I abhor violence, and Trump has a right to speak, but the hatefulness of that speech is laying the groundwork for actual violence, whether its at the hands of protesters or his supporters. 

 

Protesting is acceptable, but it's come out that the express purpose of the protests was to shut down the rally.  A) as others have said, that feeds Trump not stops him.  B ) That's not what free speech and protest are about.  It has the concept completely ass-backwards.

 

You beat hate speech and fear and violence with reason and peace.  It has become an increasing tactic of liberals to shut down speech they disagree with.  It's one of many issues both sides are doing that is creating divisiveness. But this, principally, should be everything that liberals stand against.  

Edited March 13, 201610 yr by TheLeviathan

Protesting is acceptable, but it's come out that the express purpose of the protests was to shut down the rally. A) as others have said, that feeds Trump not stops him. B ) That's not what free speech and protest are about. It has the concept completely ass-backwards.

 

You beat hate speech and fear and violence with reason and peace. It has become an increasing tactic of liberals to shut down speech they disagree with. It's one of many issues both sides are doing that is creating divisiveness. But this, principally, should be everything that liberals stand against.

 

Come on, Levi ... this is not a liberal agenda. It's an increasing trend from ALL sides to shut down speech that is disagreed with. And being female I can tell you it's also been an agenda on the right for a very long time. It's a fine line to figure out where free speech ends and hate speech begins, but if actions that we are seeing towards specific groups and individuals are a result of Trump's orations, then I have to label it hate speech. It has emboldened people to commit assault and murder, and that's where the line is. While Trump hasn't specifically said to go out and commit these crimes against humanity, and maybe legally we can't shut down his speaking, I certainly understand the protest over it. But I still stand by non-violent protest, and in this case I think the protesters are going about it wrong in fueling Trump and his supporters. Too many people are standing on the side lines saying, 'This won't happen,' 'The American people are better than this.' But I just don't know anymore.

Hmmm. Nothing like a little revisionism.

 

http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/

Edited March 13, 201610 yr by Craig Arko

Hmmm. Nothing like a little revisionism.http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/

Then I stand corrected. However, protesters inciting violence, too, is still not the answer. Honestly, I just wish the media wouldn't cover him like they do.

There is a certain 'reap what you sew' at play here. Just like with Wallace. America is not a nation known for Gandhi style protests. My greatest fear is that the snipers get involved.

Another eyewitness account.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/11/1499735/-Trump-Rally-No-Joking-Matter

 

And Trump's rhetorical debt to Wallace.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/campaign-stops/what-donald-trump-owes-george-wallace.html?_r=0

 

Come on, Levi ... this is not a liberal agenda. It's an increasing trend from ALL sides to shut down speech that is disagreed with. And being female I can tell you it's also been an agenda on the right for a very long time. It's a fine line to figure out where free speech ends and hate speech begins, but if actions that we are seeing towards specific groups and individuals are a result of Trump's orations, then I have to label it hate speech.

 

Labeling it hate speech is not the problem.  Label away.  The problem is trying to suppress ideas we don't like by trying to stop them from being spoken.  Bill Maher and a host of comedians, professors, and others of liberal tendencies have been outspoken about this growing trend on the left.  Particularly young liberals.

 

In some circles, the battle of ideas isn't worth the time and effort.  Better to bully people out of speaking by force of confrontation.  (To be fair, some on the right are doing this too, just not to the same frequency)

Then I stand corrected. However, protesters inciting violence, too, is still not the answer. Honestly, I just wish the media wouldn't cover him like they do.

I don't like the violence but honestly for me it's all about the appearance of the high road. When Clinton uses those quoted words against Trump it will play a lot better if only those supporting Trump are viewed as a violent hate group.

 

Fair or not, this is easily one of, if not the biggest reason history remembers MLK more fondly than Malcom X.

Labeling it hate speech is not the problem.  Label away.  The problem is trying to suppress ideas we don't like by trying to stop them from being spoken.  Bill Maher and a host of comedians, professors, and others of liberal tendencies have been outspoken about this growing trend on the left.  Particularly young liberals.

 

In some circles, the battle of ideas isn't worth the time and effort.  Better to bully people out of speaking by force of confrontation.  (To be fair, some on the right are doing this too, just not to the same frequency)

It isn't a trend I like seeing, no matter the side. But this has been going on on the right for decades. To all of a sudden try to hold the left to a higher standard for a practice that has been going on for decades on the right is not a good argument, IMO.

Labeling it hate speech is not the problem. Label away. The problem is trying to suppress ideas we don't like by trying to stop them from being spoken. Bill Maher and a host of comedians, professors, and others of liberal tendencies have been outspoken about this growing trend on the left. Particularly young liberals.

