Bondi went too far, and her reversal is a good sign.
The place to police the hate in our midst is the private sector. A strong culture of intolerance for violence keeps the desire to involve the government at bay.
We were snookered into it, same way we were snookered into using “gender” when we meant “sex”. Got to be conscious of what language we use. Hopefully Pam Bondi learned something, and doesn’t want to be a demagogue.
The far-left are the best modern language-manipulators I have known.
The latest now is the far-left announcing they are not going to come out in favour of chastising employees or public figures or teachers for celebrating Charlie Kirk's death...because....get this --- they do not believe in Cancel Culture.
Maybe true but she is obviously out of her league currently. It's September and we are waiting indictments and real action. Fauci, Schiff, Soros, Brennan, Comey et al... Get to work Pam .
No. There is no use of the term "hate speech" in the law. There are certain utterances which may be unlawful, such as slander or libel, credible threats of actual harm, incitement to imminent lawlessness, and perhaps a few others. The rest is protected speech, and legal.
I have lived many years overseas where there is no freedom of speech as we understand it in the US. Singapore had a little “Speakers Corner in a park near downtown. As I understood it, one could hold an assembly there without a permit which would be required elsewhere. But unlike the US, a public figure could still sue a political opponent for libel and such cases were fairly common. So political speech tended to be very thin gruel, indeed. It was a beautiful, safe, orderly society but political expression was rather narrow.
I am sure Singapore has many excellences; I know its beauty only from photographs. But I also have read that there are many penalties under their laws which simply would not fly here. We are surely a dangerous nation in some ways, a young one, and armed. But we do cherish our rights and liberties, and the foundational principle that the former are beyond governmental revocation. I only hope we don't accidentally kill ourselves before we finally start to get grown up.
I guess it depends on where you live. Here in America, there aren't supposed to be any limits. Free speech is Free speech. The issue is that many people consider punishment by employers or such things as infringement. IT IS NOT! You have the right to say whatever comes into your head, but if that happens to ruin the reputation of someone else they have the right to exact punishment.
Now.. Europe? There is no free speech unless you are on the current winning side.
Exactly. If a condition of your employment includes a code of conduct document that limits your ability to post certain things on social media, then that has nothing to do with your rights as afforded by the constitution and everything to do with your “at will” employment.
I think perhaps you’re not portraying the law as it is. There is no one, not even the Supreme Court, that has the power to deem something as “hate speech”. It’s possible to deem something as “incitement to lawlessness” but I don’t see that used much. In racial terms the crudest, most narrow minded description of another race isn’t hate speech. Accusing a political opponent in the loudest terms of seeking to destroy democracy isn’t hate speech. Publicly accusing an opponent falsely of doing something illegal, such as embezzlement is probably a tort, a civil issue, but not a crime unless someone reports it falsely to law enforcement.
Well, given the actual censorship and economic hardship perpetrated by the previous administration, it may be better she both says it and walks it back publicly, than if she had made one sort of noise in the press, and acted contrarily behind closed doors.
Hey Matt - have you considered any articles debunking the supposed hate that legacy media is ascribing to CK vs what he actually said in context. Stephen King at least realized he stepped in it with his comments, NYT too, but there have been many other outlets taking so much of what CK said out of context.
excellent point. Charlie was smeared and tagged but when you go to his actual words - nothingburgers. Christian, wanting gay/trans to be healthy and happy with their bodies and not want to chop them up. Hardly hate speech.
Like the one I saw that said he said all black women lack brain capacity or some such comment, when he simply said in relation to a specific topic that Michelle Obama, Oprah, and Woopie didn't or something like that. Calling out specific people is not racist. You noticing that they are all of a specific gender or ethnicity... might be.
He was specifically saying that BECAUSE they all stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action, they had stolen a white person's spot. He wasn't calling out random black women.
This is literally true -- except "non-black" would be more correct than "white", but that's a quibble. That is, in fact, what affirmative action (in its modern form) exists to do. It sounds vulgar to put it like that, but one should talk about vulgar things using vulgar phrases.
