So Tired of This

[RestlessSoul]

Lmao. I'm not a card carrying Tory. When I say I'm a conservative I mean small c and socially conservative. As the Tories legalised gay marriage, they're not for me. I voted for Corbyn when he ran. I just support Brexit, which my Labour voting family also do. I don't really dig any party.

I've met Jeremy a few times, as he lives round the corner from my place of work. He's probably one of the most English people you could ever meet, and quite humble. And any political leader who tends an allotment is worth listening too imo.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Also, the concept of unfettered free speech that many in the U.S. have been touting for the last several years is actually an outlier compared to the MO of most of the world,

I agree with most of the rest of your post, except on this I think. I think the idea of free speech is that 'good' free speech is supposed to defeat the 'bad' free speech via ideas, as opposed to with restriction. Our country shut down RT for example, and I used to like to listen to a program they had called 'crosstalk.' Well before, people could go onto their comment board and argue with them. Now if there are 'relativity better' ideas, and they can stand on their own, then they ought to be presented there in the rt comment section. But now they can't be

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Lmao. I'm not a card carrying Tory. When I say I'm a conservative I mean small c and socially conservative. As the Tories legalised gay marriage, they're not for me. I voted for Corbyn when he ran. I just support Brexit, which my Labour voting family also do. I don't really dig any party.

on my power walks, my listening circulation has two english talkers, and those are douglas murray and russell brand. Murray, from what I can tell, is framed as pretty conservative. He comes on fox news even, but he is gay. I think he's pretty smart. But from what I can tell, those guys kind of talk a lot about the 'big picture stuff' too, so I haven't really got of local news from them

 

[Rival]

on my power walks, my listening circulation has two english talkers, and those are douglas murray and russell brand. Murray, from what I can tell, is framed as pretty conservative. He comes on fox news even, but he is gay. I think he's pretty smart. But from what I can tell, those guys kind of talk a lot about the 'big picture stuff' too, so I haven't really got of local news from them

I like Douglas Murray and Russel Brand.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sometimes good ideas, eg, national parks, constitutions.

Constitutions long predate the U.S. Nevertheless, I agree many good ideas have come out of the U.S. When it comes to its politics in the last several years, however, bad ideas seem to be the prevalent variety.

If someone has been wrong before, should should
they remain silent, & not urge peace when it matters
to them? If Ahnold is now a friendly influence upon
Russians to end the war, then good on him.
Ain't none of us perfect. We've all held views that
others found dubious. No examples necessary.

Being friends with a war criminal after supporting his military adventures isn't just a dubious view; it's the kind of moral failure that has contributed to loss of human lives--over 500,000 of them, to be exact.

I still prefer having more freedom of speech than you
ferriners have. I don't trust our government to regulate
& punish political & religious speech...even if offensive.
Consider that Trump would've had that power over us
for 4 years....do you think that would've been good?

Separation of powers should limit what a president can do concerning laws governing speech.

Most of Western Europe is doing just fine in that aspect. No president in recent memory has turned, say, Sweden or Germany into dictatorships with no free speech.

I thought that was universally recognized
as a big problem, not a good thing.

I wish. American exceptionalism seems to still abound.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I agree with most of the rest of your post, except on this I think. I think the idea of free speech is that 'good' free speech is supposed to defeat the 'bad' free speech via ideas, as opposed to with restriction. Our country shut down RT for example, and I used to like to listen to a program they had called 'crosstalk.' Well before, people could go onto their comment board and argue with them. Now if there are 'relativity better' ideas, and they can stand on their own, then they ought to be presented there in the rt comment section. But now they can't be

That view seems premised on the notion that people will necessarily adopt the more reasonable or factually accurate ideas when all kinds of speech are allowed publicly. In my opinion, it's both a slippery slope and an unfounded assumption in many cases. We have counterexamples from real-world scenarios, too, such as the proliferation of Nazism in 1930s Germany and the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Constitutions long predate the U.S. Nevertheless, I agree many good ideas have come out of the U.S. When it comes to its politics in the last several years, however, bad ideas seem to be the prevalent variety.

Something can always be found to argue over.
It isn't always about being first. The US Constitution
did have some good influence in other countries,

Being friends with a war criminal after supporting his military adventures isn't just a dubious view; it's the kind of moral failure that has contributed to loss of human lives--over 500,000 of them, to be exact.

Are you actually arguing that Ahnold should not try
to urge Russia to end the invasion? I see no other
reason for you to object to his appeal.

Separation of powers should limit what a president can do concerning laws governing speech.

Administrative rules give a President rather more power
than the Constitution appears to.
And what if Congress gets the notion to restrict political
speech. Have you seen come of them, eg, M Greene?

