It's fairly easy to show that what actually happens is: The left says "Group X should not be punished for being who they are" The right says "Group X is an abomination and saying I can't mistreat them to force them to be like me is telling ME how to live".
You are aware that similar sections in copyright laws all over the world, with radically different legal systems, all used the term 'fair' in their names ? Dutch/Roman law for example reffers to it as "fair dealing" exceptions.
>Please give me a single example of me calling someone something, causing physical harm. If you can.
Ever called somebody a racial slur ? Or a slur for their sexual orientation ? If you have - then you DID cause actual, physical harm. Brain damage to be exact - we have incontrovertiable physical proof of that. Same goes for quite a few others. So I don't know if you've personally done that, but everybody who does HAS caused actual physical harm. No exceptions.
>"Sane Republicans" --- I notice the passive aggressive voice there.;)
Mmm, fair point, let me rephrase - republicans not AS insane as Trump. You're right, actual sanity and conservatism cannot exist in the same brain. It would be like a tropical rain forest and a tundra in the same back yard.
>In order to hurt me with words, I would have to value one's opinion. Hate speech is never ONE.
>There is a clear line. Between simple speech and advocacy or inducement. And some words are ALWAYS advocacy, inducement and incitement - regardless of whether you intend them that way (which is impossible to test by the way so it's safe to assume NOBODY intends them any OTHER way). We call those words 'hate speech'.
>Saying "#Person is a piece of shit #Slur and I hope he dies!" is far different than saying "#Person is a piece of shit #Slur and one of us should pick up a #Weapon and blow his fucking brains out!"
No it's not, because everbody KNOWS the first one really means the second one. The term for that is 'dog whistles' - when you say words that incite violence and disguise it *just enough* that you'll be hard to convict in a court while making damn sure nobody is mistaken about what you meant.
>You can choose to allow the former to cause you pain. When you're hearing that a thousand times a week - it's not really a choice anymore. Besides which - pain is not the issue, actual neural scarring is. Which has been proven to be a potential consequence from a pattern of abusive words. Last I checked - giving somebody brain damage was a clear-cut case of 'causing physical harm'.
>You aren't. Don't like it? Then don't listen. It's time to grow up and recognize that people are routinely going to say things you don't like.
No hate speech law ever written has excluded "things somebody doesn't like". They only exclude "hings that are likely to lead to people getting murdered". With what we now know about neuroscience - like that a persistent pattern of abusive words can cause permanent, physical brain damage (which is physical harm in case you didn't know)- it ought to be expanded to cover words commonly used in such patterns. Since these two categories however, comprise pretty much the exact same words, you won't even notice the expansion.
>First, it does make people more free because they are free to say what they think I said it makes society less free over-all - that statement does not even slightly contradict it. Very frequently society gets more free on average if we reduce the liberty of some individuals. Because we don't all have equal power or equal means to excercise our rights, restricting some actions for a few can actually make the rest of society more free. If we tell employers they aren't allowed to refuse to hire people for forming a union - then individuals with little negotiating power have the option to combine their negotiating power and form a union. An action that reduced the liberty of a small number (the employers) have made a large number (the workers) more free by allowing them to do something they could not previously do.
> Second, it doesn't kill people contrary to your assertion. And you are just plain wrong about this. But then, you always are in every post you've ever put here - facts have no influence on your thinking and you believe whatever you make up to be the same as facts.
>Then why did you bring up "Freedom of Association" in the first place, since we're talking about two businesses?
You're a complete idiot since there was no ambiguity about exactly what this line meant - seeing as the entire rest of my post was clarifying it.
>If you're trying to make a case for being better than them, the kindergarten playground defense is probably not the best way to go about it. Please look up the word 'hypocrisy'. You can do so while you're grabbing the dictionary to look up 'fascism' - they are pretty close to each other.
>You also didn't answer the question of why it's there's no moral (i.e. completely orthogonal to the law) contradiction in using "Freedom of Association" to ostracize and/or deny livelihoods to people who do or believe what you consider to be reprehensible things (as long as they're not religious reprehensible things), and someone else doing the same thing for doing or believing things they find equally reprehensible.
Because there isn't one. But this is a discussion about liberty - and morality has absolutely nothing to do with that - that is a key feature of liberty. Liberty is about the law staying the fuck out of moral matters - so that different people can make different moral choices. However, if your morality is found reprehensible by so much of society that it actually deprives you the opportunity to earn a living - you really owe it to yourself to ask some critical questions about that morality, and if you are truly convinced that it is correct and everybody else is wrong - then perhaps it's time to excercise your freedom of association and freedom of movement rights and move somewhere you won't completely and utterly fail to fit in with the society you wish to be part off. But that is a matter of civilian interaction - generally, not a matter of the law - which makes it utterly irellevant to a discussion on liberty. The only worthwhile discussion on liberty to ever have is when it should be limited, and how much. Morality is hardly ever a reason to do so. Infringing on other people's rights generally is. Systemically infringing on their rights is an even better one. And generally - people should have (far) more rights than businesses - because there are huge and fundamentally differences. For a start - a human cannot be technically immortal.
