Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

All progressive moral forces in this country's history has required the threat of violence or actual violence. First it is forced by people from below, the state tries to repress them, then it's too much to contain and the state has to placate them by using their monopoly on violence to make things stable.

it's tyranny that benefits the majority of people

So why allow any free speech then?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I actually know nothing about Harris. What about it concerns you?

The justices (Kennedy and alito mostly) seemed to question what the purpose of unions were. To better working conditions or advocating policy which the person might oppose (meaning they would be infringing on the 1st amendment rights of those by forcing them to support views they disagree with) basically enacting right to work nationwide.

 

[Metaphoreus]

But yes there are correct, factual, moral things that shouldn't be questioned anymore. Rape is not up for debate, racism is not up for debate, sexism is not up for debate, so on and so on. There are no 'competing arguments' in favor. Anyone who wants to debate the positives of these should be ostracized in every way shape or form. If someone can't be educated or reasoned with within a certain time frame it's reasonable for them to be coerced/compelled if the end is a moral truth.

Actually I would say coercion is only reasonable if this person is in a position of power, because their opinions can negatively affect others without power. I think you're forgetting how many millions of people are living in destitute poverty or without access to healthcare due to the actions of a few governors defending private interests. It is 100% reasonable and logical to me to dispose of them for the public's benefit. Obviously this won't happen I'm just saying if there was a revolutionary atmosphere where this occurred it wouldn't be a bad thing.

Has it ever occurred to you that (1) you might be wrong or (2) a majority of society might reject your beliefs and preferred policies? What you say here is disturbingly arrogant, self-righteous, and myopic. The pendulum will swing the other way, and when it does, it will be your own empowerment of violent fanatics that punishes you for your beliefs.

Regarding the bolded, what is wrong with you? It's not reasonable to kill someone because they implement political policies you find abhorrent. That's not logic. And it's wrong to kill your political opponents notwithstanding that a bunch of other people agree that you all should kill your political opponents.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't think provable, purposeful lies should be protected as free speech or free press in any situation, but I don't think regulation would solve anything.

Fox News can do plenty of harm even with regulations like that. You would probably barely be able to tell the difference. Most of what people say on Fox News and other networks isn't fabricated, it's just distorted, and I don't see any way you can regulate what's distorted or not without massive infringements on the freedom of speech.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know there's not going to be a satisfactory one to be found in changing conservative media from the inside.

Are they lies? How do you determin that? What if a person genuinely believes them? Is lying an expression of an opinion?

The solution isn't the government inforcing new laws its better civic education

 

[The Librarian]

Yes, many politicians would be guillotined by now in a just world. There are some good ones though I'm not someone who blankets all ordinary political activity as pointless or bad.

what the fuck

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'd personally say more like a temporary Jacobin-level revolutionary terror of former oppressors. The Communist purges are different as they were on comrades under the guise of "protecting the revolution" but was just for the dictators benefit. More communists died under Stalin than fascists, nothing he did was for ''the revolution'' or public interest.

But yes there are correct, factual, moral things that shouldn't be questioned anymore. Rape is not up for debate, racism is not up for debate, sexism is not up for debate, so on and so on. There are no 'competing arguments' in favor. Anyone who wants to debate the positives of these should be ostracized in every way shape or form. If someone can't be educated or reasoned with within a certain time frame it's reasonable for them to be coerced/compelled if the end is a moral truth.

Actually I would say coercion is only reasonable if this person is in a position of power, because their opinions can negatively affect others without power. I think you're forgetting how many millions of people are living in destitute poverty or without access to healthcare due to the actions of a few governors defending private interests. It is 100% reasonable and logical to me to dispose of them for the public's benefit. Obviously this won't happen I'm just saying if there was a revolutionary atmosphere where this occurred it wouldn't be a bad thing.

