Donald Trump and US politics

God damn, 640+ pages worth of discussion? Wow, didn't realise people were so politically aware in this forum. GJ!

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

People shouldn't be doxxed and fired and ostracized for holding racist beliefs any more than Muslims should be subject to such things for belief in Islam. I happen to think both ideologies are utterly stupid, but I don't believe idiocy should be a fireable offense because EVERYONE is ideologically wrong on some level.

Hey bruh, do you think there should be a law protecting people from being fired because of their ideology? (like what happened with the dude that worked for google)

No. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean I want a law forcing everyone to do it.

"

soneka101 wrote:

When I said it was easier to maintain systematic bias than to go full Charlottesville I was taking into consideration people like your uncle. Your uncle might hold those views but he still holds the semblance of a moral person. He won't go left and right saying the N-word because he knows it's wrong and he knows that it could make his life worse. That is why he shows displeasure without being explicit. It's his "moral red line".

Going around shouting the N-word at people is uncouth. But that's never been the determining factor for who's a racist and who's not. It's about what you personally believe in your heart.

"

You might have a "moral red line" too. You say you won't break bones of leftists unless they do something to you, but you clearly want to, or else you wouldn't talk about going to a rally where odds are high that someone will start a fight. If you honestly didn't want fight nobody you simply wouldn't go. But it seems that you want to hurt people, and with the justification of "they hit me first" you will be able to do it without looking guilty of something you consider to be morally wrong.

Yeah, I'm supposed to stay away from expressing my 1st amendment rights just because there might be violent commies attacking people.... The type of person I am, is when I get pushed, I push back. I'm a non-christian white male who doesn't believe in turning the other cheek. I'm not gonna walk up to someone protesting for something I don't like and throw a bottle of piss in their face.


There is a huge difference between me and them. I agree with Scrotie's remarks about doxxing people and getting them fired for their beliefs. Someone recently got fired at google for taking a centrist position. I'm content with just telling Christians how stupid they are without resorting to attacks on their personal livelihood. Just to use them as an example, because they're one of the few groups who doesn't have "protected" status. But the same feelings apply to many that do have it. I don't fear someone who has a different view point than me.

Why can't your side simply be content with telling "racists" how stupid they are, like what Scrotie suggested?

"

In the end it's all excuses. "I'm not racist because I didn't say the n-word" or "I'm not violent because he hit me first". They are little tricks that people use to avoid backlash for doing things or have beliefs that the majority of the society find repulsive.

If you don't recognize the clear difference between self defense and attacking someone, then we don't see eye to eye on basically anything.

"

Maybe if the society changed your uncle could be more free. Maybe if things were different your uncle could speak his mind without fearing for repercussion. Maybe things could change for you too. Maybe someday you could be able to hit people without having to wait for them to hit you first. Maybe one day you could be able to hit antifa or leftists just because who they are, or maybe one day you could just hurt people you don't like...

Soneka 101 - Free speech without repercussions = attacking people physically. That's what the antifa believe as well.

Part of me wants to just let the two sides fight it out....

extremists on both sides

This might be another Zimzam case where the charges are too unrealistic (good luck proving murder), the culprit says he was scared for his life and shit (someone hit his car with a flag pole right before he accelerates) and in the end gets off scot-free. Imagine the salt.

"

Xavderion wrote:

This might be another Zimzam case where the charges are too unrealistic (good luck proving murder), the culprit says he was scared for his life and shit (someone hit his car with a flag pole right before he accelerates) and in the end gets off scot-free. Imagine the salt.

I do think he is guilty of some crime, but if he actually gets off the hook, every single trollish bone in my body will be giggling with excitement. In anticipation of salt. The alt-right already has dank memes out there calling him the "road warrior".

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

This might be another Zimzam case where the charges are too unrealistic (good luck proving murder), the culprit says he was scared for his life and shit (someone hit his car with a flag pole right before he accelerates) and in the end gets off scot-free. Imagine the salt.

I do think he is guilty of some crime, but if he actually gets off the hook, every single trollish bone in my body will be giggling with excitement. In anticipation of salt. The alt-right already has dank memes out there calling him the "road warrior".

If he actually drove his car into people on purpose, he deserves to rot in jail. Law and order. I just feel that it will be quite hard to prove.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

This might be another Zimzam case where the charges are too unrealistic (good luck proving murder), the culprit says he was scared for his life and shit (someone hit his car with a flag pole right before he accelerates) and in the end gets off scot-free. Imagine the salt.