>You're the only one talking about "right and left" and oppression. I'm talking about internal consistency, and the all to common lack of it in this position. Then you jumped into a discussion with a completely offtopic one. This is a discussion about liberty - and the attitudes of left and right toward it. Both argue that the other mostly want the liberty to tell others how to live. Only the left is correct about that though.
No. What is utterly unjustifiable is the idea that anybody should ever be subjected to hate speech. It serves no useful purpose, it does not advance democracy, it makes society less free over-all and it kills people.
If you worked in legal porn, then the transgender people you met were adults - thus that would make them the ones who got through the extremely high mortality adolescence that transgender people experience. They would therefore, logically, be the LEAST representative sample you could possibly find.
Now you are even more full of shit and your own example is not even an example of what you claim it is. Nobody has declared that they will refuse to do business with Peter Thiel the person. If anybody did it would be illegal anyway since Thiel is in a protected class (he is gay).
His company is being boycotted by another. Thats an entirely different thing. Freedom of association applies to people not businesses. So simply put: businesses cannot discriminate against people but anybody can discriminate against a business. Whether its moral or not can be debateable but its never illegal and the right does it just as often. Just in the last year the right has boycotted Starbucks for not supporting open-carry, chipotle for supporting gay marriage, target for not arbitrarily gendering toys (its easy. If you do not use a toy on genitals its for either boys or girls and if you do its not for children) and dozens of businesses for allowing trans people to piss in peace. But apparently boycotts are only oppresive when the left does it ?
With no evidence - the odds would be EXACTLY even - since we would have absolutely no way to predict which of the two groups that despise the GOP establishment had done this action. Since we DO have some evidence, but that evidence is entirely circumstantial, I used the term 'at least' since in fact, the odds are slightly in favour of it being a Trump supporter. At the time of the events there were far more Trump supporters with much more motive than democrats who could have done it. The phrase 'NAZI' on the wall slightly reduces those odds - since accusing Trump of NAZISm (extremely accurately) has been common among democrats since his campaign began. But then - a lot of his voters are probably quite uneducated enough not to see the resemblence between their candidate and NAZI policies and could potentially be living under a false impression that in the GOP establishment is more NAZI like than he is (it would not be the first complete and utter falsehood they have laboured under). So that one is slightly in favour of a leftist, but less clear-cut than the timing and Trump's own words at the time -which only influence his side of the equation. Then there is one last major consideration. The democrats have been doing serious outreach to sane republicans, to rather vote for Hillary this time round because Trump is so vile. This attack, if done by a democrat, would seriously undermine their own election strategy. Right now the democrats and the GOP establishment are almost allies against Trump - look at all the republicans who have chosen to endorse Hillary. Hell George H.W. Bush will be the first ex-president in a century NOT to vote for his party's candidate (and the last one was running against that candidate as an independent). That significantly reduces the odds of a leftist doing this. People generally try not to deliberately undermine their own cause.
These are legitimate considerations - which means instead of being absolutely even odds - it tilts the odds. Collectively - more towards a Trumpkin, we don't really know by how much which is why I carefully avoided giving a specific number, just an estimation. There's enough data to estimate but not to calculate.
There is no crime in a citizen choosing not to associate with anybody so you're full of shit. The only exceptions to that law is a public servant or a business- which are, legitimate, exceptions - because without those exceptions if you're unlucky enough to be born in the wrong class you can very easily be unable to buy food, unable to procure any services - even find yourself unable to get a driving license because the local DMV officer doesn't like your class.
Basically - you're just plain lying since anybody else is - in fact - perfectly free to not associate based on any of those classes. You may draw scorn (well deserved scorn) but government will do nothing to stop you.
This is not universal - in South Africa for example - people have a constitutional right to be free from discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, disability (or a few others). So your right to freedom of association is, in fact, curtailed by that. Nobody has ever prosecuted a private citizen for violating that - but it could theoretically happen. The government has chosen not to use the police to do it - and instead such cases are handled by a special court which only has the power to give fines and can only act on a complaint being laid (so it's treated as a civil case). But that restriction does exist. You cannot create a club for white people only - even a non-commercial one. It's illegal. You also cannot run a business in a way that de facto discriminates - even if not explicitely, so for example a restaurant dress code cannot be written such that most black people could not afford an acceptable outfit.
In US law - that right is significantly smaller, people only have a legal right not to be discriminated against by public servants (as representatives of the government) or public businesses (which are legally required to serve all comers).
>"Fairness" of the law would never be a proper reason for a court to rule for/against the shoe-size law.
