I wonder if that attitude ever happened before in history...
Thoughts on "KYS" or "Kill Yourself" used in chat
- Thread starter Special-er_Ed
- Start date
Yes yes, Trump is LITERALLY HITLER, we know.I wonder if that attitude ever happened before in history...
First They Came - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's hate speech. You're not allowed to mock European hate speech laws.
Nah Hitler was way more competent. Funniest part of Jan 6th is a coup might have succeeded if a majority of red hats weren't part of the Gravy Seals and Meal Team Six; the early nazis were all hardened WWI war vets which is one of the reasons they were able to what they did, American democracy got saved by MacDonalds lol.
Firedoc
-bZ- Member
Ha ha ha for all you Jan 6 raggers. That was a test run. The real thing has yet to happen.
I wish. It won't happen though.
Nothing ever happens.
Firedoc
-bZ- Member
Ye of little faith.
You have no idea what is being planned in the fringe groups.
I prefer to be pleasantly surprised than to expect anything positive.
You forgot Brazil on the axis side.
The "test run" was the FBI and the rest of the Deep State feds trying to create a false flag justification for arresting and imprisoning Trump and his staff after Biden was sworn in.
And now that the truth is out and Biden is being acknowledged as mentally incompetent during his regime the question is to ask just who was running the government?
And since it clearly wasn't Biden then we were in a state of coup/overthrow of our government for four years.
These responses are getting a little long, sorry about that.
There's a couple statements here that are a bit jarring, and make it seem that you disagree with yourself. When it comes to civil liberties, you approve of selective enforcement despite the constitution expressly forbidding the loss of free speech to these persons under the 14th amendment. When it comes to German free speech, you disapprove of the loss of free speech rights, despite expressly stating you don't care about the free speech rights of certain groups. In other words; you condemn speech restrictions abroad, but support them at home?
"She was a foreign national here on a temporary student visa. I don't care what happens to these people."
Your first point that "you dont care what happens to these people" about foreign nationals not receiving constitutional protections is irrelevant. Personal opinions don't affect the way the constitution is interpreted, our justice system does. The fact is that these individuals were due the right owed to them by the law and did not receive that from our government. The bill of rights applies to "persons", not citizens. We don't pick and choose who the law covers. It's for everyone, or its for no one. Even if we did pick and choose, I wouldn't want to live in a country that decides who it cares about. If the government only cared about blue states receiving federal aid, you'd be in uproar.
"If I had my way there would be no student visas at all"
Student visas have made the us a scientific and medical powerhouse. We've facilitated brain drains across the globe; many of the best and brightest come to the US on a student visa. 46% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants, or the children of immigrants. Google, NVIDIA, Tesla/SpaceX were all founded by people who immigrated to the US. If we had no student visas at all, we would be facing insanely stiff competition abroad. These people come here, pay fees, pay for gas, groceries, and housing. This is money that they're taking from their country of origin to then be spent here, and they pay taxes on all of it to boot. If we had no student visas, our universities would collapse, and our R&D would dry up quickly. We coould no longer innovate faster than competitors, and thats how we fall behind.
Keep in mind that students who study here often become leaders in their respective countries; this is our soft power at work. Friends are more likely to give us favorable deals and abide by our terms. Up til 2021, 65 world leaders (these are presidents, prime ministers, hell even dictators and kings) have gone to school in the US. No other country has that much sway over that many people of power., and its thanks in part to our student visa program.
"If you can find me an example of an American citizen being detained for the content of their speech then I will gladly stand up in support of their release and acknowledge a deficit of American protection of free speech."
Now, I'd argue that this is a bad faith discussion. I thought we were searching for instances of free speech violations, not free speech violations of only the groups you approve of. still:
Sylvia Gonzalez was arrested in 2019 for alleged tampering of a govt record. This charge was dropped. What wasn't mentioned is that shortly before she had been leading a petition to remove the city manager. The arrest was in retaliation for that petition (a 1st amendment example of free speech), and the US Supreme Court agreed. Sylvia Gonzalez is an american citizen.
