Had an interesting conversation this morning on Facebook that I wanted to share. Got called a 'nazi sympathizer' because I am not okay with denying Trump and Ann Coulter's 1st Amendment Right. And yet apparently that makes me the Anti American...

 

One of my friends, who is politically Moderate, posted an article about Ann Coulter's recently cancelled speech. He agreed with what the article stated which I listed below.

 

 

 

I've got no love for people like Ann Coulter. But regardless of how much I dislike her, I value her right to free speech. All public and government funded institutions have a Constitutional obligation to create an environment that allows individuals to speak about their ideas, opinions and viewpoints.

Just because you might disagree with a conservative doesn't mean everyone on a college campus feels the same way. One ideology doesn't get to dictate all speaking engagements on a college campus. If I wasn't exposed to different perspectives, I would still be against decriminalizing drugs or same sex marriage. I'm not saying someone like Coulter would necessarily change anyone's mind on anything. But by threatening her with violence, or making it harder for her to speak on campuses, you're giving her exactly what she wants.

 

She wants attention. She wants to point a finger at students and make them appear to be against the First Amendment. She wants to belittle and minimize the importance of higher education.

 

Don't play into that, and don't give her what she wants. Let her speak, and refuse to go see her if you're offended by her message. She'll only be relevant if we allow her to be. Love you guys, and I hope you see where I'm coming from. I respect all the varying emotions that come along with situations like this. But what's right is right. We need to protect free speech regardless of the speaker in question.

 

 

While I don't agree with it all, I do relate to its premise. If you don't like what someone is talking about, then don't listen. Well one of my more left leaning Facebook friends came along and this happened. Someone who I should mention in the past has stated multiple times how Black Lives Matter are innocent saints, don't incite riots, Cops are bunch of murderous racist thugs, and Trump is practically the Anti Christ. I've blocked out the name but marked DM when I am the one responding.

 

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p268/Airsoft_Commando/1st_zps9ww3hqvb.png

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p268/Airsoft_Commando/2_zpscbahqjgq.png

 

The best part is when she calls me a racist and says she is ending the conversation, and then when I call her out on that is the stereotypical thing liberals do, she denies saying either one of those things! I didn't even respond because even if I quoted her she still wouldn't get it. I love political discussions but if you gotta be mature about it if you want me to take your argument seriously.

Why I really dislike the 1-dimensional "Left-Right" scale is that it's reductionist to the point of being completely useless. At the very least a Political Compass-style 2-dimensional chart to determine one's political character is necessary: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 . Having one scale show the "social" and the other the "economic" dimension is a fairly good start. In this regard Stalin was "strongly authoritarian, strongly collectivist" which I think nobody can really argue against.

 

Off-topic, but my current alignment is:

 

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

 

Which to be honest, I think is kind of off, as I would not by any means consider myself to be "left" on the economic scale, but I'm also not a huge fan of authoritarian solutions. That said, this test is quite old, and their questions could use a good bit of updating.

That site is outdated, man.

 

"Socialists like Mahatma occupied a less extreme leftist position "

gandhi is not a leftist or right or centrist, he was a very apolitical man. He had only one goal, the true freedom of India.

But i don't agree with lys point glorifying the american second amendment.

The second amendment was one of the results of the founding fathers being rich and powerful.

Those times, only people like them had guns and they felt guns are their right and so created the second amendment.

Giving people right to bear arms is a fuse to a disaster.

It will only lead to racial violence, hate crimes etc.

The main reasoning for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was to protect against future tyranny of the government, should the government be so inclined to engage in such practices. In essence, it was designed to be another form of checks and balances. At the time slaves were not considered free people, so the right to bear arms didn't apply to them, but the rich and powerful were not the only ones with firearms. Nor did the rich and powerful ever intend to take away or restrict the average free person's ability to own a firearm. You have to remember that merchants, hunters, trappers, craftsmen, foresters, builders, and any other profession of the day had relatively easy access to weaponry. All one had to worry about was keeping a small amount of ammunition and your gunpowder dry. Another point to note is that the average civilian also had access and the ability to own the most powerful weapons of the day. Cannons, Howitzers, and Mortars could be owned by anyone willing to pay for them. In fact, during the 1600s-1700s, artillery groups were often privately owned companies, operated by a volunteer force. And contrary to popular belief, even several forms of 'automatic' weaponry existed at the time. The founding fathers were indeed aware of the existence of the Belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle, Kalthoff repeater, Puckle gun, and to a lesser extent the Pepperbox guns. So the creators of the Constitution and Bill of Rights knew of such powerful weapons in the hands of private citizens, and they chose to protect that right of their citizens owning the most advanced weaponry at the time. Otherwise their would have been a short clause that would have read something like this, "With the exception of calibers larger than X inches, capable rate of fire beyond X of shots per minute, limited to X number of weapon ownership per person, and the weapon owner must register all future weapon purchases with the Federal or State Government they currently reside in". Now that is not to say I am advocating for every American to have the ability to legally own a WMD, as those kill indiscriminately and require a vast amount of time and monetary to safeguard and maintain them. But I have no qualms about a law abiding citizen owning a suppressed or fully automatic weapon. Which can already be purchased legally in almost very state. As for criminals, it is also rather easy it is to manufacture those types of weapons illegally. They don't need to follow the law to buy a machine gun, they simply build there own. I've mentioned it on these forums before, but go look at some of the ingenious fully automatic weapons built from scratch in places such as Palestine, Pakistan, Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Iraq, Canada, Australia, and the UK. All countries with some of the most extreme gun control laws and yet that doesn't stop an enterprising black market from creating a supply to fill a demand.