Actually - that would entirely depend on how it's written. There are numerous laws which have a fairness clause - and explicitly leaves the question of whether a particular case is fair or not up to the courts to determine. This is common where the law is trying to protect an activity which should be legal in certain circumstances but not in others - and it's difficult to determine upfront a universal set of rules to seperate the legal and non-legal cases. Then individual examples can be tested in court - the courts ruling becomes precedent which helps clarify other ones which are substantially the same - while any that differ waits until eventually they too get tested. A great example is the fair use section of copyright law, which specifically creates a number of limited exceptions where copyright does not apply - but whether or not a particular activity fits within those exceptions is left on a case-by-case basis up to the courts.
So wait... let me get this straight. You're supporting the crown prince of hte idea that nothing you say can possibly be bad - yet you're absolving Trumpkins of responsibility for violence because somebody was taunting them ?
You can't have it both way. If those Hillary supporters are to blame for the violence at Trump rallies - then using hate-speech is actual violence.
Of course the law has ALWAYS held that way - which is why 'fighting words' is considered a first strike and rules out a self-defence plea. Yet somehow, magically, that stops being the case when you use fighting words about an entire group of people ? Simply put - if you use hate-speech against somebody, regardless of whether it's legal or not - they are fully justified to kick your ass for it and the law has held that for thousands of years. So... all in all.. it's probably better to stop you from saying those kinds of things because society works better when we prevent situations that are pretty much guaranteed to escalate to violence and give people non-violent ways to resolve legitimate disputes. That using hate speech does create a legitimate dispute is absolutely established by the existence of the 'fighting words' doctrine.
So tit for tat. If Trump can be 'politically incorrect' - then I can taunt his supporters and if they punch me it's ONLY their fault. You can't have it both ways.
>How about this... I support and defend your right to call me anything you damn well please. Full Stop
That argument makes as much sense as Mike Tyson saying "I support the right to assault people because I can take a punch". Just because YOU are not (or at least, believe [almost certainly incorrectly] that you are not) vulnerable to physical harm from words - does not mean nobody is.
>Can you match that?
How about this. You refrain from calling vulnerable people things that could harm or even kill them -and I'll refrain from harming or killing you.
All people are not equally safe from all things -that should be fucking obvious. But this is typical of rightwingers - nothing matters until it affects you. Dick Cheney didn't support gay marriage until his daughter turned out to be a lesbian. Every republican responding to Trump's bragging about sexual assault has framed their response in terms 'I have a wife/daughters/mother'. A complete failure to see that something can be bad unless it's bad for yourself or somebody you personally care about. The idea that sexual assault is bad because women are PEOPLE and men don't have the right to control their bodies and that this includes all women - even complete strangers - just doesn't seem to register with them. I can consider the good or evil of something based on how it affects people other than myself, and I can contemplate how something that would have no impact on me could be deadly to another person. The day there is hate-speech against white males that has actual TEETH, that can actually harm us - that's when your attitude will change. I don't need it to happen to me before I know it's bad - I just need to see it happen to other people.
I have no food allergies - but I'm smart enough to support labelling laws so that people who do don't get killed by eating something nobody could have guessed contains an allergen. It may be harmless to me, but it's not harmless to them - and the law must protect everybody. We cannot make the law on only things that harm the best protected among us.
Considering that transgender kids have a suicide rate 4 times the national average which has been conclusively proven to be driven ENTIRELY by the way society treats them (which is primarily manifested in words) - if you call somebody a 'tranny' you are, as far as I'm concerned with the best science on my side, engaging in an act of attempted murder - and I will quite happily punch you in the mouth until you stop. That's saying something coming from a pacifist. I abhor violence and I don't believe there is any such thing as a justified first strike - but that would not be a first strike, that would be defending somebody from a sustained and deadly attacker.
>Employers can also subtract the UBi amount from what they pay to their workers so that the cost is offset for the employers as well. Erm no. If you allow that - then UBI fails, it's just another welfare program then since people who work dont' get it. The entire POINT is that EVERYBODY gets it so working people get more than non-working people. If you let employers subtract it- you just destroyed it, indeed it would not BE a UBI at all - just old-fashioned welfare-state capitalism under a new brand.
1) So adapt the value regionally, or any of about ten-billion other possibilities. 2) Taxes, because it you DO replace all other welfare - and a significant portion of BI receivers are also tax-payers it works - it would, in fact, be far CHEAPER than welfare costs - because you need none of the burocracy, because everybody gets it and you do not police what they do with it, you need no oversight committees, no armies of social workers and invasive checks. The whole thing can be done by the IRS. 3) See point two. You replace it entirely - and you get rid of all the checks. If some people want to spend it all on drugs - LET THEM. What's it to you ? Giving them the means to live is the end of societies concern or responsibility, if they then squander it, that is not your problem.
