Keep doing business with megacorps that censors because free speech is an antiquated idea that should be burned. It's not like megacorps are the gatekeepers to the internet or anything.
"I care more about the label on the boot that's on my neck than the boot itself."... You're a tool.
I kept reading how the system wasn't working from all sorts of right-wing people.
Indeed and now the left has rediscovered the value of things like states rights because that is the grounds to argue many of their lawsuits.
If people attacking the system were going to hurt it, it would be in ruins by now.
I disagree. The feature of the government is to move slowly or stall during disagreement. But each time the system is attacked to gain a political advantage will be used as precedent by future politicians. Boiling water with frogs and what not.
Obama did set a number of precedents when he didn't get his way. Trump has undid those decisions in many instances but the precedent remains. It doesn't matter if Trump uses it or not because a future president can use Obama's actions to justify executive overreach. Similarly to the 9th circuit in their zeal to stop Trump from legal actions the executive can take have set a precedent that can make the executive weak for things it needs to be strong. Luckily, the Supreme Court has disagreed with the 9th but for that kind of... overreach and zeal to stop political differences is unsettling.
I don't know how true that is with the current political climate.
. Dangerous ideas need to be delivered in a controlled manner
I disagree with this. It doesn't matter how an idea is delivered - what motivates people to act on ideas doesn't change. If we value free speech we have to allow it in any way that people we disagree with want so long as actions do not follow.
You can say you hate whatever you want but the moment you decide to act or plan to act is when we take legal action.
Were you expecting something different from one election? Or when other executive actions are being contested in court?
It seems like you are pessimistic about the system. The sad thing is that the attacks on the system itself by the left since the election do more harm than one president.
I never said he was a hero. I said he wasn't the monster the left makes him out to be and that there are lessons to be learned. He was a product of his time and so are we.
But it isn't we that put it up asking the future to hear the story. It was a past generation that wanted us, the future, to see it and remember something. If we have something to tell the future we should do the same thing and we are! We put up statues of Martin Luther King Jr and the like. What does that tell the future about us?
heroic war-like statue... totally different statement.
I think that's because he was an effective general. Part of his story is his military accomplishments.
Yes, a museum and library. But somethings are important enough to be put front and center for every passerby to see. A statue in downtown stares you in the face begging you to learn why it stands there from a people long since dead.
Nazi's were modern that set up their own monuments. It wasn't history, it was current events. It wasn't put up by people after the Nazi's. I don't think the monuments dedicated to WW2 or Holocaust should be taken down.
And slavery has been around since the beginning of human history and was debated for centuries by his time. In fact, it's still going on today. I think putting it as "anyone's hero" is disingenuous. He was well respected in his time by both sides and still respected for a variety of reasons (particularly military) but also as a means to remember the Civil War.
It's not about idolizing the figures. It's about remembering. History is uncomfortable.
It's a picture that has the onus on you to find out more. Others thought it relevant and important for you to see and so it is up to you to find out what, if anything, it means for us today. It doesn't tell us anything about where we are or where we are going but where we came from. You have to figure out if it means anything and if you can apply that to be a better person.
Do you want a story
History is a story. It's compelling because it happened with real people and real events that affect us today. Telling history as a story is more about making it interesting. Regurgitating facts make history boring. You can tell the truth by telling stories of history. Every event and figure has a story.
Find one statue of him that displays that message.
You mis-understand. The onus is on you to find the message. Others thought it important to put it there. As a statue, it stares you down to learn why it was stood up. Any plaque or paragraph will be partial. There is always more history more lessons to learn. It doesn't matter whether one statue or any statue says what you want it to say. The point is that the figure in question is another person from a different time. And like us was a product of their time. There is something powerful in recognizing that historical figures are like us. Yet, it's also a warning that we are just as fallible as they.
Any statue of Martin Luther King Jr. won't tell you the full struggle of his life or his cause. A few well verse sentences are the tip to wet your appetite but you have to learn more to find out why people respect or admire him enough to put up statues. If in the future religion becomes as offensive as racism is today (why not for how many people have died to it) and people decide to tear it down MLK monuments because he was a religion man (err follower of hate filled ideology that has killed millions)... It's sad but that is what we are doing now.
