being quite appealing when in fact that person is not by all standard handsome or pretty.

August

01-13-11, 11:43 PM

Therein lies the difference between now and then I think. The present concern is over quality and it's obvious that there is much more restraint now than back in the day, but it could easily be that sheer quantity now has a far greater effect.

After all, mudslinging in previous times was a much more localized affair. No matter how bad the attack it was only seen by it's local subscribers and by just a few people in other cities sometimes months later. Nowadays anyone with access to the internet can instantly reach far more people than the most popular newspaper ever could with the presses running day and night.

Sailor Steve

01-14-11, 12:01 AM

...post 1950 seemed to be respectful enough...
A good enough point. I do vaguely remember the election of 1960, but the arguments I heard were all from individuals, and didn't seem to be on the national scale. You could be right - there may have been a lull in there.

@ August: You're point about the internet and its affects is well made.

Armistead

01-14-11, 01:18 AM

I know of no violent speech used, except by Dems lately, just the use of a lot of metaphors that had no bearing on these shootings.

No amount of limiting speech will solve these senseless crimes, but make no doubt criminals will learn to use them as an excuse, because so many, mainly the left are playing they had a role. I think it's the lefts progressive view that society is responsible for these acts, not the individuals. If the left had their way it would be an excuse.."I'm not guilty because Sarah made me mad."

We've lived through more violent times where it was politics...the 60's for instance and you didn't hear this speech in public, it was planned behind closed doors.

The problem I see is the left wants to do anything to limit speech they don't like, even though they take part of it. It's nothing but a political play that only took a few hours before the left is using this to push far left progressive politics, gun laws, laws against religion, laws against talk radio, ect.. Even on MSNBC they're now talking about so called hate speech in churches against gays, ect...should be illegal. The left wants to teach that people don't have common sense to know the difference and give nuts that would do these crimes anyway a viable excuse. I'm not a nut, if I don't want to hear it or believe it...I turn away from it.

In the end it's a stupid move on their part and will backfire. Most moderates see the right wing radicals for what they are, the same as the left. Sarah is a media seeker, dumb and will never win any office, the left just uses her because she's all those things. The lefts use of this sad moment for attempted political gain is making them look....political, in a moment of tragedy and that sickens most people.

Skybird

01-14-11, 03:25 AM

August,

after I have explained it several times in the past one or two years, you really finally need to understand one thing: of all major German newspapers with internet homepages, there currently is only one that offers an English edition: Der Spiegel. And that is the reason why I quote it more often than I link German texts. It makes little sense to post in this forum German articles all the time, don't you think? Or do you want a perspective form the German media in form of the the FAZ? SZ? TS? Die Welt? Focus? WN? ON? And all of them in German exclusively? Or maybe you prefer to believe American media only, and stick exclusively top them? That would be your loss? I survey at least the headlines and top articles of German, American, British, French, Russian, Israeli and Southkorean newspapers. What foreign newspapers for a view from outside America do you read...? Or are you one of those guys thinking there is no world beyond your national borders worth to be considered anyway?

Your repetitive mocking of Der Spiegel is a bit tiresome, really. When you disagree with what it says, then say so. And it is sufficient to leave it to that.

Your constant repetition of this rethorical trick "But it's Der Spiegel!" reminds of your similiar behavior when having called me a "clerk" time and again in earlier years, trying to ridicule what I said by telling people I were just a shop salesman, and what can such a guy know.... But at that time you already knew damn well that I have been many other things in my life too and did have many different jobs and engagements as well, maintained non-profit obligations voluntarily both in private and professional settings from psychotherapy to the security business, and had come around in a certain part of the world a bit.

Do I walk around and tell people all the time "You must not take August serious, he has just been a soldier, you know how these guys are, they simply don't know it better"? Would you like it if I contribute to a discussion in this way?