Rebekah Massie was arrested in 2024 for ciriticizing a city attorneys raise. There was a local law that restricts criticism of city officials. Our free speech is free, up until we speak ill of the city! Rebekah Massie is an american citizen.
Lauren Noble was arrested for allegedly using a racial slur in 2024. About a year later, charges got dropped. Lauren Noble is an american citizen.
"The fact that you are deferring to Germany's right to pass laws to detain people for speech is worrying. Similar laws exist in Russia, China, and other places which we can both ( I think ) agree are decidedly not free so what makes Germany's democratically-passed law any less of an infringement?"
Russia and China are decidedly NOT free. Anyone who objects to that either doesn't know what theyre talking about, or is consciously lying. I think you're getting a bit tripped up here; our country isn't germany. They don't abide by the same constitution. Our constitution says free speech is paramount, does theirs? The difference is that Germany has free elections, with elected reps who decide laws and vote on them, but Russia/China don't. Germany protects all other forms of speech and civil liberties. While the nazi stuff does infringe on their individual rights, you're choosing to ignore an obvious fact: the Nazis stripped all germans of their rights, and this law is an attempt at preventing authoritarianism from repeating itself.
You can focus on this one singular law, but the fact is that Germans still enjoy more freedoms than us that are arguably more relevant: Unlike us, they aren't at the mercy of giant corporations that hold their data and share it among different companies. They are not surveilled as strongly by their government, unlike us (We built the NSA to spy on ourselves, regardless of any other stated purpose). They hold greater freedom with regards to education, housing, and healthcare, unlike us. I don't know about you, but I really don't need that daily 'heil hitler' quite as much as cheaper housing, better education, and better healthcare (you can NEVER be denied coverage by insurance companies).
"If you say that it is because it was passed as an extension of the people's will then I am going to end our conversation here because it is clear then that you only care about democracy and not individual freedom."
That's a false relationship between democracy and individual freedoms. The reason you have any individual freedoms at all is because of democracy. Democracy exists to protect our liberties: in the short term, Germans lost the ability to glorify nazis. In the long term, they secured a method to stave off the authoritarianism that stole ALL their liberties, not just one.
"You say that the abrogation of double jeopardy in the UK is only partial and while this is correct it is only correct for now. What is to stop them from abrogating this protection fully?"
It's been about 20 years since the law got passed, and about half as many cases have been brought back under it. the "its only correct for now" argument to toddler-proof our laws assumes that any changes made can only be be bad, and that those changes can't be revoked. As far as i can tell, this law has only benefitted the UK. You could argue the opposite would occur in the future, but then I'd direct you to my magic 8-ball. We have no way of knowing the future, and they're doing as well as they can under this law with the tools they have. Is there potential for overreach? absolutely. But then, thats pretty much the case with any democracy, including ours.
"The UK's lack of a rigid constitution is its most pressing danger to the freedom its people once gainfully enjoyed."
Our constitution is difficult to amend; which is good when it comes to liberty and stability. It's bad because all it takes is 4% of america to block a change to the constitution. If a change has to be made but gets blocked, then things get a little nasty: courts start reinterpreting, presidents start bypassing congress (the people), etc. This is actually analogous to the Porn ID law stuff you mentioned earlier. A law is in place that prevents you from doing 'x'. Does that stop you from doing 'x'? No, you get around it. The real solution would be to strike down the law. If we don't follow our laws then people are less likely to take them seriously.
The constitution is a living document; it is meant to be changed, according to the times, the needs of the people, and with the permission of the majority. Do not conflate rigidity with security. An overly rigid document breaks.
"The pornography one is one which I actually have personal experience with. My state passed one of those ID laws. It's inconvenient at worst but for the most part it doesn't have much of an impact. Plenty of websites outside of US hosting exist. Having said this I am fully opposed to these laws and recognize them for the power grabs that they are. These are simply tools to further deanonymize the internet and to create "profiles" of people's browsing habits. Just like the laws proposed against encryption under the guise of stopped child pornographers they are a means to an end and not the end goal itself."