The problem may be that "hate speech" is defined by what aligns with our views (or not). Someone may consider Charlie Kirk saying he opposes all abortion to be hate speech. Someone else may consider someone saying transgender girls should be able to compete in girls' sports to be hate speech.
Neither are hate speech. They're just speech that you or I or anyone may personally agree or disagree with.
I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment and Kirk's speech and writing to my mind fall within it. It's not free speech unless that of people whose words I find appalling are permitted.
It should, but sadly I probably need to mention, go without saying that it follows I abhor his assassination.
But we don’t need to pretend Charlie Kirk was anything other than a "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" (per Clever Pie) to affirm that principle.
There's a tragic irony that he was shot and that it was on the Utah Valley University campus given a) a student there was responsible for legislation permitting open carrying of guns on campuses in Utah; and b) that Kirk's position on gun control was, "it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
My take is anyone thinking he was a decent human being either didn't pay attention to what he said or, worse yet, agrees with him. A few samples which you could perhaps point to "context" that made these comments palatable:
- Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact.
- I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.
- The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.
- If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
- Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
- Buy weapons, I keep on saying that. Buy weapons. Buy ammo. if you go into a public place, bring a gun with you and if you live in a state that doesn't allow you to do it, I got nothing for you, man. Thank goodness in Arizona we can carry and we carry.
You sir are wildly and likely willfully misinformed. If you spend a couple open minded minutes looking at what Charlie actually said, you should be embarrassed for this post. I'll address one of the items you list.
"I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Please see below for an analysis that has the statement you quoted in-context. Your characterization of the quote is completely divorced from the reality of what Charlie said. Shame on you. I'm really struggling how someone apparently so divorced from reality as you appear to be would subscribe to Matt Taibbi. I didn't think we had that sort here.
Thanks for the link. You raise a legitimate issue of mainstream over-simplification but I take it then you're in favor of requiring voter ID, a specific objection he raised in it.
I'm not. It's clear the intent of this proposed requirement is to take citizens who're likely to vote Democratic off voter roles. There is no data I know of showing any but very isolated instances of voter fraud.
Got any others?
As for who cares below, no citations and merely insult, so no value.
First, thank you for watching the video. What you presented is not oversimplification. It's changing the meaning to be diametrically opposed to what was said.
Further, voter ID has nothing to do with whether Charlie's quote as taken horribly and maliciously out of context. He's "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" is far different from, "but I disagree with him on Voter ID".
Don't take my word. Listen to a gay black man who was friends with Charlie. He goes through the laundry list of Charlie's supposed sins. What I saw was a compassionate man who would typically treat people with grace and kindness. The video intro is unnecessarily long. Bounce around the hyperlinks to whatever hot button topic you want to explore.
To me, this video is gold. I would rather live in world where I disagree with half the population on policy solutions or philosophical points, instead of one where I believe half the population are mouth-breathing fill-in-the-blank-ists.
thanks for the long comment stating you believe fake news. AKA liars who distort what good people actually said. You are too lazy to look up the actual comments yourself. or you lack the brainpower to think outside the propaganda hole you enjoy swimming in.
Bondi overspoke, obviously. There is a line and it has to do with promoting and/or executing violence. That has been, and likely should be, the bright line for moving speech from "I hate it" to "you cannot do that". Calling for the masses to kill someone is different from "some days I wish he/she were dead". (Otherwise almost all couples would be in jail.)
Kirk had the right idea -- more speech (without threats of violence) is the answer. Having said all that, private actors have the ability to draw tighter circles of acceptable around the speech of their representatives. I would not want my children taught by a teacher who thinks Kirk and all his supporters should be dead -- my child may be one of them.
The line isn't even at promoting violence. Promoting violence is fine, legally, as long as it isn't connected to imminent lawless action. You can't yell "Kill that guy" while pointing at him at the head of a mob, but you can post "We should kill that guy" on social media.
Of course, employers may take a dim view of their employees promoting violence, as well they should.
Fuck hate speech. It was the biggest Pandora's Box mistake that unleashed a mass of evil to think that we can identify and prosecute people for an emotion.
If I speak, there is no way for you to definitively know if my words are evidence of hate. That is unless I say that I hate. But even then, what is in my heart at the time the words are delivered does not define the basis of any person. My kids have said "I hate you" when I have grounded them for misbehavior. Do you think that is real, or just a fit of passion?
Now if my kid said, "I hate you" and then shot me to kill me, it is the attempted killing that should get the legal attention and not the words said.
All that should matter is actions. Words are not actions. Words are not violence. However, words design to influence and encourage people to do violence, and other illegal actions should be considered actions themselves. Also, speech that attempts to cause or even support any action that is an infringement on our God-given rights as enshrined in the Constitution should be considered punishable actions.
To me it is not about what you supposedly feel. It is about whether you actively commit a crime or not.
I have always questioned the too-heavy emphasis on knowing the supposed motive for any crime The issue is that they did it . Or someone did it. Whatever they were feeling at the time.
The concept of "hate speech" was introduced in recent decades as a leftwing political tactic. A manipulation.
We lived without this concept prior to that. Most people under 40 probably do not remember such times. A relatively unified and balanced society does not need to worry unduly about it. The problems arise with the general social breakdown.
It's the chicken-and-the-egg situation....which came first, the social breakdown and the following "hate speech" or the "hate speech" and the following social breakdown?
My money is on the social breakdown having been planned and instigated first.
It’s the proverbial camel getting its nose under the edge of the tent. Once people accepted that years ago, look at all the subsequent bad ideas that have followed.
It amazes me that so many people go around seriously talking about "hate speech" as if it it a bona fide legal concept. As opposed to a GOTCHA! leftwing manipulation.
The lefties well and truly WANT you to believe in it...so they can use it in future against the gullibles.
I suspect the whole "human rights" movement of the 70s and beyond was actually a far-leftwing manipulation too. Part of the overall Neo-Marxist narrative to build a worldview which pushed the West in a direction beneficial for them. Not us.
Another mind-twisting tool. This, from the folks who actually wish to take away even basic rights. Working towards mass serfdom.
I am an unabashed conservative, aligned with the right on most (but not all) issues. That said, the entire concept of “hate speech” escapes me. The same for “hate crime”. Speech is speech, and other than what is already covered by law (libel or slander for instance), why make a distinction? Based on what? The same with “hate crime”. Crime is crime. How do we attach hate to it objectively? Bindi was wrong, and I’m glad she backtracked.
There is no such thing as hate speech, only hateful people. We need to get to the heart about why people hate. It's not hard to figure out, but what is really going on with these people? Radicalization doesn't seem to tell whole story. Cult indoctrination seems much more like it. With a little bribery from ActBlue affiliates and/or Arabella Advisors sprinkled on top.
The latest reports of various Antifa-adjacent groups like Socialist Rifle Association, Armed Queers of SLC, and maybe more shows that there is an escalation happening, but appears to be again, on the left. Instead of just supporting NRA, GOA, or any group that simply protects gun rights, they are using the Marxist tactic of subverting a shared right and making it intersectional.
Marxism and all that goes with it is a plague and may be the ultimate downfall of human civilization.
The question should be; who's more radical right now? It changes and shifts. Right now the left is more deranged, violent and fascist. I spent two years on Tik Tok live trying to have conversations with lefties. They are incapable of debating. Every attempt at debate turns into personal insults and threats. They don't know what's going on. I recently debated with a friend who said "DEI was a right" and Trump "took her rights away." DEI is not a right. The far left doesn't know history, they have no clue as to what's going on, and they are brainwashed by the media. I was too. I was not a bad a person or evil. I was convinced Trump was a Russian agent and I feared for my country. They are being mislead. The media needs to be held accountable.
country needs to use the ultimate tool of the Mennonites, Amish and formerly of the Quakers. Shun the evil from your society.
It is indeed not their idea, but is far, far older:
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”
17 Therefore
“Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”
18
“I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty.”
Extremist religious groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses use the shunning tactic too. Even to their own children, if they dissent or question. So do most cults.
This version of shunning is a form or totalitarianism, rather than righteousness.
some people drink moderately all their lives while others descend into a bottle and can’t get out.
An example of people who only recently shunned their own child are the Robinsons of Utah. they must be totalitarian for turning their son in to the law.
That was not shunning. It was facing reality that if their son was indeed guilty, the law was going to find him. They hoped that advising their son to turn himself in might spare him the death penalty, ultimately.
I don't think you understand that shunning is an aspect displayed by totalitarians. It is where Cancel Culture of the far leftwing originated. Though it can be found in far rightwing extremism too.
Trouble is that the Bible also told man not to judge. And too often, the persons they see fit to judge as sinners are actually innocent. Such as the so-called witches of the 17th century Puritan witch hunts. Or the "heretics" of the Spanish Inquisition.
Or the many individuals today who have been the scapegoats and targets of false allegations.
So you need to be extremely careful when you point out the sinners. Some may be obvious wrong-doers, but the larger portion of them may be innocent.
In cases you are not 110% certain, judge not.
Besides which, the judgmental shunning types tend to think that the slightest transgression to their own groupthink deserves serious punishment. Which is more about their own vanity and wish for power.
I guess it is lost on her — Kirk’s statements that there is no hate speech?
It appears there are certain members of the Trump admin, not all, in a competition to outdo the other guys to get the boss’s approval. She strikes me as one.
The vibe I am feeling right now is that we don’t need constant showboating for justice. We saw what we saw. That’s enough.
Until further notice, we should strike the word "hate" from the English language. It no longer has any useful meaning, except as a political tool, a bludgeon to silence opposition. And to arouse emotions over logic and intentionally inculcate real, tangible hate - the real thing. Just as anti-racism = more racism, anti-hate = more hate. Young minds are the most vulnerable.
Once they have us thinking that feeling certain emotions is a sin, they will move on to indoctrinating everyone that thought-crime is next. Punishable by them, of course.
There are indeed reprehensible attitudes, according to what most of us consider morality. But we cannot criminalize this via the law unless it is really a crime.
We can let people know in other ways they are being reprehensible however. That it is outside our moral boundaries.
Bondi went too far, and her reversal is a good sign.
The place to police the hate in our midst is the private sector. A strong culture of intolerance for violence keeps the desire to involve the government at bay.
Pam has generally been a great AG, but she did go WAY off the rails here, and needed to get pulled up.
No AG should use the phrase "hate speech". That is not a live concept in American law, and it never, ever should be.
I agree. The "hate speech" notion is a cultural myth, introduced by the far leftwing as a political manipulation.
And now we have loads of people going around talking as if it is an authentic legal concept. They need to stop.
We were snookered into it, same way we were snookered into using “gender” when we meant “sex”. Got to be conscious of what language we use. Hopefully Pam Bondi learned something, and doesn’t want to be a demagogue.
The far-left are the best modern language-manipulators I have known.
The latest now is the far-left announcing they are not going to come out in favour of chastising employees or public figures or teachers for celebrating Charlie Kirk's death...because....get this --- they do not believe in Cancel Culture.
See the new twist?
She is useless. This is her focus? We have shootings for decades. GOP generally the victims. Never prosecuted!
Hey man, I have free speech, and if Bondi's aligns with mine, hers can be free too.
Isn't that the formula? Agree with me = needs protection. Disagree with me = hate speech.
She has the best departmental record in Supreme Court cases of any Attorney General in history.
It is not even remotely close.
Maybe true but she is obviously out of her league currently. It's September and we are waiting indictments and real action. Fauci, Schiff, Soros, Brennan, Comey et al... Get to work Pam .
She isn’t out of her depth.
But she does need to push all of those into courtrooms!
She has seated 4 grand juries in 4 states. Her plate is full.
Most likely there are other people involved in prioritizing her actions... She's not a lone ranger.
She’s in charge. She hired the strike team. I think the AG’s work is not easily visible to the populace.
Isn't less than one year a bit premature to be talking about "in history?"
Actually… nope.
OK. Next time a guy hits 20 homers by May 15, we'll just declare him the best home run hitter ever. Makes a lot of sense.