Now here's the thing you're ignoring. Empirical FACTS prove you wrong. There is no theory in all of economics that have been subjected to more in-depth, long-term experimental testing than UBI. All over the world, including in America, dozens of long-term experiments (the shortest one ever was 15 years) in UBI have been done - usually involving one entire town. There's one happening in Utrecht in the Netherlands as I type this. They ALL absolutely and conclusively prove everything you say wrong. "Logic" is always trumped by empirical facts because if they don't agree it means your "logic" was based on false premises and is entirely useless. The facts are - whereever UBI has been tried: 1) Entrepeneurism skyrocketed. It's not only rich kids who have great ideas for businesses, but starting a business is a risky venture. Most businesses fail. A rich kid can afford to take the risk. A poor person cannot because if the business fails they are destitute. UBI removes the risk of destitution so LOTS of people open businesses. Repeatedly, until they succeed - just like rich people do now. 2) Unemployment drops like a rock. All those new businesses need workers, so they employ other people - who now get to live on more than UBI. 3) Productivity skyrockets - not only do more people work, they work harder. 4) Some people take extended periods out of the labour market living off UBI. In fact it's always the same people for the same reasons. New mothers often take a year or more to spend with their children - this can only be good for everybody else, and young people often delay joining the job market to pursue tertiary education first. People who could not previously do so, now can, which means they earn more later and have better success rates starting businesses. 5) Average public health shows significant improvements - people are much healthier because they can actually afford to eat well, and one of the biggest killers in the modern world (stress) has been deprived of one of it's biggest causes: fear about money.
That was the result in Canada's Mincome experiment. That was the result of Nixon's war-on-poverty experiment in Detroit. It happened that way everywhere it was tried and it will be the same in Utrecht when that experiment concludes.
Just once, it would be nice if - after the experiments prove them utterly wrong -a bunch of ideologues like you did NOT derail the full implementation based on your claims that 'logic' says it can't work.
>You don't pay a price, whether professionally or in terms of social capital, when voicing your support for Clinton Because there isn't a very real risk that Clinton would start a nuclear third world war. At least, no bigger than any of the other people who have run for president since the bomb was invented, while Trump's approach would fucking guarantee one. OF COURSE the backlash is worse when the candidate you support represents a real and present danger to the entire fucking world, and has promoted policies that are literally direct translations of Hitler's speeches ! We've seen what happens when you demand that some group must 'all be registered in a database so we can track them'.
Oh and Hillary voters haven't once called to remove the right to vote from white males. Meanwhile #repealthe19th was the top-trending hashtag on twitter for days.
Except that we also read Neil Stephenson and got a real gritty look at what a world without strong government looks like - and it's nothign but unadulterated evil. So the smart ones learned to trust nobody with power (that includes the power of being very rich). And yes we demand government restrain the power of the rich - because it's the only weapon we have against them - while we ourselves restrain the government through the weapons we have against them - like the courts and the ballot.
Actually no - that is fundamentally democratic. OPPOSING our right to do so is what's fundamentally undemocratic. In fact - the ability to do so is literally WHY we have freedoms !
> And we have a GOP office being firebombed [cnn.com] just the other day.
Interesting how you ignore the context in which it happened - the same week where almost the entire remaining republican guard abandoned Trump and Trump made several public speeches accusing them of disloyalty, of rigging the election etc. etc. etc.
There is at LEAST even odds that it was a Trump supporter who did it, to punish the GOP establishment for not supporting Trump any more. We won't know for sure until somebody is arrested but considering when it happened - that's still a very likely scenario. More likely, in fact, than that a democrat did it - why would we BOTHER ? Trump's poll numbers are down by double-digits compared to Clinton - right now we're soaring, what could we possibly gain from it ? Trump voters have a lot more to be angry about right now, Clinton supporters are busy celebrating.
I'm not saying that there aren't fascist elements on the left - but to suggest that they are not vastly more prominent on the right is just plain ignorant, the ENTIRE religious-right/moral majority brigade fall in that category and they are all on the right, and fascism literally has no closer ally than neo-NAZIs - Hitler was one of THE proto-fascists, something he learned form it's inventor: his close friend Mussolini. Generally - if the left doesn't like what you have to say - we will respond by excercising our own own freedom of speech and association - for example with boycotts. It's only in rare cases where real, measurable harm is being done by speech that the left as a whole would support laws against that speech.
The right on the hand have been trying to ban everything with a nipple for 30 years.
>If ignoring the sticks and stones could prevent injury, it wouldn't be necessary to do anything about them.
If you still believe that ignoring hate speech can prevent injury then you are about 30 years behind the scientific facts. Even if you ignore that words themselves CAN do permanent, real, physical harm to a person - you still run into the problem that advocating violence (which is what most hate speech is under) will cause OTHERS to wield sticks and stones. There is no level where hate speech does NOT fall firmly OUTSIDE the harm principle - so literally the most libertarian interpretation of freedom short of "might makes right" is perfectly compatible with anti-hate-speech laws. It's founders wouldn't have said so - but they didn't have access to the knowledge we now do. A philosophy that is not willing to update based on new scientific knowledge is not a philosophy - it's a dangerous cult.
Slashdot Mirror
It's fairly easy to show that what actually happens is:
The left says "Group X should not be punished for being who they are"
The right says "Group X is an abomination and saying I can't mistreat them to force them to be like me is telling ME how to live".
