Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
It's quite possible that the value we place on free speech as a principle is different in the US than it is in France. But it is a euphemistic phrase, I'll grant you that.

The difference is in the priorities, how each country balances the right to free speech against other rights. No country has absolute free speech, and no country has speech that is objectively more free than anywhere else. It is a subjective judgement.

thekingofkings wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We'll see, there's always someone out there willing to pay for someone to make an donkey-cave of themselves, and someone willing to take the money to do it, but I'm hoping this is a start on a road to irrelevance, if for no other reason than a decrease in general partisan agitation on both sides. I don't think his schtick has been healthy for US politics, despite it's ostensibly free-speech basis, it just brought out too much of the ugly on all sides.

A lot of this reminds me of something that really bothered me when I heard it. Ted Cruz in Iowa talking about "New York values" and implying it as a bad thing. That somehow the people of New York should be looked down upon by people from Iowa. I get it, we don't really share a lot of values anymore in this country, we all agree on basic concepts, but the means and ways of it, that we disagree quite hostile. But that it was so normal and not eye brow raising at all anymore shows we are going to have issues. The problem is all sides know it, but no one is willing to unclench the fist first.

In some ways that's perhaps true, though I think a lot of this is creating imagined divides to generate real ones for political advantage. In all reality, most people get along just fine and don't have *actual* problems with people elsewhere (or, if they do, they're not really anything they care enough about to make them do or change anything), a lot of those feelings are created or exaggerated and expanded by political operatives of various sorts (candidates running for office needing a plank to get attention, special interest groups needing a new fundraising platform to jazz up the donors, media groups needing the next big scoop) and while everyone decries it, it's seemingly in all of their (short term) interests to engage and drive that.

For example, we hear all sorts of complaining about California and Texas from opposite ends of the spectrum, but daily life in these places and most social norms are nearly identical, particularly relative to many other developed nations where there are far deeper cultural and language differences such as say Spain.

oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We'll see, there's always someone out there willing to pay for someone to make an donkey-cave of themselves, and someone willing to take the money to do it, but I'm hoping this is a start on a road to irrelevance, if for no other reason than a decrease in general partisan agitation on both sides. I don't think his schtick has been healthy for US politics, despite it's ostensibly free-speech basis, it just brought out too much of the ugly on all sides.

Indeed. I,myself, tend to let my agitation slip out on occasion. And I have (probably unfairly) ripped into posters on here over politics. But that comes more from being a grouchy old bastard with little patience anymore, and a giant cynic. I'm trying to do better and re-learn to quit being a sour grape.



But to be fair, I hate over 80% of the politicos in the party on my voter registration card. So, I am fair in my gak slinging.

Everyone goes overboard at some point, I have, others have, it just hasn't been helped by the tension whipped up by some elements playing in the arena these days.

 sebster wrote:
Further, any speech to another person in a public place that is deemed offensive to another person is not protected.

That's not entirely true. If that was the case, the Klan wouldn't be allowed to march/hold rallies, Black Live Matter wouldn't be able to protest. And we typically don't send people to the clink for "hate speech". That's just a few examples.


Unpopular (read: offensive) speech is protected by the First Amendment.


But you make valid points with the rest of your post.

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, I actually researched the claim that he "outed" a transgender student. This student was actually a transgender activist who forced themself into a woman's restroom, sued the school, and was giving TV interviews advocating for his position, before theybecame the target of Milo's mockery. He didn't "out" anyone, the individual had made themself a public figure, and Milo mocked them.

The student wasn't a public figure. She was attempting a court case, but the case wasn't high profile, getting one story on a local affiliate news station.

If she had been widely known and recognised there would have been no point in Milo giving her name and face. She went from being unrecognised in the streets to being known to every person at Milo's speech, and every person watching on the Breitbart live feed.

First, I'd ask for a source, because people have made phony claims surrounding this particular troll before. If you are just speaking generally that he made fun of someone, and his followers took it upon themselves to harrass that person, then are you equally outraged when, lets say, Samantha Bee or Seth Myers make jokes about an individual?

