Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[Cow Poke]

AGAIN: WHY were you “calmly posting facts”

A) Calm is good - drama queen is left to you
2) To show what a horrid anti-Christian bigot you are - check
iii) To show how consistently wrong you can be - check

and, beyond that, I think you should take the advise of your new BFF....

I suggest you increase the amount of time you spend responding to what people actually post, and decrease the amount of time spent making wild claims about their psychology and what they 'really' believe in your view. It is naturally rather pointless talking to someone who tells me they know what I think and why I think it far better than I do. Why don't you just have both sides of the conversation in your own head, since you think you know me better than I know myself, you'll know what I'll say better than I do! ...... (probably)

[Tassman]

A) Calm is good - drama queen is left to you
2) To show what a horrid anti-Christian bigot you are - check
iii) To show how consistently wrong you can be - check

So you have no argument. Thought not!

But to reiterate, in case you try the same dishonest tack again, there is NO connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, despite your efforts to imply the contrary. “The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children”.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

Because you kept pushing the lie.

Um, what "lie" are you referring to, Jed?

[Roy]

moral turpitude

This phrase is new to me and I find it quite an amusing phrase. Makes me think of turps as in turpentine.

It's mentioned on the visa waiver form for entering the USA, and causes puzzlement on flights as visitors frequently don't have the faintest idea what it means.

[lilpixieofterror]

Did you know Orwell was a democratic socialist? I'm also a democratic socialist. He and I held/hold very similar political views.

So maybe think twice (or in your case, once) about saying his critiques apply to me?

So you’re saying that Orwell holds to your view that telling historical truths is ‘hate speech’ and those that do so should be arrested and prevented from doing so? Weird, I thought 1984 and Animal Farm were warnings about censoring speech and making the government enforce historical fiction.

[Roy]

You seem to be misunderstanding this through and through. CP is saying things about another group of people (gay people), and that's what I'm saying makes it reasonable for the government to regulate. If he was saying something about the government ("I don't like Nancy Pelosi") then I'm saying that would be unreasonable for the government to regulate.

I'm confused. Surely Nancy Pelosi is a person, not a government?

[Starlight]

I'm confused. Surely Nancy Pelosi is a person, not a government?

She's an example of a politician you might say something negative about in her role as a politician.

Having a usefully and effectively functioning democracy requires being able to argue about whether a particular party and politicians in it are doing good or bad things. You have to be able to be critical of those in power ("punching up"). It's the stuff dictators are made of for people who criticize the government, or the wrong politicians, to disappear or be arrested. In this political context, free speech, to express dissatisfaction with powerful political figures and the government they comprise, is an important ideal, and crucial to meaningful democracy.

But when it comes to "punching sideways" the situation is quite a bit different. Consider the question of what it's reasonable for me to be allowed to say about my fictional neighbor Jane, before the government should tell me to cut it out. Can I spread false rumors about her? Can I spread pictures of her naked if I have them? Can I make lots of lewd remarks to Jane in her workplace? Can I go knock on her door 10 times every single day to try and talk to her even if she doesn't want to talk to me? The answer is probably that I shouldn't be legally allowed to do any of those, and that my ability to speak freely about Jane to others and speak to Jane herself should be appropriately restricted by the government who should protect Jane from me and my harmful free speech. For these reasons, we have laws covering slander, and sexual harassment, and restraining orders etc.

And when it comes to "punching down", where you find the least powerful and most oppressed minority groups in society and use speech to say nasty things about them and spread false rumors about them etc, then that is even more problematic than dubious things that might be said about a social equal like the fictional neighbor Jane. And that is what hate speech laws are for - protecting classes of people in society that historically have been subjected to discrimination, and clamping down on the nasty rumor-mongering and defamation and the "we all know what they're like!" fueling of societal prejudices that have infected social discourse for centuries and led to so many people's lives being awful as a result.

And that's the triple standard system that most Western countries have adopted to some extent or another:
1) Critiquing the government, political parties, and politicians? All's fair in love and war, go for it. This is a democracy, so robust debate away. Be reasonable or unreasonable.
2) Talking about your neighbor, fine, just don't get too carried away to the point where we have to save them from you. Be reasonable.
3) Rumor-mongering about an oppressed minority group who's been historically discriminated against? Bzzzz: Wrong. Just stop. You probably have zero appreciation for the damage you're doing to them, and wouldn't intentionally cause that harm if you understood you were doing it, so we're going to save you from yourself and them from you and tell you to shut up. No, the Jews are not poisoning the wells, eating babies, or plotting world domination.