The government has done this on slavery, civil rights, gay rights, labor laws, public education etc. Literally the only thing stopping businesses from employing child workers was violence, as no capitalist can be moral and competitive at the same time unless universal regulations are in place. All progressive moral forces in this country's history has required the threat of violence or actual violence. First it is forced by people from below, the state tries to repress them, then it's too much to contain and the state has to placate them by using their monopoly on violence to make things stable.

The libertarians are right in their own way to say this government 'interference' is tyranny on their businesses/personal "freedom", except I think it's a good thing because it's tyranny that benefits the majority of people who aren't these individual exploiters/backwards racist confederate types. I just think this should be extended to economic rights as well and go after all wealthy hoarders, tax evaders, speculators, etc.



I just don't think the channel should be allowed to be a news one. I feel like there should be some semblance of public interest involved in journalism where you must take it seriously enough not to be someone like Hannity.

That doesn't mean I'm anti-opinion in journalism because all of it is opinion unless you're just reporting facts of an event. Maybe the best pragmatic response would be to mandate a large ''OPINION SHOW'' bar/bulletin on the bottom of all programs that are just people spewing lies/conjecture.

These shows spend 30 seconds explaining an event that happened so they can be considered news and then the next 5 minutes explaining why Obama wants to enact sharia law and nobody bats an eyelid at the fact that they're not connected at all, but stupid viewers will take it as gospel.

I do agree with the guy who said maybe the viewers will believe what they want to believe and they look to fox news to validate their own stuff but I don't think that's reason not to try to push in the other direction to sanity.

tl;dr version is 'I'm god my politics are the only factually accurate opinions and I should be able to enforce them at the barrel of a gun'

You reject literally everything this country enshired in its constitution and fought a revolution for. And glad to see murder and mob violence advocated!

 

[Metaphoreus]

what the fuck

Truth be told, this is what I wanted my previous post to be.

 

[Sibylus]

what the fuck

Angry Fork. Absurdity is the baseline.

 

[benjipwns]

tl;dr version is 'I'm god my politics are the only factually accurate opinions and I should be able to enforce them at the barrel of a gun'

You reject literally everything this country enshired in its constitution and fought a revolution for. And glad to see murder and mob violence advocated!

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

 

[Angry Fork]

So why allow any free speech then?

Everyone should be allowed to express themselves as they want. That doesn't mean it's consequence-free though. The debate is what the consequences should be for what kind of speech. I can't think of anything that should be banned personally. I think anyone no matter how absurd or backwards their view should be able to protest, say what they want, anywhere they want etc. without police/state repression.

This is basically already the case for right wingers but if a left winger tried the same they're met with the NYPD, LAPD Oakland PD etc. the state is not neutral on this in our country and never has been. And to be fair it's similar in other countries, where KKK type people can protest freely but if there's a counter-protest by leftists they're met with police repression under the guise of protecting the free speech of the KKK types, I've seen this reported in the UK lots of times.

But anyway I think that freedom of speech is separated from political power. Like I don't think fascists should be allowed political parties that can win and create laws that would negatively affect others. It's anti-democratic to prevent them from doing that but I think it's fine because egalitarian principles are morally true. If you think otherwise you can try and argue if you want but is anyone here going to do that? Or are you guys going to continue to enjoy the benefits people died and fought for for while saying people like them shouldn't exist because they're too radical? You guys would've been mouth pieces for the monarchy in the 1700s.

tl;dr version is 'I'm god my politics are the only factually accurate opinions and I should be able to enforce them at the barrel of a gun'

You reject literally everything this country enshired in its constitution and fought a revolution for. And glad to see murder and mob violence advocated!

All politics are enforced by the barrel of a gun. Literally every single law is backed by a monopoly of state violence against anyone who chooses to do otherwise. I don't know what point you're making.

Has it ever occurred to you that (1) you might be wrong or (2) a majority of society might reject your beliefs and preferred policies? What you say here is disturbingly arrogant, self-righteous, and myopic. The pendulum will swing the other way, and when it does, it will be your own empowerment of violent fanatics that punishes you for your beliefs.

