BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 08:54 AM

The most knowledgeable and eloquent contributors tp BS did not just walk way.

THEY DIED !

---

Closed, because although nobody seems to want to discuss the subject, some are trying to provoke fighting on other subjects. -Mod

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 08:51 AM

There is plenty of acrimony and irony here seeing that the topic is free speech.

Some are simply saying "go ahead and shoot, you're too chicken shit."
At least I don't try to sound like Donald Trump.

Who better to post than a mod? They are most likely to have read the thread in its entirety.

All I know is I am not one.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 08:39 AM

There goes another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 08:33 AM

Jim - normal people are sick to the back teeth of you bunch of childish twats. That's why so many have fucked off. The only people who don't seem to 'get it' are the aforementioned bunch of childish twats.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 08:30 AM

"People walk away. They don't get "driven away"....

I'll just leave this here - from Senoufou, 03 Aug 17...

"For some time I have felt this section of Mudcat has become unbearable. The tone of many of the posts by a certain number of contributors is beyond enduring, and it is no longer a pleasure (as it certainly used to be) to engage in any meaningful discussion before the nasty point-scoring begins."

And if people 'walk away' (as they have, in droves), it's not hard to see why. Unless you're rendered blind and deaf by having your head so far up your own arse of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 08:24 AM

"I know we mere mortals aren't supposed to question Moderation Policy, "
I've just had three reanably polite postings on a controversial subject censored by the same Mods who seem happy to let personal slagging off go through on the nod
Be interesting to see if this one makes it over the wall
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 05:55 AM

"A site?" 😂

Not my ruling!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:53 AM

SSDD, however, despite the ruling by Shaw was found on a site explaining Acronyms.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:49 AM

People walk away. They don't get "driven away."

Acronym: NATO, AIDS, UNICEF

Initialism: USA, BDS, SSDD

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:49 AM

I would say applicable to quite a number Backwards, but mostly those who actually start threads.

Ten.....
Nine.....
Eight.....
Seven....

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:45 AM

You should know.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:24 AM

SSDD = Same Shit Different Day

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:16 AM

"Sorry if you took it like that Stu, I didn't intend it."

No worries, the hazards of text-only communication.


"I do think you "have something about you" or I wouldn't have bothered."

I feel there's a compliment in there somewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 04:02 AM

I never catch onto these Internet acronyms that everybody seems to know about. I Googled "SSDD," and found it means "single-sided, double-density."

I think that's how they used to distribute the Digital Tradition, back in the day.

I'll get me coat....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Sep 17 - 03:33 AM

"Anybody notice how many non-moderator Americans post in BS these days? I think it's maybe 2 or 3. You ever wonder about that? Maybe folks are more sensitive to SSDD crap, as in "Oh no - not AGAIN." I don't know. I just know they aren't here. 5 or 6 Brits, mostly, and volumes of SSDD."

Not just Americans, Jeri. A lot of Brits have gone AWOL too. Even Eliza (Senoufou) - one of the nicest, funniest, gentlest posters we've had here in recent times - has been driven away.

I know we mere mortals aren't supposed to question Moderation Policy, but the whole SSDD situation in the BS section is the result of a bass-ackwards Mod Policy. Every other forum I inhabit, the trouble-makers are censured and the decent folks are happy. Here, the OCD Cockwombles are allowed to dominate, so the decent folks bugger off.

That's me out.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 11:27 PM

You're right Jeri. To the subject at hand, this neo safe space notion is perverse.

As for throwing up Trump posts willy nilly I admit he makes me want to puke uncontrollably sometimes. I should call up Chuck, and spew some bile there instead.
Thanks,
btw. my wife just tossed me cookies.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 08:50 PM

...and because I missed BB's question: no. Don't like violence if it can be avoided, and don't like antifa. I think they're making a huge mistake, and like you said, they've given up the high ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 08:40 PM

Don. you're watching the same shows I am.

That said, the thread is about whether it's OK to beat up speakers who say things you don't agree with.

It's not about all of the other favorite fight subjects. Start another thread, because we can't possibly be tired of fighting about all of the usual hot-button issues.
Mainly because folks have learned their script and damned well want to keep using those lines.

Anybody notice how many non-moderator Americans post in BS these days? I think it's maybe 2 or 3. You ever wonder about that? Maybe folks are more sensitive to SSDD crap, as in "Oh no - not AGAIN." I don't know. I just know they aren't here. 5 or 6 Brits, mostly, and volumes of SSDD.
(Here's me, buggering off again, for now.)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 08:29 PM

The coinciding slimey underbelly of politics and social psychopaths has always been with us. The ethnic cleansers in the world have thier 20% base but now have a standard bearer in Trump.

There are no exagerations great enough to encompass what Trump can and will do to punish the world, to punish the son of a bitch blacks Jews Catholics and disloyal Americans.

Unless the Secret Service has greatly improved protection since Obama, Trump may become a martyr. Or Mueller will prove treason or Donald will eat one too many cheeseburgers. I do not see him outliving me. Sometimes you get glorious schaudenfreude by watching the bastards die right in front of you.

