Very true. This overnight new found love of civil liberties and freedoms from some especially in the Trump era is anything but. It's just dressed up as such and you'll find those most enamored by it are only concerned about it when someone on the right or alt right is peppering the world with what is cruel and hateful for a pay cheque or ego trip. Suddenly they are the voices to be listened to, heroes, brave. Anyone politically left, moderate or a black athlete rather than an orange idiot and it's business as usual and they're trouble or misguided and should be quiet.

As you say, the very same people were of course loving it when gays an 'an affront to God' were arrested for consensual sex in Texas, or attacked and hindered from adopting from a populist 'family values' position. Freedom of expression then is an inconvenience or something to be decided for others by others. Of course people can suddenly now highlight mistreatment of these same groups by other religious groups they dislike a bit more, but it's rather disingenuous when they participate in mistreatment themselves. It's just another way to use and exploit and hold power over.

Yes, the Trump era cry of civil liberties and freedoms is just a handy bumper sticker phrase, a strategy to keep the attacks coming while Trump himself attacks and tries to dismantle these very values, whether on a supreme court level, with unhinged threats, or by saying that 2+2=5 every 5 seconds. That's all fine though apparently. Values aren't values when only come into play as an act of self interest.

Edited by wordup (30 Nov 2017 1.32pm)

'But what about the civil liberties of those on the receiving end?'

This is just fundamentally an illiberal idea.

Offence isn't given, offence is taken. You choose to be offended. That's why sensible law understands that opinion is opinion and directed action is action. As soon as you decide to fcuk with that you start interpretation and.....now you're onto 1984's 'wrong think'....which your tribe call 'hate speech'.

As for your point about homosexuals. I have no problem with people not liking gays...gays, gingers, the right, the left....whatever it is. Is it a good thing....No I don't think it is. Should they be able to disadvantage homosexuals in law, of course not. They should get treated the same by the state.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2017 2.21pm)

Is that another 'this brand week's new belief that you've always believed'? You clearly have an awful lot in common with Trump. Don't you read your own posts. What happened to saying that gay adoption when it didn't match your personal criteria wasn't 'decent' and that you're unhappy with 'gay marriage' it should be called something else. You're the one at some kind of buffet where you feel you get to pick and choose how others are allowed to live their lives. Take your own advice.

Why aren't there any right wing professors ?

Name these people.

Who are the people speaking out about the progressive..and to be fair now mainstream attack on civil liberties? Who was supporting other attacks on civil liberties that are country wide?

Again, this is an example of someone blurring the line between opinion and supporting actual action. Nothing I believe in impedes on my belief in civil liberties.

I'm not fond of 'gay marriage' I don't view it as having an equal worth to society. However, I've always supported the principle that the state treats everyone obeying the law the same. Hence I agree with the principle of 'gay marriage' as something that should be allowed. I've never said the opposite.

Are you getting this?

There are certain situations in gay adoption where the child is deprived of a mother figure that I think represents a problem and isn't something I approve of. If I think the state is doing something that harms a child or anyone else for purely ideological reasons I'll state it. But I never said gay adoption should be against the law. If that was how I felt I would have said it.

I don't know what the context of 'decent' was.

I support civil liberties. We can debate what civil liberties are but you appear more fond of trying to demonise those standing up for them.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2017 2.58pm)