3 ms·

> One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say. There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control wh

by hamax 10y ago

> One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say. There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.” > This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying. I agree that it was bullying and that it shouldn't happen. But again, one side wants to fight against online bullying and the other side thrives on it. Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like. On one side you're saying you're all for free speech, on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right. Especially people you don't agree with (like Black Lives Matter). This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...).

masondixon 10y ago
> There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary. I don't agree Trump here. But I am not talking about the candidates. I am talking about BLM, SJWs, and Feminists vs. everyone else. With a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe in the White House now, they must now show prove that his actions reflect their fears...or realise that they were misguided and tone it down. This is the victory for Trump supporters. The man himself is but a vessel :p > Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like. You can always block. Everyone defines bullying differently, and for this reason, every person can control what they see online. Trump is by far the bigger victim. Look at all the relentless and repeated attacks on his appearance by liberals. I have never seen anyone chastise a fellow liberal over an attack on Trump's appearance. When everyone can accuse everyone else of bullying...where do you draw the line? > on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right. My beef is with irrationality. I'm a natural altruist and intrinsically want to help people. But its frustrating when they don't listen and aren't willing to have a fair and reasoned debate. So I am not against them exercising their right. I just want to help. The left may produce a good candidate in the future who I want to vote for, but if they are accusing everyone of being racist and sexist, if they are cheating in election debates, if the DNC remains corrupt, then they will continue to lose election like they have. But as a Trump supporter, I don't have to fight for a rationale debate, the ball is not in their court as they have lost complete control of the government, and hopefully will come back to the debate floor when they realise they need to, in order to get there next guy (girl, et al.) elected. > This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...). > racism, sexism, homophobia, I don't want any of these things either :D I just think their approach is wrong. But before I can say why...I am called a racist.
- peterclary 10y ago
  I recognise that you are trying to engage and explain your point of view. I respect that, even though I disagree with you. You may have grievances (legitimate or otherwise) but you have to weigh up the pros and cons. In 1920s Italy you might have been daily frustrated by the poor reliability of the railways but that didn't mean that voting for Mussolini would have been a good idea overall. Also, not that I ascribe this to you, personally, but apparently 22% of Trump's supporters think he would start a Nuclear War. I'm struggling to understand what pros they think would outweigh that particular con.
  - return0 10y ago
    > Italy you might have been daily frustrated by the poor reliability of the railways but that didn't mean that voting for Mussolini would have been a good idea overall. Except you would know Mussolini had clear fascist positions. Trump was a ex-democrat and never far from the spotlight. He does not talk much about gay marriage and abortions. He doesnt have clear positions, although he does have directions like reversing illegal immigration, less interventionism. It seems none of them were judged bad enough to make trump supporters reverse their decision. That's where the diagnosis of the democrats has gone wrong: they think it's possible that half the US is legally stupid, unable to think. They would have to back that up with statistics, iq tests etc.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    Clinton was known as the more war hungry candidate. And there is proof in her track record. Trump wants to be friends with Russia.
return0 10y ago
Re: libel laws, europe has much much stricter libel laws than US, i don't think they are controlling what we say.
- hamax 10y ago
  I'm not against stricter libel laws. I think speech should have limitations. And not just in cases of libel. But I also don't think that liberals and "SJW" are controlling what we say. I was just trying to point out the double standard in the post I was addressing.
  - return0 10y ago
    well, you did say that he wants to control what you can say by opening up libel laws
yummyfajitas 10y ago
There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary. Hillary wants to change the constitution to take away your 1st amendment right to make and distribute "Hillary: The Movie". http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-225658 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-citize...

by hamax 10y ago

masondixon 10y ago

> There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary. I don't agree Trump here. But I am not talking about the candidates. I am talking about BLM, SJWs, and Feminists vs. everyone else. With a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe in the White House now, they must now show prove that his actions reflect their fears...or realise that they were misguided and tone it down. This is the victory for Trump supporters. The man himself is but a vessel :p > Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like. You can always block. Everyone defines bullying differently, and for this reason, every person can control what they see online. Trump is by far the bigger victim. Look at all the relentless and repeated attacks on his appearance by liberals. I have never seen anyone chastise a fellow liberal over an attack on Trump's appearance. When everyone can accuse everyone else of bullying...where do you draw the line? > on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right. My beef is with irrationality. I'm a natural altruist and intrinsically want to help people. But its frustrating when they don't listen and aren't willing to have a fair and reasoned debate. So I am not against them exercising their right. I just want to help. The left may produce a good candidate in the future who I want to vote for, but if they are accusing everyone of being racist and sexist, if they are cheating in election debates, if the DNC remains corrupt, then they will continue to lose election like they have. But as a Trump supporter, I don't have to fight for a rationale debate, the ball is not in their court as they have lost complete control of the government, and hopefully will come back to the debate floor when they realise they need to, in order to get there next guy (girl, et al.) elected. > This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...). > racism, sexism, homophobia, I don't want any of these things either :D I just think their approach is wrong. But before I can say why...I am called a racist.

peterclary 10y ago
I recognise that you are trying to engage and explain your point of view. I respect that, even though I disagree with you. You may have grievances (legitimate or otherwise) but you have to weigh up the pros and cons. In 1920s Italy you might have been daily frustrated by the poor reliability of the railways but that didn't mean that voting for Mussolini would have been a good idea overall. Also, not that I ascribe this to you, personally, but apparently 22% of Trump's supporters think he would start a Nuclear War. I'm struggling to understand what pros they think would outweigh that particular con.
- return0 10y ago
  > Italy you might have been daily frustrated by the poor reliability of the railways but that didn't mean that voting for Mussolini would have been a good idea overall. Except you would know Mussolini had clear fascist positions. Trump was a ex-democrat and never far from the spotlight. He does not talk much about gay marriage and abortions. He doesnt have clear positions, although he does have directions like reversing illegal immigration, less interventionism. It seems none of them were judged bad enough to make trump supporters reverse their decision. That's where the diagnosis of the democrats has gone wrong: they think it's possible that half the US is legally stupid, unable to think. They would have to back that up with statistics, iq tests etc.
- masondixon 10y ago
  Clinton was known as the more war hungry candidate. And there is proof in her track record. Trump wants to be friends with Russia.

return0 10y ago

Re: libel laws, europe has much much stricter libel laws than US, i don't think they are controlling what we say.

hamax 10y ago
I'm not against stricter libel laws. I think speech should have limitations. And not just in cases of libel. But I also don't think that liberals and "SJW" are controlling what we say. I was just trying to point out the double standard in the post I was addressing.
- return0 10y ago
  well, you did say that he wants to control what you can say by opening up libel laws

yummyfajitas 10y ago

There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary. Hillary wants to change the constitution to take away your 1st amendment right to make and distribute "Hillary: The Movie". http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-225658 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-citize...