I don't believe you and you're going to have to provide some substantial evidence for that because I know a number of people who have gone through the school system first hand that disagree with you.
You do realize that Robert E. Lee took up arms against the United States, right?
Yes and it cost thousands of lives. After the civil war they had to put the nation back together after the bloodiest conflict the US has known. That means there was Pardons for ex-Confederates.
People that think like you hold grudges and don't know when to let water be under the bridge. When the war was over the nation had to heal and overcome the divide that killed so many. When John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln and fled to the South he thought he would be embraced as a hero. He was not and he fled, was chased, and killed because he betrayed the peace that too many had died for and everyone wanted.
Please explain to me how one statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, let alone several, accomplishes this goal.
Because it's a window to understand history for anyone willing to learn. Because it's a story that a people from a different time wanted to tell future generations. Either as a warning, a lesson, or to just be remembered. Reading the Wikipedia... Why wouldn't you want his story to be told? Seriously... I think his is a story that should be told.
He is one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer. "The Wizard of the Saddle" to the 1st Grand Wizard of the KKK who ordered the KKK to take off their masks and "“volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks.”
The most important aspect I think relevant to the conversation about racism: "By the end of his life, Forrest’s racial attitudes would evolve — in 1875, he advocated for the admission of blacks into law school — and he lived to fully renounce his involvement with the Klan that he headed and abolished."
Times change. People change. If a Lieutenant General of the Confederate Army and 1st Grand Wizard of the KKK can change their view on race, any one can. Do you think there is a lesson to be learned? Do you think we can learn from him? Do you think anyone can read his story and reflect on their own life to be a better person?... I don't understand what you perceive history to be but it's a flawed dirty mess of people just like us.
You do realize that Robert E. Lee was against secession, right? He was more loyal to Virginia and at the time people were more loyal to their state than to the federal government. Even Abraham Lincoln asked him to lead the Union Army.
Getting it right? By re-framing it through the morals of the day... That is not getting it right. Why not put another statute up next to it to show future generations what we think?
They were a product of their time and to judge them against our morals is wrong. You miss the lessons learned. You miss the motivations. You are ignoring history.
How far does your offense go in destroying history? Robert E. Lee isn't the monster the left make him out to be. He held a position that persisted for hundreds of years. Slavery was an issue for hundreds of years. All of the founders had slaves... Are we to burn the constitution and abandon the ideals because they have because we judge them with today's standard? I have heard many support that because "3/5ths compromise" yet not realize that it was slave owners that wanted slaves to be counted equally!
ISIS destroys antiquity because blasphemy. We do it because offense. I see no difference.
Those statues do not tell us where we are going or where we are. They tell us where we have been. By destroying them and moving them out of sight we forget our past. We lose a part of us that help us become better.
It really makes me sad to see history destroyed and defaced. At least with moving it is still there but out of sight out of mind does not challenge you to understand it.
Indeed, and if there are solutions to that those can be discussed. However, it is much better than allowing the NSA free reign and parallel construction.
I think the argument is the judge issuing the warrant does view the whole website reasonable of suspicion. Given their self described purpose I can understand the logic.
If it were a Facebook Group, I could understand not allowing the entirety of Facebook because the purpose of Facebook is not to organize protests of the inauguration. If I start a Facebook Group dedicated to organizing protests of the inauguration. That led to felony arrests and my Facebook group was found to be used by the rioters. Then, would any warrant limit the information gathered about that Facebook group? I don't think it would be limited because of the Facebook Groups mission.
The 14th amendment is about equal protection of the law regardless of race. The civil rights movement applies that protection to businesses. We force businesses to be the stewards of protected classes all the time because we found it necessary for the public good. If you are a public accommodation you are required to protect certain classes and uphold the law.
We need to seriously consider protections for the 1st amendment to apply to online businesses as what the 14th amendment and civil rights did for race. The internet is all about speech and if we let the gatekeepers to the internet control what is acceptable it is functionally no different than if the government censored it.