 

People who may be subject to hate crimes, also have the provisions to purchase firearms themselves. That is the best part of America, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have every legal right to protect yourself, friends, and loved ones with the use of a firearm. All regardless of economic status, religion, race, gender, or what you classify your sexuality as. I have never met a single person, who by purchasing a firearm, filled their heart with hate and made them want to kill someone. And with the exception of a couple individuals rotting in prison for life, I don't expect to ever meet someone like that.

That site is outdated, man.

 

"Socialists like Mahatma occupied a less extreme leftist position "

gandhi is not a leftist or right or centrist, he was a very apolitical man. He had only one goal, the true freedom of India.

 

I did say it was outdated, I just wanted to make a point. Gandhi was not apolitical by any means. He had a very reactionary, "back to the roots" ideology that echewed industrial development and envisioned a largely agrarian-based society. He was very much political.

Why I really dislike the 1-dimensional "Left-Right" scale is that it's reductionist to the point of being completely useless. At the very least a Political Compass-style 2-dimensional chart to determine one's political character is necessary: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 . Having one scale show the "social" and the other the "economic" dimension is a fairly good start. In this regard Stalin was "strongly authoritarian, strongly collectivist" which I think nobody can really argue against.

 

Off-topic, but my current alignment is:

 

Economic Left/Right: -2.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

 

Which to be honest, I think is kind of off, as I would not by any means consider myself to be "left" on the economic scale, but I'm also not a huge fan of authoritarian solutions. That said, this test is quite old, and their questions could use a good bit of updating.

Why I really dislike the 1-dimensional "Left-Right" scale is that it's reductionist to the point of being completely useless. At the very least a Political Compass-style 2-dimensional chart to determine one's political character is necessary: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 . Having one scale show the "social" and the other the "economic" dimension is a fairly good start. In this regard Stalin was "strongly authoritarian, strongly collectivist" which I think nobody can really argue against.

 

Off-topic, but my current alignment is:

 

Economic Left/Right: -2.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

 

Which to be honest, I think is kind of off, as I would not by any means consider myself to be "left" on the economic scale, but I'm also not a huge fan of authoritarian solutions. That said, this test is quite old, and their questions could use a good bit of updating.

Your Political Compass

 

Economic Left/Right: -5.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

 

I'm more liberal than Ghandi! LMAO!

 

 

That site is outdated, man.

 

"Socialists like Mahatma occupied a less extreme leftist position "

gandhi is not a leftist or right or centrist, he was a very apolitical man. He had only one goal, the true freedom of India.

I did say it was outdated, I just wanted to make a point. Gandhi was not apolitical by any means. He had a very reactionary, "back to the roots" ideology that echewed industrial development and envisioned a largely agrarian-based society. He was very much political.

Back to the roots?

Gandhi never envisioned the idea of an agrarian society. From where did you get these points?

The left have a nasty habit of distorting India's history.

Gandhi was never left, in fact he was one of the founders of the Indian National Congress, which is a centre-right party. But that is not to contradict my early statement, gandhi formed that party only because everyone persuaded him and because of his law background and higher education ,he knew that the fight for independence has to be both political and apolitical.

He never eschewed industrial development development,

If anything he promoted development that makes Indians go unhungry.

He was an active promoter of khadi industries, and every other indian industries.

He only resented those british industries whose sole aim was to loot India.

If you think Gandhi was a back to roots person, boy you donot know Gandhi.

Small, self-sufficient and communal economies VS Nehru's large scale industrial programs. Everyone should do some "bread making" work. The economy should serve to satisfy people's needs and give them a spiritual experience vs the economy should generate wealth and profit.

 

Sounds pretty "back to the roots" for me

Gandhi was Nehru's mentor.

 

Spiritual experience?

What?

 

Satisfying people needs is what every economy does.

 

People need wealth to satisfy their needs and so an economy that creates wealth is one that satisfy people's needs so Gandhi's ideals were similar to Nehru's.

 

You have to be left if you want to steal money to pay for your personal problems.

 

eeeeeh, you have a weird idea of what "the left" is if that is a definition you are going with.

 

 

You have to be left if you want to steal money to pay for your personal problems.

 

eeeeeh, you have a weird idea of what "the left" is if that is a definition you are going with.

 

Socialism steals money from people that earn it, and gives it to people who don't. Weird idea of what the left is, but it's a pretty straightforward and honest idea of complete weirdness... I know. The problem with Socialism is when they finally run out of other people's money to steal... then everyone is poor. There have been plenty of examples in history that demonstrate how stupid this is. I'm glad to know I won't live long enough to see the destruction. I will just live my life the best I can, for as long as I can.

Yep, clearly doesn't understand socialism. Does understand Capitalism strangly to the C (easy pun ).

 

Stop trying to claim every narcissist in the world is a socialist, stop trying to make socialism fit into a personal survival strategy mindframe. It is about society, a group of people, plural! I once again find myself wondering why we haven't got enough islands on this world...

Yep, clearly doesn't understand socialism. Does understand Capitalism strangly to the C (easy pun ).

 

Stop trying to claim every narcissist in the world is a socialist, stop trying to make socialism fit into a personal survival strategy mindframe. It is about society, a group of people, plural! I once again find myself wondering why we haven't got enough islands on this world...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvJXf8aEVRA

gratz?