Both VP candidates have authoritarian leanings :(

[icehorse]

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?

first off, I hope you listened to Hitch, he was just amazing!

Ok, to answer your question, in the US free speech has limitations. (libel, slander, and such). Probably most relevant to your question is the idea that speech can be censored if it's likely to result in imminent violence. That's what's currently on the books, been there for decades, seems good to me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

The thing about hate speech, countries with hate speech laws score higher in the freedom index. This is a fact the side against hate speech laws has not been able to reconcile, nor do I believe they can account for and adequately explain the discrepancy between their claims amd the simple facts and observations we see in the world regarding hate speech laws.

 

[icehorse]

The thing about hate speech, countries with hate speech laws score higher in the freedom index. This is a fact the side against hate speech laws has not been able to reconcile, nor do I believe they can account for and adequately explain the discrepancy between their claims amd the simple facts and observations we see in the world regarding hate speech laws.

Sounds like a difficult correlation / causation claim to make, but go for it. It strikes me that the countries listed earlier in this thread were the most secular and generally liberal countries. "Hate speech" censorship laws are relatively new. My guess is that these laws will end up hurting these countries' freedom indexes once they've had time to do their authoritarian work

Which part of Hitch's talk did you disagree with, just curious?

 

[Kathryn]

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

I guess, not sure though.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Except you can't do it if neither of those cases are true. Obviously the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy isn't referring to people actually alerting people to an actual fire. Everyone knows exactly what the statement refers to as it's literally a common phrase. The point is that there are only certain circumstances in which saying that won't have negative outcomes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Supposing so, are you able to articulate how this would be an "authoritarian leaning" (per thread title)?

I didn't name the thread. Personally, I think it can be indicative of a desire to, at the very least, discard or disregard democratic process.

acknowledging the legitimate results of an election, sounds exactly like you are favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, and if you do so at the expense of the freedom of the people to question the result of the election, then you are undoubtedly being authoritarian by definition.

This is an incredibly dumb argument. By your logic, any acknowledgement of any authority, democratic or otherwise, is authoritarian.

Moreover, the freedom of people to seek lawful remedy or to protest is antithetical to authoritarianism.

But it's more authoritarian to lie to people about an election's outcome in an attempt to get them to violently overthrow a legitimate election.

You'r engaging in some real mental gymnastics, here. According to you, respecting the outcome of an election is authoritarian, whereas ignoring the outcome and asserting that you won anyway and instilling in your followers a violent fervour in order to attempt to derail the democratic process that would see you unseated from power while engaging in a conspiracy to overturn the results of an election in favour of yourself - a non-democratically elected individual - is "antithetical to authoritarianism".

To be clear, the OP suggested that Vance not admitting that Trump lost the election is authoritarian.

To be fair, it said "authoritarian leanings". I would suggest not respecting the outcome of a democratic election is, at best, authoritarian leaning.

But if you favor, compelled speech, that is forcing Vance to say Trump lost the election, then you have an authoritarian leaning.

Again, an incredibly stupid argument. This is like saying that telling Hitler he can't tell the Gestapo to silence dissenters is authoritarian because it's his "free speech".

If I tell a bunch of people you're a paedophile, and instruct those people to "peacefully" protest at your house, is it authoritarian to suggest I stop doing that because you are, in effect, compelling me to NOT tell people you're a paedophile and to march on your house? Or do you think that this is about just a bit more than what people say and actually about the consequences of our denial, the ways in which we deny things, the extend we go to lie about reality, and the consequences our speech has in the real world?

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

No. It's an example of an instance of speech that can have drastic consequences based on outcome and context and can result in criminal outcomes, and thus an example of a specific instance in which we limit free speech.

Like lying about the outcome of an election.

Speaking of which, now that I have answered all of your questions, try taking a stab at the one I asked you earlier;

Which is more authoritarian: the person who acknowledges the legitimate results of a democratic election, or the person who - regardless of how much evidence shows to the contrary - asserts that the popular vote of a democratic election is false and should be overturned in their favour and draws up fake electors and organises a mass protest against the election being ratified?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

So ... no.