Regarding the bolded, what is wrong with you? It's not reasonable to kill someone because they implement political policies you find abhorrent. That's not logic. And it's wrong to kill your political opponents notwithstanding that a bunch of other people agree that you all should kill your political opponents.

So do you think businesses should be able to go back to pre-civil rights era and not sell to black people? You realize it is the self righteous, violent leftists that stopped this from happening right? It was the federal government murdering millions of confederates that ended slavery, after people like John Brown and Nat Turner did what they needed to do. Socialists and Communists rioting and breaking down the flow of capital initiated FDR's new deal.

They're all disturbingly arrogant though. SO MUCH SHOCKING. How DARE you use guns to prevent confederates from using their democratically enshrined, liberty republican value having rights to enslave others. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON SIR!!! How will they live a free and prosperous life if they can't oppress others because that's their opinion and by gosh golly we should defend it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. That's what you guys are saying right now.

Regarding the bolded, what is wrong with you? It's not reasonable to kill someone because they implement political policies you find abhorrent. That's not logic.

It is if they create mass misery and destitution, deaths and hopelessness of those they rule and it's not possible to use peaceful methods ie voting due to corruption/limitless cash spending. This wasn't even the case with American revolutionaries and they still illegally rebelled over taxes and being treated like a step son. And it was totally justified, same with the French overthrowing the monarchy.

People don't want to do it because they don't want to go to prison or die and that's also obviously reasonable, so we choose to use peaceful, non-violent methods as an alternative, but it is a much weaker alternative that takes much longer while innocent hard working people continue to flounder in the present, waiting for change to be brought down from above. However it definitely may be the case in the modern day that peaceful protests do work better in the long run, if only because the state will then become the only one using violence (which they always do), and will lose the moral ground.

 

[Oblivion]

He's the guy who supposedly created 'banned' TED talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

I love this video. Posted it quite a few times here. This dude does a better job explaining why trickle-down econ is bullshit than pretty much any Democratic politician, save for maybe Warren.

 

[benjipwns]

I can't think of anything that should be banned personally. I think anyone no matter how absurd or backwards their view should be able to protest, say what they want, anywhere they want etc. without police/state repression.
...
Like I don't think fascists should be allowed political parties that can win and create laws that would negatively affect others. It's anti-democratic to prevent them from doing that but I think it's fine because egalitarian principles are morally true.

No matter how absurd, unless it can win converts apparently.

It was the federal government murdering millions of confederates that ended slavery

As much as I hate the federal government, it didn't murder millions of its citizens during the Civil War.

You guys would've been mouth pieces for the monarchy in the 1700s.

heh

 

[pigeon]

It is if they create mass misery and destitution, deaths and hopelessness of those they rule and it's not possible to use peaceful methods ie voting due to corruption/limitless cash spending. This wasn't even the case with American revolutionaries and they still illegally rebelled over taxes and being treated like a step son. And it was totally justified, same with the French overthrowing the monarchy.

People don't want to do it because they don't want to go to prison or die and that's also obviously reasonable, so we choose to use peaceful, non-violent methods as an alternative, but it is a much weaker alternative that takes much longer while innocent hard working people continue to flounder in the present, waiting for change to be brought down from above.

I think you're on the wrong board. Free Republic is over there.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ironically AF is anti religion

 

[thepotatoman]

Are they lies? How do you determin that? What if a person genuinely believes them? Is lying an expression of an opinion?

The burden of proof would be on the courts to show that they intended to lie, and that the lying statement was a statement about a provably wrong fact, and not a subjective opinion.

I guess like a lot of things in law, there maybe a fuzzy, potentially arbitrary line drawn between fact and opinion, or intent and non intent, just like there's apparently a fuzzy, arbitrary line on protesters ability to protest within 35 feet or 15 feet of an abortion clinic where one is a violation of free speech and the other is not.

That fuzziness doesn't make the act of lying intrinsically protected by the first amendment. And that's why I still say provable, intentional lying is never protected by the first amendment.