When you constantly play this card of "clerks" and "Spiegels", then that says more about you then it say about me, or that news magazine (which just btw is the biggest in whole Europe).

mookiemookie

01-14-11, 12:19 PM

Nowadays anyone with access to the internet can instantly reach far more people than the most popular newspaper ever could with the presses running day and night.

Very good point. And with the internet, you get completely unfiltered and unedited comments from across the political and intellectual (some would say they're related :arrgh!:) spectrum. The democratization of mass communication can be a good thing, but then again it can also product a screwy signal to noise ratio.

August

01-14-11, 12:24 PM

When you constantly play this card of "clerks" and "Spiegels", then that says more about you then it say about me or that news magazine (which just btw is the biggest in whole Europe).

First Skybird, I don't really care how big Spiegel is in Europe. Every one of their articles about us that you've posted so far has just totally missed the mark, either through a lack of cultural understanding or just plain self serving bias, yet you continue to treat it as gospel.

That in itself wouldn't be so bad but you can be quite arrogant in insisting that their view from 3000 miles away is clearer than our view right here, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't bother to debate an inaccurate and biased article point by point with someone who acts like they are already convinced of it's accuracy. Would you if our positions were reversed?

Secondly I don't remember ever calling you a "clerk" but if I did please point to the last time I did so, and then please explain how that could be considered "constantly".

August

01-14-11, 12:31 PM

Very good point. And with the internet, you get completely unfiltered and unedited comments from across the political and intellectual (some would say they're related :arrgh!:) spectrum. The democratization of mass communication can be a good thing, but then again it can also product a screwy signal to noise ratio.

Yep. It's one of the things we as a society still need to work out. The internet is a great thing but we have not yet learned how to tune out the noise or insulate ourselves from the propaganda of others.

tater

01-14-11, 01:15 PM

Skybird

01-14-11, 01:35 PM

First Skybird, I don't really care how big Spiegel is in Europe. Every one of their articles about us that you've posted so far has just totally missed the mark, either through a lack of cultural understanding or just plain self serving bias, yet you continue to treat it as gospel.

You certainly get all things right about America. Thjat'S why all sources disagreeing with yoiu or being critical of your views, gets claimed by you to be "missing thre mark".

And no, I do not treat Der Spiegel as a gospel. I just have explained why I quote them more often than any other German paper. Will you please finally, finally take note of that explanation which I have given several times over the past two years or so. They also not rarely represent the opinion majority over here, so the content they express is not just typical for them alone.

That in itself wouldn't be so bad but you can be quite arrogant in insisting that their view from 3000 miles away is clearer than our view right here, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't bother to debate an inaccurate and biased article point by point with someone who acts like they are already convinced of it's accuracy. Would you if our positions were reversed?

If they are all so wrong and illogical and unknowing, then it should be child'S play for you to proves and demonstrate them wrong. I usually quote such articles for one of two reasons, sometimes for both: either to show that there is more than just your American rightwinged self-description and that you may be are perceived quite different than you see yourself (and being outside of your community may offer the unique chnce to see it from a perspective that you do not even know to exist - being part of that community is both a risk to lack perspective and objectivity, and to know some internal things better than foreigners could)

Secondly I don't remember ever calling you a "clerk" but if I did please point to the last time I did so, and then please explain how that could be considered "constantly".
Oh, I do, and repeatedly. I did not had you on my ignore list for so long time just for nothing. ;) It was one of the reasons. And during that ban time I even read you I think two times being quotes by others with that reference to me.

You represent a very self-convinced and extremely right-leaning view on America, ignoring certain inn er contradictions or internal problems that maybe we foreigners sometimes can see better from the outside - exactly because we are foreigners and look at you from the outside. ;) That we people in oither countries look so sharply at your nation, is not necessarily anti-Americansim of ours. It is coming from the simple fact that your nation'S behavior usually effect our fates and nations much much more than we effect yours. That'S why parts of your social issues and politics are of legitimate interest. The less effect you produce in the world, the smaller our intzerest in your natrion would be, because the less it would effect us and the less we would need to care for it.