 

[Ponder This]

Authoritarian efforts.
- Trump executed a multi-faceted plan to over-throw
the 2020 election.

We disagree. That said, which is it? Is Trump overthrowing the government or is Trump enforcing strict obedience to the govenrment?

- There was no evidence for Trump's & Magas' claims
of a stolen election.

Irrelevant. There was some evidence, but so what? Even if there was no evidence, so what?

- Vance supports the claim of a stolen election.

He's entitled to his opinon. Why is offering support to the claim that an election was stolen an example of being authoritarian? Was Hillary also authoritarian when she claimed the election was stolen from her? What about all of the other people who echoed that opinion in the media?

- All of them are already alleging election fraud by Dems.
- Trump promised Christians that if he wins, they'll never
have to vote again.

Irrelevant.

- Trump promised to be a "dictator".

Obvious, deliberate, hyperbole.

- Trump promised to prosecute political foes in the media
& politics.

Trump did not prosecute political foes after he was elected. Famously, he did not prosecute Hillary.

- Trump has argued before SCOTUS the right of a President
to assassinate American political rivals.

Post facto. Also, Trump did not attempt to assassinate any of his political rivals while in office.

- Trump's Magas issue death threats to election workers,
meteorologists, & anyone Trump is hostile to.

Trump didn't call for the death of election workers, meteorologists, or "anyone hostile to Trump".
I don't believe there is a conspiracy between Trump and various Trump Magas to intimidate election workers, etc.
That said, even if it were true, threatening election workers or meterologists opposes the authority of governmental institutions. On the other hand, when the government uses its authority to impose a climate agenda on the people, we have to ask if this is coming at the expense of their freedoms.

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

I think you failed to explain why the points you were making were examples of authoritarianism and that you really just think that by labelling Trump as authoritarian it smears him.

This is an incredibly dumb argument. By your logic, any acknowledgement of any authority, democratic or otherwise, is authoritarian.

You are very dishonestly misrepresenting my argument. I qualified that if it comes at the expense of the freedom of the people to question the result of the election, then it would be authoritarian. I did not say that the acknowledgment of any authority is automatically authoritarian.

The primary failure of those trying to support their claim here was their inability to articulate the expense of people's freedoms. But there is also the major problem of outright arguing that Trump was trying to overthrow the authority of the government. Pick one: was he opposing the authority of government, or was he enforcing the authority of government?

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

No.
It is authoritarian to enforce obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

The act of obeying laws is just being law-abiding.

The problems with those arguing Vance was authoritarian leaning is that they failed to both articulate the expense of personal freedom and decide if Trump was trying to overthrow the government or enforce obedience to it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are very dishonestly misrepresenting my argument.

No, I am not. You said the following (emphasis mine):

"acknowledging the legitimate results of an election, sounds exactly like you are favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, and if you do so at the expense of the freedom of the people to question the result of the election, then you are undoubtedly being authoritarian by definition."

That is what you wrote. Nobody is saying that they CAN'T deny or question the result of an election (that's you "dishonestly misrepresenting my argument"), it's the fact that they can't openly accept the result and WHY THEY REFUSE TO OPENLY ACCEPT IT that is a clear demonstration of their authoritarian attitude towards democracy. Stop trying to spin denying the legitimacy of a democratic vote as anti-authoritarian. Stop licking the boots of authoritarians.

I qualified that if it comes at the expense of the freedom of the people to question the result of the election,

Again, not what you wrote. You wrote that acknowledging the legitimate results of an election "sounds like" favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority. You didn't qualify that. You genuinely believe that acknowledging the result of democratic election is authoritarian.

then it would be authoritarian. I did not say that the acknowledgment of any authority is automatically authoritarian.

Yes you did, as per the above direct quote.

The primary failure of those trying to support their claim here was their inability to articulate the expense of people's freedoms. But there is also the major problem of outright arguing that Trump was trying to overthrow the authority of the government. Pick one: was he opposing the authority of government, or was he enforcing the authority of government?