 

[zero shift]

This is unfortunately the real reason why Communist revolutions always fail. It's all or nothing. If you don't go far enough then the "revolution" was for nothing.

 

[Angry Fork]

I think you're on the wrong board. Free Republic is over there.

Come on, you know that's not fair. The end goals of organizations matter. Using violence to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe is not the ''same evil'' as using violence to enslave others. What does the right wing want and what does the left wing want?

It doesn't even have to be far right or far left. Just democrat vs republican like why are you guys interested in taking any modern day republican seriously at all when they bring so much misery to ordinary working people. All of you know this but you still want to treat them with respect for some reason, I don't understand it, knowing the damage they do to ordinary people without power or voices in the system.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The burden of proof would be on the courts to show that they intended to lie, and that the lying statement was a statement about a provably wrong fact, and not a subjective opinion.

I guess like a lot of things in law, there maybe a fuzzy, potentially arbitrary line drawn between fact and opinion, or intent and non intent, just like there's apparently a fuzzy, arbitrary line on protesters ability to protest within 35 feet or 15 feet of an abortion clinic where one is a violation of free speech and the other is not.

That fuzziness doesn't make the act of lying intrinsically protected by the first amendment. And that's why I still say provable, intentional lying is never protected by the first amendment.

Ive lied about aspects of my life on this forum. Is that protected? Or could a government outlaw that?

 

[Diablos]

Nobody is going to give a damn about Hillary's book next year or in 2016. Running for President will overshadow that tenfold.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So do you think businesses should be able to go back to pre-civil rights era and not sell to black people? You realize it is the self righteous, violent leftists that stopped this from happening right? It was the federal government murdering millions of confederates that ended slavery, after people like John Brown and Nat Turner did what they needed to do. Socialists and Communists rioting and breaking down the flow of capital initiated FDR's new deal.

I don't think you understand the history that you believe supports you. The Civil War didn't prevent businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. It wasn't until 100 years after the Civil War that that was made illegal. And you'll need to remind me about the well-known murders and assassinations from the Civil Rights period that advanced civil rights by removing politicians or others in power who opposed that advance. Because I remember the killings going a bit differently.

They're all disturbingly arrogant though. SO MUCH SHOCKING. How DARE you use guns to prevent confederates from using their democratically enshrined, liberty republican value having rights to enslave others. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON SIR!!! How will they live a free and prosperous life if they can't oppress others because that's their opinion and by gosh golly we should defend it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. That's what you guys are saying right now.

Who do you believe you are responding to?

It is if they create mass misery and destitution, deaths and hopelessness of those they rule and it's not possible to use peaceful methods ie voting due to corruption/limitless cash spending.

What nation do you believe you're describing, here?

EDIT:

All of you know this but you still want to treat them with respect for some reason, I don't understand it, knowing the damage they do to ordinary people without power or voices in the system.

wut

 

[Oblivion]

Gov. Paul LePage has long cast a wide net for programs that he says fit the definition of welfare. On Wednesday, in a media release written as an alternative take on new personal-income data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, he lumped Social Security and Medicare into that definition. […]

"It doesn't matter what liberals call these payments, it is welfare, pure and simple," LePage said in the statement. "Liberals from the White House all the way down to Democratic leadership in Augusta believe that redistribution of wealth—taking money from hard-working taxpayers and giving it to a growing number of welfare recipients—is personal income. It's not. It's just more welfare expansion. Democrats can obfuscate the numbers any way they want. The fact is that we have created thousands of jobs, more Mainers are working, and their income is going up."

How did this nimrod get elected in a deep blue state again?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

This is unfortunately the real reason why Communist revolutions always fail. It's all or nothing. If you don't go far enough then the "revolution" was for nothing.

That's why you gotta Combat Liberalism, breh.

 

[Angry Fork]

Ironically AF is anti religion

Yes I am a zealot. I fanatically defend the right of Nat Turner to kill his oppressors rather than ask for signatures on a petition.