You're right that there's always deniability between Milo's actions and the subsequent harassment of the target. But it's obvious to everyone what's going on. Milo spots a target, of a tweet he didn't like, or an article he didn't like, something like that. Then he tweets to his supporters talking not about the problems in the article, but about how awful the person is. Then the person starts getting abusive messages and death threats from random strangers. If that happened once then it would be unfair to Milo to condemn him. But Milo has done it repeatedly, knowing full well what happens whenever he does. Of course he knows what happens when he picks someone out for attacks, and of course it is the end result that he desires.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Americans do tend to fetishise their flag a lot more than say the British. You see this in the elaborate set of rules for treating the flag, copies of the flag and flag symbols used in other contexts (clothing, etc.) The UK doesn't have such an elaborate set of rules. In fact the 2012 Olympics showed the British are fully capable of deconstructing and reconstructing their flag into a completely new form as an expression of national identity and pride.

Here in Australia we don't even use our flag for our uniforms. Our flag is red, white and blue, it's a Union Jack and the Southern Cross. We use none of that, instead we compete in green and gold, often with a picture of a kangaroo.

I have no idea why. It's particularly strange because its very hard to get a combination of green and gold that isn't real hard on the eyes.

Oh, SNAP! It's on.

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a43285/casting-spell-donald-trump/

 Breotan wrote:
Oh, SNAP! It's on.

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a43285/casting-spell-donald-trump/

I read about that. It made for a good laugh.

It's hard to know when someone or some group is being facetious anymore.

@sebster: Well at least the Kangaroo part makes sense given the coat of arms, though the lack of any Emus makes me scratch my head a bit.

I suppose it's just because the Kangaroo is more recognisable and well known to foreigners.

---

But more on topic... I'm glad we've finally reached a point where Milo has crossed a line that has caused his publisher and work to drop him. Given all the gak that he's done and controversy he's caused over the last few months I'm only slightly surprised it didn't happen sooner (especially given how old the comment is), but at least maybe he can learn from his mistakes and realise pissing people off for publicity is to walk a fine line that if you lack tact and control can turn everyone against you.

I mean he probably won't learn but by god we can hope, if only so that people stop talking about him (including myself).

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Americans do tend to fetishise their flag a lot more than say the British. You see this in the elaborate set of rules for treating the flag, copies of the flag and flag symbols used in other contexts (clothing, etc.) The UK doesn't have such an elaborate set of rules. In fact the 2012 Olympics showed the British are fully capable of deconstructing and reconstructing their flag into a completely new form as an expression of national identity and pride.

Here in Australia we don't even use our flag for our uniforms. Our flag is red, white and blue, it's a Union Jack and the Southern Cross. We use none of that, instead we compete in green and gold, often with a picture of a kangaroo.

I have no idea why. It's particularly strange because its very hard to get a combination of green and gold that isn't real hard on the eyes.

Hard on the eyes?

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Americans do tend to fetishise their flag a lot more than say the British. You see this in the elaborate set of rules for treating the flag, copies of the flag and flag symbols used in other contexts (clothing, etc.) The UK doesn't have such an elaborate set of rules. In fact the 2012 Olympics showed the British are fully capable of deconstructing and reconstructing their flag into a completely new form as an expression of national identity and pride.

Here in Australia we don't even use our flag for our uniforms. Our flag is red, white and blue, it's a Union Jack and the Southern Cross. We use none of that, instead we compete in green and gold, often with a picture of a kangaroo.

I have no idea why. It's particularly strange because its very hard to get a combination of green and gold that isn't real hard on the eyes.

Hard on the eyes?

she is very easy on the eyes...oh wait, were we talking about....nevermind, back to the picture

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@sebster: Well at least the Kangaroo part makes sense given the coat of arms, though the lack of any Emus makes me scratch my head a bit.

I suppose it's just because the Kangaroo is more recognisable and well known to foreigners.

.

Maybe it was something to do with this :

The might of the Australian military could not defeat the Emu army.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

 jasper76 wrote:
Either way, its chaos on the streets, and nobody wants it. I suggest a serious revamping of the PR campaign, because all these people are accomplishing is making the entire left look like a bunch of fanatic lunatics hell-bent on chaos. Well, they might also be encouraging Trump's worst 'law and order' impulses, so kudos to them for that accomplishment, as well.

