America's Conquest

[Deleted]

TLDR: Tone down the arrogance people, its irritating, you dont see the French coming on here and saying "haha we have better food than you uncultured twats" and you dont see the English telling the French that their castles suck and are all smelly.

Euhm they do infact, altough it stays pretty civilised (You are a twat, my good sir and such... . Eating snails is quite the opposite of good food.) and they don't do it on this forum. Also a French vs GB debate wouldn't attrackt many visitors, since 80% of this subforum wont care, because lets be honest, who would care about a debate between Texas and California? Except the Texans and Californians?

[Reeve]

You should get arrested for inciting hatred. Thats why cults like the KKK or the WBC aren't legal.
Free speech should be limited (in other words, it should still be free within certain borders).

I think it's too easy to label anyone you don't like as "inciting hatred," so we shouldn't be able to make that sort of speech illegal. People should always have the right to say what they think, even if we think what they say is abhorrent.

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 02:12 PM ----------

70 years ago is not really that long, if you look at your grandparents that was during their time. The thing about beliefs is that they are taught, for the most part, from parent to child. So if you have someone who grew up in that time they depending on how they were raised they will still hold the same beliefs of that time. Only now they will express those beliefs in private instead of in public because they know it will be looked down on. There is no need to feel guilty about things like that but there is a need to never forget what caused things like to happen in the first place.

Sure, we should never forget it, and I don't think anyone is accusing the Germans of forgetting the horrors of WW2. The people still alive from WW2 were mostly children at the time of the war at this point. If they were in their 20s, they would be in their 90s now, so there aren't really that many left. That doesn't mean that people should hold the atrocities over the heads of the people who didn't themselves commit those atrocities.

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 02:14 PM ----------

Euhm they do infact, altough it stays pretty civilised (You are a twat, my good sir and such... . Eating snails is quite the opposite of good food.) and they don't do it on this forum. Also a French vs GB debate wouldn't attrackt many visitors, since 80% of this subforum wont care, because lets be honest, who would care about a debate between Texas and California? Except the Texans and Californians?

The first time I had escargot was in Texas, actually. Quite tasty, though I think I was mostly tasting the fact that they were swimming in butter. I live in Texas and grew up in California. Do I get to debate myself?

[Victoriaautmors]

No it isint conquest in the same sense that the Frence, Mongols and Romans did. The settlers massacred the natives and took all their lands while in general conquest only includes taxing the new population or enslaving part of it like Romans did. So what Americans did there is a genocide basically, such things do happen in history, for example back during the great migrations many tribes came into Europe and slaugthered the natives and took their lands but this happened some 1500 years ago...

[semaphore]

I think it's too easy to label anyone you don't like as "inciting hatred," so we shouldn't be able to make that sort of speech illegal. People should always have the right to say what they think, even if we think what they say is abhorrent.

But people don't always have such a right. And they shouldn't. It's never been legal to incite violence or to falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre, for instance, and it's not that hard to draw an objective line there. Same thing with hate speech. There is no absolute right to say whatever you think whenever and wherever you want. WBC and KKK can express their political opinion on certain minorities, but they are not allowed to express it through inciting violence or fighting words, even though that's certainly what many of them are thinking.

On this note the rest of the world outlaws hate speech and I don't see their civil liberties crumbling.

[Reeve]

But people don't always have such a right. And they shouldn't. It's never been legal to incite violence or to falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre, for instance, and it's not that hard to draw an objective line there. Same thing with hate speech. There is no absolute right to say whatever you think whenever and wherever you want. WBC and KKK can express their political opinion on certain minorities, but they are not allowed to express it through inciting violence or fighting words, even though that's certainly what many of them are thinking.

On this note the rest of the world outlaws hate speech and I don't see their civil liberties crumbling.

It's pretty easy to draw an objective line on shouting fire in a crowded theater or directly inciting violence. It's not so easy to draw a line on what hate speech is. There have been plenty of times in the history of the US where political movements have been disliked by the current establishment, but were good and important to our growth as a nation. If the government could have just labeled them as "inciteful" or some such, and silenced them, we never would have been able to have a Malcolm X or maybe even a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It is very much within the character of our government to do such a thing if we didn't have such strong constitutional protections in place.

[Deleted]

I think it's too easy to label anyone you don't like as "inciting hatred," so we shouldn't be able to make that sort of speech illegal. People should always have the right to say what they think, even if we think what they say is abhorrent.