Obviously that compares in no way to modern day struggles within a liberal democratic institution where we have a constitution and so on. I'm not saying it does, I'm only defending the right of violence as A. a form of liberation and B. the defense of just, moral laws, or prevention of unjust, immoral laws.

The government already uses it's monopoly on violence to preserve B. There are laws I feel should be changed but I cannot escape the government's wrath if I choose not to abide by them. You guys keep ignoring this fact when I say I want this ''tyranny'' extended to bankers.

 

[RustyNails]

Today's The Sixties episode on CNN deals with Jim Crow era and Civil Rights movement. I think Mississippi will be the highlight.

 

[Angry Fork]

I don't think you understand the history that you believe supports you. The Civil War didn't prevent businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. It wasn't until 100 years after the Civil War that that was made illegal. And you'll need to remind me about the well-known murders and assassinations from the Civil Rights period that advanced civil rights by removing politicians or others in power who opposed that advance. Because I remember the killings going a bit differently.

I wasn't saying they were the same event I jumped from civil rights to slavery. The government used the threat of violence/coercion on business owners. And it's often argued people like Malcolm X convinced the right wing to moderate their stance to people like MLK.

Who do you believe you are responding to?

People who think political violence is inherently unethical, which from your post it suggests you do. If I'm wrong and you do think slavery rebellions were morally right then sorry my mistake.

What nation do you believe you're describing, here?

Ones that don't consider healthcare a human right thereby causing many unnecessary, preventable deaths.

 

[VanMardigan]

Yo, angry fork is scaring me right now. Should we be reporting him to someone?

 

[zero shift]

Come on, you know that's not fair. The end goals of organizations matter. Using violence to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe is not the ''same evil'' as using violence to enslave others. What does the right wing want and what does the left wing want?

It doesn't even have to be far right or far left. Just democrat vs republican like why are you guys interested in taking any modern day republican seriously at all when they bring so much misery to ordinary working people. All of you know this but you still want to treat them with respect for some reason, I don't understand it, knowing the damage they do to ordinary people without power or voices in the system.

History has shown time and time again that this power often corrupts people.

Spoiler

Prime example Venezuela.

 

[Angry Fork]

Yo, angry fork is scaring me right now. Should we be reporting him to someone?

rofl, no. All of this is/has been talked about in public debates. I'm not interested in murdering anyone. It's not illegal to talk about the historical ramifications of slavery rebellions, political violence, purges, etc. unless you want it to be idk.

History has shown time and time again that this power often corrupts people.

Spoiler

Prime example Venezuela.

That may be true, I wouldn't feel confident arguing against it. I think it's the majority view now for leftists to have an anarchist feel in them after all the horrible shit done in self described communist societies. But I'm not anti-centralized power if it works for certain things, like a universal education or healthcare system.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

History has shown time and time again that this power often corrupts people.

 

[benjipwns]

How did this nimrod get elected in a deep blue state again?

Maine isn't really a deep blue state.

And it was a three way race.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I wasn't saying they were the same event I jumped from civil rights to slavery. The government used the threat of violence/coercion on business owners. And it's often argued people like Malcolm X convinced the right wing to moderate their stance to people like MLK.

The fact that the duly elected government passed an enforceable law prohibiting discrimination doesn't imply--in even the teeniest, tiniest way--that killing people who disagree with your politics is acceptable, reasonable, logical, or moral.

People who think political violence is inherently unethical, which from your post it suggests you do. If I'm wrong and you do think slavery rebellions were morally right then sorry my mistake.

Yes, I do think slavery rebellions were morally right. I accept your apology.

Ones that don't consider healthcare a human right thereby causing many unnecessary, preventable deaths.

Holding a single wrong belief causes death, misery, hopelessness, and ineffective voting because of corruption/unlimited-cash-spending?

Do you have a better answer?

EDIT:

Yo, angry fork is scaring me right now. Should we be reporting him to someone?