That kind of silliness on the left wing has been around forever. Go and read about the WTO protests, Seattle was the worst but others were only better managed because police knew what to expect after Seattle.

There are a bunch of reasons this kind of thing is more popular on the left than the right. The most obvious is that most of the angry protestors are kids, and kids are more likely to be left wing. Violent nonsense is also a more natural fit with the left, right wing ideas 'respect for authority' and 'the importance of law' doesn't really gel with breaking the window of a McDonalds. But leftwing ideas like 'corporate America is too powerful' can be taken as a reason to smash some stuff up.

It doesn't really impact the left wing overall. Politicians remain distant from the silliness of these kids, and the whole thing is quickly forgotten a few days later. The only who don't understand it as the actions of soem fringe radicals are on the right wing, because they want to condemn the whole of the left. Those people don't vote left wing anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/23/sweden-democrats-trump-was-right.html

This been covered at all?

Well, you've linked to a FOX News piece, which links to the original Wall Street Journal op ed, so the answer is, yes, this has been covered.

As to the merit of the story, there basically is none. The Swedish Democrats are on the far right of Swedish politics, they're right wing populists who oppose the European project and ethnic diversity. Of course they're going to agree that Sweden is paying a price for immigration.

That doesn't make it any less weird that Trump spoke about an event in Sweden the night before, or any less of a concern that his thinking and debate points are driven more by watching FOX News than intelligence briefings.

Can we get off the ride yet? It stopped being fun.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39073303

Trump repeats call for US nuclear supremacy

President Donald Trump has said he wants the United States to expand its nuclear arsenal, in his first comments on the issue since taking office.

Mr Trump said it would be "wonderful" if no nation had nuclear arms, but otherwise the US must be "top of the pack".

He told Reuter that the US had "fallen behind on nuclear weapon capacity".

Are...are we really doing this? On what insane world is this data on the US falling behind on nuclear weapons coming from?

EDIT:

Putting on the tinfoil hat here (only half-jokingly)...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39062663

Russian military admits significant cyber-war effort

Russia's military has admitted for the first time the scale of its information warfare effort, saying it was significantly expanded post-Cold War.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that Russian "information troops" were involved in "intelligent, effective propaganda", but he did not reveal details about the team or its targets.

The admission follows repeated allegations of cyberattacks against Western nations by the Russian state.

Nato is reported to be a top target.

During the Cold War both the USSR and the West poured resources into propaganda, to influence public opinion globally and sell their competing ideologies.

Speaking to Russian MPs, Mr Shoigu said "we have information troops who are much more effective and stronger than the former 'counter-propaganda' section".

Keir Giles, an expert on the Russian military at the Chatham House think-tank, has warned that Russian "information warfare" occupies a wider sphere than the current Western focus on "cyber warriors" and hackers.

"The aim is to control information in whatever form it takes," he wrote in a Nato report called "The Next Phase of Russian Information Warfare".

"Unlike in Soviet times, disinformation from Moscow is primarily not selling Russia as an idea, or the Russian model as one to emulate.

"In addition, it is often not even seeking to be believed. Instead, it has as one aim undermining the notion of objective truth and reporting being possible at all," he wrote.

So..given the modus operandi of Russian propaganda being to simply make it impossible to find or believe any sort of truth, coupled with the Russia-Trump connections and the Trump camp's intense attacking of the "lamestream media" as "fake" and other such things...one could draw some conclusions...

[/tinfoil]

On the subject of left-wing riots and inexcusable property damage, we can not tolerate behavior like this:










Oh wait, these are all pictures from riots over sports events. It's almost like there's a certain percentage of people who are just looking for an excuse to destroy stuff...

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I guess it all boils down to how big of a target you make of yourself by your enemies and how big of a suck-up to the Establishment that you are.

That's really nothing to do with nothing. Thing is, if you say a bunch of stuff that lots of people admire, then those people will defend you when you say something a bit rubbish, that really upsets some other people. On the other hand, if you build a career trying to piss off anyone and everyone whenever you can, don't be surprised when sooner or later you've pissed off everyone and there's no-one left to defend you.

This most likely came to a head because Bannon no longer needed anyone like Milo pissing people off. Suddenly pushed outside of that protective blanket, then when Milo inevitably made his next outrageous comment, there was no-one there to give political cover. So gone from CPAC, gone from Breitbart, suddenly the rules that apply to the rest of us started applying to Milo.

