I can do it just fine. But I've seen people who are offended by Chris Rock. The fact that you and I find him funny and agree he's not malicious doesn't mean others feel the same way. And if those others get to decide that he is offensive and that becomes law, no more Chris Rock. This is snark. You know, in our first discussion (which was when der_kommisar called you out as a new sock puppet) I said my guess was that you were Brass. I said that because you reminded me of that person because of your sarcasm and the manner in which you got riled up when people debated you. But then you seemed to hold your tongue a lot and were far more polite than I remembered Brass being. That's why I was confused and wavered back and forth between dbphoenix and piezoe (the latter being very polite indeed). But it's beginning to appear I was right in the first place because you're reverting back to how I suspect you are all the time. You've just done your best to hide it. Answer this: Are you Brass? As would some of your "friends". Ever read posts by Futurecurrents or Stu?
...the people who were first to insult me when I merely expressed an opinion? Well, a person can only take so much before he starts responding in kind, wouldn't you agree? Should I perhaps have continued to hold my tongue while being insulted for merely participating in a discussion? I can hold as civil a discourse as the next person. Or not.
I'm sorry, where did I insult you in this thread? I remember apologizing for something, but that's about all.
Yes, you did apologize. And I appreciate that. These things happen. However, you have occasionally also provided some of your own "snark" for my consumption, either directly, or by virtue of your subsequent agreement with those who "snarked." I wasn't particularly offended. I merely decided to mirror. For the most part I have been civil with you. Occasional sarcasm in the face of what I sometimes find silly is just my nature. Perhaps you would have interpreted it differently in person. Perhaps something is lost in the translation in print. But there are some unpleasant transgressors in this forum in my opinion.
There is unpleasant commentary on both sides of the aisle. Please recognize that, and also that you agreeing with or "liking" those poster's commentary does the same thing that you are referring to above. Welcome back, by the way. I always did enjoy debating with you - for the most part
Right I understand. What I am suggesting is, that even if somehow people were able to limit speech by some miracle, in my view is that your problems would be faaar greater than the problem that your speech had been limited. Because at that point the US would no longer be the US. It would be communist Cuba or Russia. The US would spiral down into a third world country within 100 years if the things that made it great were all of a sudden revoked. I realize that people that are racially profiled are very sensitive to these notions. Freedom that has been won should be defended vigorously against those that would take it away. I also understand that given the pace at which we are able to do everything else these days, that everyone wants all wrongs corrected overnight. What I am saying is the law moves in a more ponderous way, because making laws should be a process by which people discover Universal Law. The US didn't just appear from thin air. It took Greece, Rome and France to ponder these things for a thousand years. Today, 1000 years can be compressed to 10. But should the process of discovering law be compressed to 1? Law is like fine wine. It is best when it is aged. Does that mean that all old laws are correct? Not at all. There are bold laws in the US, and there are old laws in the US, but there are no old bold laws in the US.
Basically, we are talking about criminally prosecuting people because someone had their feelings hurt. I have a problem with that. Everyone should, but people are so indoctrinated now they can't reason. The solution to offensive speech is speech that counteracts it. That seems to work pretty effectively now on social media, sometimes too effectively as virtual lynch mobs seem to form pretty quickly. There is no constitutional right not to be told you are fat, ugly, your religion is nonsense, your ethnicity is at the far left end of the IQ distribution, your sexual preferences are disgusting and perverted and should be outlawed or that your kind should never have been allowed into our country. So get over it.
If we're going to take speech, call some of it hate, criminalize that, we need to decide just who can and cannot be guilty of such speech given the current PC climate. Of course all white people could be found guilty. Will black people? Brown? Asian? American Indians? Women? Gays? Mentally or physically challenged? I do believe that many on the left side of this debate would claim that no person in a minority category can be guilty of such a crime since they are the "oppressed" people. Goes along the lines of what we hear when black people are accused of racism. Can't be, or so says the left. Lets just admit that the left wants to pick and choose where these lines will be drawn and they will pick them without regard for any ideology other than their own.