By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 03 February 2017
Edit Thread
VGPolyglot said:
Zkuq said:

1. We're not talking about a violent regime just yet, at least internally in the United States. The police force sure is quite violent, but the regime itself isn't.

2. Doesn't mean it's a good way. It's a pretty natural symptom of the problems, but it's still not a better way to solve things. What has violence solved so far? Not much, I don't think.

3. Personally I think that free speech is a value that should be limited only under very careful consideration, but there should be limits to racism. All critical speech can and must not be quelled, but some, uh, moderation should be done. It should mostly be related to not sticking to facts and obviously inciting hate, I believe.

1. The United States has been violent since its inception, starting with slaves existing and women not being allowed to vote, to Japanese people being forcefully relocated in internment camps, to having a prison system filled with millions of people. Donald Trump is certinaly going to continue this, in his debate he said that he wanted stop and frisk and that we needed more police so that we can "law and order".

2. The fact that it hasn't really been successful shows that the people that are complaining are "SJWs" and "the left" ruining games and society is just flat out wrong. But if we're talking about what it has accomplished, I'm pretty sure that a certain war ended slavery in the United States.

3. The problem arises when we are asking what are facts? The Trump administration is already going on about "alternative facts".

1. The United States has been violent, but domestically, it's not very violent these days. It's still quite violent in its foreign politics, but we're talking about the internals of a country when we're discussing protests of all sorts.

2. I'm not very familiar with US history so I don't want to get into an in-depth discussion about it. However, I do need to point out that times have changed, and what's worked in history may not work anymore. Besides, I'd draw a sharp line between the effects of a civil war/rebellion and violent protests.

3. Yeah, and that's a problem. There's a humongous problem when the president of the most powerful country in the world can't even get simply facts straight. Anyway, free speech is vital to democracy, so limiting it should not be done lightly or under vague terms. There must be clear boundaries about what's allowed and what's not, and simply banning 'racist' speech is even more vague than the term 'racist'.