Texas

[Benko]

But it really seems like this censorious attitude is much stronger in liberals than conservatives.

Maybe that is why the left likes islam.  Maybe they envy how sucessful islam is at shutting up dissention, whereas they have to put up with the right.  ;-)

Funny... I tend to think many conservative Christians secretly hate Islam because it's done such a good job of maintaing patriarchy and religious superiority over society against liberalism, and they're jealous.

what does the bolded part mean?  Or specifically what do the words against liberalism mean in that sentence?

[moda0306]

Many conservative Christians would be just as angry at an anti-American/Christian version of this art show as many liberals are at the anti-Muslim art show.

How many of them call for it to be made illegal, and for the people doing it to be jailed? Can you provide an example of that?

Look, I've got no dog in this fight. I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and have both liberal and conservative tendencies. But it really seems like this censorious attitude is much stronger in liberals than conservatives. This crap has been going on for years; libs have been trying to get "fair coverage" laws and anti-"hate speech" laws for decades. You talk about flag burning, but is that an issue that's even remotely on the radar screen of any major conservative politicians? When was the last time any of them made any noise about that? It seems like a very weak argument to equate the two, to the extent that you're even correct.

Well I don't have any numbers specifically on this type of an event, but if we are to look at censorship in general, as I linked before, a very startling (IMO) percentage of the country, the majority of whom I'd have to believe are righties, believe that flag burning should be illegalized:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/23524/public ... rning.aspx


Also, as I just mentioned, conservatives were going bat-shit over the utterly benign ground zero Muslim community center, many of whom were calling for the city to halt the project.  I don't have a poll that gets into the specifics of actual OUTLAWING of the community center, but there is this: http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 99,00.html

About 61% of the country felt it was "offensive."


Conservatives (and democrats, I suppose... but mainly because we have a dem in the white house) are enacting perhaps the worst and most dangerous kind of censorship, IMO, by invading our phone call and email records, not telling us about it, and then calling for the arrest of journalists who uncover the program and leak it to the public.

A few anecdotal incidents:

- A FB video of a cop (by request of the city counsel head) removing a guy from a city hall meeting for not standing and reciting the pledge of allegiance.  My conservative friend and a bunch of his buddies were congratulating the cop and mayor/head for what they did.

- A FB video of a oldish white ex-military guy who saw a Mexican flag flying over a store owned by some Mexican Americans (there was an American flag flying beneath it owned by the same men).  Technically, it's custom to have the U.S. Flag on top. The old guy pulled them both down, took the American flag for himself, and ripped down the Mexican flag and threw it on the ground in front of the store owners.  Once again, this video had a ton of likes, and this guy's friends and himself were congratulating this "real American" for what he did.


Generally, I don't trust the 1st Amendment with either party or any religion.  I trust it with avid civil libertarians.  These people transcend party.  And they are the ones I respect.  This isn't a left-right thing... it's a respect for civil liberties thing.  Glenn Greenwald and Rand Paul are usually in the more favorable camp on this issue, in spite of them being in stark disagreement on economic issues.

[moda0306]

Maybe that is why the left likes islam.  Maybe they envy how sucessful islam is at shutting up dissention, whereas they have to put up with the right.  ;-)

Funny... I tend to think many conservative Christians secretly hate Islam because it's done such a good job of maintaing patriarchy and religious superiority over society against liberalism, and they're jealous.

what does the bolded part mean?  Or specifically what do the words against liberalism mean in that sentence?

Maintaining Patriarchy = maintaining the social norm of the superiority of men over women
Maintaining relgious superiority = maintaining the social norm of the supremacy of religion over law and civil society

Regarding "against liberalism," there are progressive/liberal elements to all societies... including Muslim ones.  Authoritarians in the Middle East have done a "better job" than those in the U.S. at squelching their agenda.

[moda0306]

Many conservative Christians would be just as angry at an anti-American/Christian version of this art show as many liberals are at the anti-Muslim art show.

How many of them call for it to be made illegal, and for the people doing it to be jailed? Can you provide an example of that?

Look, I've got no dog in this fight. I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and have both liberal and conservative tendencies. But it really seems like this censorious attitude is much stronger in liberals than conservatives. This crap has been going on for years; libs have been trying to get "fair coverage" laws and anti-"hate speech" laws for decades. You talk about flag burning, but is that an issue that's even remotely on the radar screen of any major conservative politicians? When was the last time any of them made any noise about that? It seems like a very weak argument to equate the two, to the extent that you're even correct.