Good people have grown a protective callous as a result of Trump and will provide a more progressive blowback than Obama, Biden or Clinton. But who?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 07:02 PM

More than a tad condescending, but all true. Ake you will not become the paragon of conservative thought but you should at least be the best conservative you can be. Perhaps you could study the conservative thoughts of Wiliam F Buckley. With a foundnation you could compare how the Coulters of today have gone sensationalistic in a pit of commercialism that bears very little resemblance to conservative values.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 04:51 PM

Sorry if you took it like that Stu, I didn't intend it.

I do think you "have something about you" or I wouldn't have bothered.

Now as for Don.....There's condescension!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 03:12 PM

Amos,


"For Bruce's edification, the definition of a liberal is not "a whiny self-indulgent spittle-spined bleeding-heart wuss" or anything near it."

I have never said anything of the kind, as you well know. I DID say that a Liberal who hits me with a 2x4 because I am a conservative has lost the high ground over the KKK or Nazi who does the same because I am Jewish.

And the antifa have been hitting reporters, casual bystanders, and people WHO HAVE NOT ATTACKED THEM physically. If one is allowed to attack those who have a viewpoint one disagrees with with physical attacks, I know of few here on mudcat who would be safe.

Does the majority have the right to beat those they disagree with into submission? THAT is what a percentage ( looking like 10-20%) of the antifa have stated that they believe. The question is how many of those here who consider themselves "Liberal" agree with them?

Or do you mean that "1. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech or action."" means liberty of action means not having to obey the laws about assault?



ANY person should be judged BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS- and held responsible for those actions, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 02:30 PM


"Free Speech Week" at UC Berkeley Is Constitutionally Protected — and Morally Bankrupt

"Anyone who opposes Yiannopoulos, Coulter, and Bannon's presence on campus will undoubtedly be framed as opposing a week of "free speech.""

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 02:12 PM

A tad condescending. I'm in my early fifties, was a Young Conservative at sixteen and met a socialist who came to speak to our group and I heard sense for the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 01:08 PM

Ake, I am not uncomfortable and frightened, as if my progressive myths are about to be exposed. I think most of us are aware what myths are, where they come from, who uses them and why.

To be a better writer and avoid spouting nonsense you have to first write what you know. Then later you can put yourself in the shoes of others. Know your point of observation and keep track of perspectives. Finally proofread and edit until you make sense.

Keep practicing, a bit over 11 years ago I could not write a coherent sentence. Serious thoughts require translation from the raw mental idea to a shared linguistic expression.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 12:38 PM

Nothing will work Stu until we stop believing in the tooth fairy.

I have seen it from both sides, the political battles of the last century, the advent of "liberalism" in the social system with the inevitable conservative backlash to stabilise an economic system which is no longer "fit for purpose".

There are huge changes coming and probably a socialist regime when we get back to a subsistence economy, but as I said earlier nobody who has lived the easy life of the past forty years would like it much.

I think the middle on this century will see a different world, if not humanity is indeed doomed.

I don't know how old you are Stu but you sound quite young, you could be me in my twenties, viewing politics like a football game with the nasties all on the other side......I'll let you into an old mans secret Stu the nasties are on every side and most of all in the middle. Try reading the posts here without the blinkers a whole new world opens up.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 11:59 AM

"but one certainty is that eternal division leads to eternal damnation"

Yeah, but who want's to be on the side of the nasties? Who wants to stand side by side with xenophobes, homophobes and people who see ignorance as a virtue?

Why should anyone want to do that? I'm sure the unprogressive right would all like to get together to force us to do what they see fit. Unfortunately for the alt-reich, that won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 11:33 AM

I do not see Ann Coulter as a "purveyor of hate" she is an extremely popular writer who has had many best sellers, she has an excellent sense of irony and knows how to use it to make hard hitting points.

She certainly does not deserve to be deprived of freedom of speech by threats of violence from the left.

All the hatred I see here and on social media has been directed towards Miss Coulter, somebody once told me that Americans do not understand irony.....is that really the case?
I find it hard to believe that the obviously well educated people from the US who frequent this forum are truly unaware of the power of irony in debate or indeed in literature in general.

I think the truth is that clever, humorous people on the right of politics make "liberals" uncomfortable and frightened, as if their myths are about to be exposed. I think most of you are aware that they are myths?

Try thinking about things from another perspective, we have no idea how the future will pan out, but one certainty is that eternal division leads to eternal damnation.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 11:23 AM

Now Farage's mates the AfD have made inroads in Germany. They are a nasty bunch too, but then the nasties are well and truly on the march in these troubled times.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 10:16 AM

I found the video of the Shapiro speech that started it. I haven't watched the whole thing (and probably won't) but it got to the place where he went after the "alt right".

The violence baffles me. It's as if somebody on the left heard Trumps encouraging beating up dissenters and saw some of his peeps doing that, and said "Oh, I hate that. Let's do it to THEM." Just a case of becoming what they hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 08:48 AM

The President has free speech to say Putin is a pal, The Nazis and KKK are good people, Mexicans are rapists, Americans are sons of Bitches BUT as President he should not say Korea will be totally destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 17 - 08:35 AM

I just realized Trump is a Masteracebaiter.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:38 PM

"Liberty of thought speech or action"

Somebody must have forgot to tell Berkley about that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 12:23 PM

By and large campuses as organizations have the right to choose whom they invite to speak, and about what. Wildly colored speech is distasteful to people trying to learn powers of discrimination and analysis. So are invitations to knee-jerk reactions against broad categories such as "liberals".

