It’s all subjective until one of the feuding sides grabs a large enough stick to enforce their will onto others.
No they most definitely should not be taken down by the government. Do you not have free speech in Canada?
You can call them racist if you want though I would not say that they are and neither are they promoting hate
I refuse to get excited by the combinations of certain letters typed on a paper and displayed in a public space
This is how it works now :
The posters will be taken down by government employees. The police will investigate if it was a “hate crime” to put them up. They will find that it was not. But the posters are down none the less. The system is manipulated. Free speech is suppressed.
A “hate crime” specifically requires that an identifiable group is targeted for some action. Alternatively posting a symbol which implicitly suggests an action (such as a swastika) would be a “hate crime”. The posters contain neither.
Freedom isn’t free, don’t’cha know? 
A large proportion? How large? Though, sure, there have always been men [of whatever color] who supported full equality for all citizens. I just don’t think that it is a coincidence that only after women and people of color and other excluded groups organized politically, took to the streets and demanded changes, did those changes actually come about.
True, but is this more as a result of the way that we are programed to be “naturally” given the evolution of life on earth, or is it embedded more historically and culturally in racialist and patriarchial political values?
Hell, I recall as a kid noting that all of the garbage collectors and school janitors and junkmen seemed to be black. And that the women were either housewives or school teachers or secretaries. And that “fags” were the scum of the earth. And that of course there was a God. Our God. And I was indoctrinated to believe that this was all just “natural”.
Obviously, we live in a world where white males are not nearly as privileged as they once were. But those in power are still effectively dividing and conquering those not in power by pitting them against each other so that this…
Just prior to President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address, media reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the “richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent”. wiki
…is sustained.
Just out of curiosity, of that top 1%, how many do you suppose are not white males?
Listen up: youtu.be/bXWM84rUV-Q
It more or less works the same way for gender and class.
This would seem hypocritical, but the whites alive today aren’t the same whites that were the worst of slavery a few centuries back and yes, a decent amount of whites are still a part of the problem, but for the differences in size, scale, every race is just as guilty of these things and many whites do have a right to stand up to the injustice being placed on them as other races respond still to the minority of the white race for whom such things as white power still intrigues.
Free speech should never be repressed and especially in a democracy of all places
Everyone must be allowed to say whatever they want and without fear of doing so
But the suppression of free speech in the West is some thing very worrying indeed
This is almost invariably going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets any better
I find that most of the people worrying about their freedom of speech are those who use it to hate on others and destroy the lives of others, to spread slander and libel while they steal the freedom of others to respond by being more vocal about being repressed and oppressed by the tyrants who won’t allow them their freedom and then claim punishment as abuse in bulkshit fashion and act like they’re victims instead of victimized, rapists who rape with hate and bad vibes pretending to be the raped.
The problem of disagreeing with the far left, which includes these days the position that white people need to be bullied and silenced. I don’t think anybody here is saying that white people who bow and scrape and apologize for their skin are bullied and silenced. That’s part of the issue here- the people doing the bullying and silencing don’t see what they’re doing as exclusive because they welcome all genders and races with open arms so long as they fall in lock step with their ideology.
Well of course they are, because calling everything you don’t like ‘hate speech’ and trying to criminalize it is the present threat against free speech. Naturally Marxist poets, Catholic hymn writers and soda advertisers aren’t worrying about their freedom of speech because nobody is trying to take it away from them at the moment. Just like how in the 90’s, a lot of the freedom of speech issues were raised by gangster rappers, because that’s who folks were trying to silence. Before that it was rock n’ roll, and before that it was communists.
Yes, equivocating between ‘bad vibes’ and rape is precisely the kind of tactic used by the censors now.
Apparently enough to make it happen.
I don’t need to ‘suppose’. I have already posted about it:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=190103&p=2632359#p2632359
Specifically, it’s analyzed in this study:
psychologytoday.com/sites/d … Wealth.pdf
Uhm, no, the people who spread hate the way I described, that is a form of unwanted activity, is rape. If you feel censored or like youre unable to express yourself, join the fucking crowd. They obviously express themselves anyway, cry the loudest and are about to have very violent reactions to their crying.
Since I believe that moral and political values [especially my own] are embedded in this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…how can I possibly be accused of “moralizing”? On the contrary, as I have noted any number of times, I have long since abandoned Marxism. I simply raised the points that I did above because [here and now] they seem reasonable to me. But I would never argue that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same.
Yet that is how you project [inflect] here at ILP. At least to me. I may well be wrong but you seem to be someone suggesting that how you view the world around us [as an anarchist] is in fact the optimal frame of mind. Otherwise you are acknowledging that your values are in fact just an existential contraption liable to change at anytime given new experiences, relationships and sources of information.
That while you’re right from your side, others may well be right from theirs. Do you believe this? Objectivists almost never do.
Okay, with respect to the charges that white men today are being unfairly targeted as embracing “white male privilege” how would the true nihilist respond? And, in particular, to the points I raised above.
Then I have to insist you stop raping me with the picture in your signature.
Stop raping me with your threats.
Are you serious or flipping me shit. It’s hard to tell.
…Is more or less the same as the problem with disagreeing with the far right.
In most cases they are objectivists. And, as such, they are convinced that there is only one reasonable and/or virtuous manner in which to view any particular value: like they do.
Again, for objectivists, it’s not a question of who is right but that one of us must be.
What’s crucial therefore is that everyone must agree that in fact there is a right way and a wrong way to think about conflicted value judgments.
But what if there isn’t? What if these conflicts [that go back now for thousands pf years] are best approached democratically in sustained political struggles?
Here the danger of course is that one or another of the objectivist factions [far left or far right] gains access to power and democracy as we know it is gone.
Isn’t that the main question here regarding Trump? Not that he has a particular point of view regarding “white male privilege” but that shame on you if you don’t share it. And that if after a time you still don’t share it, you must be…punished?
In fact, that’s what I am most curious about regarding Trump. Did he say what he felt that he needed to say in order to get elected [like all the rest of them]…or does he really mean it?
Thank g-d that Biggy is not an objectivist.
He never tells you what you should do, instead he tells those people he disagrees with that they are wrong about what they want for themselves and those who agree with them because there is something wrong with that - He calls that being an objectivist.
Clever Biggy… among the kids in his Kindergarten as he calls them, at least.
But those who support democracy are objectivists. I support it and I’m one of the objectivist satans. Right?
You’re saying that if I gained power, then I would abandon democracy. I don’t think that is true and you don’t have any reason to believe it to be true.
Guys, guys, the far left and the far right are both evil objectivists!
Let’s be reasonable and adopt the middle ground which is John Oliver.