SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the Vox:
Many American pundits seem to firmly believe that the country stands at a precipice in which young, left-wing college students and recent graduates are the leading edge of a rising tide of illiberalism that comes in the form of “political correctness” and poses a clear and present danger to free speech and rational discourse.
[...] The alarm about student protesters, in other words, though not always mistaken about particular cases, is generally grounded in a completely mistaken view of the big-picture state of American society and public opinion, both on and off campus.
[...] Since the 1970s, the General Social Survey has posed a question about whether five hypothetical speakers should be allowed to give a speech in your community — a communist, a homosexual, an opponent of all religion, a racist, and a person who favors replacing the elected government with a military coup.
Justin Murphy of the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom aggregated trend data about all five kinds of speakers and found that public support for free expression has been generally rising
(Score: 2) by tfried on Sunday March 25 2018, @09:36PM (18 children)
Ok, yes, you a right (well: correct) in a way. That list of five speakers is much easier to tolerate for liberals than for conservatives. But now it's your turn: Who is on the list of five speakers (make them at least somewhat diverse, please), that is 4/5 tolerable for conservatives but 1/5 for liberals?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 25 2018, @09:57PM (17 children)
Let me get this straight. I've pointed out that the survey is biased. So, you want me to apply an opposite and equal bias, to make my own survey? That is, I need to come up with some criteria with which to define obnoxious groups who are intolerable for liberals 4/5 of the time, but only offend liberals 1/5 of the time.
I've sat here for a minute or two, and I have several false starts - OH - first good start. "The Constitution is a living document" speakers. God damn it all to hell, the constitution is clearly written in English, and easy for any person with a modest (8th grade) education to understand. The constitution doesn't need to be "interpreted", or any of that other horse shit we hear from liberals. And, forget that constitutional congress stuff. We may have enough people alive today who could actually improve on the constitution in some way - but THOSE people won't be permitted at any congress. Instead, the congress will be flooded with liberals with several agendas. The primary agenda will be "Put Whitey in his place!" followed closely with "Men need to pay!" and of course, "Revoke that second amendment!"
Probably second would be the "freedom from religion" crowd. Those people who pretend that they have some kind of "right" to never hear about any other person's faith, unless that person shares the same faith.
Brain freeze. I guess this page can sit on my desktop while I wander off . . . nahhhh, looking back, I'm on the wrong tanget. I'm getting the tolerance backward. I'll hit "submit" to show that I'm thinking. Maybe I'll be back with better answers later . . .
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday March 25 2018, @10:47PM (5 children)
The Constitution is a living document in that it can be amended. The 2nd Amendment that is held so dear could be nullified or altered by a new Amendment. The chances of actually doing that are probably slim, and if it did succeed, I'm sure there would be a robust underground movement of people hanging onto, trading, or manufacturing large stockpiles of arms.
To say that it doesn't need to be interpreted is a bit much. At a minimum, new technologies raise new questions.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:34PM
So what? Passing amendments is hard. Reinterpreting words to mean what you want is easy.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 26 2018, @12:46AM
We can get a brand new Constitution, very simple, very easy to understand, with a lot less problems (22nd & 25th). By doing the Con Con, the constitutional convention. We have 28 states and we need 34, then we can hold the convention. REPEAL & REPLACE, so desperately needed!!!!
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday March 26 2018, @04:15AM (2 children)
If the second amendment is nullified or altered we can expect to see a lot more Bundy ranch-style showdowns in the immediate future, and possibly de-facto autonomous counties who are left alone provided they don't cause too much trouble.
The current strategy of gun-grabbers is more insidious, de-facto bans. Banning of more and more types of weapons and modifications, jacking prices on ammo to make it unaffordable, putting political pressure on merchants to avoid stocking legal firearms and imposing quotas on both guns and ammo.