Keep in mind that cruel, undemocratic countries such as Germany adhere to the GDPR, which expressly forbids this kind of data collection on its citizens.
"The gel blaster thing is just stupid. Toys are toys. Toys that look like guns are also toys. Banning them is just paternalistic nanny-state behavior. If a kid is stupid enough to use a toy gun in a manner that gets them shot then that's on them. I don't protect stupid people, even children."
Kids are kids. They're dumb, they're clumsy, they don't know much and they certainly don't know enough to judge their own mortality. We as a society keep kids safe. I don't know anyone who wouldn't step in to help a kid.. they're young, they need the help. They don't understand that the gun they're holding might not be seen as fake by an officer, they haven't thought about that situation for the same reason they don't think about crossing the road to get their ball.
This isn't the "nanny state" stepping in, this is just outlawing the purchase of something that is so stupid it should never have been sold. You argue the kid is stupid and deserves to die for his stupidity. We don't live in the fucking jungle anymore, mistakes don't need to be fatal. This isn't survival of the fittest, this is parents letting their kids out to play while they cook dinner for the family.
Police officers shouldn't have to walk around with that weight on their shoulders, not sure if the gun the kids holding is real or fake. A split-second decision to decide if the kid lives or you do? Fuck that.
If your concern is the "nanny state", then I suppose youre correct in that nothing screams freedom quite like a 9 year old getting shot for playing with a toy. But at least the government only killed the kid and didnt ban the toy. The ban would have been the TRUE tragedy here
These responses are getting a little long, sorry about that.
There's a couple statements here that are a bit jarring, and make it seem that you disagree with yourself. When it comes to civil liberties, you approve of selective enforcement despite the constitution expressly forbidding the loss of free speech to these persons under the 14th amendment. When it comes to German free speech, you disapprove of the loss of free speech rights, despite expressly stating you don't care about the free speech rights of certain groups. In other words; you condemn speech restrictions abroad, but support them at home?
"She was a foreign national here on a temporary student visa. I don't care what happens to these people."
Your first point that "you dont care what happens to these people" about foreign nationals not receiving constitutional protections is irrelevant. Personal opinions don't affect the way the constitution is interpreted, our justice system does. The fact is that these individuals were due the right owed to them by the law and did not receive that from our government. The bill of rights applies to "persons", not citizens. We don't pick and choose who the law covers. It's for everyone, or its for no one. Even if we did pick and choose, I wouldn't want to live in a country that decides who it cares about. If the government only cared about blue states receiving federal aid, you'd be in uproar.
"If I had my way there would be no student visas at all"
Student visas have made the us a scientific and medical powerhouse. We've facilitated brain drains across the globe; many of the best and brightest come to the US on a student visa. 46% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants, or the children of immigrants. Google, NVIDIA, Tesla/SpaceX were all founded by people who immigrated to the US. If we had no student visas at all, we would be facing insanely stiff competition abroad. These people come here, pay fees, pay for gas, groceries, and housing. This is money that they're taking from their country of origin to then be spent here, and they pay taxes on all of it to boot. If we had no student visas, our universities would collapse, and our R&D would dry up quickly. We coould no longer innovate faster than competitors, and thats how we fall behind.
Keep in mind that students who study here often become leaders in their respective countries; this is our soft power at work. Friends are more likely to give us favorable deals and abide by our terms. Up til 2021, 65 world leaders (these are presidents, prime ministers, hell even dictators and kings) have gone to school in the US. No other country has that much sway over that many people of power., and its thanks in part to our student visa program.
"If you can find me an example of an American citizen being detained for the content of their speech then I will gladly stand up in support of their release and acknowledge a deficit of American protection of free speech."
