Yet more problematic stuff

[Brian Peacock]

...
And no one — certainly not me — has questioned Sutton's First Amendment right to say what's on (what there is of) his mind. I don't know why you keep pulling out that canard, other than trying to deflect attention: it's of no relevance.

It's almost as if one's First Amendment right now has a subliminal sub-clause saying that people who criticise and/or condemn what you say under that right are actually undermining your right to say it.

[trdsf]

...
And no one — certainly not me — has questioned Sutton's First Amendment right to say what's on (what there is of) his mind. I don't know why you keep pulling out that canard, other than trying to deflect attention: it's of no relevance.

It's almost as if one's First Amendment right now has a subliminal sub-clause saying that people who criticise and/or condemn what you say under that right are actually undermining your right to say it.

That's been an ongoing problem lately: it's almost impossible to express an opinion without someone taking it as a personal attack if it doesn't agree with theirs. I had someone go fucking mental on me because my reaction to a music video they found — not made themselves, just found and shared — was, and I quote myself exactly, "Well, it's not the usual style of music I listen to."

I mean, no, freedom of speech is not a free ticket to say anything you like without consequence, either realized by the speaker or internalized by the audience. If I were to seriously assert that I saw Elvis mopping the floor in an east side White Castle, even if no one said anything to me about it, I have no doubt that the tenor of the interactions I had here would change. That would be a consequence of (most) everyone deciding I was a fucking loon, and no one would even have to say to me, "You're a fucking loon."

The flip side is, one's freedom of speech does not imply a responsibility on anyone else's part to have to listen. I have the right to speak my mind, but if you don't want to hear it, I don't have the right to force you to listen. If I find a fellow member here offensive, dishonest, distasteful, whatever, I'm perfectly within my rights to block them on my end — and vice versa. I am not within my rights to try to convince others to do the same: that's not my decision to make for anyone else... and vice versa.

The full meaning of the First Amendment with regard to speech inevitably means accepting that there are tradeoffs and no absolutes. My rights don't outweigh anyone else's, and no one else's outweigh mine.

[Animavore]

Alabama Publisher Who Called For KKK To 'Ride Again' Is Replaced By Black Woman

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/25/69769444 ... JGSg5EOgEo

[JimC]

Probably a lefty lesbian as well!

[Forty Two]

If a fellow Trump supporter fucks up deeply, I am beginning to think you're not emotionally capable of just saying so without reaching for an example — relevant or not — of a Trump opponent fucking up. And that's textbook 'whataboutism', mitigation, and deflection.

How in the world do you get this. I told you my negative opinion of Goodloe Sutton. I have no qualms about saying he's a total dick - a racist scumbag dickhead. What more do you want me to say? Scumbag dickheads - even racist ones - can spew their bullshit. That's freedom of speech. What's wrong with that? How is that "mitigation?"

I get it from the demonstrated fact that at no point have you avoided taking the opportunity to minimize and deflect when cornered into admitting a Trump supporter has done something fucking stupid. That's why I call it whattaboutism, mitigation and deflection. We wouldn't be here right now if you had left it at, and I quote you directly, "Well, I'll go on record as saying that guy is apparently a stupid, racist asshole, and I wouldn't do business with that paper, or advertise in it, etc." But you also had to go out of your way to first try to minimize it:

Well, the stupidity and assholery of people is not the only issue to discuss. If it were, we'd never look to anyone's motives or reasons for being an asshole, we'd just declare them that and have done with it.

I've never been cornered into admitting that a Trump supporter has done something stupid. It would be quite the odd group of people that doesn't have people doing something stupid. I'm not someone who has a hard time admitting that a group I support has members who have done something stupid.

[...] It's no wonder that the editorial made international news, and is published all over the place. It's a major newspaper, after all. It's circulation (paid and unpaid) is estimated at 3,000, and it's print only. So, a few hundred people in the "Demopolis, Alabama" area read the article which reads like a grammar school kid wrote it.