One of the most full-retard things I read recently was the Dick's sporting goods ban on scary black rifles and jacking their age requirements for gun purchase to 21. Decisions like those make a lot more sense if you're Starbucks. Decisions like those are full-retard if you work for a company which caters to outdoorsy types who have enough disposable income to buy firearms and ammo. There's something called fiduciary duty do your shareholders, and the Dick's leadership really screwed the pooch.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 26 2018, @04:30AM
"Dick's . . . screwed the pooch"
That's why responsible pet owners keep their animals locked behind gates and doors. Liberals are always ready to jump on an unattended dog. The results of liberals humping dogs can be seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi [wikipedia.org]
Odd, just like Clinton, you only see photos of that broad that were taken half a century ago. Interesting . . .
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:32AM
Perhaps, but then we could just mow the criminal morons down, just like that one, LaVoy Finicum, Mormon adopter of perhaps too many children. So, really, what is the downside to repealing the 2nd Amendment, other than hurting the fee-fees of all the ammosexuals? I'm not seeing any.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Sunday March 25 2018, @10:49PM
Isn't it as much the right who believe the Constitution is a living document. Some examples includes the idea that the 1st is only about some speech, perfectly fine to ban speech for national security reasons or to protect the children. It's OK to ban whole parts of the population from owning guns because they're bad people. It's fine for the government to ban various substances for peoples own good. It's fine to torture people as long as you're politically correct in saying it is just enhanced interrogation or whatever. Same with locking people up, fine if they're of a certain faith. Treaties are made to be broken. Could go on and on. Everyone wants to interpret things like the Constitution in their own way though the right does seem to be more hypocritical for pretending they don't.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 26 2018, @02:24AM (7 children)
So if I get this right, the groups that have historically shat all over everyone else are now shitting themselves at the prospect of being shat all over? Holy shit! What a concept!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 26 2018, @04:10AM (5 children)
Your post sounds like you understand that the left is shitting on conservatives today - and all you can say is "Tough noogies, what went around, comes around."
So, "Reverse discrimination" is fine. You don't want justice, you want revenge? Got it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 26 2018, @07:13PM (4 children)
Well, no. I want justice. But sometimes, before there's justice, there's retribution, and they're not the same thing. It's wrong, but at the same time I can't be too upset over it. If nothing else, karma is a bitch, for every action there's an equal but opposite reaction, yadda yadda yadda...you get the idea.
You, of course, have been waiting for someone to say something like this so you can go "AHA! See?! SEE?! I *AM* being persecuted!!!11111one." Well, keep crying those big fat buttery tears for me, snowflake.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:30AM (3 children)
You're justifying that whole 'sins of the fathers' thing, right? More, you're helping the "other side" to justify violence on their side. And, ultimately, people will die. But, that doesn't upset you at all, does it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:08AM (2 children)
No, Runaway. I just know how history works. This is that swinging pendulum people like to go on about. I want to just hole up somewhere and wait for this shit to blow over, but that is not and never has been realistic. Stop your bitching.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:30AM (1 child)
Don't be surprised if that pendulum slips off of it's pivot point, and runs people over. Bitching? Like hell - I'm warning. And, remember, I gave warning that Trump was going to steal the election out from under the Demopublicans. Maybe that's because I understand human nature better than you do? I'm still wondering who in hell the ruling class is going to offer the next time around . . .
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:48AM
Hey, I knew Trump was likely going to win too. My reaction on hearing that he was running was "...fuck. Sixth sign of the apocalypse. The bastard's gonna win, too, because he's a con-man and most Americans are idiots. Fuuuuuuck meeeee. Welp, didn't make it to Canada, guessilldie.png"
What's funny is that you think Trump is anything other than establishment. If he is, to any degree, it's purely because his own narcissism gets in the way. He's the curious case of an establishment shill who's too fucking dumb to advance the agenda.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @10:54AM
Nice move - you just broadly labelled certain groups to action historically understood to be bad without any data or fact and in the same sentence justified your own bad behavior.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Monday March 26 2018, @06:23AM (1 child)
Exactly. Not because that list will be terribly useful in itself. But as a though experiment, whether liberals - in general - are in fact the enemies of free speech that some would like to see them as.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 26 2018, @08:58AM
Well, as a thought experiment, which side of the left/right divide at least gives lip service to morals, and ethics? Granted, it really is mostly lip service, but the other side has neither. (I'm reminded of so-called conservative representatives haunting public restrooms in search of a big cock to gobble, the night before voting for some crazy morality law, LMAO!)