We cannot have a healthy democracy without freedom of speech. We, as a society, do not value free speech if we allow businesses to infringe on the rights of individuals. It's already been established to force businesses to protect the individual over their interests. We need to afford the most fundamental right written in the constitution the same protections we do for race, religion, and sex.
inciting these murders, the question is whether that is legal or not.
First, the guy hasn't' had his trial yet and innocent until proven guilty. The mob rule is a rule and tyrannical rule. Let him have his day in court and if convicted throw the book at him and throw him in a bottomless pit of hell for all I care.
We really need to put to forebear what we value in society. Government won't be far behind this wave of censorship and selective law enforcement as we have seen in Berkeley and Charlottsville. With a complicit government allowing mob rule, it doesn't matter whose boot is on your neck. Do we value free speech as a society? Then all members should work to protect it for all citizens. Do we value the right of trial and innocence until proven guilty? Then we should not be worked up in a mob and condemn someone until they have had their day in court.
If it was illegal then let the government enforce the law equally.
A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.
This. We need to seriously have protections for the 1st amendment online (that is purely about speech) as we do with other protections in the 14th amendment.
The more I hear about the actions various progressive tech companies are taking online to speech they don't like (beyond nazis) the more I fear for the future for the internet and future of freedom of speech that is necessary for democracy.
The government won't be far behind with this pro-censorship sentiment as we have seen with the Charlottsville government illegally rescinding a right to protest and arbitrarily retracting the protection of law.
The government won't be far behind this sentiment. The local government illegally rescinded the right to protest because nazi.
If the government decides to withhold protection of law and allow mob rule (happened in Charlottsville and Berkeley) , what difference does it make whose boot is on your neck?
How long before tech companies only allows the progressive ideology of Silicon Valley? Are you ok with the power they wield over the internet, society, and discourse because you agree with them?
Slashdot Mirror
Keep doing business with megacorps that censors because free speech is an antiquated idea that should be burned. It's not like megacorps are the gatekeepers to the internet or anything.
"I care more about the label on the boot that's on my neck than the boot itself."... You're a tool.
Google values censorship.
I kept reading how the system wasn't working from all sorts of right-wing people.
Indeed and now the left has rediscovered the value of things like states rights because that is the grounds to argue many of their lawsuits.
If people attacking the system were going to hurt it, it would be in ruins by now.
I disagree. The feature of the government is to move slowly or stall during disagreement. But each time the system is attacked to gain a political advantage will be used as precedent by future politicians. Boiling water with frogs and what not.
Obama did set a number of precedents when he didn't get his way. Trump has undid those decisions in many instances but the precedent remains. It doesn't matter if Trump uses it or not because a future president can use Obama's actions to justify executive overreach. Similarly to the 9th circuit in their zeal to stop Trump from legal actions the executive can take have set a precedent that can make the executive weak for things it needs to be strong. Luckily, the Supreme Court has disagreed with the 9th but for that kind of... overreach and zeal to stop political differences is unsettling.
We know enough about human behaviour
I don't know how true that is with the current political climate.
. Dangerous ideas need to be delivered in a controlled manner
I disagree with this. It doesn't matter how an idea is delivered - what motivates people to act on ideas doesn't change. If we value free speech we have to allow it in any way that people we disagree with want so long as actions do not follow.
You can say you hate whatever you want but the moment you decide to act or plan to act is when we take legal action.
Expect mixed results.
Pretty sure OP knows the results of mixing. :)
Were you expecting something different from one election? Or when other executive actions are being contested in court?
It seems like you are pessimistic about the system. The sad thing is that the attacks on the system itself by the left since the election do more harm than one president.
why is this topic on /. ?
I never said he was a hero. I said he wasn't the monster the left makes him out to be and that there are lessons to be learned. He was a product of his time and so are we.
. But maybe we
But it isn't we that put it up asking the future to hear the story. It was a past generation that wanted us, the future, to see it and remember something. If we have something to tell the future we should do the same thing and we are! We put up statues of Martin Luther King Jr and the like. What does that tell the future about us?
heroic war-like statue... totally different statement.
I think that's because he was an effective general. Part of his story is his military accomplishments.
Yes, a museum and library. But somethings are important enough to be put front and center for every passerby to see. A statue in downtown stares you in the face begging you to learn why it stands there from a people long since dead.