Skybird

01-14-11, 01:54 PM

People are welcome to disagree and believe that politics has become more virulent of late, but to believe this is entirely irrational as it is contradicted by reality.

I'd not try and "rank" political discourse, but it is clear that it is in the same ballpark it has always been in at the very least, and to my ear, has the feel of being LESS virulent (unless you irrationally find suggestions that rape would be legal, or kids would be stuck on pikes as LESS virulent).

It might be fair to make the caveat that you talk only about "modern" history, but again, history gives the lie to this as well. I remember 8 years of wishing Bush dead by groups that are considered mainstream (all the dem candidates went to a Kos meeting, and that site has wished death on many republicans, many times). Before that, there were loons on the right who accused the Clintons of being involved in murders (that aid who offed himself). For Bush Sr. there were claims of black helicopters, and other insanity. Reagan? I was in college during Reagan, and the standard attitude towards him was VERY hateful, to say the least. Many times people bemoaned the lack of success when he was shot.

Anyone who claims politics has become more nasty needs to demonstrate which period was so much better. Remember by the time to get back to the 60s, you start hitting "political machines" (mostly democratic as far as I can tell, but some on both sides to be sure) that were in fact doing things that were clearly illegal as SOP. Truman was the product of such a machine, as was virtually everyone before him. So during those periods the threat of violence or reprisal was totally on the table all the time.
I refer to the time that I have a living memory of, and regarding America, that started with the Carter era. The Vietnam era and Watergate I necessarily only can form an opinion on on the basis of historic reports and books. I was too young. And I stick to it, not during Carter, not during Reagan and not during Bush senior and Clinton the rehtorics had been so hostile and hurting and martial and aggressive - especially from he right. During the seocnd Bush, it already increased pace, and with the Republicans having lost elections to Obama it climaxed, sometimes spiking as high as that in several european countries the person saying certain remarks would be sued at court for libel, slander and character-assassination. That is the differencxe between most European coutn ries, and America: in America, it seems everything gets excused as "freedom". But from our perspective, it is pure anarchy, and an abandoning of all rules, standards and manners. And this is one of the reasons, as well as a consequence, for the deep division that is widening in American society. And as I see it, it is also a symptom between the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and the elected and tzhe electorate. OLr as I repeatedly have said in pastd ebates: the difference between what the USA was meant to be by its founding myths, and what in the rwlity and present it actually is. And the present America I do not see being adequately described by the declaration of independence and the constittuion and the amendements. These are the echoes of once promising, now utopic dreams about how it was meant to be. The real manifestation is something very different.

I very much like the utopian idea of what America was meant to be, and the founding myths and the documents I referred to above. How can I be "anti-American" then when I criticise what America actually is and how much very different from these historic itentions it is and behaves...? I also say that I love Germany for the historic merits it has added to world culture, to music, arts, philosphy, legal ideas, technology and ingeneering, science - before the Nazis came and teampled on it. How can I be anti-German then when I criticise Germany for what it is today, and how it allows to degenerate and detoriate and destroy itself for various reasons, and the EU?

In the end, these differences betwqeen how it once was or was meant to be, and how it actually is - are tragic, and a great loss. For America. For Germany. And for all the world. But so is history: rise, blossoming, climax, and fall. So is nature as well.

tater

01-14-11, 02:00 PM

You're wrong.

I lived through that same period. There is no difference. None. Perhaps you perceive this based on what is being fed to you outside the US, but I've actually participated in every election since Carter (and watched those before with some interest).

It's not worse. It's just not.

BTW, your comments about propriety and manners are actually pretty funny to me. Point of information for you. The US Congress uses a modification of Robert's Rules of Order. We learn this in school, and operate clubs, student government, and everything else based upon this. Watch the UK Parliament some time. It's a madhouse and seems incredibly uncivil to Americans with all the shouting and lack of order.

Your picture of American democracy is seriously screwy compared to those of us who actually participate in it. I'd not condescend to tell you about the way German democracy works, you'd do well to do likewise, you are completely out of your depth.

