10A

joined 2 years ago
[–] 10A@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

No, like several others in this thread you are conflating the principle of the freedom of speech with the US First Amendment. They are not the same thing. The First Amendment was predicated on the principle of the freedom of speech. The principle of the freedom of speech is foundational to western civilization, and is applicable to kbin. The US First Amendment is inapplicable here, as it only applies to the government.

When you support free speech, the specific nature of the speech doesn't matter. I'm no TERF, or even close, but I'd gladly fight and die to protect their right to say whatever they believe, no matter how repulsive it may be.

No private citizen is obligated to support freedom of speech — legally that's correct. But for those of us who live in the West, we must fight to uphold western civilization lest it crumble around us. It's a moral duty, not a legal obligation. And once freedom of speech is abolished, goodbye kbin, and goodbye to all of our ability to express any of our thoughts in any context.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

What are you, a librarian? Do you not go out into the world and experience anything in your life? Most of what we learn about the world does not come from citeable sources, but from actual real-world experience.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (18 children)

Fox is centrist, but every other mass media outlet is far to the left of them. And Fox publishes whatever gets clicks, including Trump stories.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I could probably go out and search for a million random people who've experienced it too (like everyone older than 30), and some articles about it. But I said what I know to be true based not on having read it anywhere, but rather on what I've personally experienced over quite a few decades of life in America.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Wait, do you actually disagree with that? I thought that was common knowledge. If you don't mind my asking, which age-group are you in? (If you decline to state for anonymity, I understand. I just find this baffling. It's indisputably true in my personal, anecdotal, life experience.)

[–] 10A@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (21 children)

Trump was a life-long Democrat until he switched parties. He's not a Christian. His personality could hardly be described as "conservative" by anyone. Trump may win the GOP primary again, just because Democrats control the mass media, but he does not represent the voice of conservative Americans, even if we end up voting for him in the general election. He's a political anomaly, which is why he has a fanbase, but is also why he shouldn't be a factor in this conversation.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Up until a few years ago, it was widely held by people of all political persuasions to be one of the foundations of western civilization. As the far left has moved progressively further leftward, they abandoned it. The only reason you think of it as conservative is because it's old-fashioned.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (63 children)

I find it frustrating and disappointing that kbin didn't notify me of this reply, particularly since you put so much effort into writing it. I'm glad I noticed it.

Thank you for your well thought-out reply on this. We are certainly coming from opposite perspectives, and I disagree with you on almost every point you made, which is really saying something, because you made a lot of points.

My perspective FWIW is that regulations of business are always bad. America is supposed to be the land of the free, meaning all regulations of business should be prohibited, IMHO.

To my view, a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision. Because when we treat our bodies as God's abode, and when we strive to be sober, drug abuse isn't an option. And as kids have grown up without prayer, we've seen secularism continually rise along with depression and drug abuse.

That being said, I recognize that drug abuse existed before '62, and indeed has existed since time immemorial. And I recognize that even though I disagree with most of your points, isolation and poverty indeed may be underlying causes, in conjunction with secularism.

I don't have much more to say on the topic, but thank you again for that very well thought out reply. I looked up Georgism and learned what it's all about, so thank you.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (36 children)

That’s not how the legal system treats it.

I'm aware. The Left has a voice in the legal system, and as a result it's soft on crime, and especially crime related to this discussion. But in truth, an illegal immigrant cannot even brush his teeth legally if he does so on American soil.

The government deporting people based on political opinions like this is antithetical to the founding principles of our nation, and is un-american.

"Love it or leave it" is a traditionally American patriotic slogan. It's simple but true, and it applies to all things in life, not just the country. But when it comes to the country, it should be policy. I don't favor kicking out any legitimate citizen who recognizes this is the best country in the world, and would gladly fight and die to defend it. But for the leftists who hate America and want to change it to become more like some other country, they really need to pack up and move to that other country. There's nothing un-American about saying Americans ought to be American at heart.

It’s also a violation of the first amendment.

Not really, because I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to freely express their position, even if that means criticizing America. They have every right to cuss up a storm while they spew their hatred of everything American, while I help them pack, and escort them to the airport.

I’m sorry but I can’t trust that when you treat people who don’t respect the flag as a moral failures.

That fact makes you certain I worship the flag? That doesn't make any sense. I stand up for my neighbors, and by extension my country, and by extension the cloth that symbolizes it. That's not worship. That's just following what Jesus said is the second most important commandment.

Opening prayer and the allegiance itself leaves the wrong impression. People should not be forced to partake in another’s religion, nor should they be forced to worship the flag/the country.

It's worthwhile to look at the background of the '62 ban on school prayer. Protestants read from the KJV, and Catholics didn't like the KJV. The argument was all about which translation to use in public schools. SCOTUS decided that the only way to solve the problem was to choose no Bible at all.

It's also worthwhile to consider the Crusades, which were successful by some measures, but are also widely criticized for valid reasons. One of those reasons is that it's truly impossible to force anyone to believe in a religion if they don't want to. And it's counterproductive to try.

So I agree that people shouldn't be forced to partake in religious practices against their will. But that just means we should leave Protestant vs Catholic fights to other forums, and prayers in public forums like schools should be generic. Whatever religion Americans hold, we can safely assume it's some form of Christianity, with a slim possibility of Judaism in some places.

When it comes to satanists, atheists, or anyone else who rejects the God for which America was founded, they should be given a genuine chance to repent and accept God before being politely deported.

And as for being "forced to worship the flag/the country", again, the pledge of allegiance just says "I promise to love my neighbor." If someone can't pledge to do that, you've got to wonder why they live here.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

The entire point of free speech is to support those with whom we disagree. It means absolutely nothing if you only support the speech of those with whom you agree. You need to be willing to say "Those ideas disgust me, yet I will gladly sacrifice my life in battle to defend the right of anyone to speak them." That's free speech.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (24 children)

I'm not saying "no true Scotsman." I'm saying Mussolini was a legitimate fascist, and his party died a long time ago. Some people today have similar traits, especially on the Left, but nobody is really part of his party anymore.

Free speech is a delicate principle. It requires everyone to firmly agree that everyone is allowed to speak freely, and we're all prepared to fight to the death, literally, to defend their right to say it. It's delicate because as soon as people abandon it, the entire project of western civilization can be destabilized. What we are permitted to say on kbin and every other online platform is the essence of free speech.

[–] 10A@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

You're conflating the principle of free speech with the US 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is predicated on the principle of free speech. The 1st Amendment is completely inapplicable here. The principle of free speech is 100% applicable here, as it is foundational to western civilization.

view more: ‹ prev next ›