No need. He continues to promulgate what I consider to be wrong beliefs in public. I think we can take this into our own hands.

Spoiler

NOT THAT I EVER WOULD, GUISE.

Spoiler

EXCEPT IF A SPRIT OF REVOLUSION

Spoiler

EXCEPT IF A SPIRIT OF REVOLUTION TOOK OVER THE PROLETAROT

Spoiler

ECXEPT IF A

Spoiler

fuck it

 

[Oblivion]

Maine isn't really a deep blue state.

It's not?

 

[zero shift]

If Communism/Anarchism/Etc-ism is really the way, then the world will morph into it the same way it did with Democratic Republicanism. In a slow moving step by step basis. We arguably have been going in that direction already over the past hundred years.

Yo, angry fork is scaring me right now. Should we be reporting him to someone?

It's too late.

 

[RustyNails]

History has shown time and time again that this power often corrupts people.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes I am a zealot. I fanatically defend the right of Nat Turner to kill his oppressors rather than ask for signatures on a petition.

Obviously that compares in no way to modern day struggles within a liberal democratic institution where we have a constitution and so on. I'm not saying it does, I'm only defending the right of violence as A. a form of liberation and B. the defense of just, moral laws, or prevention of unjust, immoral laws.

The government already uses it's monopoly on violence to preserve B. There are laws I feel should be changed but I cannot escape the government's wrath if I choose not to abide by them. You guys keep ignoring this fact when I say I want this ''tyranny'' extended to bankers.

I was mainly referring to your certainty about your morality and political ideas

 

[Angry Fork]

Holding a single wrong belief causes death, misery, hopelessness, and ineffective voting because of corruption/unlimited-cash-spending?

Do you have a better answer?

It's not North Korea if that's what you're asking, no. But real people have suffered and died due to private capital interests.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's not North Korea if that's what you're asking, no. But real people have suffered and died due to private capital interests.

But now you're changing your answer. Before it was believing the wrong thing about healthcare. Now it's "private capital interests."

I don't think either of those things suffices to render a society miserable, hopeless, and dying, with no effective means of voting because of corruption and too-much-cash-spending.

EDIT: And, by the way, what you described sounds an awful lot like North Korea (except maybe the limitless spending). Are you sure you're not confused?

 

[Angry Fork]

But now you're changing your answer. Before it was believing the wrong thing about healthcare. Now it's "private capital interests."

I don't think either of those things suffices to render a society miserable, hopeless, and dying, with no effective means of voting because of corruption and too-much-cash-spending.

I don't get what you mean. The privatization of healthcare is the lack of healthcare. As for the hopelessness, there are plenty of poverty stricken destitute areas in the US to choose from. Maybe it's not North Korea poverty but that's irrelevant as they don't live in NK. Half of Detroit citizens alone are getting their water turned off by an unelected neoliberal despot.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't get what you mean. The privatization of healthcare is the lack of healthcare. As for the hopelessness, there are plenty of poverty stricken destitute areas in the US to choose from. Maybe it's not North Korea poverty but that's irrelevant as they don't live in NK. Half of Detroit citizens alone are getting their water turned off by an unelected neoliberal despot.

What I mean is, you're changing your answer. First, the problem was a lack of belief that healthcare is a human right. Now, it's private capital interests. Those aren't synonyms.

But, everyone, my He's-Definitely-Trolling-Right-Now Meter is filling up rapidly on account of the bolded sentences above.

 

[Angry Fork]

Ok no more sad scary stuff guys back to the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hpm-RsNwBc#t=713

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QKSMAOgnwo

In all seriousness I wish Obama really was a people's president because he's so likeable sometimes.

What I mean is, you're changing your answer. First, the problem was a lack of belief that healthcare is a human right. Now, it's private capital interests. Those aren't synonyms.

But, everyone, my He's-Definitely-Trolling-Right-Now Meter is filling up rapidly on account of the bolded sentences above.