For Bruce's edification, the definition of a liberal is not "a whiny self-indulgent spittle-spined bleeding-heart wuss" or anything near it.

Webster's offers: "I adj.1. Possessing a free and generous heart. 2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3. Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed. II n. 1. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech or action."

I strongly suggest we all strive to find words that actually describe what we are trying to say, rather than indulging in knee-jerk label-mongering.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 11:34 AM

Free Speech in America is now laser focused on sports since Trump has tweeted that son of a bitch protesters (black football players) be FIRED or suspended if they kneel before the American flag during the national anthem.

The all white owners of NFL football teams, although Trump supporters, had to go against Trump or lose 80% of their team players support.

The 1st example of mass anti Trump kneeling happened in the UK today.

Stand, kneeling on one or both knees or lying down to the flag has nothing to do with spiting in the face of veterans, veteran families and those who died in war as FOX NEWS is reporting. It has to do with Black Lives Matter and Trump fomenting racism. FOX is most concerned how this will effect the financial foundation of the multi billion dollar NFL

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 11:12 AM

Froggy, if you are going to quote me, please quote the whole of the contribution.

"I think most people would believe themselves to be committed to certain views and positive in outlook, but multiculturalism in the true sense of the word is extremely negative surely?
I would be much happier with complete integration of races and cultures."

Now doesn't that look better? :0)
I also suggest to look up the definition and history of "multiculturalism" in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 05:32 AM

Of course, I'd be happy to help with providing their food too - I'm sure I could come up with something!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 04:06 AM

"that would have required me to donate my urine to the U.S. government"
Did you have to send it direct to the White House?
I'd be happy to send mine to Westminster - hopefully for them to make their tea with
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 03:08 AM

Over the years, The American Civil Liberties Union has been at the forefront of the movement to defend the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Most of the time, the issues the ACLU has defended, have been of great interest to us on the Left. Occasionally, the ACLU has defended the rights of the Right, and it has won court decisions that are distasteful to many of us.

But on the whole, I think the ACLU has performed a great service to all Americans. Conservatives tend to condemn the ACLU, but it has won a good number of victories for the conservatives.

If you review legal history of the U.S. over the last century, you will find the imprint of the ACLU on almost every court decision that interprets the Bill of Rights.

Representing two friends of mine, the ACLU overturned a policy that would have required me to donate my urine to the U.S. government regularly over the rest of my career. I am a strong supporter of the ACLU, even when they defend Nazis.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 02:52 AM

All free speech needs to be tempered with responsibility - giving people the right to openly express their hatred and prejudices can be as repressive as censorship - more so in some cases
Who decides s the problem - I would have thought common sense and decency has to play a major part in the decision.
It doesn't take rocket science to work out that being allowed to openly express race, cultural or gender hatred can be dangerous to the point of being lethal
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 02:09 AM

Steve Shaw says: When it comes to institutions cancelling speeches due to threats of violence, hate speech, etc., we shouldn't conflate the refusal to provide a platform with restriction of free speech.

Exactly. Many campuses have "free speech areas," and I think that's a good idea. Some don't allow amplification in such areas, and I think that's also a good idea. But providing indoor speaking space to purveyors of hate? Nope.

And make no mistake, Ann Coulter is a purveyor of hate.

Torches and burning crosses and open-carry weapons are threatening and frightening, and have no place on taxpayer-owned property. I don't think they should be considered to be "free speech."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 12:58 AM

"multiculturalism in the true sense of the word is extremely negative surely?"

Absolutely! There's nothing worse than a society where some of the people don't think, dress, and worship just like me.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 01:17 PM

Maybe you're just a lousy zealot? :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 01:09 PM

errrmmm.. "zealousy".. is that even a word...??? any scrabble players here...????


I probably meant "zealotry"...

---

I deleted a LOT of posts prior to this one, because it seemed they were about different favorite subjects, and aimed at people's favorite opponents.
Please try to avoid changing the subject to facilitate personal attacks. --Mod

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 12:56 PM

That's why I think you're alright PFR......or at least partly alright.:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 12:40 PM

Ake - My view - at base level, a bonehead street thug is a bonehead street thug.. whatever their political or religious zealousy...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 12:34 PM

Yes PFR I thought that's what you meant, but I have always found that "committed" petty minded xenophobic racist bigots...are really pretty thin on the ground....most of it is ignorant wind and piss.

As far as "extreme right wing activists and agitators... " are concerned, my years in the CP taught me that violent extremists are not confined to the right wing, many of the people I came into contact with were absolute psychopaths.

In saying that, being an extremist is not always bad, they can often see through the media fog and the "liberal" game which has been in operation for the last three decades. Destruction of the social system in place of real political change.