Every single time.
You are aware that similar sections in copyright laws all over the world, with radically different legal systems, all used the term 'fair' in their names ? Dutch/Roman law for example reffers to it as "fair dealing" exceptions.
>Please give me a single example of me calling someone something, causing physical harm. If you can.
Ever called somebody a racial slur ? Or a slur for their sexual orientation ? If you have - then you DID cause actual, physical harm. Brain damage to be exact - we have incontrovertiable physical proof of that. Same goes for quite a few others. So I don't know if you've personally done that, but everybody who does HAS caused actual physical harm. No exceptions.
>"Sane Republicans" --- I notice the passive aggressive voice there. ;)
Mmm, fair point, let me rephrase - republicans not AS insane as Trump. You're right, actual sanity and conservatism cannot exist in the same brain. It would be like a tropical rain forest and a tundra in the same back yard.
>In order to hurt me with words, I would have to value one's opinion.
Hate speech is never ONE.
>There is a clear line. Between simple speech and advocacy or inducement.
And some words are ALWAYS advocacy, inducement and incitement - regardless of whether you intend them that way (which is impossible to test by the way so it's safe to assume NOBODY intends them any OTHER way). We call those words 'hate speech'.
>Saying "#Person is a piece of shit #Slur and I hope he dies!" is far different than saying "#Person is a piece of shit #Slur and one of us should pick up a #Weapon and blow his fucking brains out!"
No it's not, because everbody KNOWS the first one really means the second one. The term for that is 'dog whistles' - when you say words that incite violence and disguise it *just enough* that you'll be hard to convict in a court while making damn sure nobody is mistaken about what you meant.
>You can choose to allow the former to cause you pain.
When you're hearing that a thousand times a week - it's not really a choice anymore. Besides which - pain is not the issue, actual neural scarring is. Which has been proven to be a potential consequence from a pattern of abusive words. Last I checked - giving somebody brain damage was a clear-cut case of 'causing physical harm'.
>You aren't. Don't like it? Then don't listen. It's time to grow up and recognize that people are routinely going to say things you don't like.
No hate speech law ever written has excluded "things somebody doesn't like". They only exclude "hings that are likely to lead to people getting murdered". With what we now know about neuroscience - like that a persistent pattern of abusive words can cause permanent, physical brain damage (which is physical harm in case you didn't know)- it ought to be expanded to cover words commonly used in such patterns.
Since these two categories however, comprise pretty much the exact same words, you won't even notice the expansion.
>First, it does make people more free because they are free to say what they think
I said it makes society less free over-all - that statement does not even slightly contradict it. Very frequently society gets more free on average if we reduce the liberty of some individuals. Because we don't all have equal power or equal means to excercise our rights, restricting some actions for a few can actually make the rest of society more free. If we tell employers they aren't allowed to refuse to hire people for forming a union - then individuals with little negotiating power have the option to combine their negotiating power and form a union. An action that reduced the liberty of a small number (the employers) have made a large number (the workers) more free by allowing them to do something they could not previously do.
> Second, it doesn't kill people contrary to your assertion.
And you are just plain wrong about this. But then, you always are in every post you've ever put here - facts have no influence on your thinking and you believe whatever you make up to be the same as facts.
>Then why did you bring up "Freedom of Association" in the first place, since we're talking about two businesses?
You're a complete idiot since there was no ambiguity about exactly what this line meant - seeing as the entire rest of my post was clarifying it.
>If you're trying to make a case for being better than them, the kindergarten playground defense is probably not the best way to go about it.
Please look up the word 'hypocrisy'. You can do so while you're grabbing the dictionary to look up 'fascism' - they are pretty close to each other.
>You also didn't answer the question of why it's there's no moral (i.e. completely orthogonal to the law) contradiction in using "Freedom of Association" to ostracize and/or deny livelihoods to people who do or believe what you consider to be reprehensible things (as long as they're not religious reprehensible things), and someone else doing the same thing for doing or believing things they find equally reprehensible.
Because there isn't one. But this is a discussion about liberty - and morality has absolutely nothing to do with that - that is a key feature of liberty. Liberty is about the law staying the fuck out of moral matters - so that different people can make different moral choices. However, if your morality is found reprehensible by so much of society that it actually deprives you the opportunity to earn a living - you really owe it to yourself to ask some critical questions about that morality, and if you are truly convinced that it is correct and everybody else is wrong - then perhaps it's time to excercise your freedom of association and freedom of movement rights and move somewhere you won't completely and utterly fail to fit in with the society you wish to be part off. But that is a matter of civilian interaction - generally, not a matter of the law - which makes it utterly irellevant to a discussion on liberty.
The only worthwhile discussion on liberty to ever have is when it should be limited, and how much. Morality is hardly ever a reason to do so. Infringing on other people's rights generally is. Systemically infringing on their rights is an even better one. And generally - people should have (far) more rights than businesses - because there are huge and fundamentally differences. For a start - a human cannot be technically immortal.
