• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Steve Bannon is headlining the New Yorker Festival and readers are outraged

Captain Adverse said:
No, it doesn't cause "real harm."
If I punch you in the face, THAT's "real harm."
When you silence someone simply because you don't agree with what they have to say, then you are depriving them of the same rights you demand when you speak out against them.
Click to expand...

The doctor asks what the assistant what the patient's BP is, and the assistant lies and says it's 1/2 as high as it really is. Is that information harmful?
 
Mach said:
The doctor asks what the assistant what the patient's BP is, and the assistant lies and says it's 1/2 as high as it really is. Is that information harmful?
Click to expand...

Well gee, you're going to have to come up with a better example. I have a little field-medical training (again military related), and normal blood pressure for a healthy adult falls around 100- 110 Systolic over 70 Diastolic with a range of 10 points above or below in each.

Sooo, telling a doctor that someone's BP is 55 over 35 would tend to indicate some kind of traumatic blood loss and if the doctor doesn't see anything causing that he would run the test again personally. If the person's real BP was so high that the "assistant" reported it being normal (110 over 70) when it's really 220 over 140? Again, you are talking about a situation where the doctor would see some serious symptoms of high blood pressure (chest pains, rapid/erratic heartbeat, Heart attack!) and again he would react to check himself.

Of course you are trying to give an example of some lie that is life-threatening like..."The water's fine" when they know there is some danger in it. My response is that a lie is only effective if you trust the person you are asking a question of.

I tend not to automatically trust strangers when it comes to serious issues and often fact-check, but assume they have no reason to lie when it is a typical, everyday question.

However, as I've stated several times before in this Forum, I was taught that words alone only have whatever control YOU give them over you. That it's actions you need to be wary of. Something many members of minority groups learned back in the Jim Crow days.

I was also taught it's better to see the racist redneck, rather than have him sneak up on you. So, yeah let the Nazis, Commies, radical Islamists, etc. speak freely in public...so you know not only who is involved but also remain aware they do still exist.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Of course you are trying to give an example of some lie that is life-threatening like..."The water's fine" when they know there is some danger in it. My response is that a lie is only effective if you trust the person you are asking a question of.
Click to expand...
Doesn't even have to be life threatening, your bar is "harmful".

So words can be harmful.
Lies can be harmful.
A punch in the face can be helpful if it teaches someone a life lesson and causes no lasting harm.
Stealing my car, when I have another, and I find it a day later, may not be much harm either.
Some words may cause lasting psychological harm, which can result in physiological harm as well (stress, suicide, etc.)

Not taking your time on a project at work, that results in a bridge collapsing, that can be harmful too. Did you trust the person building a bridge? You crossed it every day, dumb luck.

In reality Captain Adverse, a wide range of things may or may not be harmful, that includes speech, restriction of speech, etc. Arbitrarily limiting it the way you did just looks bizarre. Why would you claim it's so black and white...what objective reason would be behind that? None.
 
Mach said:
Doesn't even have to be life threatening, your bar is "harmful".
Click to expand...

1. No, the Forum member in post #22 set the "harmful" bar. His declaration was "hate-speech is harmful."

HumblePi said:
Our First Amendment is way too broad. Nazi ideas are, supposedly, among the most despised ideas in the United States. It's precisely because they are so loathed that Nazis must be vigorously defended by people claiming rights under the First Amendment. Do people really believe that defending Nazis really strengthens the system of free speech? It doesn't. Defending Nazis is simply defending Nazis. The point is, hate speech causes real harm.
Click to expand...

I pointed out the difference between real "harm" and personal offense. In your examples the speech is actually an action, a purposeful lie with the intent to cause immediate harm.


Mach said:
So words can be harmful.
Lies can be harmful.
A punch in the face can be helpful if it teaches someone a life lesson and causes no lasting harm.
Stealing my car, when I have another, and I find it a day later, may not be much harm either.
Some words may cause lasting psychological harm, which can result in physiological harm as well (stress, suicide, etc.)

Not taking your time on a project at work, that results in a bridge collapsing, that can be harmful too. Did you trust the person building a bridge? You crossed it every day, dumb luck.

In reality Captain Adverse, a wide range of things may or may not be harmful, that includes speech, restriction of speech, etc. Arbitrarily limiting it the way you did just looks bizarre. Why would you claim it's so black and white...what objective reason would be behind that? None.
Click to expand...

2. No, I don't buy your "psychological harm" argument. It is too broadly applied, and serves to justify all those who argue "hate speech" is harmful.

Hate speech is a nebulous term used to identify any form of speech someone finds "hateful" enough to cause personal offense, anger, fear, whatever.

IMO argument's like yours justifying these kinds of reaction signals to "psychological harm" is part of the problem we are seeing these days with all these "safe space" seeking, easily offended, closed-minded, and clearly intolerant members of our more recent generations.

IMO your "psychobabble" ideology is weakening them mentally, making them more susceptible to mental distress and childish reactions.

I don't buy it. Sorry. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
1. No, the Forum member in post #22 set the "harmful" bar. His declaration was "hate-speech is harmful."



I pointed out the difference between real "harm" and personal offense. In your examples the speech is actually an action, a purposeful lie with the intent to cause immediate harm.




2. No, I don't buy your "psychological harm" argument. It is too broadly applied, and serves to justify all those who argue "hate speech" is harmful.