Again, trying to dishonestly re-frame what Trump did as anti-authoritarian is spin you're not going to get me with. I'm not going to let you pretend that trying to overturn a democratic election in order to keep yourself in power is an anti-authoritarian move.

No.
It is authoritarian to enforce obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Like attempting to overturn a democratic election in order to keep yourself in power, right?

It's very telling that you won't answer my question. I'll put it to you a third time:

Which is more authoritarian: the person who acknowledges the legitimate results of a democratic election, or the person who - regardless of how much evidence shows to the contrary - asserts that the popular vote of a democratic election is false and should be overturned in their favour and draws up fake electors and organises a mass protest against the election being ratified?

 

[metis]

The problems with those arguing Vance was authoritarian leaning is that they failed to both articulate the expense of personal freedom and decide if Trump was trying to overthrow the government or enforce obedience to it.

And yet Vance referred to Trump as "America's Hitler", and Trump is sounding more and more like der Fuhrer with his threats against "the enemy within", which is right out of the NAZI rhetoric. He's threatened to shut down news stations and to prosecute his own former appointees that now call him a threat to our democratic republic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet Vance referred to Trump as "America's Hitler", and Trump is sounding more and more like der Fuhrer with his threats against "the enemy within", which is right out of the NAZI rhetoric. He's threatened to shut down news stations and to prosecute his own former appointees that now call him a threat to our democratic republic.

"NEW YORK (AP) — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday suggested that migrants who are in the U.S. and have committed murder did so because “it’s in their genes.” There are, he added, “a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”

It’s the latest example of Trump alleging that immigrants are changing the hereditary makeup of the U.S. Last year, he evoked language once used by Adolf Hitler to argue that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country.”

Trump made the comments Monday in a radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt. He was criticizing his Democratic opponent for the 2024 presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris, when he pivoted to immigration, citing statistics that the Department of Homeland Security says include cases from his administration.

“How about allowing people to come through an open border, 13,000 of which were murderers? Many of them murdered far more than one person,” Trump said. “And they’re now happily living in the United States. You know, now a murderer — I believe this: it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now. Then you had 425,000 people come into our country that shouldn’t be here that are criminals.”

Trump says migrants who have committed murder have introduced 'a lot of bad genes in our country'

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday suggested that migrants who are in the U.S. and have committed murder did so because “it’s in their genes.”

apnews.com

 

[metis]

"NEW YORK (AP) — Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday suggested that migrants who are in the U.S. and have committed murder did so because “it’s in their genes.” There are, he added, “a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”

It’s the latest example of Trump alleging that immigrants are changing the hereditary makeup of the U.S. Last year, he evoked language once used by Adolf Hitler to argue that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country.”

Trump made the comments Monday in a radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt. He was criticizing his Democratic opponent for the 2024 presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris, when he pivoted to immigration, citing statistics that the Department of Homeland Security says include cases from his administration.

“How about allowing people to come through an open border, 13,000 of which were murderers? Many of them murdered far more than one person,” Trump said. “And they’re now happily living in the United States. You know, now a murderer — I believe this: it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now. Then you had 425,000 people come into our country that shouldn’t be here that are criminals.”

Trump says migrants who have committed murder have introduced 'a lot of bad genes in our country'

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday suggested that migrants who are in the U.S. and have committed murder did so because “it’s in their genes.”

apnews.com

Yep, Trump is as racist as the day is long and appeals to other racists.

 

[Ponder This]

No, I am not.

Yes, you are misrepresenting my argument. I've told you as much and corrected you on it. Now you've doubled down on a strawman instead of addressing my actual argument, which I clarified for you.

To quote:

acknowledging the legitimate results of an election, sounds exactly like you are favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, and if you do so at the expense of the freedom of the people to question the result of the election, then you are undoubtedly being authoritarian by definition.

emphasis added.

