• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Governor Calls for Limits on the First Amendment in Response to Psychotic Killer

uptower said:
Bullshit, we can read and we can see the clips on youtube. It's clear as day he's promoting the great replacement theory.

He may be doing it in a mildly roundabout way (Barely, and still lying as he goes because even if your interpretation is 'correct' his message is still patently untrue) but he's pushing the same idea. It's plain as day and impossible to hide behind a couple of minor semantic 'differences'.
Click to expand...
It's not untrue - it's plainly very true. The Democrats have an open border policy, and their goal is to increase their voter base. And, Carlson's words are quite clear - he's stating that it's what the Democrats wish to do and he's referring to the voter base - the electorate. That's what he flat out says.
 
uptower said:
He may be doing it in a mildly roundabout way (Barely, and still lying as he goes because even if your interpretation is 'correct' his message is still patently untrue) but he's pushing the same idea. It's plain as day and impossible to hide behind a couple of minor semantic 'differences'.
Click to expand...
It's hopeless. Even if Tucker Carlson just straight up said "I HATE NON-WHITES AND THINK AMERICAN IS FOR EUROPEAN AMERICANS" they would dodge it. How do I know? Because that's what the shooter said very plainly in his manifesto and conservatives are claiming he's left wing. If Tucker Carlson's optics ever became bad enough he needed to be denounced they will just claim he's actually a leftist fascist because he appropriates the language of economic populism.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
It's hopeless. Even if Tucker Carlson just straight up said "I HATE NON-WHITES AND THINK AMERICAN IS FOR EUROPEAN AMERICANS" they would dodge it. How do I know? Because that's what the shooter said very plainly in his manifesto and conservatives are claiming he's left wing. If Tucker Carlson's optics ever became bad enough he needed to be denounced they will just claim he's actually a leftist fascist because he appropriates the language of economic populism.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't dodge if he said that. But that isn't anything like anything he has said so far. This is just Progressives, as usual, claiming to know what people really think, and declaring that even if they don't say something, that's what they really mean. It's endless.
 
vegas giants said:
Promotion of violent or criminal acts do not fall under the first amendment.
Click to expand...
It's easy enough to promote a violent, poisonous ideology and stay clear of advocating for outright violence. If you say, often enough, brown people are evil, they're overtaking the country, they are replacing whites, our race is doomed, we should and must stop that to preserve this country, and much more, the LOGICAL response to that is violence. If you believe that, and the government doesn't act, of course individuals should act, with or without government. That is RATIONAL in fact. That is the problem. Same thing if you promote the idea that elections are rigged, democrats are evil, they are cheating to stay in power, our rights to vote are being trampled, etc. What is the rational citizen to do? Nothing? Sit around and take it? Of course not, a patriot fights back, and if nothing else works, violence is the next rational option. Only a coward allows his country to be stolen by the evil Democrats.

That's in fact what we can see happening throughout history. In the face of perceived great injustice, there is armed rebellion - that is rational. That is what every propagandist knows. He need not explicitly call for violence. How many times did the governing elites call for lynchings in the Jim Crow south? I'd guess never is pretty close to the number. And yet, whites routinely engaged in violent acts to preserve white supremacy, the goal that the governing elites did promote, endlessly. What happened to those who did lynch blacks? Generally nothing because the violence was implicitly endorsed and everyone knew it. That is how this stuff works.
 
JasperL said:
It's easy enough to promote a violent, poisonous ideology and stay clear of advocating for outright violence. If you say, often enough, brown people are evil, they're overtaking the country, they are replacing whites, our race is doomed, we should and must stop that to preserve this country, and much more, the LOGICAL response to that is violence. If you believe that, and the government doesn't act, of course individuals should act, with or without government. That is RATIONAL in fact. That is the problem. Same thing if you promote the idea that elections are rigged, democrats are evil, they are cheating to stay in power, our rights to vote are being trampled, etc. What is the rational citizen to do? Nothing? Sit around and take it? Of course not, a patriot fights back, and if nothing else works, violence is the next rational option. Only a coward allows his country to be stolen by the evil Democrats.

That's in fact what we can see happening throughout history. In the face of perceived great injustice, there is armed rebellion - that is rational. That is what every propagandist knows. He need not explicitly call for violence. How many times did the governing elites call for lynchings in the Jim Crow south? I'd guess never is pretty close to the number. And yet, whites routinely engaged in violent acts to preserve white supremacy, the goal that the governing elites did promote, endlessly. What happened to those who did lynch blacks? Generally nothing because the violence was implicitly endorsed and everyone knew it. That is how this stuff works.
Click to expand...
The risks of free speech
 
Bear5131 said:
All anyone has to do is watch a liberal movie, t.v. show, read a book, listen to a liberal song, play a video game and get those ideas
Click to expand...
Great, another great post by you. LIBERALS BAD!@!!!! It's how a 10 year old debates. I hope you're proud.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
It's not untrue - it's plainly very true. The Democrats have an open border policy, and their goal is to increase their voter base. And, Carlson's words are quite clear - he's stating that it's what the Democrats wish to do and he's referring to the voter base - the electorate. That's what he flat out says
Click to expand...

