Category: politics

Democracy and Its DiscontentsThree authors engage with the…

Democracy and Its Discontents

Three authors engage with the threats to a liberal society.

By Arthur Goldhammer

Throughout the four and a half decades of the Cold War, the consoling myth of the self-styled Free World was that democratic politics constituted the end point of political evolution. It was an article of faith that once the blighted societies on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain attained democracy, the “end of history” would commence, as Francis Fukuyama memorably put it in 1989. Political contestation would not disappear, but the battle henceforth would be about mere “economic calculation” and “the endless solving of technical problems” rather than fundamental political ideology.

Continue Reading

A sincere thank you to everyone that has chimed in so far. Despite a rocky start given one disrespectful interlocutor, this discussion is obviously worth having! It’s admittedly a controversial idea and though that’s not the reason for sharing the idea, that element has helped the discussion along.

That said, I’m not ignoring you if I haven’t responded! There are quite a number of responses and I’m just one person. My above average WPM count doesn’t help as much as I’d like it to. Keep sharing! Keep discussing. Keep thinking.

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?:

timaeustumbls:

philosophycorner:

nico-nico-nwo:

apostalism:

philosophycorner:

apostalism:

philosophycorner:

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Continue Reading

In all seriousness, here’s a passage from the piece.

Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.

I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!

And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better? 

Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one. 

What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point. 

It feels so good to read this in conjunction with the original post.

Oh, and to be clear, no one has a right to vote. It is a privilege, and no one deserves it.

It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.

@philosophycorner are we also stripping the right to vote from non-whites who have not completed a degree program too? I mean, since they’re uneducated as well, they clearly aren’t smart enough to decide policy or vote for representatives.

You missed the point and that’s okay; at least you aren’t rude. 🙂

Again, this isn’t about oppressing uneducated voters. Sure, I singled out non-college Whites because 65% of them voted for Trump. Crucially, 35% of them voted against Trump. It’s not simply about education or intelligence, and the idiot blogger you reblogged from was clearly disingenuous. It’s about empathy. 

So I don’t care about age, gender, education level, religion, and so on. If you can’t articulate your reasons for subscribing to a view and thus, demonstrate your own lack of informedness, you fail the exam. You don’t get to vote. It’s that simple. You need to understand exactly how your decision affects millions of other lives. So I don’t want you going into the booth because you believe that “god hates fags and Trump does too” or “Muslims should be banned and Trump will get that done” or “keeping out immigrants is good, so let’s build that wall.” More importantly, I’m looking for empathy from all sides; I want you to be able to find good reasons for holding the beliefs of your opponents

Notice my questions: What are arguments in favor of someone owning a semiautomatic weapon? What are arguments against this? Why can’t this individual own a nuclear arm? The latter question implies a slippery slope. Who drew the line at semiautomatics? Perhaps it’s time to push that line further back, especially in light of the fact that an AR-15 has featured in too many of the more recent mass shootings? 

I want you to see that reasoning and to find your own errors in thinking as your opponents do. It’s something I do all the time! And guess what? I can’t think of any good reasons why an average citizen should be able to legally purchase a weapon of war like an AR-15. In the end, any one of us might be brave enough to tackle a shooter with a handgun. Few of us are brave enough to try to take down a shooter with an AR-15. It’s unfortunate that one teacher had to shield students from bullets; he sacrificed his life in a senseless act of violence. Ultimately, the shooter shouldn’t have been able to purchase that specific weapon. If you think so, then why draw the line there? Why can’t someone with the means purchase an Apache chopper? 

Anyone who can’t deal with these kind of questions hasn’t thought through the issue enough and it’s questionable whether their opinion on the matter is valid. So far from trying to exclude uneducated voters, I’m trying to exclude inarticulate and more importantly, non-empathetic or even apathetic voters. I’m not your enemy by virtue of disagreeing with you and you shouldn’t want me six-feet under in a box because I don’t subscribe to your religion or sexual orientation or political party. It’s senseless that anyone thinks like that and uses that as basis for casting their vote. That’s my point!