Called on that, then you resorted to vast tracts of whattaboutism, deliberately minimized/ignored Sutton's explicit call for lynching (which you have been given the link to three times now), tucked a little condemnation in towards the end, and then threw one more scoop of whattaboutism on top:

Do you even know what "whataboutism" is? I did not minimize his call for anything.

Look, dude. I am not required to share your opinion on things, nor am I required to limit conversations to only that which you feel is appropriate to talk about. All the things I pointed out there about the Sutton matter are interesting features, as is an examination of exactly what he said.

On other issues, for example, it's been pointed out to me that the far left fringe who think things like "there is no biological sex" or who think it's ok and morally right/justified/imperative to beat people up on suspicion of holding fascist views, are some tiny minority of people who are really irrelevant - sitting in ivory towers and holding views no relevant number of people really hold -- that's been told me on a variety of threads. Is that "minimization" of the awfulness of those people? of course not - it's discussion of the relative importance of an awful person's views - of the prevalence of those views -- etc. That's all relevant to discussions of topics.

So fuck off.

Democratic Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal said she hoped Trump was assassinated. Madonna called for the white house to be blown up (she imagined it being blown up). Kathy Griffin held up a severed head of the President, bloody, etc. Acrtess Carole Cooke asked where John Wilkes Boothe is when we need him - suggesting someone should shoot the President. The New York Times published a Trump assassination short story about killing Trump. Actor Peter Fonda suggested that Barron Trump should be kidnapped and harmed. Actor Mickey Rourke wanted "30 seconds in a room with that little Bitch!" and suggested using a bat on him. Larry Whitmore joked about using a pillow to smother Trump. Comedian George Lopez tweeted an image of Vincente Fox holding up the severed head of Donald Trump saying "Make America Great Again." Rock Star Marilyn Manson had Trump decapitated and bloody in his concerts. Rosie O'Donnell tweeted out a game called 'Push Trump off a Clif." Robert DeNiro said he wanted to punch trump in the face. Snoop Dogg fires a gun at Trump. New York's Public Theater did a Julius Caesar version where modern Senators stab Trump to death. Big Sean. Anthony Bourdain. Johnny Depp. Pearl Jam/Eddie Vedder.
[...]
In the same way the above anti-Trumpers say they didn't actually "call for" any action against Trump, that's the same excuse this dipshit in Alabama can use - he said it "seems like the Klan would be welcome..." - that's like saying it seems like a good idea that someone push Trump off a cliff or shoot him.

Yes, the guy is a scumbag racist. Yes, he runs a newspaper, and he can't write, or he does so drunk. But, his "reach" with this stupid paper was a few people in his podunk county. He wasn't online. He didn't Tweet anything. It's funny how CNN, MSNBC, the BBC the Guardian, etc. publish this dipshit's stupid editorial, but they don't say much about other threats of violence. https://www.wibc.com/blogs/chicks-right ... tives-rise
[....]

Called on that, you then made up stuff that I never claimed about you, and then went for whattaboutism again:

Called on what? Examples of people calling for assassinations? That's relevant to the discussion. If you're going to be outraged as if someone making a call for violence or assassination is something new or peculiar in the political realm, you'd best know the context and scope of that happening. If you're outraged by a call for the KKK to ride again and bring the nooses to hang 'em from the highest tree, then you might also be outraged about calls to kill other people in other ways. Or, maybe you excuse those as "truth to power" and "irony as protest" or something...

Where have I defended Goodloe Sutton's call for the KKK to ride again or hemp ropes?
[...]

His commentary is of the kind we heard about Trump - blowing up the white house - beheading him - etc. Those are all the same kind of bullshit commentary. [....]

And when I pointed out your rampaging whattaboutism, surprise surprise, you responded with even more whattaboutism:

Shut the fuck up with this "whattaboutism" nonsense. You're just trying to limit the conversation so you can avoid a thing called consistency. You don't want to be consistent. You want to be outraged and all panties in a bunch over a fuckwit Goodloe Sutton, but any other call for violence is "whattaboutism." Look, bringing up other examples so we can glean consistent principles, or examine assertions and judgments in light of a consistent application of those assertions and judgments is not whattaboutism.