 

In some circles, the battle of ideas isn't worth the time and effort. Better to bully people out of speaking by force of confrontation. (To be fair, some on the right are doing this too, just not to the same frequency)

But are people really trying to stop free speech? Or are they simply pushing for the opportunity to refute and show displeasure with how rediculous the speech is?

 

But are people really trying to stop free speech? Or are they simply pushing for the opportunity to refute and call out how rediculous the speech is?

 

According to several media reports the protests were intended to stop the rally, not just protest is views.  To me that is an important distinction.

 

I abhor violence, and Trump has a right to speak, but the hatefulness of that speech is laying the groundwork for actual violence, whether its at the hands of protesters or his supporters. 

Eh, I can't let off the protestors that easily. They're responsible for their own behavior and it's high time someone in the room starts acting like the adult.

 

And that sure as hell isn't going to be Trump, so...

 

Never mind that violence only feeds the beast that is the Trump campaign and its followers.

 

It isn't a trend I like seeing, no matter the side. But this has been going on on the right for decades. To all of a sudden try to hold the left to a higher standard for a practice that has been going on for decades on the right is not a good argument, IMO.

 

I haven't seen right-wing college students protesting speakers.  This phenomenon is very new and centered primarily around young liberals.  It's the "trigger warnings" and all the other nonsense.  They went out to try and shut down that rally and that is not something I can ever recall a conservative group doing.  This has been a natural progression of a growing trend on the left.

 

And the left should be the ones taking the higher ground on this, not being even worse.

 

It isn't a trend I like seeing, no matter the side. But this has been going on on the right for decades. To all of a sudden try to hold the left to a higher standard for a practice that has been going on for decades on the right is not a good argument, IMO.

To me, the difference is that the far right left behind any pretense of intellectual honesty years ago. If someone spouts nonsensical gibberish, I'm not going to hold them to the same standard I hold someone I respect.

 

The right is certainly guilty of this but so much of their platform is contradictory and emotion-based that little stuff like "shouting down the other guy" falls by the wayside. The right wing's scattershot platform has become so untenable that's the least of their problems.

 

On the other hand, the left prides itself on honest discourse and freedom of thought, which makes the trend of "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to force you to stop saying it" very disturbing.

 

Whereas I almost expect it from the right because they make no bones about strangling every part of your personal life of which they do not approve.

The most recent protests I was involved with was opposition to the Iraq war and I can tell you that the people that ended up getting arrested knew exactly what would happen, how and why. When it reached that how and why point was when I went home.

Brock was right a dozen pages or more ago. Don't acknowledge 'He Who Must Not Be Named,' don't give him press, don't give him any breath.

I'm not sure how if we refuse to talk about Trump that he will somehow go away. Not disagreeing with you, just not sure how that works at this point, or if it ever would have worked.

I'm not sure how if we refuse to talk about Trump that he will somehow go away. Not disagreeing with you, just not sure how that works at this point, or if it ever would have worked.

Yeah, I don't know. But maybe our protests should (also) be directed at the media, for giving his special form of hate speech a platform.

Young, college age kids with leftist ideals do have a history of shouting down speakers they don't agree with, and then being arrested and released.

 

That does not make these people "the Left."

 

Nope. Sorry. Not even close.

Yeah, I don't know. But maybe our protests should (also) be directed at the media, for giving his special form of hate speech a platform.

Except freedom of the press is just as important as (other forms of) freedom of speech. We have to be prepared to take the bad with the good.

 

Violence is bad, absolutely. But we find ourselves living in a society where the national pastime is plugging your neighbor, or your neighbor's kids. This has become a violent nation.

Except freedom of the press is just as important as (other forms of) freedom of speech. We have to be prepared to take the bad with the good.

Violence is bad, absolutely. But we find ourselves living in a society where the national pastime is plugging your neighbor, or your neighbor's kids. This has become a violent nation.

But this brings me back to the issue ... when is it hate speech? Freedom of speech/press don't allow that. These freedoms are not unlimited.

 

But this brings me back to the issue ... when is it hate speech? Freedom of speech/press don't allow that. These freedoms are not unlimited.

When it comes to hate speech, I almost always err on the side of caution. The precedent set by sliding toward censorship is too dangerous to ignore. Ultimately, I have enough faith in the diversity and intelligence of the majority to thwart hate speech.

 

And Trump is merely a vessel of hatred. He's unelectable in a general and I think it's more important to examine what makes his followers buy into the speech than the speech itself.

 

Because if you eliminate Trump, someone else slides into his place with a similar platform (as we've seen parts of the GOP begin to adopt some of his scarier ideas). He's tapping into real hatred felt by millions of people.

Young, college age kids with leftist ideals do have a history of shouting down speakers they don't agree with, and then being arrested and released.

That does not make these people "the Left."

Nope. Sorry. Not even close.