>You're the only one talking about "right and left" and oppression. I'm talking about internal consistency, and the all to common lack of it in this position.
Then you jumped into a discussion with a completely offtopic one. This is a discussion about liberty - and the attitudes of left and right toward it. Both argue that the other mostly want the liberty to tell others how to live. Only the left is correct about that though.
No. What is utterly unjustifiable is the idea that anybody should ever be subjected to hate speech. It serves no useful purpose, it does not advance democracy, it makes society less free over-all and it kills people.
If you worked in legal porn, then the transgender people you met were adults - thus that would make them the ones who got through the extremely high mortality adolescence that transgender people experience. They would therefore, logically, be the LEAST representative sample you could possibly find.
Now you are even more full of shit and your own example is not even an example of what you claim it is. Nobody has declared that they will refuse to do business with Peter Thiel the person. If anybody did it would be illegal anyway since Thiel is in a protected class (he is gay).
His company is being boycotted by another. Thats an entirely different thing. Freedom of association applies to people not businesses. So simply put: businesses cannot discriminate against people but anybody can discriminate against a business. Whether its moral or not can be debateable but its never illegal and the right does it just as often. Just in the last year the right has boycotted Starbucks for not supporting open-carry, chipotle for supporting gay marriage, target for not arbitrarily gendering toys (its easy. If you do not use a toy on genitals its for either boys or girls and if you do its not for children) and dozens of businesses for allowing trans people to piss in peace. But apparently boycotts are only oppresive when the left does it ?
With no evidence - the odds would be EXACTLY even - since we would have absolutely no way to predict which of the two groups that despise the GOP establishment had done this action. Since we DO have some evidence, but that evidence is entirely circumstantial, I used the term 'at least' since in fact, the odds are slightly in favour of it being a Trump supporter. At the time of the events there were far more Trump supporters with much more motive than democrats who could have done it. The phrase 'NAZI' on the wall slightly reduces those odds - since accusing Trump of NAZISm (extremely accurately) has been common among democrats since his campaign began. But then - a lot of his voters are probably quite uneducated enough not to see the resemblence between their candidate and NAZI policies and could potentially be living under a false impression that in the GOP establishment is more NAZI like than he is (it would not be the first complete and utter falsehood they have laboured under). So that one is slightly in favour of a leftist, but less clear-cut than the timing and Trump's own words at the time -which only influence his side of the equation.
Then there is one last major consideration. The democrats have been doing serious outreach to sane republicans, to rather vote for Hillary this time round because Trump is so vile. This attack, if done by a democrat, would seriously undermine their own election strategy. Right now the democrats and the GOP establishment are almost allies against Trump - look at all the republicans who have chosen to endorse Hillary. Hell George H.W. Bush will be the first ex-president in a century NOT to vote for his party's candidate (and the last one was running against that candidate as an independent). That significantly reduces the odds of a leftist doing this. People generally try not to deliberately undermine their own cause.
These are legitimate considerations - which means instead of being absolutely even odds - it tilts the odds. Collectively - more towards a Trumpkin, we don't really know by how much which is why I carefully avoided giving a specific number, just an estimation. There's enough data to estimate but not to calculate.
The complete and utter fucking disaster the founding fathers abandoned almost immediately because it was an unworkable mess ?
There is no crime in a citizen choosing not to associate with anybody so you're full of shit.
The only exceptions to that law is a public servant or a business- which are, legitimate, exceptions - because without those exceptions if you're unlucky enough to be born in the wrong class you can very easily be unable to buy food, unable to procure any services - even find yourself unable to get a driving license because the local DMV officer doesn't like your class.
Basically - you're just plain lying since anybody else is - in fact - perfectly free to not associate based on any of those classes. You may draw scorn (well deserved scorn) but government will do nothing to stop you.
This is not universal - in South Africa for example - people have a constitutional right to be free from discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, disability (or a few others). So your right to freedom of association is, in fact, curtailed by that. Nobody has ever prosecuted a private citizen for violating that - but it could theoretically happen. The government has chosen not to use the police to do it - and instead such cases are handled by a special court which only has the power to give fines and can only act on a complaint being laid (so it's treated as a civil case). But that restriction does exist. You cannot create a club for white people only - even a non-commercial one. It's illegal. You also cannot run a business in a way that de facto discriminates - even if not explicitely, so for example a restaurant dress code cannot be written such that most black people could not afford an acceptable outfit.
In US law - that right is significantly smaller, people only have a legal right not to be discriminated against by public servants (as representatives of the government) or public businesses (which are legally required to serve all comers).
>"Fairness" of the law would never be a proper reason for a court to rule for/against the shoe-size law.