Whattaboutism: the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

That's not what I did. These are not counteraccusations on a different issue. The issue is the same - threats to a person or politician -- and the reason for looking at other threats is to take an asserted moral or legal principle regarding threats, and apply it.

Much of this discussion, moreover, involves not just "how bad is what Goodloe Sutton said...", but it also involves "what should we do about it." Since any rule that applies to Goodloe Sutton would apply to any other individual under equal protection principles - the idea that the law applies to each individual the same -- then it's important to look at other examples of individuals engaged in the same or similar conduct and ask ourselves if we would want the "remedy" or "reaction" to what asshat Goodloe did applied to everyone.

I condemn ANTIFA, for example[....]

Your own words. I didn't write them for you, I didn't force you to post them, and I don't believe I am quoting you unfairly here—every quote has a link back to the original post so everyone can judge for themselves what exactly you said. I don't doubt that you condemn Sutton, but given that you're incapable of doing so without every single time tacking on some sort of deflective commentary does make me wonder about the actual depth of your condemnation.

Who gives a shit what you think about the depth of my actual condemnation. I really don't think about Goodloe Sutton throughout the day. It's only when I come here. I'm not emotional in the least about it. I think anyone that would get themselves upset about what Goodloe Sutton in podunk Alabama wrote in his "print only" newspaper that circulates through a few hundred (most likely) similarly "good ol' boy racist" hands is kind of weird. Anyone who think that's an important thing in some way is rather off their meds.

I don't know the guy. I don't know anyone like the guy. I doubt I ever will.

I don't view anything I wrote as "deflective commentary." I'm not required to limit my posts to condemnations, nor is anyone else.
You're free to think otherwise, though. More power to you. Oh, wait, I just minimized my disagreement with you. Oh, no!!! Oh, no!!

Or are your posts "fake news" now?

And no one — certainly not me — has questioned Sutton's First Amendment right to say what's on (what there is of) his mind. I don't know why you keep pulling out that canard, other than trying to deflect attention: it's of no relevance.

Nobody thinks there are or should be - and/or are in other civilized countries around the world - or most/all civilized countries around the world - laws that would allow Mr. Sutton to be arrested for what he said? Nobody here?

And, just because YOU haven't made an assertion doesn't mean the topic is off limits to discussion. So, fuck off again. Disagree all you want, but I don't have to wait for you to say something before I talk about that topic.

Relax, man. You've gotten yourself wound up way too tight about this. This is a discussion thread, not an activism forum .

[Forty Two]

Alabama Publisher Who Called For KKK To 'Ride Again' Is Replaced By Black Woman

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/25/69769444 ... JGSg5EOgEo

Replaced by a black woman that Goodloe Sutton had hired as a "front office clerk" for the paper six weeks ago, and now Goodloe made her editor and publisher, but he still owns the paper, which means she works for him. LOL.

Ms. Dexter was disappointed in Goodloe's editorial and commentator, so she went and chatted with him about it. She felt there were other ways he could have expressed his desire to clean up washington rather than using that kind of reference.

I find her condemnation of that racist piece of shit Goodloe to be quite minimized by her actions of accepting a promotion from him, and speaking with him civilly. I can't believe she doesn't know that it's oh-so-wrong to go beyond expressions of complete outrage over this, right trdsf?

[Forty Two]

...
And no one — certainly not me — has questioned Sutton's First Amendment right to say what's on (what there is of) his mind. I don't know why you keep pulling out that canard, other than trying to deflect attention: it's of no relevance.

It's almost as if one's First Amendment right now has a subliminal sub-clause saying that people who criticise and/or condemn what you say under that right are actually undermining your right to say it.