Teribus I agree with what you have said regarding moderation, but Joe is between a rock and a hard place here and sometimes has the unfortunate habit of leading with his chin.
He sees people like you and I as "a problem", while the real problem is the "liberal" ideology and the mindless robots who follow it without question.
I have always found him a "good" person though I sometimes struggle to understand his real position on certain issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 12:07 PM

Ake - Yeah it's not easy quickly finding words to sum up values, ideas, and assumptions.. words that are not too glib or contentious...

By 'committed multiculturalist' I'd presume it to be a commonly shared agreed term that we are not petty minded xenophobic racist bigots...

I am first and foremost a cynical pragmatist, so accept that 'multiculturalism' is not without problems...

Personally I would strive to co-exist with neighbours from diverse cultural backgrounds,
but still be willing to voice disagreement with some of their specific cultural ritualist practices...

A prime example being genital mutilation for both girls and boys...

Ideally, we try to seek the best in people, even those generally despised by a majority in a community...

But I'm only human, and can't help harbouring transgressive fantasies of vigilante justice for 'types' I'd prefer not to tolerate..

ie.. local drug dealers, bonehead street thugs, and extreme right wing activists and agitators...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 11:28 AM

Hi PFR....not a trick question, but can you explain briefly what a "committed positive multiculturalist" actually is?

I think most people would believe themselves to be committed to certain views and positive in outlook, but multiculturalism in the true sense of the word is extremely negative surely?
I would be much happier with complete integration of races and cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 10:47 AM

"can the truth ever be "offensive""

My wife works for the local authority and often looks after
the educational needs of traveller families.
My wife is a committed positive multiculturalist. We both are.

Yesterday, after she viewed the latest episode of a Channel 5 series on traveller kids,
we had an idle conversation about negative traveller stereotypes and any basis there may be in reality.. and of what significance this may be...

This kind of debate cannot avoid ideas and statements that some would automatically seek offence in, if the talk was held in public.
But seeking objective 'truth' can not be truly possible if ideas are completely restricted and off limits,
just in case a few are determined to take offence in order to hijack, or derail the debate...??????

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 04:33 AM

Freedom of speech comes with great responsibility. It should not be extended to the hate often promoted by political extremists of ALL types. We have already seen the effects of extreme left wing politics in Stalin's Russia and extreme right wing politics in Hitler's Germany as well as in a lot of other situations across the globe. If we allow the type of rhetoric that brought these situations about to go unchecked the results will be the same. It is only a madman who believes that if you keep performing the same actions eventually a different outcome will be achieved.

The difficulty is to know when and how to prevent it. I am not clever enough to come up with a solution but I can see that Trump's style has already crossed several boundaries. Nothing to do with being liberal in either the political or social sense. People from the entire political and social spectrum have said the same. When he crosses that final border to ensure he cannot be removed from office it will be too late.

Maybe having one man in control of the world will be good for me. I am a white, male heterosexual. I would still feel pity for those that do not belong in his club though.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 03:28 AM

Regarding Berkley, you are making the assumption that Miss Coulter or Mr Yiannopolous were going to make racist or hateful comments before they have spoken.....not a liberal attitude IMO.

If they promote racism, or hate they should be brought to account, but not judged before the crime is committed.
Just like on this forum it is quite often the fear of the popular ideology being exposed which leads to deletions and thread closures.

I think M Coulter uses satire and irony in all her writing, she is one of the most popular writers in the US on politics and social mores......

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 03:24 AM

When it comes to institutions cancelling speeches due to threats of violence, hate speech, etc., we shouldn't conflate the refusal to provide a platform with restriction of free speech. There are other outlets. You might as well complain that a newspaper not printing your controversial letter is an attack on your freedom of speech. It isn't. You can always go down the pub and sound off, or get on your soapbox, if you can find an audience. The vast majority of people could never get to speak at a university event in a month of Sundays. That is not a restriction on their freedom of speech. It's a reflection of the fact that they are not prominent people with particular views. You don't have MORE freedom of speech just because you're a celeb. You just have more outlets available to you, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 03:21 AM

This is a joke - right?
A President who, despite being exposed as someone who advocates sexually assaulting women by grabbing their sexual parts, is elected on a minority vote and immediately sets about racially attacking 'non-Americans as thieves (in a country made up entirely of immigrants, for crying out loud), building a wall to keep them out, taking measures designed to melt icecaps, threatening nuclear war, using his own political system as an episode of "your fired" Dragons Den, and pissing on the American constitution - is being treated UNFAIRLY
What are you people on?
I have little time for the American political system, but when I see the garbage thrown at one of the best presidents America has had in my lifetime which has fallen little short of "uppity n.....r", (and that's not too far away now Trump has managed to put the Klan back on American streets) I begin to wonder if it's time to start building a nuclear shelter in the back garden.   
Bruce has dredged through the bumwipe American press going back as far as 2009, to dig up smear to defend this homicidal moron and we are supposed to take it serious!!
Now we have our own little bunch of cross burning hoodies on this side of the pond cheerleading for him - led by a hate filled homophobe who has managed to redefine the word "liberal" to mean "fascist", has attempted tp re-respectablise forcing strangers to wear yellow stars, and has described demonstrations against Trump by people who number among the majority of those who didn't vote for him, as 'seditious' and suggest they threaten American Democracy (if such a thing exists)
One of the great things American society has produced for me as a film buff, is a wonderful portfolio of films like 'Grapes of Wrath', Inherit The Wind, Blue Collar, Dr Strangelove, All the President's Men, All the King's Men, The China Syndrome, Missing, Selma, Mississippi Burning..... (haven't seen Memphis yet).
I have little doubt that, should we all survive Trump, I have lots of goodies in store - though I don't know who they are going to get to playthe lead - maybe the feller who played 'Godzilla' is 'resting' at present - )yes lads - I do know that was a graphic before you start reaching for your 'typo' gambit)
Jim CarrollA

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 03:10 AM

Joe, since you have fluttered bye, this from Jim.... 22Sept...11:14.