Now, I'd argue that this is a bad faith discussion. I thought we were searching for instances of free speech violations, not free speech violations of only the groups you approve of. still:
Sylvia Gonzalez was arrested in 2019 for alleged tampering of a govt record. This charge was dropped. What wasn't mentioned is that shortly before she had been leading a petition to remove the city manager. The arrest was in retaliation for that petition (a 1st amendment example of free speech), and the US Supreme Court agreed. Sylvia Gonzalez is an american citizen.
Rebekah Massie was arrested in 2024 for ciriticizing a city attorneys raise. There was a local law that restricts criticism of city officials. Our free speech is free, up until we speak ill of the city! Rebekah Massie is an american citizen.
Lauren Noble was arrested for allegedly using a racial slur in 2024. About a year later, charges got dropped. Lauren Noble is an american citizen.
"The fact that you are deferring to Germany's right to pass laws to detain people for speech is worrying. Similar laws exist in Russia, China, and other places which we can both ( I think ) agree are decidedly not free so what makes Germany's democratically-passed law any less of an infringement?"
Russia and China are decidedly NOT free. Anyone who objects to that either doesn't know what theyre talking about, or is consciously lying. I think you're getting a bit tripped up here; our country isn't germany. They don't abide by the same constitution. Our constitution says free speech is paramount, does theirs? The difference is that Germany has free elections, with elected reps who decide laws and vote on them, but Russia/China don't. Germany protects all other forms of speech and civil liberties. While the nazi stuff does infringe on their individual rights, you're choosing to ignore an obvious fact: the Nazis stripped all germans of their rights, and this law is an attempt at preventing authoritarianism from repeating itself.
You can focus on this one singular law, but the fact is that Germans still enjoy more freedoms than us that are arguably more relevant: Unlike us, they aren't at the mercy of giant corporations that hold their data and share it among different companies. They are not surveilled as strongly by their government, unlike us (We built the NSA to spy on ourselves, regardless of any other stated purpose). They hold greater freedom with regards to education, housing, and healthcare, unlike us. I don't know about you, but I really don't need that daily 'heil hitler' quite as much as cheaper housing, better education, and better healthcare (you can NEVER be denied coverage by insurance companies).
"If you say that it is because it was passed as an extension of the people's will then I am going to end our conversation here because it is clear then that you only care about democracy and not individual freedom."
That's a false relationship between democracy and individual freedoms. The reason you have any individual freedoms at all is because of democracy. Democracy exists to protect our liberties: in the short term, Germans lost the ability to glorify nazis. In the long term, they secured a method to stave off the authoritarianism that stole ALL their liberties, not just one.
"You say that the abrogation of double jeopardy in the UK is only partial and while this is correct it is only correct for now. What is to stop them from abrogating this protection fully?"
It's been about 20 years since the law got passed, and about half as many cases have been brought back under it. the "its only correct for now" argument to toddler-proof our laws assumes that any changes made can only be be bad, and that those changes can't be revoked. As far as i can tell, this law has only benefitted the UK. You could argue the opposite would occur in the future, but then I'd direct you to my magic 8-ball. We have no way of knowing the future, and they're doing as well as they can under this law with the tools they have. Is there potential for overreach? absolutely. But then, thats pretty much the case with any democracy, including ours.
"The UK's lack of a rigid constitution is its most pressing danger to the freedom its people once gainfully enjoyed."
Our constitution is difficult to amend; which is good when it comes to liberty and stability. It's bad because all it takes is 4% of america to block a change to the constitution. If a change has to be made but gets blocked, then things get a little nasty: courts start reinterpreting, presidents start bypassing congress (the people), etc. This is actually analogous to the Porn ID law stuff you mentioned earlier. A law is in place that prevents you from doing 'x'. Does that stop you from doing 'x'? No, you get around it. The real solution would be to strike down the law. If we don't follow our laws then people are less likely to take them seriously.
The constitution is a living document; it is meant to be changed, according to the times, the needs of the people, and with the permission of the majority. Do not conflate rigidity with security. An overly rigid document breaks.