Well I don't mean to contradict you regarding your own motivations and feelings, but I think you do sorta have a horse in this race.  I forget what we were talking about recently, but you said "I realize conservatives do this to with XXX... but it doesn't annoy me nearly as much as when liberals do it.  And this is my thread."  There was some humor there so I can totally appreciate where you are coming from and I'm not trying to hold your words against you.  But I think you just simply have aligned yourself to the idea that conservative intrusions are less likely to be overall harmful to YOU in YOUR LIFE, so you don't mind them as much as liberal intrusions. I can understand that mind-set completely.  But I think it is going to blind you a bit when conservatives do shady shit.  You're far more likely to experience obvious liberal censorship.  A Muslim immigrant being monitored by the NSA might feel a little bit different about his scenario.

This is all fine and good.  Subjective preferences on what the government limits, taxes, encourages, etc are pretty much impossible to avoid.  But I think it's probably good we realize when those subjective preferences are at work, and not some fundamental difference between two parties on an issue.


To me, if there is ANY issue that doesn't have a "party," it is civil liberties and censorship.  This is NOT an issue that either side, if they are going to argue as a member of "that side," has ANY political clout to point fingers to the "other side."  Any attempt for us to ALLOW them to do that is to not call them on the utter bullsh!t that they're spewing, IMO. 

[Pointedstick]

Many conservative Christians would be just as angry at an anti-American/Christian version of this art show as many liberals are at the anti-Muslim art show.

How many of them call for it to be made illegal, and for the people doing it to be jailed? Can you provide an example of that?

Look, I've got no dog in this fight. I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and have both liberal and conservative tendencies. But it really seems like this censorious attitude is much stronger in liberals than conservatives. This crap has been going on for years; libs have been trying to get "fair coverage" laws and anti-"hate speech" laws for decades. You talk about flag burning, but is that an issue that's even remotely on the radar screen of any major conservative politicians? When was the last time any of them made any noise about that? It seems like a very weak argument to equate the two, to the extent that you're even correct.

Well I don't mean to contradict you regarding your own motivations and feelings, but I think you do sorta have a horse in this race.  I forget what we were talking about recently, but you said "I realize conservatives do this to with XXX... but it doesn't annoy me nearly as much as when liberals do it.  And this is my thread."  There was some humor there so I can totally appreciate where you are coming from and I'm not trying to hold your words against you.  But I think you just simply have aligned yourself to the idea that conservative intrusions are less likely to be overall harmful to YOU in YOUR LIFE, so you don't mind them as much as liberal intrusions. I can understand that mind-set completely.  But I think it is going to blind you a bit when conservatives do shady shit.  You're far more likely to experience obvious liberal censorship.  A Muslim immigrant being monitored by the NSA might feel a little bit different about his scenario.

This is all fine and good.  Subjective preferences on what the government limits, taxes, encourages, etc are pretty much impossible to avoid.  But I think it's probably good we realize when those subjective preferences are at work, and not some fundamental difference between two parties on an issue.

That's a totally fair point. Thanks for reminding me. I'll admit do get more irritated when liberals do dumb shit than when conservatives do different dumb shit, probably due to my history of starting out as an extremist liberal myself. I guess I see a lot of a former version of me in their dumb shit and it makes me feel ashamed that I believed that stuff.

That said, one interesting thing I figured out a while back was that to get along with conservatives, all I have to do is act conventional. Your example of the dude not singing the pledge of allegiance is a great one. I think he should be allowed not to. Totally. But not doing it invites the ire of everyone around him, and even if maybe he had a fair point to make at the city council meeting, nobody's going to take him seriously because he's already outed himself as a "weirdo" or an "outsider."

