First Amendment

[FakeAndyStuart]

Let's talk about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, specifically as it applies to "free speech" (blame the yahoo who loaded some bullshit on my Facebook page for this thread.)

It says -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It prohibits Congress and the federal government from passing or enforcing any laws that restrict speech (including "press") in any way. And by its nature restricts any local or state government from doing the same. So Gov. Whitmer can't write an executive order to make you stop saying mean things about her, and a Republican led House and Senate in 2025 can't pass a federal law forcing you to only say nice things about President Elect Trump.

It says nothing about citizens people companies or businesses. Nothing in the First Amendment says I can't throw you out of my store for yelling anti-semantic slogans, or stop you from singing Bob Dylan songs on stage at my nightclub. Nothing says Facebook or Twitter can't stop you from posting things they don't like or want as part of their service. And nothing says while you are exercising your right to speak freely that I am forced to listen.

The First Amendment doesn't keep the Yankees from tearing down the Bernie 2024 banner you hung off the outfield wall. The First Amendment doesn't stop a 2/3 vote of Congress from kicking you out of office for heckling during a State of the Union speech.

The First Amendment doesn't stop MW from kicking you off the board for violating his terms of service.

Now that that is said, I do want to hear your free speech. I do want to know your opinions. It's important for a society to exist that we recognize that not everyone in the world agrees... on almost anything. It doesn't matter how many RINO's the America First group want to kick out of the party.. they will still be alive, still have an opinion, and still want to be heard. It doesn't matter how many "centrist" Dems are getting primaried by the "radical left" - their supporters and voters are still Americans.. with a voice and a vote. The more America becomes so partisan, so divided, so much "We want it our way, we'll just get a plurality of the votes and shove our ideas down everyone's throats" .. the more we as a society will fail.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

[bmw]

Just my 2 cents on the ever-widening partisan divide in this country. I largely blame social media. It seems that when you give EVERYONE a microphone, it is the extremists on both sides who speak the loudest, so you end up with this false impression that the 5 or 10 percent who speak loudly on an issue are a much larger group than they really are. The problem is, over time, given their disproportionate microphone, they may grow in size to 15 or 20 percent and then we have a real problem.

The mainstream media isn't helping either. They love to take fringe cook views, smooth them around the edges, and run with them as if they're mainstream views.

How do we solve this? I have no idea other than to say that the silent majority in the middle needs to grow a backbone and quit caving and kowtowing to the fringe.

[craig11152]

Just my 2 cents on the ever-widening partisan divide in this country. I largely blame social media. It seems that when you give EVERYONE a microphone, it is the extremists on both sides who speak the loudest, so you end up with this false impression that the 5 or 10 percent who speak loudly on an issue are a much larger group than they really are. The problem is, over time, given their disproportionate microphone, they may grow in size to 15 or 20 percent and then we have a real problem.

The mainstream media isn't helping either. They love to take fringe cook views, smooth them around the edges, and run with them as if they're mainstream views.

How do we solve this? I have no idea other than to say that the silent majority in the middle needs to grow a backbone and quit caving and kowtowing to the fringe.

This ∆
I used to think the good of the Internet as it pertains to the unwashed masses far outweighed the bad. Now I'm not so sure.

[bmw]

It is the kowtowing and caving that I just don't get. Perfect recent example is transgender athletes. Specifically, originally biological men competing against women. I suspect that the VAST majority of people are opposed to this. Yet, few dare stand up to it. Why is that?

[Matt]

Just my 2 cents on the ever-widening partisan divide in this country. I largely blame social media. It seems that when you give EVERYONE a microphone, it is the extremists on both sides who speak the loudest, so you end up with this false impression that the 5 or 10 percent who speak loudly on an issue are a much larger group than they really are. The problem is, over time, given their disproportionate microphone, they may grow in size to 15 or 20 percent and then we have a real problem.

The mainstream media isn't helping either. They love to take fringe cook views, smooth them around the edges, and run with them as if they're mainstream views.

How do we solve this? I have no idea other than to say that the silent majority in the middle needs to grow a backbone and quit caving and kowtowing to the fringe.

Twitter is a left wing cesspool. They recently suspended the defiant L's account that posted screenshots of mostly the left posting contradictory tweets. Here's a great example: https://mobile.twitter.com/DefiantLs/st ... X-09ApAAAA

[FakeAndyStuart]

Let me respond to this within the quote below -

Just my 2 cents on the ever-widening partisan divide in this country. I largely blame social media. It seems that when you give EVERYONE a microphone, it is the extremists on both sides who speak the loudest, so you end up with this false impression that the 5 or 10 percent who speak loudly on an issue are a much larger group than they really are. (There is some validity in your point. However, the bigger problem is party primaries. With such low voter turnout only from the devout, it seems the extremes on both sides are the only candidate who can win primaries. And then, we are all faced with only two choices, neither of them necessarily the best choices for the office.) The problem is, over time, given their disproportionate microphone, they may grow in size to 15 or 20 percent and then we have a real problem.

The mainstream media isn't helping either. They love to take fringe cook views, smooth them around the edges, and run with them as if they're mainstream views.(The mainstream media needs to make money, so they need eyeballs to sell to advertisers. Tension and conflict brings eyeballs. How do we make news reporting less partisan? Don't make it dependent on advertisers!)