"The pornography one is one which I actually have personal experience with. My state passed one of those ID laws. It's inconvenient at worst but for the most part it doesn't have much of an impact. Plenty of websites outside of US hosting exist. Having said this I am fully opposed to these laws and recognize them for the power grabs that they are. These are simply tools to further deanonymize the internet and to create "profiles" of people's browsing habits. Just like the laws proposed against encryption under the guise of stopped child pornographers they are a means to an end and not the end goal itself."
Keep in mind that cruel, undemocratic countries such as Germany adhere to the GDPR, which expressly forbids this kind of data collection on its citizens.
"The gel blaster thing is just stupid. Toys are toys. Toys that look like guns are also toys. Banning them is just paternalistic nanny-state behavior. If a kid is stupid enough to use a toy gun in a manner that gets them shot then that's on them. I don't protect stupid people, even children."
Kids are kids. They're dumb, they're clumsy, they don't know much and they certainly don't know enough to judge their own mortality. We as a society keep kids safe. I don't know anyone who wouldn't step in to help a kid.. they're young, they need the help. They don't understand that the gun they're holding might not be seen as fake by an officer, they haven't thought about that situation for the same reason they don't think about crossing the road to get their ball.
This isn't the "nanny state" stepping in, this is just outlawing the purchase of something that is so stupid it should never have been sold. You argue the kid is stupid and deserves to die for his stupidity. We don't live in the fucking jungle anymore, mistakes don't need to be fatal. This isn't survival of the fittest, this is parents letting their kids out to play while they cook dinner for the family.
Police officers shouldn't have to walk around with that weight on their shoulders, not sure if the gun the kids holding is real or fake. A split-second decision to decide if the kid lives or you do? Fuck that.
If your concern is the "nanny state", then I suppose youre correct in that nothing screams freedom quite like a 9 year old getting shot for playing with a toy. But at least the government only killed the kid and didnt ban the toy. The ban would have been the TRUE tragedy here
Effortpoast detected.
I'm kidding, I did read it all. Honestly I don't really have any response to make. You've made very compelling arguments which, while I do not fully agree with, I can not currently counter. I am not too proud to admit when I am beaten.
I believe we both want the same thing. Maybe I'm just more cynical and jaded at this point. Cheers man, this has been an engaging discussion.
Did Amerigo Vespucci founded the USA or why are you using this name. The internet has a big problem and that is that people who are ignorant and/or stupid can say the most horrendous shit and always will be a guy who believe it without hesitation.
Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles. -F.D.
True.
The only people who get upset by the United States of America being called just "America" are people from other countries within the continents of North and South America, none of which actually have the name "America" in them. I think it's an inferiority complex. We were the first independent nation in the continent(s) named after Amerigo Vespucci therefore we get to call ourselves what we want. From a linguistic standpoint however I'd still say that "America" is more unambiguous than "United States". Mexico, for example, is officially known as Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which is generally translated ( in English ) as United Mexican States but could be translated as United States of Mexico so simply stating "United States" could be ambiguously referring to either ( the United States of ) Mexico or the United States of America. The United States of Mexico however contains an unambiguous name within its own official name which can be substituted for its full name : Mexico. The United States of America, while containing the name of an entire continent, does not have such an unambiguous name within its official name but it is also the only country within the continent(s) of America that actually contains the name America therefore the shorthand name for the United States of America could adequately be used to unambiguously refer to the country itself when used in the context of sovereign nation-states.
There are only three other countries I know of which also contain the name of a continent in their name : Australia, South Africa, and the Central African Republic. None of them, to the best of my knowledge, face the same degree of criticism for their names as the United States of America does for being unambiguously called America. Australia gets a pass for at least solely occupying its entire continent, although some people do include some of the various Pacific Islands ( including New Zealand ) in the continent I have been seeing the term Oceania gain more traction. What about South Africa and the Central African Republic though? They don't get called out for calling themselves South African or Central African Republican ( come to think of it, what does one call oneself as a person of the Central African Republic? ) so why to Americans? I believe I have already answered this : it's an inferiority complex.
Don't think of yourself as inferior, Koshy. We love your Chilean ass.