Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: So if we're going to worry about human rights and Constitutional amendments right now, which ones should we worry about?

Ooh, ooh, I vote for 9 and 10!

Pointedstick wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: 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.

Interesting.  I wouldn't expect it to be protected by the 1st amendment for the same reason it's not legal to destroy notes.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/333

Edit:  Nevermind, I can't seem to follow my own logic on this one.

Pointedstick wrote: Libs have been falling all over themselves to propose that the organizers of this stunt are irresponsible purveyors of "hate speech" which should probably be criminalized.

That is plausible but I'd like to see that fully argued out in court.  It is not smart to poke a stick in a hornet's nest and RIFFF's are hornets.

Implicit in these discussions is never the motive of the organizers as if they weren't gleefully and spitefully glad of what they are doing is intentionally pissing off Muslims and the RIFFF's.  Get real.  So they cannot be absolved of all responsibility when violent actions are taken by RIFFF's that don't believe in the concept of free speech.  At the very least, the organizers should be charged with manslaughter if anyone innocent is killed.

Pointedstick wrote: 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.

Does the forum have enough critical mass to start its own country yet?  I'm so tired of waiting.

rickb wrote: Perhaps shooting extremists is not quite what you want.

How else to deal with them?  By definition they won't chill out and moderate.

Pointedstick wrote: 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.

If people were "live and let live" this would not be as much of a problem. 

Desert, I could not agree more!

Reub wrote: Desert, I could not agree more!

Same here. That's two in one day, Reub!

I recognize a slippery slope when I've slid down one.  Pah!

So I guess we're now doomed to be a militarized police state just to have free speech.  It's frackin' ridiculous and I can't see no good coming out of it.

MachineGhost wrote: I recognize a slippery slope when I've slid down one.  Pah!

So I guess we're now doomed to be a militarized police state just to have free speech.  It's frackin' ridiculous and I can't see no good coming out of it.

All "rights" are ultimately protected by armed defenders, not happy feelings or pieces of paper. This is easy to forget and ignore when they are not under attack, but it is the nature of rights to need defending when the chips are down, or else they have no meaning.

Pointedstick wrote: All "rights" are ultimately protected by armed defenders, not happy feelings or pieces of paper. This is easy to forget and ignore when they are not under attack, but it is the nature of rights to need defending when the chips are down, or else they have no meaning.

Well, you better arm the populace then because the entrenched Praetorian class sure don't give two shits about the rights of civilians, especially black ones like your fine self, sir.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: All "rights" are ultimately protected by armed defenders, not happy feelings or pieces of paper. This is easy to forget and ignore when they are not under attack, but it is the nature of rights to need defending when the chips are down, or else they have no meaning.

Well, you better arm the populace then because the entrenched Praetorian class sure don't give two shits about the rights of civilians, especially black ones like your fine self, sir.

MG, Maybe I'm recalling things incorrectly, but I could've swore that earlier (in a different thread than this one, mind you) that PS mentioned he was of Jewish/Hebrew ethnicity....unless he is part black as well?

Correct, I am a swarthy Jew. I do think that Africans are really, really cool, though, even if tragically unused to modernity.