How do we solve this? I have no idea other than to say that the silent majority in the middle needs to grow a backbone and quit caving and kowtowing to the fringe. ] (The "silent majority" needs to have some sort of leverage to do that. Like maybe, an open primary, or ranked choice voting - some method to water down the impact of the "base".)

It is the kowtowing and caving that I just don't get. Perfect recent example is transgender athletes. Specifically, originally biological men competing against women. I suspect that the VAST majority of people are opposed to this. (Opposed to what? Trans people in general? Trans women participating in sports? There can't be more than a handful of them, why is that more important than other topics? There are hundreds of thousands of open jobs in America, there are hundreds of thousands of mothers without access to child care who would love to take those jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in America, taking .1% of the money spent on the military we would house and feed them easily and help them also get ready to take those jobs. Why are we worried about a handful of trans athletes?) Yet, few dare stand up to it. (And again, stand up HOW? Protests, letter writing? What do you suggest?) Why is that?

[km1125]

Let me respond to this within the quote below -

...How do we solve this? I have no idea other than to say that the silent majority in the middle needs to grow a backbone and quit caving and kowtowing to the fringe. ] (The "silent majority" needs to have some sort of leverage to do that. Like maybe, an open primary, or ranked choice voting - some method to water down the impact of the "base".) ...

I say that we should all get TWO votes in each election. One FOR and the other AGAINST. In an election with a polarizing leading candidate, you'd likely eliminate them. If you had two polarizing candidates (say, an "R" and a "D"), then the other candidates would have a significantly greater chance of winning the election.

[bmw]

There is some validity in your point. However, the bigger problem is party primaries. With such low voter turnout only from the devout, it seems the extremes on both sides are the only candidate who can win primaries. And then, we are all faced with only two choices, neither of them necessarily the best choices for the office.

I'm not sure I've seen much evidence of this on a national scale. The most extreme candidates in both parties seem to come from districts with the highest concentration of extremist voters. Even to the extent it may be true, that is simply the fault of those who choose not to vote. You get what you vote for, or in some cases, you get who you could have prevented had you voted.

The "silent majority" needs to have some sort of leverage to do that...

They do. It is called being the majority. Power by numbers in and of itself is leverage.

Opposed to what? Trans people in general? Trans women participating in sports?

Oh come on, you know what I'm talking about here. Men who convert to women and then compete against other women.

There can't be more than a handful of them, why is that more important than other topics?...Why are we worried about a handful of trans athletes?

Now THIS I find to be a HIGHLY fascinating comment coming from you considering this recent exchange:

you can't use an anecdotal story like this one to categorically claim that owning a gun doesn't make you safer

...the stories are piling up, anecdotal or not. Black people who legally own guns are being shot by police, even if they don't fire them. White people who legally own guns are going on shooting sprees and walking away with their lives. Please explain.

You're asking about a very small percentage of total gun crimes. The stories are "piling up" because literally every single time what you describe occurs, the media gives it full coverage. In fact, these stories get WAY, WAY, WAY disproportionately over-covered relative to other instances of gun use. It's not even close.

I'm very concerned about the state of violence in America, and if you want police to be respected and trusted, you have to address matters like this. I can't brush them off because they are over reported. Crimes committed by undocumented aliens are also way over reported, but that doesn't mean we don't have a problem that has to be addressed.

So which way is it? Do stories that fall within the "handful" matter, or don't they?

[FakeAndyStuart]

My apologies, but I can't accept or respond to your post. Any attempt to compare the killing of innocent people to results of a sporting event offends me greatly. Have a good day.

[bmw]

I do want to hear your free speech. I do want to know your opinions. It's important for a society to exist that we recognize that not everyone in the world agrees... on almost anything.

My apologies, but I can't accept or respond to your post...[your speech] offends me greatly. Have a good day.

[TC Talks]

It is the kowtowing and caving that I just don't get. Perfect recent example is transgender athletes. Specifically, originally biological men competing against women. I suspect that the VAST majority of people are opposed to this. Yet, few dare stand up to it. Why is that?

You live a very sheltered life and are pretty much out of touch with many many Americans based on the comments you wrote above.

Mind your own business, it's clear that the entire transgender Community goes way over your head.

[bmw]

I'm not talking about "the entire transgender Community." I'm talking about one specific subset of it. Biological men who transition to women and then compete against women in sports. I believe my assertion that most people oppose this is factually correct.

[Honeyman]

I'm not talking about "the entire transgender Community." I'm talking about one specific subset of it. Biological men who transition to women and then compete against women in sports. I believe my assertion that most people oppose this is factually correct.

I'm surprised anyone would argue this point, really.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

I'm not talking about "the entire transgender Community." I'm talking about one specific subset of it. Biological men who transition to women and then compete against women in sports. I believe my assertion that most people oppose this is factually correct.

If you dared to honestly research this, you would find that hormones come pretty damn close to leveling the playing field, especially for those who took puberty blockers before the onset of puberty. Jazz Jennings is a good example of this. She played soccer as a child, and you don't see her tearing up the soccer field when she went to Harvard this year.

[craig11152]

Most of these athletes in question didn't take puberty blockers early on.
If anyone looks at their performance as a male and then a female it's pretty clear they consistently move up the ladder. It's not just about winning either. If "Jack" consistently came in last place or sat at the end of the bench as Jack then comes in 3rd place or is first woman off the bench as Jackie that is a clear advantage. It's not fair to the woman who comes in 4th who would have come in 3rd. It's not fair to the woman who becomes 2nd off the bench who otherwise would have been first.