Armistead

01-14-11, 02:08 PM

Dang, maybe we need to bring back the days of our early leaders..didn't like what someone said...have a duel..if we're lucky they would shoot each other {oops, did I say shoot.} The speech of today is calm compared to our early history. Just read some old newspaper ads late 1700's to 1900's.
For the most part we only had a few decades where speech was calm. Certainly before the 80's violent hate speech was more agressive. It calmed somewhat until Clinton and been going sense, but it certainly hasn't been violent to any degree as in times past.

Each side has it's own hate propaganda. Politicians know the majority of Americans don't keep up and lack education regarding politics, so they spew propaganda.

It really just shows how weak the american mindset is, that so many fall for it.

gimpy117

01-14-11, 02:10 PM

but there is a difference between name calling like slander, and references to violence

tater

01-14-11, 02:13 PM

Skybird above claimed Palin had made "vicious" comments in the past. What were they? I wants quotes so I know what he considers "vicious."

Or did he merely READ that she has said vicious things? Perhaps it is simply "widely known" that she has... but no examples? Myself, I like data.

tater

01-14-11, 02:15 PM

but there is a difference between name calling like slander, and references to violence

Military metaphors are normal in politics (and football, for that matter). Suborning a crime is different, but has a pretty high bar.

The sanctity of freedom of expression (particularly political expression) is something all patriotic Americans regardless of party agree on. (and yeah, I'd attack so-called conservatives against flag-burning for being un-American if they wish to curtain that political expression (even if I wanna punch flag-burners, personally, it's their right to do so).

Takeda Shingen

01-14-11, 02:16 PM

but there is a difference between name calling like slander, and references to violence

But who is advocating violence?

TLAM Strike

01-14-11, 02:28 PM

Myself, I like data.

Who doesn't like Data? Data is awesome...
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/223/dataspotp.jpg

:03:

tater

01-14-11, 02:37 PM

Oberon

01-14-11, 02:45 PM

I must admit, I don't recall there being quite as many flame wars back in the Bush era, not over politics anyway, the flame wars back then were about Islam.

tater

01-14-11, 02:51 PM

I must admit, I don't recall there being quite as much flame wars back in the Bush era, not over politics anyway, the flame wars back then were about Islam.

A few other forums I frequent were wall-to-wall Bush bashing, starting with the bogus claim he "stole" the election. The anti-Clinton campo had a substantial branch that was entirely irrational as well. Ditto the feelings towards Reagan, etc. At least Carter was actually a demonstrably crappy President :)

Oberon

01-14-11, 03:01 PM

A few other forums I frequent were wall-to-wall Bush bashing, starting with the bogus claim he "stole" the election. The anti-Clinton campo had a substantial branch that was entirely irrational as well. Ditto the feelings towards Reagan, etc. At least Carter was actually a demonstrably crappy President :)

Oh aye, I got the circular emails as well, being a bit more left leaning than I am right, I even have a poster with some of his classic quotes on it. I was just referring to this corner of the internet...but then again, there are too many variables to be definite, including a jump in user numbers following the release of Silent Hunter III and its follow ons.
Reagan and Carter are a little before my time...well...before the time I was aware of politics as a whole, so I can't judge on that, and I don't recall much said about the Clinton era...perhaps because the internet was still getting off the ground back then and the anti-Clinton camp had its strongest voice in the US.

August

01-14-11, 03:02 PM

Your picture of American democracy is seriously screwy compared to those of us who actually participate in it. I'd not condescend to tell you about the way German democracy works, you'd do well to do likewise, you are completely out of your depth.

This ^

Takeda Shingen

01-14-11, 03:08 PM

I must admit, I don't recall there being quite as many flame wars back in the Bush era, not over politics anyway, the flame wars back then were about Islam.

I remember them. You are right in that there was a lot of crap about Islam, and it resulted in a guy that I really admire and respect pretty much leaving the forum, but there was a whole lot of political stuff back in the '02-'06 time frame. In fact, that is when it really started to hit the fan around here. From my arrival to the beginning of 2002, GT was a very different place.