Now, it's true that to have smooth interactions with liberals, you have to do the same thing: just go with their flow. But what is the flow? It changes every year, seemingly. Right now the flow is trans rights and feminism. Last year it was gay marriage. In 2013 it was gun control. Environmentalism is often the big one. Animal rights is probably going to be on tap for next year. Rights for illegal immigrants has been popular for a few years. And so on. I'm not just talking about the political issue of the day, which conservatives have too, I'm talking about identifying yourself as an insider or a friendly ally through social signaling to avoid unpleasant social interactions or being verbally (or textually) attacked outright. By its nature as a disruptive upstart ideology, what liberalism is targeting for disruption is constantly changing. By contrast, conservatives are predictable. Blending in with them and interacting smoothly is easy and the requirements never change: talk about your boring job, express mild patriotism, sprinkle your speech with non-threatening references to God, wear respectable clothes, occasionally make disparaging remarks about bad outsiders who everyone agrees are bad outsiders such as terrorists, learn a very small amount about sports, hunting, fishing, and cars--things like that. Everyone knows what to do. It's easy. Keeping up with what you have to do to avoid being attacked by liberals is exhausting, IMHO. It's so easy to accidentally say something that will shock or horrify the extreme liberal in the room and require immediate public atonement, even if you thought you knew how to avoid offending anyone. It's actually impossible, because one of the foundations of liberalism is offense at the conventional and desire to destroy existing institutions.

[moda0306]

It's kind of weird, because for me, (and you've probably noticed this), I tend to actually get more "annoyed" with people who attempt to use logic but do so inconsistently, and straight up ignore people that just make no attempt to use consistent logic.

I think it's because I've always TRIED to be logical, but can now see the lack of logical consistency in MY past.

So this is why I'm hard on libertarians, especially on this board where we have a lot of them.  I used to be a fiscal hawk libertarian type, and feel like I'm "past that," so their logical inconsistencies bother me more than far-bigger inconsistencies of liberals and conservatives. I don't even try with those other guys.  But as soon as someone says "liberty" I want to pounce on them and disassemble their political preferences and show them that they're wrong.

There's probably something between the two of us that a psychologist could pick apart and show us what our true motivations are.  Until then, I'll just assume it's because you're a conservative apologist, and I'm simply too wise for hypocritical libertarians!! 

JK!

[Benko]

How about making it real  simple:

Piss christ and cartoons about the prophet are similar.  Both are distasteful but both  should be allowed under free speech.

Or should we allow one and ban the other because (certain) muslims are known to be easily provoked into homocide?

Or perhaps we should ban one and award the other an artistic prize?

[Pointedstick]

I would be interested in reading about actual calls to criminalize.

This is from last year and not about this particular event, but…

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/file ... _final.pdf

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes S.J. Res. 19, a proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), that would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance—namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support.

???As we have said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would “fundamentally ‘break’ the Constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”

Were it to pass, the amendment would be the first time, save for the failed policies of Prohibition, that the Constitution has ever been amended to limit rights and freedoms.2 Congress has had the wisdom to reject other rights-limiting amendments in the past, including the Federal Marriage Amendment, the School Prayer Amendment, the Victims’ Rights Amendment and, of course, the Flag Desecration Amendment, which many of the sponsors of this resolution opposed. It should likewise reject the Udall amendment.
?

[...]

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is the 28th Amendment:

• Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office;

• Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change denier”;

• Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party;

• A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;

• A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors;

• A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions; and

• Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats).

Such examples are not only plausible, they are endless.

[moda0306]

How about making it real  simple:

Piss christ and cartoons about the prophet are similar.  Both are distasteful but both  should be allowed under free speech.

Or should we allow one and ban the other because (certain) muslims are known to be easily provoked into homocide?

Or perhaps we should ban one and award the other an artistic prize?

Neither should be banned.  Both are distasteful, and neither should receive federal funding (personally I'm inclined to be against federal government funding of arts in general, but I'm open to arguments on that).  Of course, attackers of either group should be prosecuted like any other murderer.

IMO, of course.

[madbean]

I'm going to break from my pacifist, "blame America first" libertarian mold and state that if ISIS is going to come over here and kill American citizens on American soil to get us to stop insulting Mohammed then I would like for them to know that unlike Al Qaeda who mostly hid in caves after 9-11 I think we know where most of them live and they probably ought to be more careful than they are. Read American History. It's not as long as your own history but it has some pretty significant events galvanized by public opinion that you might want to pay attention to.

[Pointedstick]

Devil's advocate position:

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/liberals-and-th ... ee-speech/

The consistent free speech position gets stronger as you get more liberal, and, as you get more intelligent. But it is interesting that the position where you won’t allow a racist to speak but you will allow a Muslim cleric to speak gets more frequent among liberals and the very intelligent. This, I believe, explains some of the rumblings and equivocation about free speech absolutism. These are a minority, but they are vocal. In contrast, though there are hardcore civil libertarians on the Right, it is almost certainly true that many conservatives who support the right to blaspheme Islam are less willing to stand up for the right to blaspheme the flag of the United States (e.g., allow someone to defecate on it, for example).