""For example, Jim has been raving on about the sins of the Catholic Church for years,"
I wonder if that particular pearl of spiritual wisdom has much to do with Liberalism - particularly as it is in defence of the rape of thousands of children in the care of religious institutions
Little wonder you've settle for supporting Trump
You've been very quiet about Hilary's WARMONGERING of late Ake
Jim Carroll "

This is not an example of free speech, it is a damned lie insinuating that I support or defend the molestation of children.....the other two points made seem to have no connection to the thread...why has this been allowed to stand? Why has it not been binned along with the host of posts and thread which have disappeared lately.
Jim does this on a regular and on going basis.

Free speech does not include the right to libel others, I have stated on several occasions that the blame for these hideous crimes fall on the perpetrators, not on the institution per se.......unfortunately it is more convenient for "liberals" to blame the offices of the Church rather than instigate a debate which may conclude the blame lies largely within a "protected" sexual minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:29 PM

One of the centers of this controversy this year, has been the University of California at Berkeley. A troy in the Washington Post (click) tells the story well. First there was a cancelled speech by former Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, and then a more recent speech by right-wing sex kitten Ann Coulter was cancelled. Left-wing violence was threatened at both events, so the university cancelled them. I think a university should make provisions for serious discussion of conservative ideas, but I've heard a lot from both speakers that I consider to be hateful and racist - and I see no reason why a tax-supported university should allow its facilities to be used for the expression of racism. As a parent of a recent University of California (Davis) graduate, I was very concerned on several occasions when there was violence on campus in the name of free speech. I think that universities have an obligation to students and parents to see that such violence is prevented, but I don't want to see violent people enabled to use the threat of violence suppress the free expression of ideas.

It's a complicated issue, and I don't have an easy answer. All I know is that I want my kid to be safe on campus, but I also want him to be exposed to a broad spectrum of thought.



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 09:07 PM

"This was long before Trump had political aspirations- I think it was 2009."
So ?
He was always a misogynist thug
I asked if your Union men knew that his 14 year old son was at home alone when they demonstrated legally
You didn't reply so I assume they didn't
By suggesting that they can't demonstrate because there 'MIGHT' be children on the premises you are using 'maybe present' children as a human shield against genuine grievances
No case to answer' Im afraid
On the other hand, Trump if fully aware that North Korea is full to the brim of non-combatant men, women, children - mobile and incapacitated, old and young, supporters or opponents of the regime... yet he is still prepared to nuke them
Makes your concern for a 14 year old somewhat pathetic, don't you think?
Perhaps we can put this into context -
Trump is throwing his toys out of the pram because because North Korea now has nuclear weapons
America has had weapons of mass destruction for seventy years and has actually used them on civilians on two occasions, not only killing many thousands immediately, but also deforming several generations of unborn children
Being fully aware of the side-effects of these filthy killing machines, the US has continued to test them, despite the potential threat to humanity
For seven years your 'Land of the Free and Home of the Brave' poured burning petrol and spread carcinogenic hemicals over the people homes and fields of a Third World Country - one of the side effects of that was bringing US pilots home riddled with cancer caused by the shite they were dropping on peasant farmers
I have little time for the North Korean regime, but of these two powers, I have no problem identifying a possible threat but probably bluff from what would be a repetition of what has already happened
The U.S. under Trump, and North Korea are Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee - two sides of the same coin, neither of whom are to be trusted with water pistols, let alone nuclear weapons.
Yet you still support this piece of garbage that you call 'President'

"Their faces hidden behind black bandannas and hoodies, about 100 anarchists and antifa— "anti-fascist" — members barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley's Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park."
Published by The American Spectator
"The American Spectator is a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics, edited by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. and published by the non-profit American Spectator Foundation."
What else is it going to claim?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 06:30 PM

Bruce
you said that this radio bloke views and mode of expression were contentious

if you decide to be contentious, you're a bit of silly sod if you reckon no ones got the right to contend with you.

Jim and Keith often say contentious things, but you don't get them whining....oooooh that's not a nice thing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 06:30 PM

Blimey, what have I said? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 06:26 PM

If that is where you put your money I am glad you owe me nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 05:44 PM

It's hardly surprising that nearly all the people who moan about restrictions on free speech are extreme right-wingers, fascists, bigots and racists. Their modus operandi is to claim victimhood for their loss of the right to say what they like, regardless of the sensibilities of the people they wish to attack. Regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the people they wish to attack are innocents who would never attack a fly. Those people include homosexuals, transgender people, women who need abortions, Jews, blacks, Muslims, immigrants and more. People who can't help where they were born, what they were born into, what pickles they've got into through no fault of their own, what bad luck they've had. You want the total freedom to smear, castigate, attack and intimidate people like that? That makes you an arsehole, not a defender of freedom in any sense of the word. And me saying that is me merely exercising my desire to exercise MY free speech, you bastards. It isn't nice, is it? But you'll get over it. YOUR victims may not.