I guess I figure if they have leftist views. That makes them part of the left. Just like part of the right is sorta racist. Labels are used for ease of conversation.

In my experience, labels are often used as a substitute for actual thought.

When it comes to hate speech, I almost always err on the side of caution. The precedent set by sliding toward censorship is too dangerous to ignore. Ultimately, I have enough faith in the diversity and intelligence of the majority to thwart hate speech.

 

And Trump is merely a vessel of hatred. He's unelectable in a general and I think it's more important to examine what makes his followers buy into the speech than the speech itself.

 

Because if you eliminate Trump, someone else slides into his place with a similar platform (as we've seen parts of the GOP begin to adopt some of his scarier ideas). He's tapping into real hatred felt by millions of people.

I don't disagree with any if this. And I, too, agree to err on the side of caution. But if Trump is indeed telling his followers to 'Get that guy,' 'Smack him down,' or even 'Kill,' when do we intervene for real? When does it become hate speech?

 

The second paragraph, yes, this, so many times this. And I've said it before, until we understand why those who support him do, other than the blatant racist part, we will have a difficult time overcoming it. And posting memes all over and comedians basically saying 'How stupid are you?' only enrages them even more.

Free speech cuts both ways.

 

Person A: I hate Person Bs!!

 

Person B: Shut up, Person As!!

 

The right to assembly and cry shut up is no less than the right to speak and announce one's hate. 

Edited March 13, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

 

Free speech cuts both ways.

 

Person A: I hate Person Bs!!

 

Person B: Shut up, Person As!!

 

The right to assembly and cry shut up is no less than the right to speak and announce one's hate. 

Sure, but there's a difference between yelling "shut up!" and forcing someone to shut up through violence.

 

Labeling it hate speech is not the problem.  Label away.  The problem is trying to suppress ideas we don't like by trying to stop them from being spoken.  Bill Maher and a host of comedians, professors, and others of liberal tendencies have been outspoken about this growing trend on the left.  Particularly young liberals.

 

In some circles, the battle of ideas isn't worth the time and effort.  Better to bully people out of speaking by force of confrontation.  (To be fair, some on the right are doing this too, just not to the same frequency)

I'm not defending the protesters (quite the contrary), but hard as it may be for some people to grasp, there are limits to our freedom of speech. I'd be pretty hesitant to say trying to stop a guy who can't open his mouth to speak without spewing hate speech in all directions is worse than what the actual guy is doing. It may not be the right way to handle this, but calling it "The problem" as if that's the root of this dilemma? With all due respect, no. Just ... no.

 

Just to be clear, "Hate speech is any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic." And from what I can tell, Trump's platform is pretty much built on the disparagement of such people groups. (That last bit was said slightly tongue in cheek ... but not ... I just don't get this man, and I really don't get his popularity.)

In my experience, labels are often used as a substitute for actual thought.

When I talk about the Twins, I call them the Twins...not list them all alphabetically so there is no confusion. It's a built in hueristic, if we couldn't categorize in conversation....we'd drive ourselves insane having basic social interactions. So...not really.

I'm not defending the protesters (quite the contrary), but hard as it may be for some people to grasp, there are limits to our freedom of speech. I'd be pretty hesitant to say trying to stop a guy who can't open his mouth to speak without spewing hate speech in all directions is worse than what the actual guy is doing. It may not be the right way to handle this, but calling it "The problem" as if that's the root of this dilemma? With all due respect, no. Just ... no.

 

Just to be clear, "Hate speech is any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic." And from what I can tell, Trump's platform is pretty much built on the disparagement of such people groups. (That last bit was said slightly tongue in cheek ... but not ... I just don't get this man, and I really don't get his popularity.)

There are multiple parties at fault here and both sides are increasing the tension in different ways. Neither side should get a pass.

Then I stand corrected. However, protesters inciting violence, too, is still not the answer. Honestly, I just wish the media wouldn't cover him like they do.

I believe that ship has sailed. Mr. Trump will gets lots of attention whether he gets the nom or not. Unless Rubio stops him in FL, I think it is close to over. Kasich has a decent shot in Ohio, but Trump could win there too, which would indicate he will be the nominee.

Except freedom of the press is just as important as (other forms of) freedom of speech. We have to be prepared to take the bad with the good.

Violence is bad, absolutely. But we find ourselves living in a society where the national pastime is plugging your neighbor, or your neighbor's kids. This has become a violent nation.

Except this isn't Trump's first presidential run; the media didn't sensationalize him the previous times. The Republucans had such uninspired candidates and stories to report that the media grabbed onto Trump and his Onion inspired babble and tabloidized that crap which took it from fringe lunacy to mainstream fear-mongering.

 

Trump should have never gotten to the point that he lead the news, he should have been a page six oddity like he always used to be.