Hiku said:
It's fair to say one can't always pinpoint where a perpetrator got the idea from, unless it's specified, or they use some unique wording that can be traced to somewhere specific. However, I don't know that most of the blame should always fall on the originator of the idea. For example, let's say that I have 2 Twitter followers. And I post that "Oprah Winfrey raped and murdered 78 children." Then someone at CNN sees my Tweet, and management greenlights the story, and they broadcast it, as a fact, to millions of viewers. Would you hold me more responsible or to a higher standard than CNN? Because I don't think you should. They have a much greater responsibility than me because of their influence and the trust that has been placed on them over the years. As for banning certain words, I think that should be up to each individual, or institution as they see fit for their situation. On this site for example, certain language will get you infractions or banned. Again, I think it's enough that we hold people responsible for their actions. If someone uses a word you think shouldn't be used in that context/for that purpose, you speak your mind and tell them how you feel about it. |
I would say myself you are just as guilty, based on the way in which you worded it, if what you said about Oprah wasn't definitely true. CNN also shouldn't ever pick that story up, without confirming it, so they would also be guilty. Now if you phrased it in a different way in which it was a little bit hard to tell whether you were joking or not, and you were joking, and CNN ran it because they didn't properly vett the claim, then you really wouldn't be at fault at all, and CNN would be mostly if not entirely at fault.
Ok, but who has the power to make them pay for their wrongdoings, are they moral and just people, and do they always make the right decisions? Social media only goes so far for the public, and not everyone in the public agree's, and how do you withhold your money to show your disgust if your also hurting many other innocent individuals because of it?
To what I would call a normal individual, sure, you have to say hateful things in a certain way, and mean them, for it to be considered promoting violence, but there are some who want to read between the lines, and they seem to be getting a lot of attention and are promoted, especially from the media. Why aren't those people or the media punished? Saying something like 'I like a guy who can do a good body slam', isn't much different to some people, then him posting a picture eating KFC or McD's. Some would say he's non verbally endorsing unhealthy food and obesity and because he's influential, people will also eat it and pay for it in a non violent way. Then you have to ask what's worse, a few violent followers which could lead to some injury or death, or a bunch of fat, unhealthy, or dead followers?
I mostly agree on the speech thing, as long as everyone in the group, etc, is reasonable about it. If someone isn't warned at least twice before being punished then I wouldn't be on board. I also would say that punishment should rarely be a permanent ban immediately. If you don't like that, it's a free Country, so only come here if you have to, follow the rules as your required, then leave, or don't come around at all if you don't have to. This idea of the rules having to always be the exact same everywhere doesn't make sense to me. The groups that are too restrictive will suffer one way or another eventually, so the system would mostly take care of itself as long as the overall amendment exists.
Waters was walking a super thin line. She was promoting stalking and harassment, was borderline pushing violence, and she wasn't exactly doing so in a calm cool manner. 'You get out and you create a crowd, you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome'. Pushing someone would be physical violence. Some may take what she meant to mean push back verbally, but some may take it as physically. Even Trump had to tell her to watch her words.
Holder said 'when they go low, we kick them', and he was talking about Republicans. He was taking Michelle Obama's 'we go high' line and instead of saying we go lower or something like that, he said 'we kick them'. That speaks for itself. Clinton said 'you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about, that's why I believe that if we are fortunate enough, to win back the house and or the senate, that's when civility can start again.' She also makes a point about how it seems that Republicans only seem to understand and respect strength. Politics is not violence first, it's civil debate and discussion, and when that fails, it becomes violence when civility no longer is useful. The opposition also does not want to destroy the Dems, they simply prefer their way of governing, and the people chose that this time around. It's the Dems job to find out where they went wrong and what the people want and then offer it to them. The people don't buy into whatever the party is selling, the party caters to the people. That's how it works.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 05 November 2018
