Voices from the day's rally at Berkeley.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2017 3.00am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Milo hates the Nazis and they hate him. Get your facts right. For a start, Milo is Jewish and has a black boyfriend which doesn't really sit well with their views.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was the no.1 target by right-wing extremists in 2016, according to the Anti-Defamation league.

Do you not know the difference between right wing and far right? Like left wing and far left?

Edited by Penge Eagle (25 Sep 2017 5.00am)

I think it's true that Milo would be far less well known if it wasn't for all the over the top hysterical reactions.

I don't know why those who didn't like him on Twitter didn't just block him......In fact, while it's important not to stay within your own echo chamber people are perfectly at liberty to do so if they desire and if they had found him offensive they could have just ignored him or blocked him.....but Twitter banned him...and not fairly either. It started the ball rolling.

As it is he's found a place for himself....He's an opportunist and he suffers because of that with any of the serious thinkers on the right. Still, few sensible people agree with how he's characterised and the over emotional reactions.... but he does have some views I don't agree with.

It's funny that those that defend free speech nowadays are liberals and conservatives.....I remember when the religious right wanted to close it down....they still would if they got their way.

I can't say I agree with republicans on some of their beliefs but on liberty they are a safe custodian......However, we shall see with Trump on the Internet, which worries me...Hopefully it's just his normal sh1t posting.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2017 5.21am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The same Republicans who introduced the Patriot act. I'm sure some of them can be trusted - but like many politicians in the US, they're bought and paid for, agenda pursuers, who'd happily target free speech of dissenting voices.

Remember the US has a history of this. Whether it was McCarthyism, Flag Burning, research on gun crime, climate change, Evolution - Given the history, Free speech is generally not safe from groups, that will either abuse it, or want to restrict it, based on their political power, rather than their belief in the constitutional rights of individuals.

The same applies here. Many people are very keen on shutting down legal rights, because they sometimes disagree with the legal conclusions.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think you hit on here the inherent weakness within the democratic libertarian position. Essentially that if the majority wish for theocracy or other anti democratic system should secularism resist.

I think that my position is no...Definitely no if the incoming system isn't violent or repressive...if the majority demand a different system then to resist becomes tyranny.....I'd have to leave though if it were repressive...Well, by the time that could happen only my lads would be here...I'd hope they would leave for their own safety.

However, that's why I believe that it's very important that secularism remains dominant within schools and the legal system and that laws exist that don't allow any one group to overpower the other. That's why secularism should never allow religious dogma to have uncontested ground....but by that same token allow that ground to exist.

Secularism grew out from religious tolerance and it must itself have tolerance.

What...if there were no viable secular countries to escape to? I don't want to think about that.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What about economic democracy. A free enterprise economy is the true counterpart of democracy, it gives everyone a say. Everyone who goes into a shop and chooses one article instead of another is casting a vote in the economic ballot box which then goes on to influence production and investment to meet people's desires. In this continuous general election of the free economy all are enfranchised, we are voting all the time. Socialist economies do the opposite, they are designed to prevent people getting their way, no choice, goods and services are produced whether the consumer wants them or not - it is the government which decides. Choice is never unlimited of course, circumstances restrict or guide it, but the possibility of choice is always there so long as people are free to invest their efforts or money as they think fit. In a socialist society neither the investment of effort nor the the investment of money can be free - the government must decide, they know best.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]