Actually - that would entirely depend on how it's written. There are numerous laws which have a fairness clause - and explicitly leaves the question of whether a particular case is fair or not up to the courts to determine. This is common where the law is trying to protect an activity which should be legal in certain circumstances but not in others - and it's difficult to determine upfront a universal set of rules to seperate the legal and non-legal cases. Then individual examples can be tested in court - the courts ruling becomes precedent which helps clarify other ones which are substantially the same - while any that differ waits until eventually they too get tested. A great example is the fair use section of copyright law, which specifically creates a number of limited exceptions where copyright does not apply - but whether or not a particular activity fits within those exceptions is left on a case-by-case basis up to the courts.
So wait... let me get this straight. You're supporting the crown prince of hte idea that nothing you say can possibly be bad - yet you're absolving Trumpkins of responsibility for violence because somebody was taunting them ?
You can't have it both way. If those Hillary supporters are to blame for the violence at Trump rallies - then using hate-speech is actual violence.
Of course the law has ALWAYS held that way - which is why 'fighting words' is considered a first strike and rules out a self-defence plea. Yet somehow, magically, that stops being the case when you use fighting words about an entire group of people ? Simply put - if you use hate-speech against somebody, regardless of whether it's legal or not - they are fully justified to kick your ass for it and the law has held that for thousands of years. So... all in all.. it's probably better to stop you from saying those kinds of things because society works better when we prevent situations that are pretty much guaranteed to escalate to violence and give people non-violent ways to resolve legitimate disputes.
That using hate speech does create a legitimate dispute is absolutely established by the existence of the 'fighting words' doctrine.
So tit for tat. If Trump can be 'politically incorrect' - then I can taunt his supporters and if they punch me it's ONLY their fault. You can't have it both ways.
>How about this... I support and defend your right to call me anything you damn well please. Full Stop
That argument makes as much sense as Mike Tyson saying "I support the right to assault people because I can take a punch".
Just because YOU are not (or at least, believe [almost certainly incorrectly] that you are not) vulnerable to physical harm from words - does not mean nobody is.
>Can you match that?
How about this. You refrain from calling vulnerable people things that could harm or even kill them -and I'll refrain from harming or killing you.
All people are not equally safe from all things -that should be fucking obvious. But this is typical of rightwingers - nothing matters until it affects you. Dick Cheney didn't support gay marriage until his daughter turned out to be a lesbian. Every republican responding to Trump's bragging about sexual assault has framed their response in terms 'I have a wife/daughters/mother'. A complete failure to see that something can be bad unless it's bad for yourself or somebody you personally care about. The idea that sexual assault is bad because women are PEOPLE and men don't have the right to control their bodies and that this includes all women - even complete strangers - just doesn't seem to register with them.
I can consider the good or evil of something based on how it affects people other than myself, and I can contemplate how something that would have no impact on me could be deadly to another person. The day there is hate-speech against white males that has actual TEETH, that can actually harm us - that's when your attitude will change. I don't need it to happen to me before I know it's bad - I just need to see it happen to other people.
I have no food allergies - but I'm smart enough to support labelling laws so that people who do don't get killed by eating something nobody could have guessed contains an allergen. It may be harmless to me, but it's not harmless to them - and the law must protect everybody. We cannot make the law on only things that harm the best protected among us.
Considering that transgender kids have a suicide rate 4 times the national average which has been conclusively proven to be driven ENTIRELY by the way society treats them (which is primarily manifested in words) - if you call somebody a 'tranny' you are, as far as I'm concerned with the best science on my side, engaging in an act of attempted murder - and I will quite happily punch you in the mouth until you stop. That's saying something coming from a pacifist. I abhor violence and I don't believe there is any such thing as a justified first strike - but that would not be a first strike, that would be defending somebody from a sustained and deadly attacker.
>Employers can also subtract the UBi amount from what they pay to their workers so that the cost is offset for the employers as well.
Erm no. If you allow that - then UBI fails, it's just another welfare program then since people who work dont' get it. The entire POINT is that EVERYBODY gets it so working people get more than non-working people. If you let employers subtract it- you just destroyed it, indeed it would not BE a UBI at all - just old-fashioned welfare-state capitalism under a new brand.
1) So adapt the value regionally, or any of about ten-billion other possibilities.
2) Taxes, because it you DO replace all other welfare - and a significant portion of BI receivers are also tax-payers it works - it would, in fact, be far CHEAPER than welfare costs - because you need none of the burocracy, because everybody gets it and you do not police what they do with it, you need no oversight committees, no armies of social workers and invasive checks. The whole thing can be done by the IRS.
3) See point two. You replace it entirely - and you get rid of all the checks. If some people want to spend it all on drugs - LET THEM. What's it to you ? Giving them the means to live is the end of societies concern or responsibility, if they then squander it, that is not your problem.
Now here's the thing you're ignoring. Empirical FACTS prove you wrong. There is no theory in all of economics that have been subjected to more in-depth, long-term experimental testing than UBI. All over the world, including in America, dozens of long-term experiments (the shortest one ever was 15 years) in UBI have been done - usually involving one entire town. There's one happening in Utrecht in the Netherlands as I type this. They ALL absolutely and conclusively prove everything you say wrong. "Logic" is always trumped by empirical facts because if they don't agree it means your "logic" was based on false premises and is entirely useless.