Gerald

01-14-11, 03:14 PM

And the right is just as guilty of it.

I'd rather have a reasonable discussion instead of political posturing so why don't you go back to the Giffords thread and continue arguing with the other troll. :salute: Why go to another thread?, then it is better that he takes the day off :stare:

tater

01-14-11, 03:24 PM

remember all the Fahrenheit 911 crap? Truther nut cases (talk about "blood libel").

Go back to the Cold War. There have been no shortages of less than civil conduct. We have McCarthy's rhetoric (crappy, but in point of fact VERY popular), then the opposition to McCarthy acting as if they had the high ground, even though they were in fact wrong (the were in fact Soviet agents all through the US government). They were also wrong in minimizing Communism (it was, after all, responsible for more murders than Nazism (even counting all the war dead from WW2 in the Nazi column). The famous "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" speech is always edited down to remove the fact that the same guy was talking about the risk of homosexuals in the military (and they intimated outside the hearings that Roy Cohn was gay).

So the 50s were pretty uncivil.

The 60s were filled with flag burning, actual violence and vandalism of a political nature.

The 40s... also uncivil.

We can do this for every decade, and likely people at the time thought it was the worst ever :)

TLAM Strike

01-14-11, 03:58 PM

I was watching music vids, and found one by Fiona Apple's sister, and listened to it. The "related" videos then had her singing duets with Brent Spiner. Weird. I'll post the link in the music thread, it was pretty surprising.

Yes Brent Spiner is really talented. Just look at all the characters he played on star trek. He also has recorded an album with his fellow Next Gen cast mates.

Penguin

01-14-11, 04:12 PM

Yep. It's one of the things we as a society still need to work out. The internet is a great thing but we have not yet learned how to tune out the noise or insulate ourselves from the propaganda of others.

We still haven't figured this out with television...;)

Takeda Shingen

01-14-11, 04:17 PM

We can do this for every decade, and likely people at the time thought it was the worst ever :)

It is really no different than that fact that every generation thinks that the generation that follows them will be the end of all civilization.

The Third Man

01-14-11, 04:19 PM

It is really no different than that fact that every generation thinks that the generation that follows them will be the end of all civilization.

In this case, Obama governance, it is entirely possible.

Takeda Shingen

01-14-11, 04:19 PM

In this case, Obama governance, it is entirely possible.

Don't start.

The Third Man

01-14-11, 04:24 PM

Don't start.

Following me again? I'm just trying to contribute to the conversation. I thought that was this board ws all about.

Takeda Shingen

01-14-11, 04:25 PM

Following me again? I'm just trying to contribute to the conversation. I thought that was this board ws all about.

Last chance. Stop following me.

The Third Man

01-14-11, 04:45 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/STWayEden.jpg

mookiemookie

01-14-11, 04:53 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/STWayEden.jpg

Classy.

The Third Man

01-14-11, 04:55 PM

Classy.

I like the Trek Original as much as anyone. Not you, mookie?

gimpy117

01-14-11, 05:02 PM

Military metaphors are normal in politics (and football, for that matter). Suborning a crime is different, but has a pretty high bar.

The sanctity of freedom of expression (particularly political expression) is something all patriotic Americans regardless of party agree on. (and yeah, I'd attack so-called conservatives against flag-burning for being un-American if they wish to curtain that political expression (even if I wanna punch flag-burners, personally, it's their right to do so).

I'm not soo sure. When you're holding political meetings that are to "get on target" to eliminate people from office, i think violence and politics are a bit too closely associated. We have to be careful how close we associate guns, revolution, and vigilantism with our politics. Politics is a way to solve problems WITHOUT violence, and violence is the opposite of what we strive for.