Nazi's were modern that set up their own monuments. It wasn't history, it was current events. It wasn't put up by people after the Nazi's. I don't think the monuments dedicated to WW2 or Holocaust should be taken down.
And slavery has been around since the beginning of human history and was debated for centuries by his time. In fact, it's still going on today. I think putting it as "anyone's hero" is disingenuous. He was well respected in his time by both sides and still respected for a variety of reasons (particularly military) but also as a means to remember the Civil War.
It's not about idolizing the figures. It's about remembering. History is uncomfortable.
It's a picture, used to tell a story of lies.
It's a picture that has the onus on you to find out more. Others thought it relevant and important for you to see and so it is up to you to find out what, if anything, it means for us today. It doesn't tell us anything about where we are or where we are going but where we came from. You have to figure out if it means anything and if you can apply that to be a better person.
Do you want a story
History is a story. It's compelling because it happened with real people and real events that affect us today. Telling history as a story is more about making it interesting. Regurgitating facts make history boring. You can tell the truth by telling stories of history. Every event and figure has a story.
Find one statue of him that displays that message.
You mis-understand. The onus is on you to find the message. Others thought it important to put it there. As a statue, it stares you down to learn why it was stood up. Any plaque or paragraph will be partial. There is always more history more lessons to learn. It doesn't matter whether one statue or any statue says what you want it to say. The point is that the figure in question is another person from a different time. And like us was a product of their time. There is something powerful in recognizing that historical figures are like us. Yet, it's also a warning that we are just as fallible as they.
Any statue of Martin Luther King Jr. won't tell you the full struggle of his life or his cause. A few well verse sentences are the tip to wet your appetite but you have to learn more to find out why people respect or admire him enough to put up statues. If in the future religion becomes as offensive as racism is today (why not for how many people have died to it) and people decide to tear it down MLK monuments because he was a religion man (err follower of hate filled ideology that has killed millions) ... It's sad but that is what we are doing now.
I don't believe you and you're going to have to provide some substantial evidence for that because I know a number of people who have gone through the school system first hand that disagree with you.
Only responding to one thing.
You do realize that Robert E. Lee took up arms against the United States, right?
Yes and it cost thousands of lives. After the civil war they had to put the nation back together after the bloodiest conflict the US has known. That means there was Pardons for ex-Confederates.
People that think like you hold grudges and don't know when to let water be under the bridge. When the war was over the nation had to heal and overcome the divide that killed so many. When John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln and fled to the South he thought he would be embraced as a hero. He was not and he fled, was chased, and killed because he betrayed the peace that too many had died for and everyone wanted.
Please explain to me how one statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, let alone several, accomplishes this goal.
Because it's a window to understand history for anyone willing to learn. Because it's a story that a people from a different time wanted to tell future generations. Either as a warning, a lesson, or to just be remembered. Reading the Wikipedia... Why wouldn't you want his story to be told? Seriously... I think his is a story that should be told.
He is one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer. "The Wizard of the Saddle" to the 1st Grand Wizard of the KKK who ordered the KKK to take off their masks and "“volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks.”
The most important aspect I think relevant to the conversation about racism: "By the end of his life, Forrest’s racial attitudes would evolve — in 1875, he advocated for the admission of blacks into law school — and he lived to fully renounce his involvement with the Klan that he headed and abolished."
Times change. People change. If a Lieutenant General of the Confederate Army and 1st Grand Wizard of the KKK can change their view on race, any one can. Do you think there is a lesson to be learned? Do you think we can learn from him? Do you think anyone can read his story and reflect on their own life to be a better person? ... I don't understand what you perceive history to be but it's a flawed dirty mess of people just like us.
You do realize that Robert E. Lee was against secession, right? He was more loyal to Virginia and at the time people were more loyal to their state than to the federal government. Even Abraham Lincoln asked him to lead the Union Army.
Read a history book.
ISIS isn't history. They are modern.
I don't see anyone arguing to destroy the Al-Azhar Mosque because ISIS or in this case Muslim Brotherhood.
I don't see anyone arguing the destruction of cathedrals because of the Inquisition.