Free speech my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 04:48 PM

The first Ake post on this thread was actually somewhat reasonable.
If I could reduce the following into a serum and inject it into the afflicted, I would;


George Monbiot

Friday 15 April 2016 07.00 EDT
Last modified on Wednesday 20 September 2017 06.04 EDT
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".

The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed

The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.


A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.
Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party
Letters: For neoliberals to claim that their view supports the current distribution of property and power is almost as bonkers as the Lockean theory of property itself
Read more

Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.
• George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
Since you're here …
… we have a small favour to ask. For those who will not read this would you please go fuck yourselves?

operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.


In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all phone services and soon became the world's richest man. Photograph: Henry Romero/Reuters
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man.
Advertisement

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.


Slogans, symbols and sensation … Donald Trump. Photograph: Aaron Josefczyk/Reuters
Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them".
***
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalyzed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognize it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.


Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us
Paul Verhaeghe
Read more

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
Advertisement

***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.


In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
Advertisement

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as "a kind of neoliberal international": a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'

After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.


Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis for the Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in New Orleans.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "investor-state dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one

Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates

---

Donuel, please don't get the idea that lengthy non-music copy-pastes like this are allowed. Non-music copy-pastes should be no longer than one screen of information.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 04:00 PM

Neo Liberalism is a political doctrine......social "liberalism" is more insidious and dangerous.

PFR...I know you're all right...much as you try to disguise the fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 03:31 PM

"But the PHYSICAL attacks by LIBERALS is factual and documented

right then, let's count up all the times I've been beat up by liberals in my lifetime... oh hmmmm... no times...

Now let's make a list of all my injuries caused by indiscriminate attacks by mindless moron ignorant boozed up 'conservative' boneheads...

oh... all of them...!!! 😣

You're probably onto a loser when it comes to comparing liberal violence to the mass of ordinary mundane daily life unprovoked brutish street attacks by unenlightened thugs ...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 03:18 PM

"Their faces hidden behind black bandannas and hoodies, about 100 anarchists and antifa— "anti-fascist" — members barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley's Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park.

Jumping over plastic and concrete barriers, the group melted into a larger crowd of around 2,000 that had marched peacefully throughout the sunny afternoon for a "Rally Against Hate" gathering.

Shortly after, violence began to flare. A pepper-spray-wielding Trump supporter was smacked to the ground with homemade shields. Another was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself. A conservative group leader retreated for safety behind a line of riot police as marchers chucked water bottles, shot off pepper spray and screamed, "Fascist go home!"

All told, the Associated Press reported at least five individuals were attacked. An AP reporter witnessed the assaults. Berkeley Police's Lt. Joe Okies told The Washington Post the rally resulted in "13 arrests on a range of charges including assault with a deadly weapon, obstructing a police officer, and various Berkeley municipal code violations.""


And this is the report from the Liberal WaPo.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 03:13 PM

I get the impression that the Liberal assaults on free speech are no longer being aided by the DOJ, now that Obama is no longer in office.

But the PHYSICAL attacks by LIBERALS is factual and documented- it does not matter if they wear swastikas or masks, have KKK signs or BLM ones - I judge them by THEIR ACTIONS.


When the antifa attack LIBERAL news reporters and bystanders, I fail to see how any ""progressive, free-thinking individuals who value compassion, curiosity intellectualism, culture and diversity" can support them.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 03:05 PM

I get the impression [call it an uncanny 6th sense] that this ongoing mass far right invasion of social media & forums,
to launch their random relentless bitching about hard hearted nasty liberals encroaching on their rights to freedom of hate speech,
is no 'mere coincidence'....??? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:58 PM

Jim,

"madman who is threatening to wipe out an entire population, from newborn to terminally ill, with nuclear weapons"


No, I do NOT support N. Korea, whose leader has stated he will ""SINK the four islands of japan and turn the US into ashes".

But I guess THAT is more than acceptable to you, as demonstrated by your conmnents.

" N. Korea threatens to "sink" Japan, reduce U.S. to "ashes and darkness"
Reuters
Reuters
Jack Kim and Kiyoshi Takenaka


'Worst attraction in the world'
Video player from: Aol On (Privacy Policy)

Video provided by GeoBeats

A North Korean state agency threatened on Thursday to use nuclear weapons to "sink" Japan and reduce the United States to "ashes and darkness" for supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution and sanctions over its latest nuclear test.

Pyongyang's Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, which handles the North's external ties and propaganda, also called for the breakup of the Security Council, which it called "a tool of evil" made up of "money-bribed" countries that move at the order of the United States.

"The four islands of the archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the nuclear bomb of Juche. Japan is no longer needed to exist near us," the committee said in a statement carried by the North's official KCNA news agency.