The US is a bit weird about #3 because the first-amendment, as interpreted by most Americans these days, inherently blocks the kind of hate speech laws other Western countries tend to have, but the US courts are actually super-strong in protecting minority groups in a slightly different respect - they are very vigorous about finding any laws that oppress minorities to be unconstitutional. US courts talk about these groups as "suspect classes" (i.e. groups of people that others are suspicious of) when it is a minority group that "has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes" and has historically been unable to protect itself through the political process due to its minority status, and such groups get special treatment in US courts in terms of judges going to great lengths to check laws don't hurt them (the suspicion being that crafty politicians might have deliberately designed laws to hurt these groups while pretending that, "no your honor, I totally wasn't trying to hurt that widely disliked minority group that my voters were against, ~big wink on the side to my voters~").

I find the US's way of treating #3 somewhat amusing in the sense that the US method effectively strikes against the democratic process itself directly: Blocking democratically elected politicians from democratically passing the 'wrong' laws, by striking down those laws. But it preserves the 'free speech' whose value largely derived from democracy itself (which has been removed). Whereas other countries approach #3 by disallowing the free speech but preserving the democracy. (e.g. in my country racist publications are blocked by government hate-speech laws, but nothing would stop the democratic government enacting a racist law if it voted to do so because the courts here can't override the democratic government)

[Sparko]

Possibly somewhere between one dozen and two dozen over the years in the course of hundreds of conversations. I don't really keep count.

You say that as if you 'got me'...? I think free speech is a nuanced issue as I've said repeatedly before. I think it's essential in a democracy that people are able to say negative things about the current government. That is the type of "free speech" that I think matters. But speech between two citizens is a totally different matter - e.g. sexual harassment, slander etc. I think the government has a normal duty of care to protect citizens from other citizens if serious harm is being done via speech just as it does other sorts of serious harm done (assault, rape etc).

I would say it is one of the biggest disagreements currently among liberals. One of my favorite US political commentators is a free speech absolutist and he regularly annoys me by going on spiels about how free speech allows people to say anything and how the ACLU once defended the KKK's right to have a march through a black neighborhood and how that's great. And I'm like, no, it's not great, they shouldn't have done that, there should be hate-speech laws.

However, I am not surprised if it is too difficult for you to understand that not all liberals are in agreement on this subject and hence there are two different positions that different liberals hold.

Yet you don't think it is hate speech to call Christians sociopaths or say it's OK to murder infants that are not wanted? No, you just have a double standard: What you say is "free speech" and what anyone else says that you don't agree with is "hate speech"

Free Speech means nothing if it only allows speech that you agree with.

[Sparko]

Because you're all homophobes

I consider the above to be pure hate speech.

[lilpixieofterror]

She's an example of a politician you might say something negative about in her role as a politician.

Having a usefully and effectively functioning democracy requires being able to argue about whether a particular party and politicians in it are doing good or bad things. You have to be able to be critical of those in power ("punching up"). It's the stuff dictators are made of for people who criticize the government, or the wrong politicians, to disappear or be arrested. In this political context, free speech, to express dissatisfaction with powerful political figures and the government they comprise, is an important ideal, and crucial to meaningful democracy.

But when it comes to "punching sideways" the situation is quite a bit different. Consider the question of what it's reasonable for me to be allowed to say about my fictional neighbor Jane, before the government should tell me to cut it out. Can I spread false rumors about her? Can I spread pictures of her naked if I have them? Can I make lots of lewd remarks to Jane in her workplace? Can I go knock on her door 10 times every single day to try and talk to her even if she doesn't want to talk to me? The answer is probably that I shouldn't be legally allowed to do any of those, and that my ability to speak freely about Jane to others and speak to Jane herself should be appropriately restricted by the government who should protect Jane from me and my harmful free speech. For these reasons, we have laws covering slander, and sexual harassment, and restraining orders etc.

And when it comes to "punching down", where you find the least powerful and most oppressed minority groups in society and use speech to say nasty things about them and spread false rumors about them etc, then that is even more problematic than dubious things that might be said about a social equal like the fictional neighbor Jane. And that is what hate speech laws are for - protecting classes of people in society that historically have been subjected to discrimination, and clamping down on the nasty rumor-mongering and defamation and the "we all know what they're like!" fueling of societal prejudices that have infected social discourse for centuries and led to so many people's lives being awful as a result.

And that's the triple standard system that most Western countries have adopted to some extent or another:
1) Critiquing the government, political parties, and politicians? All's fair in love and war, go for it. This is a democracy, so robust debate away. Be reasonable or unreasonable.
2) Talking about your neighbor, fine, just don't get too carried away to the point where we have to save them from you. Be reasonable.
3) Rumor-mongering about an oppressed minority group who's been historically discriminated against? Bzzzz: Wrong. Just stop. You probably have zero appreciation for the damage you're doing to them, and wouldn't intentionally cause that harm if you understood you were doing it, so we're going to save you from yourself and them from you and tell you to shut up. No, the Jews are not poisoning the wells, eating babies, or plotting world domination.