I do think he is guilty of some crime, but if he actually gets off the hook, every single trollish bone in my body will be giggling with excitement. In anticipation of salt. The alt-right already has dank memes out there calling him the "road warrior".

If he actually drove his car into people on purpose, he deserves to rot in jail. Law and order. I just feel that it will be quite hard to prove.

law and order is one of the worst programs ever...

yuck

"

Xavderion wrote:

If he actually drove his car into people on purpose, he deserves to rot in jail. Law and order. I just feel that it will be quite hard to prove.

I agree that he should spend decades in prison if he ran people over intentionally. But that doesn't stop me from finding humor in dank memes.

The left is calling for his public execution before all the facts are even in though. Assuming the attack was premeditated, etc.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It's this attitude that is partially to blame for all this. No, it is emphatically NOT a case of "either we silence the racists or we are supporting them." People should feel comfortable saying what they really think (e.g. racism), and then other people should feel comfortable telling them what they really think (e.g. you're an idiot, you racist).

People shouldn't be doxxed and fired and ostracized for holding racist beliefs any more than Muslims should be subject to such things for belief in Islam. I happen to think both ideologies are utterly stupid, but I don't believe idiocy should be a fireable offense because EVERYONE is ideologically wrong on some level. Instead I believe in metrics: how many widgets produced per hour, or how are the customer service surveys coming in? Sure, it's possible for political beliefs to adversely effect service, but that doesn't mean it always effects service; an employee who thinks the boss should be more racist isn't necessarily insubordinate in regards to how customers are to be treated.

Let me first set this straight. I did not propagate harassing people of other convictions because of that. I wrote "being racist", but I meant "talking racist shit". So when I read your response, I first had to make sense of what you are talking of for myself.

You make a good point, a valid point. The use of social media these days can lead to mass protests and, followed by that, media coverage, public outcries and the decline of small businesses that, from one day to another, lose customers and maybe have to go out of business.

But lets be fair, you did not make that point when you referred to your relative. As a private person, I find it hard to believe that people consider him important enough to protest in front of his lawn. From my point of view, the worst that might happen is that his neighbours don't invite him to their garden parties. That might be annoying, but that's it.

As to businesses - they get in and out of reasons for a variety of reasons at all times. It's sad for the owner and their employees, but another business will profit from it, and other people will get new jobs. So yes, becoming the center of such a campaign is probably truly harsh, devastating for those affected. But for the community as a whole, it's likely not even noticable at the first view. For the state, regulating this might be costly. Because the flip side is the following: it's a basic human right to communicate with each other. People will form opinions and they will communicate, and then maybe change their opinions. Then, they will act. They will accordingly spend their money to buy vegan food, toys made of wood, the new ford or dodge and a cake at the shop on main street because the shop with the best cakes doesn't cater to gays.

So yes, again, it will produce cruel results, but those are a direct result of the freedom of speech, the freedom to form one's own opinion and the freedom to act upon those, and that's nearly impossible to stop.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Once people with ideas we consider wrong feel safe talking with us about it, we can start helping each other. We can convince them they're mostly wrong and perhaps concede that they're partially correct. We can listen to each other. We can change minds. What we have instead now is cold civil war and competing echo chambers.

Let free speech be free, man.

But you didn't ask for those freedoms to be diminished, but for, let's say, common decency. In that respect, I'm with you. It's just that I believe that the genie is out of the bottle, and with the current President, to get back to the topic of this thread, it will be hard to get it back in.

It's not even his fault, really. From over here, the US' internal struggles are hard to grasp, but it seems plain to me that today's Trump would have been the laughing stock of most of the US 30 or even 15 years ago. No, don't tell me that Trump considered running for president earlier, I know that. I even heard intervies from back then: he was a different person then.

What I find to be so strange is that the freedom of speech, that you value so highly, seems to trump almost everything. Some of your (radio) talk shows are so ravingly lunatic, so absurd, so far from good and evil, it's simply astonishing that you allow it. I can not quote a single one, but sometimes, strange soundbites make it over the atlantic, leaving me with the impression that your law does not care about this free speech incites violence and hatred. I believe that openly hate-inspiring speech should at least be fined.

---

Also, look at that flagpole-video. The sound and the car visibly accelerating follow very shortly. I'm not even sure it's possible to react that fast. On the other hand, it's not impossible that he drove there to honk loudly and simply annoy the protesters, then got nervous and frightened, then reacted to the sound of the hit and panicked. We'll see.