followed tags: 16
followed domains: 0
badges given: 6 of 9
member for: 599 days
I'm quickly slipping into a maddening inner universe of innumerable universes. I've sort of lost the ability to tell a compelling story. I spend most of my time creating elaborate worlds, and character that are sort of displaced in both time and space. The character often end up jumping from universe to universe changing with the landscape of each world. I've been returning to a daily writing exercise in the hopes of getting myself back on the horse, but things get really out-of-sorts very fast. At this point I can count maybe 4 separate universes floating around in my head, partially scribbled on paper, or tucked away on napkins somewhere. I imagine that somewhere down the line I will sort of naturally mesh all of them together in an attempt to regain control of problem that isn't really that much of a problem.
A peaceful ethnic cleansing is a new and interesting idea that deserves discussion? Really? Me having to defend why I deserve to not only have a seat at the table, but live in the country I was born in? Normalizing behavior that actively works to silence my voice is absurd, and counter to freedom of speech. Milo Yiann-whatever uses his platform to do shit like OPENLY mock a transgender kid on stage? To dox and verbally harass people from every stage of life? I've actually heard the dude speak in public, and was promptly told by a few people in the crowd I should go back to my own country and I'm from fucking Puerto Rico a fucking US territory. Liberals at the talk were openly mocked when asking questions, and made fun of by the surrounding crowds. Wtf is that? That's freedom of speech? I actually left that talk because I physically didn't feel safe there. That's not silencing my freedom of speech? By normalizing contempt/hatred/etc. for others you are actively working to silence those groups. Sorry I don't find that defensible its very easy to see where the line is drawn for me.
The intention remains completely different. MLK's intention was to create a new stage for colored people to voice their opinions in public discourse where none previously existed. Its present in his rhetoric. Milo and Spencer are working to tear down public discourse by suppressing voices across race, gender, sexuality, and religion. Those topics are also present in their rhetoric.
It's very easy. Does the person take part in actively harassing, harming, destroying the lives of others with their actions and speech? Milo whatever his name is, does that pretty regularly. He incites his following to active suppression, and in some cases takes part in it himself. Thats no longer protected speech.
My problem is we consider stuff like Milo and Spencer's work as protected speech. It isn't protected speech in any right. I'm all for the discourse of ideals, but when your ideals say that people like me don't have a place to express my ideals, when they preach the suppression of my voice, and my livelihood I don't label that as speech that deserves protecting. I'm very much in agreement with what the author says. Milo and Spencer preach hate, suppression, harassment, and in some cases violence that shouldn't be allowed. If it is allowed then you can't be angry when people become violent because that is literally what they want, its what they preach about every moment of everyday.
A lot of Milo's rhetoric calls for action that leads to the mistreatment of a lot of different people. While I don't agree that violence is the answer to things. Milo is openly racist, sexist, and xenophobic. That wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't using his speech as a call to action for those who follow him. Same with Spencer, who actively looks to uproot my life, and my family with his rhetoric. Milo, Spencer, and people like him are looking to incite violence against me. In the same way the riots should have been stopped, I don't think they should be given a platform to share their ideals because they are helping in normalizing violence, aggression, and mistreatment of minority groups.
Of course. I don't think anyone is being dismissive of it at all really not even klein. I think klein's response is along the lines of what I was saying. That sure what trump said is true, but in this scenario there is a distinction between intention large enough that, "America did it too" isn't a good response.
I just don't think that wary or upset should stop us from acting against Putin and his interests. The excuse that because the US does the same thing means we shouldn't act is a weak argument. Putin is a thug that would gladly watch the rest of the world burn if it meant he was in power over all of it. At the very least the US understands that there is a balance globally I mean.
We are paying the price for all of this, and sadly this doesn't end. Hopefully people will begin to see how important politics are in our everyday lives. People like to shift the government into these large categories that don't illustrate how much the federal and state government matter in our everyday lives. The same way they say there are innumerable types of invisible waves passing through the air around us, for everything we do there is probably a piece of legislation tied to it in some way.
I imagine no matter what you do, Trump's politics will find it's way into every form of media you enjoy.
I love constitutional originalism, but only for how ridiculous of an idea it is. Yes, let's interpret the consitution as the founding fathers did 230 years ago because honestly what has changed since then, right? I'm in a constant state of aggravation thanks to DT.
It's weird though. The ban remains largely intact from what I read. It just seems like people can't be sent away anymore now. It's definitely a step in the right direction