We will never find an objective method to discern this, based on your suggested criteria, and I for one am automatically wary of social utilitarianism. Social success, as a species, depends on the maximum amount of inclusion, so any program designed to assist exclusion, even for very good reasons, is something I can’t agree with, although I’d like to.

The retort of objectivity, while common, is not fallacious. So very good! I applaud that. But I do mention in my post that bias isn’t bad; perfect objectivity isn’t necessary. I mean, if you hand out a math exam and one student solves 9 out of 10 whilst another writes in “Jesus is the answer” on every question, do you need objectivity to decide who passes and who fails? 

If I ask: what are arguments in favor of an ordinary citizen owning an AR-15? and I get an insufficient reply like “they can’t take our guns!” or no reply at all, the person failed themselves. It’s clear to me that opponents of gun control should be able to explain what is meant by “the right to bear arms.” Which arms? Where do we draw the line? Why a semiautomatic and not a rocket launcher? Where is the line drawn? The slope on that is extremely slippery for them! 

If they want to hunt, fine! If they want one for defense against potential burglars, fine! There can be firearms deemed appropriate for such needs. What need is there for a rifle capable of ripping through 17 people, mostly high school students? I can articulate plenty of reasons to ban those specific weapons rather than all guns. Yet instead of realizing that I’m trying to take specific guns, apparently I’m a villain trying to disarm them and to some of their minds, it’s so that they’re weakened when the Leftist army marches South and attacks them. Yes, people do think this way. It’s maniacal. Should they be allowed to vote being that mentally twisted? Be honest with yourself.

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?:

momir:

nico-nico-nwo:

apostalism:

philosophycorner:

apostalism:

philosophycorner:

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Continue Reading

In all seriousness, here’s a passage from the piece.

Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.

I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!

And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better? 

Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one. 

What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point. 

It feels so good to read this in conjunction with the original post.

Oh, and to be clear, no one has a right to vote. It is a privilege, and no one deserves it.

It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.

@philosophycorner are we also stripping the right to vote from non-whites who have not completed a degree program too? I mean, since they’re uneducated as well, they clearly aren’t smart enough to decide policy or vote for representatives.

I can’t actually think of a single fucking post on this site that has made me more furious than this one. How does someone get to the point where they not only hold these views, but think they are moral ethical and intelligent?

How very fucking appropriate that OP has Socrates as his profile pic.

Read the post. Read the discussion. Tell me how allowing “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims,” “they’re trying to take our guns” folks to vote away does any good for millions of other people. The fact is that such beliefs are immoral and destructive, and this is demonstrable the world over. Think abortion!

Let’s do it their way. Let’s ban abortion! You know what happens? Survey countries that have actually done that. Women die. Poverty persists. The mental and physical health of children is worse. That’s what happens. If women can’t do it legally and safely, they find other ways and the results are disastrous. In turn, they may fail to abort an unwanted pregnancy and now they have yet another mouth to feed despite the fact that they’re poor. Given poverty, children are eating less healthy foods, have less access to healthcare, and due to that, they are generally unhealthier than children who have affluent parents. You may scream “protection, contraception!,” and overlook the fact that they live in highly religious countries that equate abortion and contraception. “If it’s god will for her to get pregnant, then she must give birth!” It’s the Catholic way in the Philippines and some Hispanic countries. 

Let’s let them keep their guns! We have so far. What happens? Shootings at schools, at churches, at theaters. Please tell me why an ordinary citizen needs an AR-15. Give me good reasons for why you think like you do.

My reasons for wanting to exclude those people from the voting process are entirely moral and despite your anger, you can’t prove that wrong. Tell me how the people who despise the kneeling protests during the national anthem aren’t exactly like dissenters of the Civil Rights Movement. Tell me how their apathy towards racial injustice doesn’t result in more police brutality and sexual assaults. Tell me how their voting in of candidates who overlook such injustice doesn’t amount to that blood being on their hands.

Now tell me if you wouldn’t want to exclude me from the voting process if I overlooked the fact that the candidates I vote for don’t care about your life and that voting them in might lead to you losing your life or going through unnecessary pain. While you overlook racial inequality and injustice, I realize that I’m not White and that because of that, I can be a victim of police brutality – even if I’m innocent. You can either go right ahead and prove your lack of empathy or change your mind and realize that despite your initial misgivings, my reasons are demonstrably moral, certainly more moral than you’ve given them credit for.

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?:

nico-nico-nwo:

apostalism:

philosophycorner:

apostalism:

philosophycorner:

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Continue Reading

In all seriousness, here’s a passage from the piece.

Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.

I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!

And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better? 

Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one. 

What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point. 

It feels so good to read this in conjunction with the original post.

Oh, and to be clear, no one has a right to vote. It is a privilege, and no one deserves it.

It is not ad hominem to say you are a caricature of Leftism elitism and snobbery, as you admit. It is factual. Whether or not it hurts your feelings is beside the point.

@philosophycorner are we also stripping the right to vote from non-whites who have not completed a degree program too? I mean, since they’re uneducated as well, they clearly aren’t smart enough to decide policy or vote for representatives.

You missed the point and that’s okay; at least you aren’t rude. 🙂

Again, this isn’t about oppressing uneducated voters. Sure, I singled out non-college Whites because 65% of them voted for Trump. Crucially, 35% of them voted against Trump. It’s not simply about education or intelligence, and the idiot blogger you reblogged from was clearly disingenuous. It’s about empathy. 

So I don’t care about age, gender, education level, religion, and so on. If you can’t articulate your reasons for subscribing to a view and thus, demonstrate your own lack of informedness, you fail the exam. You don’t get to vote. It’s that simple. You need to understand exactly how your decision affects millions of other lives. So I don’t want you going into the booth because you believe that “god hates fags and Trump does too” or “Muslims should be banned and Trump will get that done” or “keeping out immigrants is good, so let’s build that wall.” More importantly, I’m looking for empathy from all sides; I want you to be able to find good reasons for holding the beliefs of your opponents

Notice my questions: What are arguments in favor of someone owning a semiautomatic weapon? What are arguments against this? Why can’t this individual own a nuclear arm? The latter question implies a slippery slope. Who drew the line at semiautomatics? Perhaps it’s time to push that line further back, especially in light of the fact that an AR-15 has featured in too many of the more recent mass shootings? 

I want you to see that reasoning and to find your own errors in thinking as your opponents do. It’s something I do all the time! And guess what? I can’t think of any good reasons why an average citizen should be able to legally purchase a weapon of war like an AR-15. In the end, any one of us might be brave enough to tackle a shooter with a handgun. Few of us are brave enough to try to take down a shooter with an AR-15. It’s unfortunate that one teacher had to shield students from bullets; he sacrificed his life in a senseless act of violence. Ultimately, the shooter shouldn’t have been able to purchase that specific weapon. If you think so, then why draw the line there? Why can’t someone with the means purchase an Apache chopper? 

Anyone who can’t deal with these kind of questions hasn’t thought through the issue enough and it’s questionable whether their opinion on the matter is valid. So far from trying to exclude uneducated voters, I’m trying to exclude inarticulate and more importantly, non-empathetic or even apathetic voters. I’m not your enemy by virtue of disagreeing with you and you shouldn’t want me six-feet under in a box because I don’t subscribe to your religion or sexual orientation or political party. It’s senseless that anyone thinks like that and uses that as basis for casting their vote. That’s my point!

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?:

apostalism:

philosophycorner:

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Continue Reading

In all seriousness, here’s a passage from the piece.

Imagine the elitism, the snobbery, the condescending mindset of the writer. How much better they are than you.

I say ol’ chap is that a white, working class voter who couldn’t afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated at a Leftist university? And he is Christian!? I will not stand for this!

And where exactly is your well-articulated criticism? All I see here is an accusation of snobbery and elitism (i.e., ad hominem) (boy, you people can’t reason today huh!?), an underhanded way of admitting that yes, I’m smarter than you are and can articulate my position better than you. Gifs and one-liners might work on Tumblr, generally speaking, but it won’t work to push back against an idea like the one I suggested. A White, working class voter doesn’t need hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend college. Ever heard of scholarships? Grants? Financial Aid? “Indoctrinated” at a Leftist university? Because suddenly they can’t choose to go to a Christian university that, at the very least, helps them to articulate their positions better? 