Given the guy got led up a garden path by older, smarter and more cynical men than himself I'd be tempted to be sympathetic, but because Milo built his career out of showing no sympathy for anyone, then its too bad, so sad.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/23/sweden-democrats-trump-was-right.html

This been covered at all?

Well the swedish democrats have had problems with nazism in the past so...yeah you have to take anything they say with a huge grain of salt

Huge grain of salt? More like throw whatever they say into garbage bin. That's appropriate response for their garbage.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And you can bet Milo will find some way to profit from it, despite his public apology and losing his book deal.


There is no such thing as "bad publicity", as they used to say in show business.

Maybe. Glenn Beck's crazy train looked unstoppable until all of a sudden his supporter base just disappeared from under him. It really doesn't take much, once the stalwart defenders decide they're not going to defend your antics anymore, for whatever reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
That's not entirely true. If that was the case, the Klan wouldn't be allowed to march/hold rallies, Black Live Matter wouldn't be able to protest. And we typically don't send people to the clink for "hate speech". That's just a few examples.

That's a fair pick up, I was trying to be as brief as possible with each point, to avoid turning it in to a big text dump. I was definitely too brief with that one, my summary was quite misleading. I wasn't referring to protests, but abuse and catcalling, and other acts by individuals against another specific individual that might cause offence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Hard on the eyes?

Spoiler:

I had a perfect response but somehow I forgot what it was. Oh well, back to staring at the gif.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Maybe it was something to do with this

Every country has its own Vietnam.

Just for proper context on the Sweden Democrats, they officially believe in good old-fashioned racism ("Principprogram 2011", pg. 8, 2nd segment), an "inherited essence" that determines culture. They're the utter scum of our Parliament and they're a national disgrace.

 jasper76 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Yeah, but the ones on the right are actually worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

That's the thing...people on the right think that people on the left are worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

Huge double-standard going on. It's OK when my team does it, because we're always correct.

No. It's not a double standard. There is a huge difference, morally spealing, between wanting discrimination with no rational basis stopped and xenophobic bigots. Plus the special snowflakes on the right who complain when they don't get special priveledges for their 'religion' and aren't allowed to force other people to follow the tenets of it.

Mocking "nobody's" because their political positions differ from you're own is either bad, or it isn't. I won't accept that it's bad for conservatives, but awesome for progressives.

The thing is, it's not 'political positions', it's offensive positions intended to hurt people that are different. These are a whole different ballpark, morally speaking.

I am having trouble finding the part saying flag type patterns and prints on clothing is wrong.

That is because the flag code concerns the flag, not graphic elements such as stars or red and white stripes that can be used to print a flag type of pattern. The flag is a specific set of colours and patterns in a specific configuration.

Therefore if you make a replica of the US flag and take one star off, it isn't the US flag any more and isn't covered by the flag code.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
When Germany allows historically correct decals for WW2 German aircraft models, let me know.

Right, feth it, this nonsense has to end. In the US any speech deemed obscene is not protected speech (which produces a horrible grey zone between constitutionally protected porn and not protected obscene porn). Further, any speech to another person in a public place that is deemed offensive to another person is not protected. Freedom of speech in the US has repeatedly failed to overturn laws banning nudity in private clubs. The US has given the courts free reign to enforce non-disclosure agreements, believing people to have signed away their free speech rights by contract. The US has wide ranging exceptions to free speech when the speech is deemed potentially harmful to children. The US has contrived a legal argument in which publicly viewed TV and radio can be censured freely, because they are public.

This doesn't mean the US doesn't have free speech. It has strong free speech protections in most ways. But this fething nonsense where Americans pick out one instance of a free speech restriction in another country and then jingoistically assert the other country is so much less free than themselves is inane bs. It stops any kind of sensible conversation on what the real and necessary limits to free speech might be, and how all countries, including your own, navigate those limits.