If you can't address my argument even after I've clarified it for you, then have a nice day with your strawman.

It's very telling that you won't answer my question. I'll put it to you a third time:

Which is more authoritarian: the person who acknowledges the legitimate results of a democratic election, or the person who - regardless of how much evidence shows to the contrary - asserts that the popular vote of a democratic election is false and should be overturned in their favour and draws up fake electors and organises a mass protest against the election being ratified?

Neither. That you've asked this question thusly demonstrates a profound lack of comprehension.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, you are misrepresenting my argument. I've told you as much and corrected you on it. Now you've doubled down on a strawman instead of addressing my actual argument, which I clarified for you.

Except I quoted you directly. It's not a strawman, it's what you wrote.

To quote:

emphasis added.

Good thing that's not being done, then, and your entire argument is a strawman, as I clearly explained in my argument (emphasis mine):

"That is what you wrote. Nobody is saying that they CAN'T deny or question the result of an election (that's you "dishonestly misrepresenting my argument"), it's the fact that they can't openly accept the result and WHY THEY REFUSE TO OPENLY ACCEPT IT that is a clear demonstration of their authoritarian attitude towards democracy. Stop trying to spin denying the legitimacy of a democratic vote as anti-authoritarian. Stop licking the boots of authoritarians."

If you can't address my argument even after I've clarified it for you, then have a nice day with your strawman.

Like your strawman that people are being denied the freedom to question the election?

It's very simple, you're trying to spin someone being asked to acknowledge the results of an election as authoritarian, despite the fact that they are not being forced in any way to do so. You are trying to imply that the very act of them being EXPECTED to acknowledge the results of an election is authoritarian.

Neither. That you've asked this question thusly demonstrates a profound lack of comprehension.

So you genuinely believe that acknowledging the results of an election is as authoritarian as denying the results, lying about the results, stirring up mistrust of the results, arranging a protest against the results, and trying to overturn the results through duplicitous means?

You are arguing that overturning democracy is only as authoritarian as... accepting democracy.

You're exposed as an authoritarian.

Let's try another strategy. Let's say there was a debate between someone called JD Wance and Tim Valz, and during the debate there was the following exchange:

VALZ: "There have been reports that the leader of your party says they love rape and murder. Do you love rape and murder?"
WANCE: "I'm focused on the future. Did your leader engage in silencing American citizens in 2020?"
VALZ: "That is a damning non-answer."

Would you be arguing that what Valz engaged in was "authoritarian" because he is "denying Wance the freedom to say that they love rape and murder", or would you maybe understand that someone not being willing to say whether or not they love rape and murder is indicative of something worth taking note of?

Nobody is arguing that they don't have the right to say it. They're arguing the fact that they are unwilling or unable to say it strongly suggests that there is an underlying dishonesty about their position suggestive of the authoritarian belief that they refuse to accept the outcome of a democratic election. This is not complicated.

 

[PureX]

It's true that the government didn't impose on us specifically, but they did impose all the same.

That is what governments are established to do, after all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yep, Trump is as racist as the day is long and appeals to other racists.

Not true. The proof are those traditionally the victims of racism , are now supporters of Trump now.

Loading…

www.politico.com

Why Is Trump Gaining With Black and Hispanic Voters?

Five possible explanations for the increases in support, particularly among young men.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Kathryn]

That is what governments are established to do, after all.

And that's why I believe in a limited government.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And that's why I believe in a limited government.

And well we should. People tend to forget the quote attributed to George Washington,


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

 

[Kathryn]

And well we should. People tend to forget the quote attributed to George Washington,


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

True dat.

 

[PureX]

And that's why I believe in a limited government.

"Limited" isn't the issue, nor the solution. It's just a silly buzz-word the corporate criminals and their cronies in the media use when they want to convince a lot of stupid people to disempower their own government so the criminals can be free to behave like the criminals that they are. We need the government to be "right sized" and rightfully empowered so that it can do the many tasks we need it to perform for us. Not the least of which is to reign in the criminal greed that the capitalist business model is based on.