They're the same thing. Honestly I'm not being like obscure or trolling or anything on purpose I genuinely don't know what you're responding to. I'm saying due to politicians catering to the interests of private companies, healthcare is not a human right, and therefore people die/suffer unnecessarily.

And ...that's a bad thing, which cannot be changed anytime soon because it's almost impossible to out compete them at the voting booth when bribery is legal. And that leads to hopelessness/despair as ordinary people's votes + no money are worth less than a wealthy person's vote + lots of money. This isn't controversial dude lol.

 

[benjipwns]

Half of Detroit citizens alone are getting their water turned off by an unelected neoliberal despot.

who?

 

[thepotatoman]

Ive lied about aspects of my life on this forum. Is that protected? Or could a government outlaw that?

That's a good example and I definitely should scale back the the absoluteness of my statement. To that I would say that you do have a right to lie as a subset to your right to privacy. Therefore there would have to be compelling government interest in order for the government to make a law which infringes on your privacy as that.

However, I would note that the implicit right to privacy isn't protected nearly to the same extent as the explicit right to free speech.

 

[Angry Fork]

who?

Kevyn Orr

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's a good example and I definitely should scale back the the absoluteness of my statement. To that I would say that you do have a right to lie as a subset to your right to privacy. Therefore there would have to be compelling government interest in order for the government to make a law which infringes on your privacy as that.

However, I would note that the implicit right to privacy isn't protected nearly to the same extent as the explicit right to free speech.

I think this isn't exclusive to privacy and covers free speech and I think your gonna have troubling outlawing lying that isn't covered by libel and slander

 

[benjipwns]

Kevyn Orr

Wait wait wait, I thought it's a good thing to have tyranny that benefits the majority of the people? The city council voted to increase rates, and the water department which is the source of a third of Detroit's debt is going after delinquent accounts, of which the vast majority were paid-off/restored in the first few days.

Orr and others' regional plan was trashed by the city, should he have imposed it on the minority that composes the water department and those not doing their part to pay their fair share for access to water? The majority of people are paying their water bills and seem to want the City of Detroit to continue to provide all their services, so then Orr should be a despot and do what benefits them, no?

And ...that's a bad thing, which cannot be changed anytime soon because it's almost impossible to out compete them at the voting booth when bribery is legal. And that leads to hopelessness/despair as ordinary people's votes + no money are worth less than a wealthy person's vote + lots of money.

But what if the ordinary people with no money want to vote for fascists?!?

 

[speculawyer]

Stop feeding the werewolf/troll/fork

 

[kingkitty]

On Monday, Fox News will show a Megyn Kelly interview with Bill Ayers.

If this was 2008, Obama would be fucked.

 

[Angry Fork]

Wait wait wait, I thought it's a good thing to have tyranny that benefits the majority of the people? The city council voted to increase rates, and the water department which is the source of a third of Detroit's debt is going after delinquent accounts, of which the vast majority were paid-off/restored in the first few days.

Orr and others' regional plan was trashed by the city, should he have imposed it on the minority that composes the water department and those not doing their part to pay their fair share for access to water? The majority of people are paying their water bills and seem to want the City of Detroit to continue to provide all their services, so then Orr should be a despot and do what benefits them, no?

What. Water being a thing that people should have to "pay their fair share" of does not benefit the majority of people. It can go through taxes but not privatization.

But what if the ordinary people with no money want to vote for fascists?!?

If the majority of people end up being fascist then obviously they're going to run their country, and since they will likely kill parliamentary parties the only thing that would stop them from shitting on minorities is violence.

 

[speculawyer]

On Monday, Fox News will show a Megyn Kelly interview with Bill Ayers.

If this was 2008, Obama would be fucked.

Who gives a fuck about what Bill Ayers has to say?

 

[benjipwns]

What. Water being a thing that people should have to "pay their fair share" of does not benefit the majority of people. It can go through taxes but not privatization.

The Detroit Water and Sewage Department is exactly that, a department of the government of the city of Detroit. It is not a private corporation.