What are you willing to burn to feel morally superior?
Getting it right? By re-framing it through the morals of the day... That is not getting it right. Why not put another statute up next to it to show future generations what we think?
They were a product of their time and to judge them against our morals is wrong. You miss the lessons learned. You miss the motivations. You are ignoring history.
How far does your offense go in destroying history? Robert E. Lee isn't the monster the left make him out to be. He held a position that persisted for hundreds of years. Slavery was an issue for hundreds of years. All of the founders had slaves... Are we to burn the constitution and abandon the ideals because they have because we judge them with today's standard? I have heard many support that because "3/5ths compromise" yet not realize that it was slave owners that wanted slaves to be counted equally!
ISIS destroys antiquity because blasphemy. We do it because offense. I see no difference.
Those statues do not tell us where we are going or where we are. They tell us where we have been. By destroying them and moving them out of sight we forget our past. We lose a part of us that help us become better.
It really makes me sad to see history destroyed and defaced. At least with moving it is still there but out of sight out of mind does not challenge you to understand it.
Indeed, and if there are solutions to that those can be discussed. However, it is much better than allowing the NSA free reign and parallel construction.
I think the argument is the judge issuing the warrant does view the whole website reasonable of suspicion. Given their self described purpose I can understand the logic.
If it were a Facebook Group, I could understand not allowing the entirety of Facebook because the purpose of Facebook is not to organize protests of the inauguration. If I start a Facebook Group dedicated to organizing protests of the inauguration. That led to felony arrests and my Facebook group was found to be used by the rioters. Then, would any warrant limit the information gathered about that Facebook group? I don't think it would be limited because of the Facebook Groups mission.
I think you missed my point.
The 14th amendment is about equal protection of the law regardless of race. The civil rights movement applies that protection to businesses. We force businesses to be the stewards of protected classes all the time because we found it necessary for the public good. If you are a public accommodation you are required to protect certain classes and uphold the law.
We need to seriously consider protections for the 1st amendment to apply to online businesses as what the 14th amendment and civil rights did for race. The internet is all about speech and if we let the gatekeepers to the internet control what is acceptable it is functionally no different than if the government censored it.
We cannot have a healthy democracy without freedom of speech. We, as a society, do not value free speech if we allow businesses to infringe on the rights of individuals. It's already been established to force businesses to protect the individual over their interests. We need to afford the most fundamental right written in the constitution the same protections we do for race, religion, and sex.
inciting these murders, the question is whether that is legal or not.
First, the guy hasn't' had his trial yet and innocent until proven guilty. The mob rule is a rule and tyrannical rule. Let him have his day in court and if convicted throw the book at him and throw him in a bottomless pit of hell for all I care.
We really need to put to forebear what we value in society. Government won't be far behind this wave of censorship and selective law enforcement as we have seen in Berkeley and Charlottsville. With a complicit government allowing mob rule, it doesn't matter whose boot is on your neck. Do we value free speech as a society? Then all members should work to protect it for all citizens. Do we value the right of trial and innocence until proven guilty? Then we should not be worked up in a mob and condemn someone until they have had their day in court.
If it was illegal then let the government enforce the law equally.
Apparently, Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad are hosting an event and it's being protested because "anti-semitism"... Gad Saad is jewish.
The madness doesn't end.
A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.
This. We need to seriously have protections for the 1st amendment online (that is purely about speech) as we do with other protections in the 14th amendment.
The more I hear about the actions various progressive tech companies are taking online to speech they don't like (beyond nazis) the more I fear for the future for the internet and future of freedom of speech that is necessary for democracy.
The government won't be far behind with this pro-censorship sentiment as we have seen with the Charlottsville government illegally rescinding a right to protest and arbitrarily retracting the protection of law.
So then, we don't value free speech as a society?
The government won't be far behind this sentiment. The local government illegally rescinded the right to protest because nazi.
If the government decides to withhold protection of law and allow mob rule (happened in Charlottsville and Berkeley) , what difference does it make whose boot is on your neck?
How long before tech companies only allows the progressive ideology of Silicon Valley? Are you ok with the power they wield over the internet, society, and discourse because you agree with them?