The US is a bit weird about #3 because the first-amendment, as interpreted by most Americans these days, inherently blocks the kind of hate speech laws other Western countries tend to have, but the US courts are actually super-strong in protecting minority groups in a slightly different respect - they are very vigorous about finding any laws that oppress minorities to be unconstitutional. US courts talk about these groups as "suspect classes" (i.e. groups of people that others are suspicious of) when it is a minority group that "has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes" and has historically been unable to protect itself through the political process due to its minority status, and such groups get special treatment in US courts in terms of judges going to great lengths to check laws don't hurt them (the suspicion being that crafty politicians might have deliberately designed laws to hurt these groups while pretending that, "no your honor, I totally wasn't trying to hurt that widely disliked minority group that my voters were against, ~big wink on the side to my voters~").

I find the US's way of treating #3 somewhat amusing in the sense that the US method effectively strikes against the democratic process itself directly: Blocking democratically elected politicians from democratically passing the 'wrong' laws, by striking down those laws. But it preserves the 'free speech' whose value largely derived from democracy itself (which has been removed). Whereas other countries approach #3 by disallowing the free speech but preserving the democracy. (e.g. in my country racist publications are blocked by government hate-speech laws, but nothing would stop the democratic government enacting a racist law if it voted to do so because the courts here can't override the democratic government)

It’s so amusing to watch Starlight attempt to link telling of historical truth to hate speech and wants it legal to silence those that bring up historical truth that people would rather forget happened. We’ve always been at war with eastasia.

[Sparko]

Because you're all homophobes: It's not like that hasn't been made abundantly clear in other discussions in other threads over the years. If you think your little game of "well CP didn't say anything homophobic in this thread, he just spent 50 pages arguing facts because someone was wrong on the internet and he couldn't let it go, he had zero ulterior motive" is convincing anyone, guess again.

Rogue and MM are two of the most open about it and seem to enjoy pushing their crazed NAMBLA connection thesis that they seem to think means gay people in the present day secretly wish to promote pedophilia. And the rest of you deplorables variously amen their disgusting posts or do cover for them by going 50 pages arguing 'just the facts' about connections between NAMBLA and gay groups. You're all complicit and you're all disgusting, and it's all part of your ongoing opposition to gay rights and gay people being accepted in society. And for that reason I think you're all much worse than the pedophiles you're trying to connect gay people to, because you guys are trying to harm millions of gay people, whereas at least a pedophile only harms the few people they victimize.

giphy.gif

[Sparko]

While I'm sure plenty of liberals use that tactic (and I'm certain that conservatives have their own tactics), I don't think this is really a liberal/conservative thing. There's something damaged in people like Starlight (and Tassman) as people that goes well beyond his politics. I'm intimate friends with plenty of liberals, and thankfully I don't know anyone who behaves like him. They can definitely be opinionated, but are far more stable and together than he comes off here.

I was thinking more of the liberals as a political group rather than commenting on individuals. Just watching the news over the last year and a half you can see that tactic being used, When something bad comes out about a democrat like Hillary's server and emails, they start tossing out ad homs against Trump and trying to deflect to his being a sexual predator and traitor, etc. When a conservative wants to speak on a college campus, they are called bigots and hatemongers and the liberal students mob the rally and are violent. When Trump wants to keep illegal aliens out, which is the freaking LAW, rather than engage in the actual debate, he is accused of being a racist.

[Sparko]

This new thing you're on...that those who find homosexuality sinful are literally worse than pedophiles is about the dumbest thing you've said in a long history of saying dumb things on this forum, which is especially sad, because I don't think you're a dumb person. We'll put it up there in your hall of shame with things like: infanticide up to 4 years is acceptable, dolphins have greater value than children, we should think about allowing pedophiles access to child porn, and there ought to be co-ed nudity in elementary schools. I'm beginning to notice a theme here.

His momma dropped him on his head too much as a baby?

[Cow Poke]

So you have no argument. Thought not!

I have repeatedly stated I'm simply laying out the facts. I can understand why that's such an incredibly foreign concept to you.

[Sparko]

AGAIN: WHY were you “calmly posting facts” re NAMBLA's association with ILGA? What was the point...you don’t say what it is?

We said why, you ignore. It was to counter your idiotic lie that ILGA rejected NAMBLA as if they were applying to become part of ILGA and were not already part of the ILGA when it formed. I even gave a link. That's why. YOU started all this with your post. YOU. Not Cow Poke. Not me. Not rogue06. YOU. YOU.

The International LBGT Association rejected NAMBLA's membership.

[rogue06]

His momma dropped him on his head too much as a baby?

More like dribbled him like a basketball