Here’s the thing, I know a number of such Christians and not surprisingly, they aren’t the “abortion is murder,” “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims” sort of folks. Go figure! I wonder what’s the difference between them and the Bible Belt idiot that gets to make a decision that affects millions of other people. I’m not a Christian by the way; I’m far from one. 

What a shame you use a gift showing an actress that’s far more intelligent than you are, one that, should she disagree with me, would articulate her reasoning much better than you have. She’s also college educated, so perhaps there’s nothing curious about that coming from someone who thinks there’s a such thing as “Leftist universities” that “indoctrinate” people after they spend “thousands of dollars” out of their own pockets. If this is how you disagree, you don’t deserve to vote! Thanks for being a good example of the kind of person I’m looking to exclude from the voting process. I’m definitely an elite and I’ll be as snob as I like once I’m accused of it for no good reason at all. Never mind that your snippet from my post contains important hyperlinks. My my! How you overlook details to make a failed point. 

Here’s a Genetic Fallacy

windingroadster:

There’s a reason suffrage was originally intended to property owners. To own property said something of your education and intelligence.

While you may think your comment is pertinent, I regret to inform you that it isn’t. It can be argued you didn’t even read the whole post because nowhere does it say it’s simply about education and intelligence. Empathy is also strongly implied. The whole point is getting people to a point in where they realize that their decision in the voting booth is not for their satisfaction and whatever sick vendetta they have against their “enemies.” It’s for the country. Their vote affects millions of other people. 

You can be broke and homeless, and if you can articulate good reasons for holding given points of views, you secure your right to vote; I couldn’t care less about what you own. Again, how many “god hates fags,” “ban the Muslims,” “abortion is murder” kind of folks you think will pass such an exam? In the end, you’re guilty of genetic fallacy: you’re assuming that my literacy exam is something like literacy exams in the past. I carefully went over why that’s simply not the case. The point isn’t oppression. Even a non-college educated voter might be able to articulate his/her positions. There are non-college educated voters on the Left, so clearly I’m not trying to silence that entire demographic; I’d be silencing some of my own allies.

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?

Who Should Have the Right to Vote?:

Everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote. There’s that one controversial opening sentence that some say is required to draw a reader in. Yet there’s nothing at all controversial about that statement. From an ethical point of view, it’s a true statement once one considers the dangers of allowing anyone to vote. There are glaring issues in continuing to bestow this right on anyone who is 18 or older.

Continue Reading

Disclaimer: None of the examples I use are my own personal views…

Disclaimer: None of the examples I use are my own personal views of any one person or group.

I don’t consider his examples of hate speech to be hate speech. Censoring a Bible verse that promotes anti-Semitism is not the same as censoring a living, breathing individual saying, like one person I got banned from Tumblr, “put Jews in ovens.” Verses promoting hatred against Jews, Christians, practitioners of other religions, homosexuals, and women are often overlooked because religious people, especially in the West, tend to be pacifist moderates – and thank goodness! The hate speech I have in mind is the hate speech of the alt-right, White supremacists who have turned their hate speech into hate crimes.

When a little boy is lynched, in the modern day, there’s a problem. When these same White supremacists become police officers and cut the life of Trayvon Martin short, there’s a problem. When these same officers are choking and shooting Blacks and getting away with it, there’s a problem. The hate speech of the alt-right and a huge number of Trump supporters has translated into hate crimes: beatings, lynchings, shootings, and even a case in where a crazed driver mowed down some 20 people, injuring 19 of them and killing one. Unless we focus on extremists, the hate speech of the religious is more so an annoyance that their religion doesn’t prove itself true by winning everyone over; the mere fact that other religions exist is irritating to some Christians and sometimes that’ll lead to derisive speech against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and so on.