The Third Man

01-14-11, 05:05 PM

I'm not soo sure. When you're holding political meetings that are to "get on target" to eliminate people from office, i think violence and politics are a bit too closely associated. We have to be careful how close we associate guns, revolution, and vigilantism with our politics. Politics is a way to solve problems WITHOUT violence, and violence is the opposite of what we strive for.

Violence in speech.....you ask?

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to liberal supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Takeda Shingen

01-14-11, 05:05 PM

The Third Man

01-14-11, 05:08 PM

Violence in speech.....you ask?

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to liberal supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

gimpy117

01-14-11, 05:30 PM

I have to disagree. I have used the term 'get back on target' or 'getting back on target' countless times in my classroom on the elementary, high school and collegiate levels. It was, and is, a clear metaphor for getting back to focusing on the subject at hand. This is also exactly how it was used at political rallies.

but you never had guns involved. they were doing actual political events at shooting ranges. So it was a literal statement.

the_tyrant

01-14-11, 06:02 PM

EDIT: Sorry, man, language. Better post a link next time ;) -NS

Sailor Steve

01-14-11, 06:38 PM

I'm just trying to contribute to the conversation. I thought that was this board ws all about.
No, you're not. When the sole contribution to a discussion on political speech is repeated railing about anyone (even a president you hate) then it isn't conversation at all - it's trolling. And that's not what this board is about at all.

It looks like all you're really trying to do is stir up trouble.

Ducimus

01-14-11, 06:54 PM

No, you're not. When the sole contribution to a discussion on political speech is repeated railing about anyone (even a president you hate) then it isn't conversation at all - it's trolling. And that's not what this board is about at all.

It looks like all you're really trying to do is stir up trouble.

The ignore function is bliss. Some people are simply not worth being heard, and/or are too much of an ideologue to have a conversation with. The only thing that sucks, is when people quote the troll, but otherwise, your ears are deaf to whatever vomit they happen to spew. ( Aside from vomit, wharrgarbl also comes to mind)
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/dog_whargble.jpg

August

01-14-11, 07:48 PM

...

It was accurate right up to the punch line. No American male would react to a picture of male genitalia that way. We'd just roll our eyes and say "now I see why you Europeans like this game so much!" :DL

TLAM Strike

01-14-11, 09:12 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/STWayEden.jpg

:nope::nope::nope:
The first lesson they teach you at Star Fleet Academy is that you never let space hippies take over your damn ship!

:O:

Onkel Neal

01-15-11, 01:13 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/STWayEden.jpg

Seriously, if a member here does not want to interact with you, don't reply to his posts. This is getting really old.

Platapus

01-15-11, 08:28 AM

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff. :DL

Would I have to supply my own pike and would there be a limit on the number of pikes?

jus askin jus askin

:D

August

01-15-11, 03:56 PM

Would I have to supply my own pike and would there be a limit on the number of pikes?

jus askin jus askin

:D

"Sgt. Sisk: Ladies and gentlemen, our suspect is not human. He is at home in the bush. Shoot to kill. Any questions?
Mob Member: Oh, yeah, yeah, I got a question there. When do we get to light our torches?
Sgt. Sisk: When it gets dark.
Mob Member: Ah, I see. Oh, hey, I got another question there. Suppose, hypothetically, you know, a guy had already lit his torch. I mean, it'd be cool if he could just keep it lit, huh?
Sgt. Sisk: Yes.
Mob Member: Oh, excellent. Excellent.
Sgt. Sisk: Now, if there are no more questions...
Mob Member: Oh, hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, if one part of the mob gets separated from another part of the mob, shouldn't there be a place that we can get together? Maybe a secret place the two mobs could reunite, and we'd be a big mob again.
Sgt. Sisk: Stay with the mob.
Mob Member: Stay with the mob. All right.
Sgt. Sisk: Right.
Mob Member: Hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, doesn't this guy deserve a fair trial?
Sgt. Sisk: You - back of the mob!
Mob Member: "Back of the mob"? What? This is my spot! I came early!
Sgt. Sisk: Okay, *out* of the mob!
Mob Member: Ah, this mob blows. "

:D