Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Is any of it pro-Clinton?
Italics are not shouting. Italics are a way to place emphasis on certain words without raising volume.
YOU MIGHT CALL THIS SHOUTING.
This also might be shouting
I could also call this shouting
Seriously there are so many ways to be loud on this site. Italics are not one of them
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:08:37 PM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youExcept that's not what you said. You said that hate speech laws are a slippery slope that will lead to a dictatorship. There are many, many countries that have hate speech laws and are not dictatorships, which makes the statement inaccurate at best, a suggestion that we are somehow dictatorships at worst.
As for the notion that the culture is radically different, as much as too many Canadians like to mock Americans, the reality is we are far, far more similar than we are different. We consume your media, watch your news, follow your elections more than we follow our own, etc, etc, etc. Culturally there's very little difference between us. And for those of you who think that we don't have our equivalent of your Trump supporters...well I cordially invite you to visit my hometown. Confederate flags and swastika tattoos FTW.
Why not? If fraud being illegal doesn't mean you get arrested for lying in every day life, why are you so convinced that stricter hate speech laws will somehow lead to dictatorship or what have you?
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:10:31 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
The "you" is collective. Go back and read the last page, page and a half. Whole lot of slippery slope arguments being thrown around without a basis in fact.
And before you say I shouldn't use the collective you when responding to one person, the post I was replying to opened with you declaring that "we said". You invoked the collective first at which point I get to talk about what the collective is saying.
Um, he does.
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:12:33 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
You can't claim to be using a collective you in response to a direct quote from a single person.
Yeah, I meant "I".
oops sorry about that
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:13:29 PM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youI'm gonna toss Neil Gaiman's essay on defending 'icky' speech in the ring for the heck of it
(though the subject is porn and not hate speech). Gaiman runs a foundation that's actually active in running the legal defenses of artists in first amendment cases.
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:14:07 PM by Elle
Y'know what might be a good idea? Some kind of official sanction against rhetoric like what Trump said that caused this. It would be too much to actually press legal charges against him, but maybe limit his funding in some way or something like that?
Something along the lines of 'if somewhere is arrested for voter intimidation, the total votes from that area should be adjusted against the favoured party of the person doing the intimidation' would be nice, but that's probably hard to implement.
Oh, voter intimidation and suppression is highly illegal. Problem is, we can't tie it directly to the man himself. So we can't exactly throw him in jail for it. Having minions do your bidding and take the fall for it must be wonderful.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youI'm on the board with the "keep the First amendment" here, and I'm not even American!
In France, legislators are sometimes discussing "right not to be offended" laws that are thinly-veiled blasphemy laws. Such as soon after the Charlie-Hebdo attack...
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Wait. As in, France was debating making poltical cartoons illegal, or....
That sounds like a massive case of Blaming the Victim.
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:19:56 PM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youThe way I see it, the 1st Amendment keeps some kind of bizarre equilibrium between the worst of the right and the left, and neither side must prevail, because whichever does will have far less resistance forcing their worldview on everyone else. At the same time, enough moderates and centrists in either direction provide a sturdy buffer against the aforementioned emotionally heated, polarized groups who see the other "side" as acolytes of Satan.
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:26:57 PM by nervmeister
Oh, of course it's illegal, but the problem as I see is that that doesn't stop it from being an effective tactic. You throw a Trump supporter who's already voted in jail for intimidating 20 Hillary supporters, and it's a net loss for Hillary, because Trump doesn't care whether or not some of his supporters land in jail.
So the system should make sure it ceases to be an effective tactic- give the candidates incentives to discourage their supporters from trying it.
I have... doubts as to its overall effectiveness. Open intimidation tactics may also swing another voter's votes. The Clinton voters may come back after teh police have been called. They're also likely not carrying any campaigning materials, since campaigning on election day is forbidden. People don't generally discuss their political views with total strangers.
Oooooh, but in a small town everyone knows everyone already.... I could see how in some districts that would be a problem.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you

@Ambar
Perhaps I'm being overly cautious due to all the dirt Trump and his followers kicked up. I'll give this one to you.
edited 3rd Nov '16 1:05:45 PM by SilentColossus