I criticized and condemned what he said. I have expressed on these boards many times that the first amendment, of course, protects the right to criticize and condemn.

trdsf is complaining that I didn't stop posting at the condemnation. According to him, I should stop at the outrage and condemnation, and that talking about any other relevant issue is "minimizing" that point. He has a right to think that, although I think it's illogical, and irrational, and it's really just one of the ways some people try to limit the scope of discussions so they can only talk about the aspects of a topic they want to talk about. It's fine for them to do that, but there are often many facets and angles associated with issues.

With this exchange, it's been trdsf saying that by discussing any relevant aspects to the matter, other than condemnation of Goodloe, I am undermining that condemnation. Obviously, that's silly.

[Forty Two]

trdsf, you have summed up 42's major mode of argument. That is not to say that "what about..." is occasionally a useful corrective, a reminder of fallibility, but it becomes extremely tiresome when constantly overused...

JImC, yes, perhaps I've seen the error of my ways. I'll make sure to point out for you and others all such conduct by others on this forum.

Oh, wait - that's whattaboutism.... if I mention that other people regularly post exactly as I do here without all this whattaboutism-outrage -- because, well, as noted it is very relevant to discussions of principle (principles apply to real world factual scenarios, and demonstrating that a principle works requires that it be applied to the same or similar fact patterns -- if it doesn't work consistently, then it's a bad principle).

Heck - The entirety of American and English common law is based on comparing the fact situation in case one to other fact situations such that similar fact situations are treated similarly under the law. it's case precedent. A lawyer stands up in court defending his client, and says "judge, whattabout Smith v. Jones - in that case, so and so said this and did that, and that's similar to what we have here in Outraged, Inc. v. Flavor of the Month" so, based on that case precedent, you should follow the same rule applied in Smith v Jones."

[Scot Dutchy]

Four for one today.

[Brian Peacock]

...
And no one — certainly not me — has questioned Sutton's First Amendment right to say what's on (what there is of) his mind. I don't know why you keep pulling out that canard, other than trying to deflect attention: it's of no relevance.

It's almost as if one's First Amendment right now has a subliminal sub-clause saying that people who criticise and/or condemn what you say under that right are actually undermining your right to say it.

That's been an ongoing problem lately: it's almost impossible to express an opinion without someone taking it as a personal attack if it doesn't agree with theirs. I had someone go fucking mental on me because my reaction to a music video they found — not made themselves, just found and shared — was, and I quote myself exactly, "Well, it's not the usual style of music I listen to."

I mean, no, freedom of speech is not a free ticket to say anything you like without consequence, either realized by the speaker or internalized by the audience. If I were to seriously assert that I saw Elvis mopping the floor in an east side White Castle, even if no one said anything to me about it, I have no doubt that the tenor of the interactions I had here would change. That would be a consequence of (most) everyone deciding I was a fucking loon, and no one would even have to say to me, "You're a fucking loon."

The flip side is, one's freedom of speech does not imply a responsibility on anyone else's part to have to listen. I have the right to speak my mind, but if you don't want to hear it, I don't have the right to force you to listen. If I find a fellow member here offensive, dishonest, distasteful, whatever, I'm perfectly within my rights to block them on my end — and vice versa. I am not within my rights to try to convince others to do the same: that's not my decision to make for anyone else... and vice versa.

The full meaning of the First Amendment with regard to speech inevitably means accepting that there are tradeoffs and no absolutes. My rights don't outweigh anyone else's, and no one else's outweigh mine.

Indeed, and for my own part, over a number of years I have observed a form of constitutional fundamental developing around this issue - and I say fundamentalism here exactly because of that appeal to absolutes you hinted at. Of course, the US constitution does declare itself absolute in as much as it lays out a framework of self-evident and inalienable rights, yet the declarations of rights cannot really be read in isolation from the constitution as a whole, framed as they are within that much broader context of them servicing the establishment of a just, ordered, safe, free, and prosperous society.

On freedom of speech the constitution is also quite clear - it shall not be abridged by the government. And yet I would argue that the freedom of speech clause of the 1st amendment is not a 'freedom to' but a 'freedom from', a freedom from governmental interference, that is; it places an direct obligation upon the government rather than bestowing an unrestricted freedom upon the citizenry. Some may argue that this amounts to the same thing in practice, or that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are synonyms, but I think the distinction is important.