It's not the slightest bit true - or different than the Buffalo shooter's ideology.

The only difference is Tucker, for the most part, doesnt say the quiet part out loud. But it's there.
 
JasperL said:
It's easy enough to promote a violent, poisonous ideology and stay clear of advocating for outright violence. If you say, often enough, brown people are evil, they're overtaking the country, they are replacing whites, our race is doomed, we should and must stop that to preserve this country, and much more, the LOGICAL response to that is violence. If you believe that, and the government doesn't act, of course individuals should act, with or without government. That is RATIONAL in fact. That is the problem. Same thing if you promote the idea that elections are rigged, democrats are evil, they are cheating to stay in power, our rights to vote are being trampled, etc. What is the rational citizen to do? Nothing? Sit around and take it? Of course not, a patriot fights back, and if nothing else works, violence is the next rational option. Only a coward allows his country to be stolen by the evil Democrats.

That's in fact what we can see happening throughout history. In the face of perceived great injustice, there is armed rebellion - that is rational. That is what every propagandist knows. He need not explicitly call for violence. How many times did the governing elites call for lynchings in the Jim Crow south? I'd guess never is pretty close to the number. And yet, whites routinely engaged in violent acts to preserve white supremacy, the goal that the governing elites did promote, endlessly. What happened to those who did lynch blacks? Generally nothing because the violence was implicitly endorsed and everyone knew it. That is how this stuff works.
Click to expand...
Everyone has a fundamental right to promote a violent, poisonous ideology.

Who said "brown people are evil," again? Oh, nobody except the members of the Ku Klux Klan? Gotcha.

With your logic, then when Leftists declare that all of the systems in the US are oppressive and racist, that we live in a literal patriarchy, that we this country is fundamentally racist, oppresses black people and brown people, and that the systems of oppression all need to be disrupted, defunded and dismantled -- the LOGICAL response to that is violence. I mean, who should not want to fight, literally, against such a system? Who can literally believe that this country is a racist, neo-fascist, regime that attacks the rights of minorities, women, and LGBT folks, without taking violent action against that. That is RATIONAL in fact.

If you promote the fact that Republicans are the lions share of those racists, sexists and homophobes, and Republicans are evil, they are cheating to stay in power with evil voting laws and evil gerrymandering, our rights to vote are being trampled, etc. - what is the rational citizen to do? Nothing? Sit around and take it? Of course not! A patriot fights back - violence is the rational option.

When you have Senators calling for individuals to literally harass Republicans at their homes, in restaurants and wherever they are found, and make sure they are told "you're not welcome" in this country anymore. What is the natural reaction, eh? What's the "rational" or "logical" reaction? When people call for uprisings in the streets against a systemically oppressive country, what is being called for?

Or, do you exempt your side?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
It's not the slightest bit true - or different than the Buffalo shooter's ideology.

The only difference is Tucker, for the most part, doesnt say the quiet part out loud. But it's there.
Click to expand...
In other words, Tucker doesn't say "it." You imagine that that's what he really means.
 
vegas giants said:
The risks of free speech
Click to expand...
You carefully ignored my point....

"Perhaps..... Do we let radical Islamists, terrorists, have free run of our social media? Should we? That's free speech."

You pointed out that calling for violence isn't protected and that's true but basically irrelevant. The kind of overt calling for violence is not the issue, hasn't really ever been the issue. It's the speech that walks people up to that line and leaves them to conclude, rationally, that violence is an acceptable option. Just for example, if I praise Dylan Roof, say I agreed with his goals, I'm not calling for violence. But I might as well be.

If you don't care about that, you can say so, but the point I was making really had nothing to do with "free speech" since the government is not limiting anyone's speech.
 
JasperL said:
Great, another great post by you. LIBERALS BAD!@!!!! It's how a 10 year old debates. I hope you're proud.
Click to expand...
Only a 10 year old would attack the messenger and not the message..

Again So liberal television, movies, songs, video games not violent and hate filled ?


Please answer the questions
 
JasperL said:
You carefully ignored my point....

"Perhaps..... Do we let radical Islamists, terrorists, have free run of our social media? Should we? That's free speech."

You pointed out that calling for violence isn't protected and that's true but basically irrelevant. The kind of overt calling for violence is not the issue, hasn't really ever been the issue. It's the speech that walks people up to that line and leaves them to conclude, rationally, that violence is an acceptable option. Just for example, if I praise Dylan Roof, say I agreed with his goals, I'm not calling for violence. But I might as well be.

