| Zkuq said: 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'. |
1. The United States government is still very violent to its people. You don't have one of the highest per-capita prison inmate populations in the world without it.
2. There are still revolutions that occur around the world through violent protest, so I'd say that it is still possible. The thing is though, I can don't think the protestors really want a revolution, so I can understand why people would see the violence as meaningless.
3. Tee problem is, racist thoughts don't just exist in a bubble. Many people act on their beliefs. For example, we may believe that people should be able to express homophobic beliefs in the name of free speech, but the problem arises when that speech influences actions, like what happened with the Pulse Nightclub shooting.