No it isn't, thats why you have guidelines in the law. Why do you think that limited free speech will cause the government to shut down everyone who doesn't agree with them? Unlimited free speech will cause television networks & newspapers to become a political propaganda instrument, just look at Fox news(and whatever the Democratic equivalent is). What it will also cause is people who sell lies as the truth and use this for personal gain (there are enough examples of legal sects in the US)

The first time I had escargot was in Texas, actually. Quite tasty, though I think I was mostly tasting the fact that they were swimming in butter. I live in Texas and grew up in California. Do I get to debate myself?

....
Why so serious? I'm not even going to counterargument this, that would just be a waste of time.
Stop feeling personally attacked whenever someone says something that you don't like

[semaphore]

It's not so easy to draw a line on what hate speech is. There have been plenty of times in the history of the US where political movements have been disliked by the current establishment, but were good and important to our growth as a nation.

The current distinction on that is pretty clear too though. You're allowed to express your views, but you cannot do so using fighting words, or to incite violence. MLK, to the best of my knowledge, did not incite black people to attack anything, so there's that. I think the key, and this is probably what you are getting at, is that the criteria for banning speech cannot be simply because it is offensive to some people - racists are probably offended at the concept of racial equality. I can agree with that. But I don't generally find it wrong to outlaw speech that is abusing to a demographic group based on their protected features (skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, etc) when it is knowingly made with purposes like inciting violence. Which is what most other western countries have done.

[Reeve]

....
Why so serious? I'm not even going to counterargument this, that would just be a waste of time.
Stop feeling personally attacked whenever someone says something that you don't like

Ummmm, what I said there wasn't serious at all. It was a vaguely amusing comment, and looking at myself wryly through the lens of the comment you made. Not sure how you'd counter-argue something that wasn't arguing your point at all.

---------- Post added 2012-12-31 at 03:11 PM ----------

The current distinction on that is pretty clear too though. You're allowed to express your views, but you cannot do so using fighting words, or to incite violence. MLK, to the best of my knowledge, did not incite black people to attack anything, so there's that. I think the key, and this is probably what you are getting at, is that the criteria for banning speech cannot be simply because it is offensive to some people - racists are probably offended at the concept of racial equality. I can agree with that. But I don't generally find it wrong to outlaw speech that is abusing to a demographic group based on their protected features (skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, etc) when it is knowingly made with purposes like inciting violence. Which is what most other western countries have done.

The Westborough Baptist Church may say evil things, but they aren't inciting violence either. I have no issue with the idea that speech promoting violence shouldn't be accepted, but I don't think we should just get to say X is hate speech and therefore banned, unless they're telling people to commit acts of violence.

[Trunksee]

Its a hatred of america plain and simple. They bash the little things because there isnt anything else to bash. We are a great nation and they try and drag us down to their level. I dont hear anyone bashing on Germany like others have said. Not all americans killed the.natives, just like not all germans killed the unclean. Its more nit picking. They want a reason to hate us because they.lost our land. Its a cultural thing that euros are brought up to hate us since the revolutionary war. So anything to use to bash us they will. Its like the jealous brother ratting about the same shit over and over.

[semaphore]

The Westborough Baptist Church may say evil things, but they aren't inciting violence either.

But that's why they are legal. They're smart enough to have avoided breaking the laws. It's not because America tolerates all speech, despite what some people think of the First Amendment.

but I don't think we should just get to say X is hate speech and therefore banned, unless they're telling people to commit acts of violence.

Yeah, but nobody does that anyway when it comes to anti-hate speech legislation. For instance, WBC would be illegal if they held those slogans at the actual funeral (as opposed to being far enough away that the funeral goers cannot reasonably see them), because then they're directly abusing the friends and families of the children/dead soldiers. This is true both in the United States and everywhere else.

The difference is more a matter of degrees; Britain would probably charge them with a Public Order violation for holding such signs anywhere in the public based on the same rationale the Untied States would deem them illegal at the funeral they're bashing. However, in both countries there are legitimate ways to express religious disapproval of homosexuality as part of a the right to political speech. Ultimately it's really not such a tall order to not use fighting words to go about it.

[Reeve]

But that's why they are legal. They're smart enough to have avoided breaking the laws. It's not because America tolerates all speech, despite what some people think of the First Amendment.


Yeah, but nobody does that anyway when it comes to anti-hate speech legislation. For instance, WBC would be illegal if they held those slogans at the actual funeral (as opposed to being far enough away that the funeral goers cannot reasonably see them), because then they're directly abusing the friends and families of the children/dead soldiers. This is true both in the United States and everywhere else.

The difference is more a matter of degrees; Britain would probably charge them with a Public Order violation for holding such signs anywhere in the public based on the same rationale the Untied States would deem them illegal at the funeral they're bashing. However, in both countries there are legitimate ways to express religious disapproval of homosexuality as part of a the right to political speech. Ultimately it's really not such a tall order to not use fighting words to go about it.