Hate speech is a nebulous term used to identify any form of speech someone finds "hateful" enough to cause personal offense, anger, fear, whatever.

IMO argument's like yours justifying these kinds of reaction signals to "psychological harm" is part of the problem we are seeing these days with all these "safe space" seeking, easily offended, closed-minded, and clearly intolerant members of our more recent generations.

IMO your "psychobabble" ideology is weakening them mentally, making them more susceptible to mental distress and childish reactions.

I don't buy it. Sorry. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Abolish the monopoly on the use of force and it'll all sort itslef out.

Worked for us for about 250,000 years.
 
Captain Adverse said:
1. No, the Forum member in post #22 set the "harmful" bar. His declaration was "hate-speech is harmful."
Click to expand...
And thus it's the bar for the claim or counter claim you made

I pointed out the difference between real "harm" and personal offense. In your examples the speech is actually an action, a purposeful lie with the intent to cause immediate harm.
Click to expand...
Some speech is an action and some is not? What a tangled web you weave.
And real harm vs personal offense...sounds mystical!

2. No, I don't buy your "psychological harm" argument. It is too broadly applied, and serves to justify all those who argue "hate speech" is harmful.
Click to expand...
You don't like it, therefore it's not true? Sounds wise.

IMO argument's like yours justifying these kinds of reaction signals to "psychological harm" is part of the problem we are seeing these days with all these "safe space" seeking, easily offended, closed-minded, and clearly intolerant members of our more recent generations.
Click to expand...
Like the conservatives at twitter who need a safe space to talk about their conservative nuttery? Why are those snowflakes crying? Were they too made weak by the SJWs who they profess to hate? Funny.

IMO your "psychobabble" ideology is weakening them mentally, making them more susceptible to mental distress and childish reactions.
Click to expand...
Which psychobabble ideology? That people can say hurtful things to one another? That's just a fact.
That for some it's lasting harm? That's a fact too.

What's more important is for fine people like white nationalists...who champion not just hate speech, but hate speech to motivate people to join their cause, to support government/candidates like Trump and others who dog whistle to them, and who have a long history of violence (KKK, Ayran brotherhood, etc.), and specifically believe citiznes in the U.S. should leave because of their hate beliefs. Or hating on Muslims, which leads to Muslims bans, or an Indian guy getting shot because some redneck thought they were a Muslim.

Speech can be better described as a tool. Tools can be used for bad, or good. Admit it, and move on. This constantly denial of reality that conservatives/libertarians do, looks exhausting.
POS uses speech to make a living. Some people use speech to teach the next generation. Some use it to build bombs that killed U.S. citizens.
Some use it to foment violence. Some to quell violence. See how reality works? No tangled webs that on casual examination, are shown to be absurd.
 
HumblePi said:
Our First Amendment is way too broad. Nazi ideas are, supposedly, among the most despised ideas in the United States. It's precisely because they are so loathed that Nazis must be vigorously defended by people claiming rights under the First Amendment. Do people really believe that defending Nazis really strengthens the system of free speech? It doesn't. Defending Nazis is simply defending Nazis. The point is, hate speech causes real harm.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the First Amendment there is no such thing as hate speech. The whole point of the free speech clause is to protect speech that the majority of people do not like, or hate.

And defending 1st Amendment Rights is NOT the same as defending Nazi's. All that you do by saying otherwise is hurt your argument.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Bannon is pretty much an elite anarchist. You sure you want to give him a platform?
Click to expand...

An elite anarchist? Is that sort of like an elite swampy hater?
 
Captain Adverse said:
If I invited David Duke to speak at a group discussion including the whole range of political ideas in my home? Then no, I would NOT "kick him out" just become some people would not want to attend.

Just don't attend if you don't want the exposure to views different from your own.



I served as a Public Defender, and I am used to "defending" people other people don't like very much.

I don't personally defend the actions of ILLEGAL immigrants breaking laws to migrate here, although if I worked for the Federal Public Defender's office I would do my best to give them the best defense in court.

However, I have always supported LEGAL immigrants regardless of race, religion, creed, or nation of origin.

Something you would KNOW if you actually paid attention to prior posts.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is also part of free expression.

Know what else is? The right not to stay and listen.

That is no justification to censor anyone else's option to hear such viewpoints in such an open forum as the one in the OP's article.
Click to expand...

Such a damn good rebuttal!
:2dance:
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
1. It's not about not wanting to hear the views. It's about giving the douchebag a platform no one says he deserves.

2. I mentioned three other topics you refused to mention, and none related to illegal immigrants. testy much?

3. Not everyone deserves a platform.
Click to expand...

Really, dude who appoints you to decide who gets a platform?
IF someone is legally able to give someone a platform, and you don't agree with their decision, do us all a favor and stay home.
 
iguanaman said:
Normalizing White supremacy is not free expression it is hate propaganda. Bannon is banned from the festival anyway. He's poison,.
Click to expand...

The New Yorker editor sold out first amendment rights because he caved to many celebrity elites who threatened to cancel. Let's just call it what it is...
 
iguanaman said:
Normalizing White supremacy is not free expression it is hate propaganda. Bannon is banned from the festival anyway. He's poison,.
Click to expand...

Fabricating White Supremacy is hate propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom