Both VP candidates have authoritarian leanings :(

[metis]

Do you think shouting fire in a crowded theatre is an example of authoritarian behavior? If so, why?

Do you think Trump's dishonesty and the fear that so many of his appointees have that he may get reelected is moral and acceptable? Do you hate having a representative democracy? Do you hate this country? Sure seems like it.

 

[Pogo]

Complete, unadulterated nonsense! Trump tells Hannity that he will become a "dictator on day 1" and you can tell Hannity's response that he was somewhat shocked by that. Trump notices his reaction and then says that he would back off after that. Trump later tells a conservative Christian group that when he's elected that they won't ever have to vote again.

What about these don't you understand???

Apparently @Ponder This thinks that authoritarianism means obeying the laws and authorities. In that sense Trump is anti-authoritarianism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're correct, but he danced around the idea when he talked about censorship and yelling "fire" in a theater. And BTW, that example is flawed on many levels.

That's illegal because someone actually did do that and a lot of people were needlessly hurt, some killed, and still to this day we use this example of things you shouldn't say because of the risk of harm to others.
That "your rights end where your neighbor's nise begins" sort of thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's illegal because someone actually did do that and a lot of people were needlessly hurt, some killed, and still to this day we use this example of things you shouldn't say because of the risk of harm to others.
That "your rights end where your neighbor's nise begins" sort of thing.

Ever get the impression that people will
justify the terrible acts of their favorite
politician by suggesting (without actually
claiming) equivalency.....
- They all lie.
- They're all authoritarian.
- They're all corrupt.

 

[Pogo]

Ever get the impression that people will
justify the terrible acts of their favorite
politician by suggesting (without actually
claiming) equivalency.....
- They all lie.
- They're all authoritarian.
- They're all corrupt.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Authoritarian efforts.
- Trump executed a multi-faceted plan to over-throw
the 2020 election.
- There was no evidence for Trump's & Magas' claims
of a stolen election.
- Vance supports the claim of a stolen election.
- All of them are already alleging election fraud by Dems.
- Trump promised Christians that if he wins, they'll never
have to vote again.
- Trump promised to be a "dictator".
- Trump promised to prosecute political foes in the media
& politics.
- Trump has argued before SCOTUS the right of a President
to assassinate American political rivals.
- Trump's Magas issue death threats to election workers,
meteorologists, & anyone Trump is hostile to.

Do you see the above as authoritarian or anti-authoritarian?

No better or worse than allowing illegals to come in and subverting the election process by making them into dependant greatful citizens to completely dominate the Democrat Party for the foreseeable future pushing out any and all political opposition.

Can you see the above as authoritarian or anti authoritarian yourself?

 

[Revoltingest]

No better or worse than allowing illegals to come in and subverting the election process by making them into dependant greatful citizens to completely dominate the Democrat Party for the foreseeable future pushing out any and all political opposition.

That's a Trump claim.
Have any actual evidence other than faith in his word?

Can you see the above as authoritarian or anti authoritarian yourself?

Your above post is mere repetition of Trump's campaign rhetoric.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's a Trump claim.
Have any actual evidence other than faith in his word?

Your above post is mere repetition of Trump's campaign rhetoric.

Maybe you shouldn't ask other people the same type of question you can't even answer yourself.

 

[Pogo]

No better or worse than allowing illegals to come in and subverting the election process by making them into dependant greatful citizens to completely dominate the Democrat Party for the foreseeable future pushing out any and all political opposition.

Can you see the above as authoritarian or anti authoritarian yourself?

When you have any evidence of this fantasy even being proposed by any Democrat you could begin to have a reason to discuss it, till then you as the "well trump hasn't been convicted so we will wait and see" excuse maker has nothing to talk about. sheesh

 

[Kathryn]

No, it's neither. You need to explain how and why.


Clearly not. He's providing an example of a reasonable way in which we do limit speech. He wasn't given a chance to explain his position on free speech in a specific way because it wasn't his question, nor his time.

I find it odd that you think this one remark is just as indicative of authoritarian tendencies as being unable to acknowledge the legitimate result of a democratic election. Feels like pretty obvious reaching to use this to say he "wants to limit free speech in order to limit "hate speech"", especially considering he said nothing of the sort.

What do you think "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" refers to?

One can actually shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or otherwise, if one a} believes there is a fire. or b} has reason to believe there is a fire in the theater.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Vance won't admit that trump lost

Walz wants to limit free speech in order to limit "hate speech" (whatever that is?)

Countries with laws limiting hate speech include "Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom." [source]

Do you believe that blathering about asinine false equivalencies is helpful, much less responsible?

 

[Pogo]

One can actually shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or otherwise, if one a} believes there is a fire. or b} has reason to believe there is a fire in the theater.

 

[Kathryn]

View attachment 98316

The thing is, it's true.

One can actually shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or otherwise, if one a} believes there is a fire. or b} has reason to believe there is a fire in the theater.

You better really think there's a fire in there, though.

 

[fantome profane]

One can actually shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or otherwise, if one a} believes there is a fire. or b} has reason to believe there is a fire in the theater.

or c} you are on stage performing a play and the script calls for your character to shout "fire".

 

[icehorse]

That's illegal because someone actually did do that and a lot of people were needlessly hurt, some killed, and still to this day we use this example of things you shouldn't say because of the risk of harm to others.
That "your rights end where your neighbor's nise begins" sort of thing.

The "shouting fire" example is often used, but it's a really bad example:

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

 

[icehorse]

Countries with laws limiting hate speech include "Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom." [source]

Do you believe that blathering about asinine false equivalencies is helpful, much less responsible?

Two questions:

1 - Who judges what's "hateful"?

2 - When did I draw an equivalence? You might have inferred one, but I didn't intend one - at least not past a very superficial level.

 

[icehorse]

@Shadow Wolf @Jayhawker Soule and so on...

This is well worth a listen:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is well worth a listen:

Not in the context of this thread.

 

[icehorse]

Not in the context of this thread.

Completely in the context of discussing so called "hate speech"

 

[Koldo]

@Shadow Wolf @Jayhawker Soule and so on...

This is well worth a listen:

Do you consider there is absolutely no scenario where the government should limit speech?

I am going to propose a scenario: Imagine Bob wants Josh dead. Bob has a plan to pull this off. He fabricates a story concerning Josh's past, and spreads it around: He says that Josh is a serial child rapist. On top of that, he proceeds to spread around personal info concerning Josh: where he lives, his phone number, work schedule, etc. And last, but not least, he starts to incite people to kill Josh before he makes another victim, perhaps even lying that someone's child is particular is going to be the next victim.

Should the government limit any of this?