Most of Western Europe is doing just fine in that aspect. No president in recent memory has turned, say, Sweden or Germany into dictatorships with no free speech.

They're welcome to their greater regulation of speech.
But it wouldn't fly here.

I wish. American exceptionalism seems to still abound.

What makes you think that anyone here believes
that the getting-a-cold syndrome is a good idea?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Something can always be found to argue over.
It isn't always about being first. The US Constitution
did have some good influence in other countries,

It did. That doesn't change the negative influence the U.S. has also had on other countries. I say it's best to take the good and leave the bad. You can call me a political eclectic if you wish.

Are you actually arguing that Ahnold should not try
to urge Russia to end the invasion? I see no other
reason for you to object to his appeal.

No, I'm arguing he should start with his own backyard and urge less violent interventionism at home. I don't expect him to, however, since he has thrown in his lot with that MO before.

Administrative rules give a President rather more power
than the Constitution appears to.
And what if Congress gets the notion to restrict political
speech. Have you seen come of them, eg, M Greene?

I think greater regulation of speech using the current bipartisan system of the U.S. could be disastrous. Were it to be implemented properly, a lot of things would first need to be overhauled. That would include the bipartisan hold on politics.

They're welcome to their greater regulation of speech.
But it wouldn't fly here.

A lot of things probably wouldn't fly in the U.S.--e.g., better gun control, free college education, and more sound regulation of inciting speech. That doesn't take anything away from their usefulness or practical benefits, which have been demonstrated in many other countries.

What makes you think that anyone here believes
that the getting-a-cold syndrome is a good idea?

I'm thinking more of American hegemony. I've seen a lot of particularly nationalistic Americans celebrate that as if it were some kind of achievement despite its interventionist and warlike underpinnings.

 

[Revoltingest]

It did. That doesn't change the negative influence the U.S. has also had on other countries.

Of course.
I only pointed out that it's not all negative.

You:
"My problem isn't so much the focus on American politics as it is the fact that a lot of people in other countries absorb and adopt cringeworthy and toxic ideas from American politics."
Me:
"Sometimes good ideas, eg, national parks, constitutions."

You might've noticed (or perhaps not) that I've some pretty
strong criticism of many US policies & features.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Of course.
I only pointed out that it's not all negative.

You:
"My problem isn't so much the focus on American politics as it is the fact that a lot of people in other countries absorb and adopt cringeworthy and toxic ideas from American politics."
Me:
"Sometimes good ideas, eg, national parks, constitutions."

You might've noticed (or perhaps not) that I've some pretty
strong criticism of many US policies & features.

I've noticed that. I usually agree with you on U.S. foreign policy (although I'm no fan of isolationism either; I believe a reasonable middle ground between interventionism and isolationism would be best).

 

[Revoltingest]

I've noticed that. I usually agree with you on U.S. foreign policy (although I'm no fan of isolationism either; I believe a reasonable middle ground between interventionism and isolationism would be best).

As do I.
But given the wisdom of our politicians,
I'd er on the side of isolationism.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That view seems premised on the notion that people will necessarily adopt the more reasonable or factually accurate ideas when all kinds of speech are allowed publicly. In my opinion, it's both a slippery slope and an unfounded assumption in many cases. We have counterexamples from real-world scenarios, too, such as the proliferation of Nazism in 1930s Germany and the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With nazism, there would be censorship, right? Restrictions on what you can say and think seem like they must come with the territory.

Free speech is also a complicated issue, but I think it's central to the american project, or should be. I probably have a thread on it somewhere.

However, I think that good speech is something requires mastery - it is a skill and an art. I am concerned about my health - and world health - after what my president said in warsaw, poland not long ago. Nuclear war seems like it would at the top of the stack, regarding what we should avoid. A top trans-national issue, that cuts across every boundary. Do you agree? Do rich elites around the world have a place to go in that situation, whereas perhaps it seems that I do not?

 

[Watchmen]

I don't know where to put this so I put it in Journals. Sorry if this comes off as rude...

I am so tired of going to any religious discussion forum and having half the main topics or most threads mention US politics, Biden, Trump, Planned Parenthood and all the rest of it. It seems every forum is US dominated with an insane intense focus on politics. Is it so much to ask for a discussion that doesn't treat Europe and the other non-European Anglophone countries as peripheral? I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about American politics when I'm looking for religious discussions. When I watch religious videos on YT, be they Pagan, Catholic, Jewish, much of the time they're clearly based on a North American or Canadian audience. Sermons discussing all this. I think this is likely just as much Europeans' faults, as we often fail to care about or discuss religion in any meaningful way anymore at all. I just really, really, really, truly, truly, truly wish these discussions would eliminate US politics and focus on religious issues.

Supply and demand, in a sense. Not sure what can be done about that.