That doesn’t, however, translate to a Christian murdering a huge number of Muslims or Hindus or what have you. Sure (!), it’s happened, most recently in Norway. In such cases, it’s best to consider the kind of speech being used. “I hate Jews because they crucified our Lord and Savior” is a far cry from “I hate Jews and they should be put in ovens.” “I hate Muslims because to them Jesus is a mere prophet that’s inferior to Muhammad” is a far cry from “I hate Muslims and I think we should murder them where they stand.” As with anything, there’s nuance; there are degrees. People like dichotomies and binaries and Hitchens, for all the talk of small prefrontal lobes and the idiocy of our species, falls into the same trap of making this a black and white issue. It’s not!

The gray areas are there! How many of us, in general, speak to the air when we’re angry and say “oooohhhh, I could kill someone right now!” Does this qualify as hate speech? Not necessarily, especially since it’s directed at no one in particular. And how many of us actually go out and kill someone because we’re angry? Now, if you go to church and are made to feel vile because they talk about the lifestyles of a homosexual or a promiscuous individual, and you then get so angry that you talk about killing Christians, now we have a problem! So before you even have the chance to hurt one of the congregants, you should either be hit with a fine or put in jail for, at the very least, a misdemeanor. When you have Bible Belt Christians threatening to put a shot in me if I ever step foot in their state, that’s dangerous hate speech against atheists. When you have a politician or public figure fueling hate against a religious or ethnic group, you have an individual who is attempting to incite violence against a group of people.

Joshua Feuerstein, for instance, is on record saying that BLM protestors should be filled with lead because, to his small mind, they’re a threat to police. Protesting police brutality isn’t a protest against police; it isn’t a call to arms against the police. It isn’t even a call to arms against racist officers. It’s a call for departments in every state to screen their would-be officers; it’s a call for stricter background checks and more important, it’s a call to acquit these officers should they abuse the power of their badge!

There’s no hate in that, but there’s certainly hate in asking people to fill BLM protestors with lead. Joshua Feuerstein, for that reason and a host of others (e.g., letting his kids handle firearms), should already be serving the minimum sentence for a felony, a full seven years. That kind of hate speech, especially when you have millions of subscribers who admire you, is unacceptable! Hate speech, like pretty much anything, has degrees of severity. It can be as minor as “I hate so and so sports player for hurting my team’s chances and I’d kick him right in the ACL if I could!” to “I hate so and so group of people and I’d love to watch them suffocate.” The former is minor and is that sort of heat-of-the-moment thing you find when people are watching sports events; the latter is repulsive and should be prosecuted the same way a crime should. We shouldn’t wait for someone to be injured or murdered to take action.

The US, at the moment, is filled with hate against minorities and women. The ICE is snatching up immigrants while they’re trying to make a living for their families. They’re not doing anything wrong and here they are being treated like animals. This is all because of an Administration that has declared war on everything the Left stands for. Religious freedom only matters for Christians; human rights belongs only to citizens and men – and at this (!), not even all men, but White men; even children’s rights are being violated as there’s been an assault on education in inner cities.

Speaking about Mexicans, women, Blacks, and Muslims in such generalities has fueled much of the hatred we see. We are literally in a time in where Trump supporters think the country belongs solely to them and not also to people who stand for everything they’re against. Enough is enough! This video isn’t a defense of free speech. It’s tip toeing around what severe hate speech looks like. “Hasidic Jews look funny” is anti-Semitic no doubt, but it’s not hate speech. All freedoms have limits and that’s been lost when it comes to freedom of speech, so as long as people are free to say whatever manner of violence they think, they’ll act on those thoughts as well. And if that’s a rod for my own back, it’s only because I’m dumb enough to be a hypocrite and speak in a violent and hateful manner about a given group. That’ll be my own fault. But aside from racists, who have drawn first blood for centuries, I have never incited hatred against a group; nor have I called for the injury or deaths of groups I disagree with. People lack nuance and any defense of free speech that defends hate speech proves that.

Every one of us enters politics at a very early age. —Red Leaf Haiku by © John Clark Helzer

Every one of us 

enters politics at a 

very early age. 

—Red Leaf Haiku by © John Clark Helzer