You’re welcome to rebut the fact I provided with your various ideas about other AGs and how they might compare
All she did was prove that the right wing is just as woke as the left when it comes to freedom of speech. They wish the first amendment didn't exist.
If the speech is deemed hate speech, then aren't there limits to its legality, or am I confused about the issue?
No. There is no use of the term "hate speech" in the law. There are certain utterances which may be unlawful, such as slander or libel, credible threats of actual harm, incitement to imminent lawlessness, and perhaps a few others. The rest is protected speech, and legal.
I have lived many years overseas where there is no freedom of speech as we understand it in the US. Singapore had a little “Speakers Corner in a park near downtown. As I understood it, one could hold an assembly there without a permit which would be required elsewhere. But unlike the US, a public figure could still sue a political opponent for libel and such cases were fairly common. So political speech tended to be very thin gruel, indeed. It was a beautiful, safe, orderly society but political expression was rather narrow.
I am sure Singapore has many excellences; I know its beauty only from photographs. But I also have read that there are many penalties under their laws which simply would not fly here. We are surely a dangerous nation in some ways, a young one, and armed. But we do cherish our rights and liberties, and the foundational principle that the former are beyond governmental revocation. I only hope we don't accidentally kill ourselves before we finally start to get grown up.
I guess it depends on where you live. Here in America, there aren't supposed to be any limits. Free speech is Free speech. The issue is that many people consider punishment by employers or such things as infringement. IT IS NOT! You have the right to say whatever comes into your head, but if that happens to ruin the reputation of someone else they have the right to exact punishment.
Now.. Europe? There is no free speech unless you are on the current winning side.
Exactly. If a condition of your employment includes a code of conduct document that limits your ability to post certain things on social media, then that has nothing to do with your rights as afforded by the constitution and everything to do with your “at will” employment.
Many contracts also include "moral terpitude" clauses that can be used as cause for ending contracts or licenses of state licensed professionals.
I think perhaps you’re not portraying the law as it is. There is no one, not even the Supreme Court, that has the power to deem something as “hate speech”. It’s possible to deem something as “incitement to lawlessness” but I don’t see that used much. In racial terms the crudest, most narrow minded description of another race isn’t hate speech. Accusing a political opponent in the loudest terms of seeking to destroy democracy isn’t hate speech. Publicly accusing an opponent falsely of doing something illegal, such as embezzlement is probably a tort, a civil issue, but not a crime unless someone reports it falsely to law enforcement.
I think she withdrew that comment.
She did, and so she should have. Best if she had not said anything of the sort in the first place.
It is frightening she said it in the first place.
It made realize how incompetent she is. Every law student knows how stupid she was. Attorney General? Nope.
Well, given the actual censorship and economic hardship perpetrated by the previous administration, it may be better she both says it and walks it back publicly, than if she had made one sort of noise in the press, and acted contrarily behind closed doors.
No, you’re not confused at all.
Hey Matt - have you considered any articles debunking the supposed hate that legacy media is ascribing to CK vs what he actually said in context. Stephen King at least realized he stepped in it with his comments, NYT too, but there have been many other outlets taking so much of what CK said out of context.
excellent point. Charlie was smeared and tagged but when you go to his actual words - nothingburgers. Christian, wanting gay/trans to be healthy and happy with their bodies and not want to chop them up. Hardly hate speech.
Like the one I saw that said he said all black women lack brain capacity or some such comment, when he simply said in relation to a specific topic that Michelle Obama, Oprah, and Woopie didn't or something like that. Calling out specific people is not racist. You noticing that they are all of a specific gender or ethnicity... might be.
He was specifically saying that BECAUSE they all stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action, they had stolen a white person's spot. He wasn't calling out random black women.
This is literally true -- except "non-black" would be more correct than "white", but that's a quibble. That is, in fact, what affirmative action (in its modern form) exists to do. It sounds vulgar to put it like that, but one should talk about vulgar things using vulgar phrases.
King was just protecting his wallet. If he had nothing to lose, he wouldn't have apologized. He would have kept his filthy mouth shut otherwise.