Note the DATE- Before Trump made his speech.
9/14/2017

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:43 PM

Big Al,

" think its hard to argue that England and America are swamped with poor discriminated against conservatives - given that both countries have elected deeply conservative governments "

I am talking about the right OF INDIVIDUALS to express their own opinions- which is being denied by the Liberal side of things on campus.

"Ben Shapiro tried to give a speech at the University of California-Berkeley last week; the school met the conservative radio host—predictably enough—with raging protest.

It's nothing new. In the last several months, American universities have been shaken by a flurry of public, and often violent, student protests against controversial speakers coming to campus, from Milo Yiannopoulos to Richard Spencer to Charles Murray, all of whom are recognized as provocative conservatives with contentious opinions. US colleges have long had a liberal bent to them. What is striking, though, is how far students of that majority political view are willing to go nowadays to protect it, especially in the wake of Donald Trump's election."



In terms of moral values, whether you hit me with a 2x4 because I am Jewish, or because I am White, or because I am conservative, you are morally the same as those others who do so-

I do not care if you Hate Blacks, and love WASPs, or that you Hate Whites, or Republicans, and love Blacks- When you attack someone for their speech you have claimed the same moral level.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:43 PM

Funnily enough... far right loudmouths are increasingly infesting all kinds of youtube channels,
belligerently complaining about liberals attacking their rights to free speech...???

seems a hell of a lot of USA guitar players are amongst the vilest of them...?????

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:33 PM

Jim,

This was long before Trump had political aspirations- I think it was 2009.

As for who I support, YOU have stated support for a people and government that has the stated goal of killing all Jews. SO your opinions of those who might act instead of accepting nuclear attack seems a little out of character.

And I guess YOU think that the use of 2x4s as clubs are a justified protest against speech you do not like?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: olddude
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:29 PM

Not sure what nationality liberal is, my dad wasiIrish, I get so confused

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:20 PM

"was his 14 year old son,"
I find your concern for a 14 year old son of a banker somewhat touching in the light of the fact that it is in support of a raving misogynist madman who is threatening to wipe out an entire population, from newborn to terminally ill, with nuclear weapons
I have no doubt the Union took great care to establish that the child would be alone home before they planned their legal demonstration and I have no doubt that you will provide evidence that they did – (not, of course!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 02:03 PM

I agree with you: It was unacceptable.

But the thread discussing it had a number of so-called liberals who thought it was just fine.After all,the union members had worked hard to get Obama elected, so they had the right to bend a few laws...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 01:51 PM

I have no knowledge of that situation, but, the way you put it, no, completely unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 01:28 PM

So, Steve, would you say that a demonstration around a bank executive's house, making threats WHEN THE ONLY OCCUPANT was his 14 year old son, was permissible or not?

Purple shirted goons, escorted to the house in MD by the DC police in buses, with the support of the Obama Administration.

Of course that union had made a LARGE contribution to the Obama campaign...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 01:17 PM

It's my view that no-one, regardless of the laws of their country, has the moral right to say things to deliberately frighten, intimidate or threaten people who are not directly engaging with them, for example to say any of those kinds of things to or about Muslims, Jews, immigrants or black people. You also no moral right to say things that entice other people to indulge in that kind of threatening behaviour. Intimidatory behaviour might include harassing women going into abortion clinics, demonstrating outside the home of a suspected paedophile or holding up placards saying Jews out. Freedom comes with responsibilities, otherwise everyone's freedoms are ultimately reduced.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 01:15 PM

"Try to stick to the subject Jim....just this once?"
I put up information about Russian interference is supposedly democratic electioons in America - well within the remit of "freedom of speech"
You followed with ranting support for clerical rapists
You know - I couldn't relate that piece of sickness to to the subject of this thread if I'd just downed a bottle of Laphroaig   
Don't be stupid Ake - you try to stick to the subject
Amazing how defenders of Donald Trump's 'freedom of speech' are quick enough to stamp on that of his opponents.
I seem to remember your describing demonstrations against Trump's election as "sedition"
I find your personal definition of 'Freedom of speech' as hard to work out as your constant misuse of "liberal'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 01:11 PM

This is the what, when, where and why there is a President Donald J. Trump or a Vlad Putin who will never spend time behind bars no matter how guilty, of any crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 12:58 PM

The principle of law, in every civilized society, has this in common;
"Any person who sways another to commit a crime, any person who furnishes the weapon or tool to commit the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime, is guilty."

Global civilized society has been operating in contravention of law...

for payouts and pay offs beyond comprehension.

Both left and right, only unite, in knowing this is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 12:24 PM

Thank you Donuel. I knew there was something like but until I say the first analysis of neolibralism I was not sure what was causing the downslide. Monbiot's article is probably one of the best and simplest explanations I have seen.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 12:18 PM

Dave what is called neo liberalism I have called by many names

When I was 12 I read The Minority of One and The Guardian. I am proud of their legacy and current reporting.