As long as there is a actual political or social aspect to that speech, then yes, it is protected. As for nudity in private clubs..... Yes, that has actually been protected, even here in the middle of Conservative land, and to extreme levels. There was a case a while back here in Iowa that protected an underage girls rights to express herself on stage, in the nude. So, technically, in Iowa, as long as there is no alcohol, a 13-year old can shake her goodies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news: https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-senator-removed-criticizing-lawmaker-001638791.html

A senator in California was forced out of chambers for her speech. This seems even more strong-armed than what the Republicans did a couple weeks back.....but almost no outrage on this.

Perhaps people are more concerned about the development of current legislation that will affect their lives than things that were done decades ago by now dead people.

What the heck is this 'we need more nukes'?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1622IF

Interesting that Trump now likes the EU.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
For what it is worth, there is a difference between using a flag as a beach towel, cutting one up to make a shirt, wiping your face with one, or using one as a door mat and having items with flag type print/colors/patterns on them.

Not according to the Flag Code.

Really?

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title4/html/USCODE-2011-title4-chap1.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code


I'm having trouble finding the part making it wrong to have flag type print/colors/patterns on stuff.

I can see where you're not supposed to use it for advertising. I can see where you should not print a flag onto temporary use things like napkins though that would not preclude the use of red white and blue stars and stripes (or flag type patterns) on them. Same for clothing. Says you cannot use a flag as clothing, but I'm having trouble finding the part saying flag type patterns and prints on clothing is wrong.

I would post the flag code, but since you already didn't read into when you posted it I think you won't read it that time either.

I did read it. And posted the links to give you the chance to quote the relevant sections rather than deflect with snark.

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart..

What part of that makes my statement ( For what it is worth, there is a difference between using a flag as a beach towel, cutting one up to make a shirt, wiping your face with one, or using one as a door mat and having items with flag type print/colors/patterns on them.) wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The American Legion agrees with me:

Question:
Is it permissible to wear an item of clothing that looks like the United States flag?
Answer:
Unless an article of clothing is made from an actual United States flag, there is NO breach of flag etiquette whatsoever. People are simply expressing their patriotism and love of country by wearing an article of clothing that happens to be red, white, and blue with stars and stripes. There is nothing illegal about the wearing or use of these items.

https://www.legion.org/flag/questions-answers/91517/it-permissible-wear-item-clothing-looks-united-states-flag

 skyth wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Yeah, but the ones on the right are actually worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

That's the thing...people on the right think that people on the left are worth mocking for their horrid ideas and beliefs.

Huge double-standard going on. It's OK when my team does it, because we're always correct.

No. It's not a double standard. There is a huge difference, morally spealing, between wanting discrimination with no rational basis stopped and xenophobic bigots. Plus the special snowflakes on the right who complain when they don't get special priveledges for their 'religion' and aren't allowed to force other people to follow the tenets of it.

Mocking "nobody's" because their political positions differ from you're own is either bad, or it isn't. I won't accept that it's bad for conservatives, but awesome for progressives.

The thing is, it's not 'political positions', it's offensive positions intended to hurt people that are different. These are a whole different ballpark, morally speaking.

The widespread mockery of pro-lifers by progressives undermines your point.

Unless, if by some mental gymnastics, you can construe the belief that life begins at conception as being somehow an offensive position to take. Or, if by some some mental gymnastics, you can construe the effort to protect lives in utero as somehow intending to hurt people that are different.

The point is, some progressives are perfectly willing to publicly humiliate people, big and small, if they go against the current progressive orthodoxy. If it's bad for the Milos of the world to do it, it's bad for Samantha Bees of the world as well. No double-standards please.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Interesting that Trump now likes the EU.

Yeah, I heard about that as well, the traitorous wretch!

To any American dakka member, don't underestimate the reach of the EU.

A few years back, I was climbing hills in the middle of nowhere i.e the Scottish Highlands, and there was a bench that had been funded by the EU.

It had the little EU flag on it, so I'm not surprised they got to Trump.

If you find that kind of mockery a serious social concern I think you may need to find a safe space where you can avoid those triggers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


If you find that kind of mockery a serious social concern I think you may need to find a safe space where you can avoid those triggers.

I don't find it to be a serious social concern. I find it to be hypocritical to say this kind of stuff is outrageous when Milo does it, but its perfectly acceptable when Samantha Bee does it.

I honestly couldn't care less what Captain Hipster does with his spare time to try and get laid.