And why do we care about him anyway? When's the last time he wrote a book anyone read?
Right? I mean, that's how I judge good authors: prolificacy and recency of a bestseller.
The problem may be that "hate speech" is defined by what aligns with our views (or not). Someone may consider Charlie Kirk saying he opposes all abortion to be hate speech. Someone else may consider someone saying transgender girls should be able to compete in girls' sports to be hate speech.
Neither are hate speech. They're just speech that you or I or anyone may personally agree or disagree with.
They did make note of this on America This Week, yesterday.
No. Instead they decided to include the Proud Boys in this coverage. That should go a long way toward dispelling all those lies. FFS.
I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment and Kirk's speech and writing to my mind fall within it. It's not free speech unless that of people whose words I find appalling are permitted.
It should, but sadly I probably need to mention, go without saying that it follows I abhor his assassination.
But we don’t need to pretend Charlie Kirk was anything other than a "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" (per Clever Pie) to affirm that principle.
There's a tragic irony that he was shot and that it was on the Utah Valley University campus given a) a student there was responsible for legislation permitting open carrying of guns on campuses in Utah; and b) that Kirk's position on gun control was, "it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
My take is anyone thinking he was a decent human being either didn't pay attention to what he said or, worse yet, agrees with him. A few samples which you could perhaps point to "context" that made these comments palatable:
- Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact.
- I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.
- The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.
- If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
- Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
- Buy weapons, I keep on saying that. Buy weapons. Buy ammo. if you go into a public place, bring a gun with you and if you live in a state that doesn't allow you to do it, I got nothing for you, man. Thank goodness in Arizona we can carry and we carry.
- I’m not a fan of democracy.
You sir are wildly and likely willfully misinformed. If you spend a couple open minded minutes looking at what Charlie actually said, you should be embarrassed for this post. I'll address one of the items you list.
"I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Please see below for an analysis that has the statement you quoted in-context. Your characterization of the quote is completely divorced from the reality of what Charlie said. Shame on you. I'm really struggling how someone apparently so divorced from reality as you appear to be would subscribe to Matt Taibbi. I didn't think we had that sort here.
https://substack.com/@thejefferymead/note/c-156630756?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=88v17
Thanks for the link. You raise a legitimate issue of mainstream over-simplification but I take it then you're in favor of requiring voter ID, a specific objection he raised in it.
I'm not. It's clear the intent of this proposed requirement is to take citizens who're likely to vote Democratic off voter roles. There is no data I know of showing any but very isolated instances of voter fraud.
Got any others?
As for who cares below, no citations and merely insult, so no value.
First, thank you for watching the video. What you presented is not oversimplification. It's changing the meaning to be diametrically opposed to what was said.
Further, voter ID has nothing to do with whether Charlie's quote as taken horribly and maliciously out of context. He's "racist, homophobic, misogynistic... waste of human skin" is far different from, "but I disagree with him on Voter ID".
Don't take my word. Listen to a gay black man who was friends with Charlie. He goes through the laundry list of Charlie's supposed sins. What I saw was a compassionate man who would typically treat people with grace and kindness. The video intro is unnecessarily long. Bounce around the hyperlinks to whatever hot button topic you want to explore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N14ywRyTWVI&t=404s
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - Intro
10:58 - On Second Amendment
12:48 - On Empathy
15:42 - On Gay People
17:58 - On Trans People
24:21 - On Racism
28:21 - On Affirmative Action
30:58 - On Critical Race Theory
34:56 - On Illegal Immigration
39:12 - On Abortion
44:22 - Charlie’s Why
49:48 - Liberal Threats
50:55 - Leaving The Left
52:29 - My Thoughts
To me, this video is gold. I would rather live in world where I disagree with half the population on policy solutions or philosophical points, instead of one where I believe half the population are mouth-breathing fill-in-the-blank-ists.
Why don’t democrats have IDs?
thanks for the long comment stating you believe fake news. AKA liars who distort what good people actually said. You are too lazy to look up the actual comments yourself. or you lack the brainpower to think outside the propaganda hole you enjoy swimming in.