[dragoncar]

Devil's advocate position:

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/liberals-and-th ... ee-speech/

The consistent free speech position gets stronger as you get more liberal, and, as you get more intelligent. But it is interesting that the position where you won’t allow a racist to speak but you will allow a Muslim cleric to speak gets more frequent among liberals and the very intelligent. This, I believe, explains some of the rumblings and equivocation about free speech absolutism. These are a minority, but they are vocal. In contrast, though there are hardcore civil libertarians on the Right, it is almost certainly true that many conservatives who support the right to blaspheme Islam are less willing to stand up for the right to blaspheme the flag of the United States (e.g., allow someone to defecate on it, for example).

Devil's devil's advocate: The two questions are not equivalent.  Here's the Muslim one:

Now consider a Muslim clergyman who preaches hatred of the United States. If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community preaching hatred of the United States, should he be allowed to speak, or not?

Here's the racist one:

Or, consider a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior. If such a person wanted to speech in your community claiming that Blacks are inferior, should he be allowed to speak, make a or not?

There are definitely a few differences between those positions.  The Muslim is preaching hatred, advocating a feeling.  The Racist is making a factual claim, which intelligent people (presumably) believe to be false.  Just a thought.

[moda0306]

How about making it real  simple:

Piss christ and cartoons about the prophet are similar.  Both are distasteful but both  should be allowed under free speech.

Or should we allow one and ban the other because (certain) muslims are known to be easily provoked into homocide?

Or perhaps we should ban one and award the other an artistic prize?

Agreed.  And the fact that one of these distasteful actions consistently results in a homicide, makes me think that we need a lot more of the prophet cartoons.  In general, I don't care for folks like Pamela Geller, but when I see the response to these cartoons, it makes me want to start a series of these cartoon contests nationwide.  Some groups NEED to be offended and flushed out.  Homicidal muslim extremists are one such group.  I'd say the same about the KKK, etc.  Offend them; drive them into a homicidal rage, then shoot them. 

I've witnessed military guys make outright threats to anyone they might see stomping on the U.S. Flag.  Do you think it would be in good taste to go around doing that just to draw out the anger of hawkish conservative military vets with anger issues?

I don't see much utility in poking at extremists in ways that immaturely offend a lot of good folks. Extremists are either going to do violent crap anyway, and put themselves often suicidally... Or they will just stew and die angry, resentful Muslims. I'm ok with the latter. And the former is usually going to end up with their heart on a stake anyway.

[Tyler]

I haven't read the whole thread.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's this long. 

The government should not limit free speech of any origin.  And murder is wrong, no matter the motivation. 

Any equivocation of those two truths enables dangerous people. 

[moda0306]

I haven't read the whole thread.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's this long. 

The government should not limit free speech of any origin.  And murder is wrong, no matter the motivation. 

Any equivocation of those two truths enables dangerous people.

I think this thread is as much about "good taste" as it is "free speech."  I think most people here would agree with those two statements you make.  At least when talking about the details of this particular case.  However, this conversation very quickly got into some very subjective areas such as whether this art show was provocative or offensive, as well as which political orientation is going to be most likely to try to use government to limit free speech (or other Constitutional rights), or whether this is even really a First Amendment issue to begin with (as the perpetrators of the attack were not government).

This is not to distract from those two main points you make, but more-so to say that there are other considerations going on here than just the simple broad strokes that hopefully 80% of America agrees on (murder should be illegal... offensive speech should be legal), especially when people supposedly standing up for free speech with one hand are using the other to limit our 4th Amendment rights while simultaneously asserting that "Muslims" aren't compatible with American values.

[Reub]

Sharia law is incompatible with American values. Censorship based on religious (or other) sensitivities is incompatible. Threatening and murdering and terrorizing is also incompatible. Drawing cartoons is fine.  Standing up against Islamofascists is also fine.

[moda0306]

Reub,

Is allowing the government to engage in broad-based domestic spying compatible with American values? 

Is banning of the burning or stomping of the American flag "censorship based on sensitivities?" If not, why not? If so, then are many nationalistic Americans "incompatible" with American values? 