If there is one link everyone should be required to read, it is your link Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 12:11 PM

i think its hard to argue that England and America are swamped with poor discriminated against conservatives - given that both countries have elected deeply conservative governments - both of them putting a bit of stick about. Trump dismantling obamacare and over here the tories committed to 'austerity measures' for the poorest sections of society.

having said that - there are VERY intolerant people around the current labour leader. people whose behaviour he routinely disavows but somehow he never gets shut of the buggers. the whole brexit thing seemed to bring them to the surface. they seem to think that Jeremy is anti-brexit. although the message is confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:48 AM

"""progressive, free-thinking individuals who value compassion, curiosity intellectualism, culture and diversity" might be better. As that's a mouthful, we'll call them "Progressives".    :0)"

Ake - I'll confidently put me hand up for that then... Im one...!!! 😜

.. but I can also be a bit of a dick with a mischievous transgressive non 'PC' sense of humour...

That's how ordinary Folks can be contrary, complicated and contradictory at times.....

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:42 AM

I suspect it is a lot easier to find petty minded individuals who have no grasp of reality, not a clue what goes on outside their own mean little worlds and have absolutely no idea what anyone else is actualy talking about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:07 AM

"I wouldn't say "liberals" are in a minority in the UK"

Hmmmm. Economic liberals aren't, more's the pity. Perhaps social liberals aren't, but that's not reflected by the rise of the right in the UK (kippers and tories) or it's consequences (Brexit) so I think they are.

Perhaps I should have said "progressive, free-thinking individuals who value compassion, curiosity intellectualism, culture and diversity" might be better. As that's a mouthful, we'll call them "Progressives".

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:06 AM

here's some free speech for you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U3PLxUvhIc

I'd hazard a guess that this fine upstanding English gent is anything but a liberal...???

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 11:05 AM

I don't know hoe often I have to repeat this. It has nothing to do with social or political liberalism. Try educating yourselves for a change instead of casting accusations at any who you feel offended by.

The rise of neoliberalism

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 10:53 AM

WONDER DOES THIS COUNT AS FREE SPEECH??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 10:48 AM

I wouldn't say "liberals" are in a minority in the UK, I don't suppose we are talking about members or supporters of the Liberal Party here.

It appears that the media have brainwashed a huge majority of the population, though many of them are politically ignorant as well as socially ignorant and do not even bother to vote.
I think you are correct Bruce there is a Fascist element at work within so called liberalism......."no way but our way.

This forum is a typical and very good example of double standards regarding freedom of speech.
Truth does not come into the equation, if a statement is deemed offensive it will not be allowed, but what is offensive to one person is not always offensive to another. These people like to "protect the rights of minorities", but only if the minority is one of which they approve.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 10:23 AM

"Stu, as a minority you would object to the majority using violence to keep people who agree with you from speaking?"

Depends what I'm saying, who the majority is. The situation is too complex to be judged on anything but a case-by-case basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 10:04 AM

guessing who wrote this thread title was a 50-50 choice and I was right.

I have witnessed the construction of the mighty straw man called Antifa on right wing media. Even Fox news has a talking head lady who has said "if Antifa demonstrators wear a mask shoot them in the head".

Now when it comes to safe zones and trigger words of Berkley students going to the point of violent demonstrations I a vehemently against that.

Anyone familiar with the labor movement knows all about employer hired goon squads. These all black dressed and masked individuals showed up the first time on Inauguration day in Wash. DC. It gives me pause.

This all historically rhymes with 1929 Germany

It would be better if people voted with their feet and left, instead of lifting a hand for violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 10:03 AM

So, Stu, as a minority you would object to the majority using violence to keep people who agree with you from speaking? That would put you in the position of the Conservatives in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: Stu
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 09:20 AM

Well, liberals are in a minority in the UK and I say BOLLOCKS.

Subject: BS: Free speech- as long as you're Liberal.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 09:06 AM

From:
https://qz.com/1082794/one-in-five-us-college-students-says-its-acceptable-to-use-violence-against-an-offensive-speaker/

"A Brookings Institution report this week, pulling data from a survey of 1,500 undergraduates at four-year universities across 49 states, found that 19% of students agree with the following statement:

    A student group opposed to the speaker uses violence to prevent the speaker from speaking. Do you agree or disagree that the student group's actions are acceptable?

And 44% replied "no" to the following:

    Does the First Amendment protect "hate speech"?

(Those 44% are wrong. "Hate speech," with some caveats, is legally protected under the US constitution.)

The full set of questions and responses reveals a telling divide on university campuses, and a fairly ironic one, at that: Though college students by and large want their schools to be bastions of free speech and free thought, many of them also do not believe "offensive" or "hurtful" comments or speakers have any place within that ideology. John Villasenor, a public policy professor and the author of the report, remarked in his conclusions that "a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive."

His suggestions? That pre-college educators—i.e. middle school and high school systems—give much greater attention to the First Amendment, and to constitutional principles in general. "I would hope that we can do a better job at convincing current and future college students that the best way to respond to offensive speech is with vigorous debate, or peaceful protest," Villasenor wrote."




Perhaps some reasonable response from someone here here about this might be presented- I have observed NOTHING here to indicate that the majority would accept 20% of the opposition taking violent action to prevent LIBERAL speakers from stating their views. Yet there is a vast silence about the right of the minority to even HAVE their viewpoint, much less state it.