Bondi overspoke, obviously. There is a line and it has to do with promoting and/or executing violence. That has been, and likely should be, the bright line for moving speech from "I hate it" to "you cannot do that". Calling for the masses to kill someone is different from "some days I wish he/she were dead". (Otherwise almost all couples would be in jail.)
Kirk had the right idea -- more speech (without threats of violence) is the answer. Having said all that, private actors have the ability to draw tighter circles of acceptable around the speech of their representatives. I would not want my children taught by a teacher who thinks Kirk and all his supporters should be dead -- my child may be one of them.
The line isn't even at promoting violence. Promoting violence is fine, legally, as long as it isn't connected to imminent lawless action. You can't yell "Kill that guy" while pointing at him at the head of a mob, but you can post "We should kill that guy" on social media.
Of course, employers may take a dim view of their employees promoting violence, as well they should.
What you said.
The arbiter of what constitutes hate speech will not always be someone with whom we align.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --
that from these honored dead we take increased devotion
to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion --
that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain --
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.
.
My favorite speech…
Fuck hate speech. It was the biggest Pandora's Box mistake that unleashed a mass of evil to think that we can identify and prosecute people for an emotion.
If I speak, there is no way for you to definitively know if my words are evidence of hate. That is unless I say that I hate. But even then, what is in my heart at the time the words are delivered does not define the basis of any person. My kids have said "I hate you" when I have grounded them for misbehavior. Do you think that is real, or just a fit of passion?
Now if my kid said, "I hate you" and then shot me to kill me, it is the attempted killing that should get the legal attention and not the words said.
All that should matter is actions. Words are not actions. Words are not violence. However, words design to influence and encourage people to do violence, and other illegal actions should be considered actions themselves. Also, speech that attempts to cause or even support any action that is an infringement on our God-given rights as enshrined in the Constitution should be considered punishable actions.
There is a line. It is a bright line for me.
I detest the notion of “hate” speech and crime. Just enforce the laws on the books without fear or favor. Equal Justice under the law.
To me it is not about what you supposedly feel. It is about whether you actively commit a crime or not.
I have always questioned the too-heavy emphasis on knowing the supposed motive for any crime The issue is that they did it . Or someone did it. Whatever they were feeling at the time.
Motive is really about building a plausible case, not justifying anything. Some cases can be a bit ambiguous; this can help narrow things down.
The concept of "hate speech" was introduced in recent decades as a leftwing political tactic. A manipulation.
We lived without this concept prior to that. Most people under 40 probably do not remember such times. A relatively unified and balanced society does not need to worry unduly about it. The problems arise with the general social breakdown.
It's the chicken-and-the-egg situation....which came first, the social breakdown and the following "hate speech" or the "hate speech" and the following social breakdown?
My money is on the social breakdown having been planned and instigated first.
It’s the proverbial camel getting its nose under the edge of the tent. Once people accepted that years ago, look at all the subsequent bad ideas that have followed.
It amazes me that so many people go around seriously talking about "hate speech" as if it it a bona fide legal concept. As opposed to a GOTCHA! leftwing manipulation.
The lefties well and truly WANT you to believe in it...so they can use it in future against the gullibles.
It’s really unfortunate. The same people will enumerate a list of “rights” that are not rights.
I suspect the whole "human rights" movement of the 70s and beyond was actually a far-leftwing manipulation too. Part of the overall Neo-Marxist narrative to build a worldview which pushed the West in a direction beneficial for them. Not us.
Another mind-twisting tool. This, from the folks who actually wish to take away even basic rights. Working towards mass serfdom.
Watching people that act like this is almost as disturbing as murder itself
I am an unabashed conservative, aligned with the right on most (but not all) issues. That said, the entire concept of “hate speech” escapes me. The same for “hate crime”. Speech is speech, and other than what is already covered by law (libel or slander for instance), why make a distinction? Based on what? The same with “hate crime”. Crime is crime. How do we attach hate to it objectively? Bindi was wrong, and I’m glad she backtracked.