Is dropping bombs on civilians in the Middle East "threatening," "murdering," or "terrorizing?" If not, why not?  If so, are a large number of Republicans "incompatible" with American values?

[moda0306]

Also, Reub, the phrase "standing up against Islamofascists" is very vague.  That could either mean writing a strongly-worded letter to terrorists, or it could mean dropping a nuke on the Middle East.

If you could explain exactly what that means in-terms of either individual citizen or U.S. Military behavior that would help us understand your position.

[Pointedstick]

Reub,

Is allowing the government to engage in broad-based domestic spying compatible with American values? 

Is banning of the burning or stomping of the American flag "censorship based on sensitivities?" If not, why not? If so, then are many nationalistic Americans "incompatible" with American values? 

Is dropping bombs on civilians in the Middle East "threatening," "murdering," or "terrorizing?" If not, why not?  If so, are a large number of Republicans "incompatible" with American values?

The obvious answer to all of these things is "Yes." But how any of that relates to what happened in Texas is beyond me.

[moda0306]

Reub,

Is allowing the government to engage in broad-based domestic spying compatible with American values? 

Is banning of the burning or stomping of the American flag "censorship based on sensitivities?" If not, why not? If so, then are many nationalistic Americans "incompatible" with American values? 

Is dropping bombs on civilians in the Middle East "threatening," "murdering," or "terrorizing?" If not, why not?  If so, are a large number of Republicans "incompatible" with American values?

The obvious answer to all of these things is "Yes." But how any of that relates to what happened in Texas is beyond me.

I don't know that the answer is obviously yes... spying may very well be compatible in some people's eyes.  Same goes to interpretations of the other items.

This has to do with Texas insofar as this conversation is not JUST about murder and violence-backed-individual-censorship, but incompatibility of cultures... which this conversation quickly jumped to as we started to agree that murder is bad and the 1st Amendment is good.

[Pointedstick]

I don't know that the answer is obviously yes... spying may very well be compatible in some people's eyes.  Same goes to interpretations of the other items.

This has to do with Texas insofar as this conversation is not JUST about murder and violence-backed-individual-censorship, but incompatibility of cultures... which this conversation quickly jumped to as we started to agree that murder is bad and the 1st Amendment is good.

It may well be that our own culture is not compatible with itself, which is another way of saying that we no longer have a cohesive culture, but rather a fractious set of increasingly different sub-cultures that eye one another warily and wish to disassociate from the others.

[moda0306]

I don't know that the answer is obviously yes... spying may very well be compatible in some people's eyes.  Same goes to interpretations of the other items.

This has to do with Texas insofar as this conversation is not JUST about murder and violence-backed-individual-censorship, but incompatibility of cultures... which this conversation quickly jumped to as we started to agree that murder is bad and the 1st Amendment is good.

It may well be that our own culture is not compatible with itself, which is another way of saying that we no longer have a cohesive culture, but rather a fractious set of increasingly different sub-cultures that eye one another warily and wish to disassociate from the others.

Bingo.

I actually tend to think with all the contradictions individuals make with themselves on a daily basis, most INDIVIDUALS are incompatible with none-other than their own selves.  This is why they'll never be happy.  Should have read HIFFIAUW!

[Spectre]

I seem to remember reading that part of the problem is that the population in the Middle East has had their media controlled for so long, that they simply don't believe that its possible for a paper, or art exhibit publish, show, or say anything without the governments permission and approval.

So to them, this looks like sanctioned government approved Anti-Muslem activity, and is part of the US (governement's) plan to push them down.

Don't make it correct, or excuse them, but that is what systematically denying a people free speach for a couple of generations can go..

[moda0306]

I had recently heard that there was a poll that 1/3 of Americans favored special ID cards for Muslims.  I did a bit of research to find out if this is true.

https://www.questia.com/library/journal ... epressions

Turns out it was way off.  It was 39%. :/

Obviously, this alone isn't the worst thing in the world.  However, it tells us a bit more about who is incompatible with American values... if that term even has any meaning any more (I assert that it doesn't, for the most part).

[rickb]

I'm not sure where it came from, but I think this quote is apt:

All extremists should be shot.

In case you miss the irony, this is an extreme stance.  So, if you agree, please line up against that wall over there. 

Perhaps shooting extremists is not quite what you want.