I'm not arguing what the US does. My original response was to someone in Belgium saying that the Belgian hate-speech laws were better because they wouldn't allow stuff like the WBC or the KKK to exist. I think it's dangerous to just outlaw types of speech we find abhorrent when they aren't directly inciting violence.

[Trunksee]

The current distinction on that is pretty clear too though. You're allowed to express your views, but you cannot do so using fighting words, or to incite violence. MLK, to the best of my knowledge, did not incite black people to attack anything, so there's that. I think the key, and this is probably what you are getting at, is that the criteria for banning speech cannot be simply because it is offensive to some people - racists are probably offended at the concept of racial equality. I can agree with that. But I don't generally find it wrong to outlaw speech that is abusing to a demographic group based on their protected features (skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, etc) when it is knowingly made with purposes like inciting violence. Which is what most other western countries have done.

Basically this. The WBC does not say go out and kill all non believers or even damage them. They just state why a violence in their opinion has happened. The black panthers do more to incite violence, but i dont hear anyone saying they should be a hate group. If you ask me the black panthers are more of a hate group than WBC. I know ill be called a racist for saying that now though which makes people afraid to state the facts.

[semaphore]

I'm not arguing what the US does. My original response was to someone in Belgium saying that the Belgian hate-speech laws were better because they wouldn't allow stuff like the WBC or the KKK to exist. I think it's dangerous to just outlaw types of speech we find abhorrent when they aren't directly inciting violence.

I'm not trying to argue about the US laws either, I'm saying that actual hate law found in the rest of the world isn't as arbitrary as you fear. I don't know if homophobic speech is regulated there, but Belgian anti-racial hate speech laws are also based on incitement. IIRC.

[Zhangfei]

People blame America more because the government and media act like they are the good guys and love to whitewash their insanely racist, sexist, genocidal and warmongering past. They learned the trick from many other empires - including Britain, France etc. It's typical, not uniquely American.

[Notos]

Eh, everyone's ancestors went and did bad stuff at some point in history. Mine fought and died in a lot of wars and some died thanks to Hitler and Stalin. Still feels kinda pointless to hold a grudge over it. I wouldn't technically define American colonization in the US as conquest though, since the natives were mostly driven out. I dunno, blah blah semantics.

[Ebildays]

Sure, we should never forget it, and I don't think anyone is accusing the Germans of forgetting the horrors of WW2. The people still alive from WW2 were mostly children at the time of the war at this point. If they were in their 20s, they would be in their 90s now, so there aren't really that many left. That doesn't mean that people should hold the atrocities over the heads of the people who didn't themselves commit those atrocities.

I am not saying that the atrocities should be held over their heads. My point is that those beliefs that lead to WW2 will not just die off because the people die off, but they can live on in the beliefs they passed down to their children.

Basically this. The WBC does not say go out and kill all non believers or even damage them. They just state why a violence in their opinion has happened. The black panthers do more to incite violence, but i dont hear anyone saying they should be a hate group. If you ask me the black panthers are more of a hate group than WBC. I know ill be called a racist for saying that now though which makes people afraid to state the facts.

The Black Panthers are not even relevant, if anything they are a bogeyman dragged up to scare the good white folks. In fact it is not even the same party from the days of Malcom X and Martin L. King they are the New Black Panther Party and most people see them as illegitimate. If you want something to worry about worry about the Nation of Islam founded in Detroit in the 1930s.

[Trunksee]

The Black Panthers are not even relevant, if anything they are a bogeyman dragged up to scare the good white folks. In fact it is not even the same party from the days of Malcom X and Martin L. King they are the New Black Panther Party and most people see them as illegitimate. If you want something to worry about worry about the Nation of Islam founded in Detroit in the 1930s.

Fair point, but you misunderstood my point. Im just pointing out the hypocracy of what we deem as hate. Its ok to hate the majority or the religous, but if you try and make the point that its hate by a minority your considered a bigot or a racist for attacking the attacker.

[Raidenx]

America's government has had a history of aggressiveness and bullying and that can't be ascribed to the populace. It is now a police state that seeks to oppress its own people, and I say this as an American. Soon it will descend into tyranny.

[Spectral]

What is seriously the big deal with it? They did it a long time ago, stop persecuting us in the modern era. :|

Wait, is this guy saying that Americans are persecuted by Native American tribes? What in the actual fuck did I just read?

[Trunksee]

Wait, is this guy saying that Americans are persecuted by Native American tribes? What in the actual fuck did I just read?

Persecuted by outsiders not natives.