I think that's important because some maintain that freedom of speech amounts to a consequence-free licence to say whatever one likes, about whatever one likes, whenever and wherever one likes, and that this is protected under the law. This not only conflates freedom of speech (a freedom-from) and freedom of expression (a freedom-to) but it absolves the speaker of any responsibility for their words. This is where the absolutes of constitutional fundamentalism sit I think, not least because, as in common with the more traditional kinds of religious or ideological fundamentalism, it is keenly relied on in justifications for restricting the rights and freedoms of others - "My right to say/do this is absolute and your attempt to stop me unduly undermines or restricts that right." It's also absolute in the manner in which it focuses entirely on speech as an act--something one has a right to do--and makes no distinctions between the act of speech and the content of speech, let alone the consequences thereof. And this, it also seems to me, is where one ends up with seeing torch-bearing white supremacists and racist bigots walking down main street chanting "Jews will not replace us!" as somehow being within a cherished tradition of American liberty.

The US is an amazingly free place of course. You can literally say and do things in America that you can do nowhere else in the world. It should be applauded and admired for that and for its baked-in and ongoing commitment to freedom and liberty. To me, as a pathological small-R republican, it is one of the things which makes America truly great. However (you could see that coming eh?), what is lost in the fogs of absolute freedom are the virtues the writers of the constitution aspired to, principles they reasoned out of pure experience and moral courage, and which they valued as not only necessary but noble too - both within the context of their time and, I would argue, as vital now as ever. They aspired to, and succeed in, defining what it means to be a nation in the modern sense we take for granted today: that a nation is a society rather than a dominion, that a nation is only as good as the operating principles which underpin it and only if everybody accepts those principles, that a nation exists to benefit its citizens as a whole rather than for the benefit of citizens individually, and that a nation is established entirely upon the authority of its people "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

In short, those who defend the unabridged free expression rights of white supremacists and racist hate-mongers have to ask themselves how that squares with things being better rather than worse (a more perfect union), with public order (domestic tranquillity) and the general welfare or common good of all etc, and then make some effort to account for and justify that defence as consistent with those values - beyond simply declaring it self-evidently, absolutely, and fundamentally true and unchallengeable of course.

[Animavore]

The US is an amazingly free place of course. You can literally say and do things in America that you can do nowhere else in the world.

[Brian Peacock]

Well, I might have been a bit hyperbolic, but wwhere else can you legitimately buy a tank or surface to air missiles for personal defence.

[Animavore]

Somalia.

[Scot Dutchy]

North Africa?

[trdsf]

Look, dude. I am not required to share your opinion on things, nor am I required to limit conversations to only that which you feel is appropriate to talk about. All the things I pointed out there about the Sutton matter are interesting features, as is an examination of exactly what he said.

On other issues, for example, it's been pointed out to me that the far left fringe who think things like "there is no biological sex" or who think it's ok and morally right/justified/imperative to beat people up on suspicion of holding fascist views, are some tiny minority of people who are really irrelevant - sitting in ivory towers and holding views no relevant number of people really hold -- that's been told me on a variety of threads. Is that "minimization" of the awfulness of those people? of course not - it's discussion of the relative importance of an awful person's views - of the prevalence of those views -- etc. That's all relevant to discussions of topics.

So fuck off.

Do you think being disagreed with over your comments is the same as a command to obey? Rather underscores Brian's point below (or above, depending on which way you display the thread).

And directly into more whattaboutism. Yes, I do know what it is, you're quite an enthusiastic practitioner. Funny how if you want try to bring up other examples of awful, it's only of people you disagree with, and now straying into completely, rather than mostly, irrelevant areas. That is whattaboutism. That is deflection. That is minimization.

Whether you agree with me about what it is, is of no relevance to me. You just continue demonstrating my point for me; I hardly need to take part anymore.

So fuck off.

How predictably mature of you.