There is no such thing as hate speech, only hateful people. We need to get to the heart about why people hate. It's not hard to figure out, but what is really going on with these people? Radicalization doesn't seem to tell whole story. Cult indoctrination seems much more like it. With a little bribery from ActBlue affiliates and/or Arabella Advisors sprinkled on top.
The latest reports of various Antifa-adjacent groups like Socialist Rifle Association, Armed Queers of SLC, and maybe more shows that there is an escalation happening, but appears to be again, on the left. Instead of just supporting NRA, GOA, or any group that simply protects gun rights, they are using the Marxist tactic of subverting a shared right and making it intersectional.
Marxism and all that goes with it is a plague and may be the ultimate downfall of human civilization.
The question should be; who's more radical right now? It changes and shifts. Right now the left is more deranged, violent and fascist. I spent two years on Tik Tok live trying to have conversations with lefties. They are incapable of debating. Every attempt at debate turns into personal insults and threats. They don't know what's going on. I recently debated with a friend who said "DEI was a right" and Trump "took her rights away." DEI is not a right. The far left doesn't know history, they have no clue as to what's going on, and they are brainwashed by the media. I was too. I was not a bad a person or evil. I was convinced Trump was a Russian agent and I feared for my country. They are being mislead. The media needs to be held accountable.
Kirk quite literally died in defense of free speech.
country needs to use the ultimate tool of the Mennonites, Amish and formerly of the Quakers. Shun the evil from your society.
It is indeed not their idea, but is far, far older:
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”
17 Therefore
“Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”
18
“I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty.”
What I'm hearing there is... Peaceful National Divorce. Amen!!!
Extremist religious groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses use the shunning tactic too. Even to their own children, if they dissent or question. So do most cults.
This version of shunning is a form or totalitarianism, rather than righteousness.
some people drink moderately all their lives while others descend into a bottle and can’t get out.
An example of people who only recently shunned their own child are the Robinsons of Utah. they must be totalitarian for turning their son in to the law.
That was not shunning. It was facing reality that if their son was indeed guilty, the law was going to find him. They hoped that advising their son to turn himself in might spare him the death penalty, ultimately.
I don't think you understand that shunning is an aspect displayed by totalitarians. It is where Cancel Culture of the far leftwing originated. Though it can be found in far rightwing extremism too.
Sure i get your point. It’s weak, pard.
anything that works well can work ill. anybody knows that.
these evil individuals should absolutely be shunned. Today.
Trouble is that the Bible also told man not to judge. And too often, the persons they see fit to judge as sinners are actually innocent. Such as the so-called witches of the 17th century Puritan witch hunts. Or the "heretics" of the Spanish Inquisition.
Or the many individuals today who have been the scapegoats and targets of false allegations.
So you need to be extremely careful when you point out the sinners. Some may be obvious wrong-doers, but the larger portion of them may be innocent.
In cases you are not 110% certain, judge not.
Besides which, the judgmental shunning types tend to think that the slightest transgression to their own groupthink deserves serious punishment. Which is more about their own vanity and wish for power.
This is really simple.
A person cannot vote for evil, and remain a good person.
Bondi is a loyalist but in over her head.
Uh, looking more like that everyday.
I guess it is lost on her — Kirk’s statements that there is no hate speech?
It appears there are certain members of the Trump admin, not all, in a competition to outdo the other guys to get the boss’s approval. She strikes me as one.
The vibe I am feeling right now is that we don’t need constant showboating for justice. We saw what we saw. That’s enough.
Until further notice, we should strike the word "hate" from the English language. It no longer has any useful meaning, except as a political tool, a bludgeon to silence opposition. And to arouse emotions over logic and intentionally inculcate real, tangible hate - the real thing. Just as anti-racism = more racism, anti-hate = more hate. Young minds are the most vulnerable.
Once they have us thinking that feeling certain emotions is a sin, they will move on to indoctrinating everyone that thought-crime is next. Punishable by them, of course.
And their power grows.
There are indeed reprehensible attitudes, according to what most of us consider morality. But we cannot criminalize this via the law unless it is really a crime.
We can let people know in other ways they are being reprehensible however. That it is outside our moral boundaries.