If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Because of he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-the-post-be-deemed-innappropriate (pst "hitler"), I think many of the countries with such laws still have memory of how quickly a populace can be swayed to the irrational. And what saves us today? Ever written a letter to the editor in response to something in a major paper that is so slanted it is essentially wrong? If you haven't, give a go -- they reserve the right to edit or simply not publish. Trust me, when they get done editing you may as well not bother. The exceptions, of course, are people who hold public office or have a lot of money. I am not sure what the use of free speech is if a few get a megaphone and the rest must whisper into a paper bag.
Hopefully not too much of a digression, but Popper has a point. It is appropriate for the unpopular opinions thread, but when money is equated with speech, as it legally is in the U.S., the open forum of ideas is not very open. There is easily 25% of our population who, right now, would fall lock step into nation based on militaristic evangelical Christian solidarity. They are no different from the Islamic extremists, except I believe they would shoot me in the head execution style for what I just typed rather than lopping my head off with a sword. Cultural preference.
How do you address that kind of hate and violence when one of the ruling parties relies on their votes, actually panders to their hatred and misinformation?
I would hope always to live where freedom to believe what you do,with no oppression is the culture of the land. I do understand that at times some misunderstand the meaning to allow them to believe they have the freedom to oppress others,and that is a fault in their natures and not a reason to stop allowing free thought.
Because of he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-the-post-be-deemed-innappropriate (pst "hitler"), I think many of the countries with such laws still have memory of how quickly a populace can be swayed to the irrational. And what saves us today? Ever written a letter to the editor in response to something in a major paper that is so slanted it is essentially wrong? If you haven't, give a go -- they reserve the right to edit or simply not publish. Trust me, when they get done editing you may as well not bother. The exceptions, of course, are people who hold public office or have a lot of money. I am not sure what the use of free speech is if a few get a megaphone and the rest must whisper into a paper bag.
Hopefully not too much of a digression, but Popper has a point. It is appropriate for the unpopular opinions thread, but when money is equated with speech, as it legally is in the U.S., the open forum of ideas is not very open. There is easily 25% of our population who, right now, would fall lock step into nation based on militaristic evangelical Christian solidarity. They are no different from the Islamic extremists, except I believe they would shoot me in the head execution style for what I just typed rather than lopping my head off with a sword. Cultural preference.
How do you address that kind of hate and violence when one of the ruling parties relies on their votes, actually panders to their hatred and misinformation?
― George Carlin
this made my day today !