The facts are - whereever UBI has been tried:
1) Entrepeneurism skyrocketed. It's not only rich kids who have great ideas for businesses, but starting a business is a risky venture. Most businesses fail. A rich kid can afford to take the risk. A poor person cannot because if the business fails they are destitute. UBI removes the risk of destitution so LOTS of people open businesses. Repeatedly, until they succeed - just like rich people do now.
2) Unemployment drops like a rock. All those new businesses need workers, so they employ other people - who now get to live on more than UBI.
3) Productivity skyrockets - not only do more people work, they work harder.
4) Some people take extended periods out of the labour market living off UBI. In fact it's always the same people for the same reasons. New mothers often take a year or more to spend with their children - this can only be good for everybody else, and young people often delay joining the job market to pursue tertiary education first. People who could not previously do so, now can, which means they earn more later and have better success rates starting businesses.
5) Average public health shows significant improvements - people are much healthier because they can actually afford to eat well, and one of the biggest killers in the modern world (stress) has been deprived of one of it's biggest causes: fear about money.
That was the result in Canada's Mincome experiment. That was the result of Nixon's war-on-poverty experiment in Detroit. It happened that way everywhere it was tried and it will be the same in Utrecht when that experiment concludes.
Just once, it would be nice if - after the experiments prove them utterly wrong -a bunch of ideologues like you did NOT derail the full implementation based on your claims that 'logic' says it can't work.
I misinterpreted your post then, and was responding to what I *thought* you meant.
>You don't pay a price, whether professionally or in terms of social capital, when voicing your support for Clinton
Because there isn't a very real risk that Clinton would start a nuclear third world war. At least, no bigger than any of the other people who have run for president since the bomb was invented, while Trump's approach would fucking guarantee one. OF COURSE the backlash is worse when the candidate you support represents a real and present danger to the entire fucking world, and has promoted policies that are literally direct translations of Hitler's speeches ! We've seen what happens when you demand that some group must 'all be registered in a database so we can track them'.
Oh and Hillary voters haven't once called to remove the right to vote from white males. Meanwhile #repealthe19th was the top-trending hashtag on twitter for days.
You do know that the ammendments are numbered chronologically - not by importance, right ? Right ?!
Except that we also read Neil Stephenson and got a real gritty look at what a world without strong government looks like - and it's nothign but unadulterated evil. So the smart ones learned to trust nobody with power (that includes the power of being very rich). And yes we demand government restrain the power of the rich - because it's the only weapon we have against them - while we ourselves restrain the government through the weapons we have against them - like the courts and the ballot.
Actually no - that is fundamentally democratic. OPPOSING our right to do so is what's fundamentally undemocratic. In fact - the ability to do so is literally WHY we have freedoms !
> And we have a GOP office being firebombed [cnn.com] just the other day.
Interesting how you ignore the context in which it happened - the same week where almost the entire remaining republican guard abandoned Trump and Trump made several public speeches accusing them of disloyalty, of rigging the election etc. etc. etc.
There is at LEAST even odds that it was a Trump supporter who did it, to punish the GOP establishment for not supporting Trump any more. We won't know for sure until somebody is arrested but considering when it happened - that's still a very likely scenario. More likely, in fact, than that a democrat did it - why would we BOTHER ? Trump's poll numbers are down by double-digits compared to Clinton - right now we're soaring, what could we possibly gain from it ? Trump voters have a lot more to be angry about right now, Clinton supporters are busy celebrating.
I'm not saying that there aren't fascist elements on the left - but to suggest that they are not vastly more prominent on the right is just plain ignorant, the ENTIRE religious-right/moral majority brigade fall in that category and they are all on the right, and fascism literally has no closer ally than neo-NAZIs - Hitler was one of THE proto-fascists, something he learned form it's inventor: his close friend Mussolini.
Generally - if the left doesn't like what you have to say - we will respond by excercising our own own freedom of speech and association - for example with boycotts. It's only in rare cases where real, measurable harm is being done by speech that the left as a whole would support laws against that speech.
The right on the hand have been trying to ban everything with a nipple for 30 years.
>If ignoring the sticks and stones could prevent injury, it wouldn't be necessary to do anything about them.
If you still believe that ignoring hate speech can prevent injury then you are about 30 years behind the scientific facts. Even if you ignore that words themselves CAN do permanent, real, physical harm to a person - you still run into the problem that advocating violence (which is what most hate speech is under) will cause OTHERS to wield sticks and stones.
There is no level where hate speech does NOT fall firmly OUTSIDE the harm principle - so literally the most libertarian interpretation of freedom short of "might makes right" is perfectly compatible with anti-hate-speech laws. It's founders wouldn't have said so - but they didn't have access to the knowledge we now do. A philosophy that is not willing to update based on new scientific knowledge is not a philosophy - it's a dangerous cult.