If you don't care about that, you can say so, but the point I was making really had nothing to do with "free speech" since the government is not limiting anyone's speech.
Click to expand...
Might as well be is not good enough for me. Free speech is so important that restrictions on it have to be the very least we can live with
 
Bear5131 said:
Only a 10 year old would attack the messenger and not the message..

Again So liberal television, movies, songs, video games not violent and hate filled ?


Please answer the questions
Click to expand...
Name a liberal TV show. Lol
 
MrNiceGuy said:
This is just Progressives, as usual, claiming to know what people really think, and declaring that even if they don't say something, that's what they really mean. It's endless.
Click to expand...
Unless they are extremely unintelligent (which some are) a fascist will not say they are a fascist. They will just ask questions that lead people to their conclusions.

Why do Black people commit crime at a higher rate? Why do so many institutions have high ranking Jewish officials? Why are politicians not concerned about declining White birth rates? Why do the Democrats want demographic change?

WHAT?! I'm not racist! I'm just asking questions they don't want you to ask. I'm just concerned about preserving American culture and rising crime rates.
 
JasperL said:
You carefully ignored my point....

"Perhaps..... Do we let radical Islamists, terrorists, have free run of our social media? Should we? That's free speech."

You pointed out that calling for violence isn't protected and that's true but basically irrelevant. The kind of overt calling for violence is not the issue, hasn't really ever been the issue. It's the speech that walks people up to that line and leaves them to conclude, rationally, that violence is an acceptable option. Just for example, if I praise Dylan Roof, say I agreed with his goals, I'm not calling for violence. But I might as well be.

If you don't care about that, you can say so, but the point I was making really had nothing to do with "free speech" since the government is not limiting anyone's speech.
Click to expand...
Yes, we let radical islamists and "terrorists" (accused? suspected? convicted?) say what they want too, as long as they abide by the law.

Remember A Man for All Seasons and Thomas More -- would you give the Devil the benefit of the law? Yes, I would, for my own safety's sake.

If your point about walking people up to the line is going to be the rule, then we can be thankful that it will shut the ****ing ANTIFA scumbags and the BLM rioters up, because their rhetoric whips people up to violent frenzies. Calling for violence and vandalism, remember? Tear down the statues!!! That's calling for violence and lawless activity - imminently - and they went and did it - meeting the Brandenburg v Ohio test - "set up the autonomous zone!!" And they went and did it - patrolling armed, assaulting people, assaulting officers....

If you want to be held to "walking people to the line" - then by all means - let's see who we can silence on that basis. What about people who say our country is systemically oppressive, racist to the core, colonialist, steeped in something called "whiteness" which privileges the powerful, and denigrates the powerless..... how about all that?
 
MrNiceGuy said:
In other words, Tucker doesn't say "it." You imagine that that's what he really means.
Click to expand...

🤣

I know that's what he really means. You know that's what he really means. Everyone knows that's what he means.

The plausible deniability thing just doesn't work anymore.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
So, a killer wrote a 180 page "screed" (which I can't find anywhere, and I'd like to read it, so I could know what the hell the guy was writing, rather than rely on the media to tell me what they think it says), and so NY Governor Hochul thinks that nobody should be allowed to talk about "replacement theory."

www.bostonherald.com

Buffalo shooting spurs Gov. Hochul to call for crackdown of social media: ‘instruments of evil’

Citing the vile online manifesto attributed to the Buffalo shooter, Gov. Hochul on Sunday urged social media companies to crack down on hate speech— calling the sites“ instruments of ev…
www.bostonherald.com www.bostonherald.com

All we apparently get to know, though, is that the 180 pages consisted of racist memes and slurs, and that he repeatedly talked about "the great replacement" or something. We don't get to read it ourselves now. And, now Hochul wants to make it illegal to refer to any "replacement," which, of course, to Democrats means that nobody should be able to say that illegal immigration is a problem because it's changing American demographics quickly and unsustainably. If you say that, then it's a form of "replacement theory."

One can already see where this is going. They'll take a psycho's "manifesto" of a seriously mentally ill person who shot people in a tragic and horrid incident, and they'll overlay that on anything "conservative" or "right wing" (which nowadays is anything right of Mao, and that will be called "hate speech" which must be censored from the internet, lest someone act violently.
Click to expand...
Well, dewar is decided the first amendment doesn’t apply to him and none of you bucked.

So save the outrage. It’s crocodile tears.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Yes, we let radical islamists and "terrorists" (accused? suspected? convicted?) say what they want too, as long as they abide by the law.
Click to expand...
Who is "we?" DP doesn't allow that.

I've made it clear this isn't about the 1A. It's about private entities deciding what kind of shit they are going to platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom