I'm sure the sign-holder's gallery isn't filled with rainbows and fuzzy ducklings, but he wasn't the equivalent of Illinois nazis marching in Skokie, either. The old school Liberal antidote to hateful speech is more and better speech, not mob violence.

It seems that one of his crimes was showing material in support of Donald Trump, who, loathe him if you will, is still the legally elected president of one of the UKs chief allies. If his supporters can't make their case in public then I fear for the future of civil discourse.

Regardless of the content of whatever expression this guy may have made elsewhere, in the video he really is protesting in favor of free speech, and he really is being assaulted while the cops wander away. I hold with the friends of Voltaire, who, though they might disapprove of what he says would defend to the death his right to say it.

As for editing the video, what could he have been doing in the lead up to this scene? Hawking Trump bobble-heads?

Not for lack of effort by the righties who tried to break the boys neck 3-1.

Senator Fuck face was violent, not The Walrus. He punched over a moist tap, an expression of free speech, then his muscle goons really got violent.

The senator erased his condemnation by following it with the word "however". We all understand how that works. He was saying Muslims are evil, and their existence naturally leads to right wing terrorists, who aren't to blame.
Right wing people have already radicalized each other into full blown racists and aren't slowing on that front.

He was not attempting civil discourse, he was attempting racist scapegoating and victim blaming of the highest order....not a discourse at all but a diatribe.

Plenty of civil politicians have brushed off an egging, not him....not today's right.

Typical lefties, screaming racism where there is none (Religion is not a race) and becoming uncivil because they aren't capable of disproving factual claims.

This is Charles Murray at Middlebury College all over again. Thankfully this time nobody got injured when the lefties lashed out.

Once again lefties do not understand a nuanced subject so they cling to moral outrage which quickly escalates to violence when they don't get their way - silencing free speech.

The senator was not blaming muslims for the attack, he specifically said there is no justification for the attack, and CONDEMNED THE ATTACK. He was saying that lefties are silencing free speech, and that in turn radicalizes right leaning people - which is a problem, because the last thing the world needs is right leaning people being radicalized into full blown racists - because nobody is allowed civil discourse, which divides people into extremes.

And this egging is a perfect analogy for the problem the senator was describing.


-----

The lefties have got people so scared to have civil discourse about immigration, integration and other similar issues that the only people not afraid to talk about it are genuine racists. This is a huuuuuuuuuuuge problem. And as a centrist, this frustrates me to no end, because I have racists on one side of me, and lefty fascists on the other - both of which foaming at the mouth.

That being said, I don't think Christians should mix politics with their faith. It mostly breeds hate and the gospel of Jesus Christ is never mentioned. I have moral objections to some things which are legal in the United States, but that isn't my focus. The Israelites when they were taken captive by Babylon were told by God to pray for the prosperity of the nation so they would live peaceful lives there. Babylon was a pagan nation, much worse morally than the United States. I think Christians should do more praying and less talking about the political situation.

I love America, and God has blessed it from its founding. I don't love the moral direction it has been heading and frankly I think it is in big trouble. God will eventually turn America over to its enemies if it continues down this path with no repentance.

As far as left and right, I am independent politically. I agree with some things on both sides, and disagree with much on both sides. The democrat party has become more and more secular so I don't agree with them as much anymore but the republican party worships God with their lips and not with their heart. I don't care for the cutthroat politics of either party, or the goading of their supporters, working them into a constant state of outrage and fervor and hatred of the other. Politics are poisoning this country and choking out civilized discourse. A Christian should never drink from that well but share the living water of Christ and speak the truth with love, sincerely caring about the other person regardless of their political affiliation.

Trump is a fucking disaster at every conceivable level. He's a terrible president, a shitty businessman and a failure on the most basic human levels.

The question is: do we call this a special circumstance and disregard our own standards of civil discourse? Do we NEED to abandon etiquette (and possibly ethics) because the alternative is so much worse?

Or does that just play into his hands? Insulting Trump like this is kinda like playing chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

And THAT is his one skill.

*Promote the civil discourse of literally Hitler.

Holy shit, did we just have an internet discussion about feminism that ended in civil discourse?

Fucking hell, that's gotta be a first.

I feel an overpowering urge to descend into hyperbole and vitriol!

I came back when I saw @speechless's comment. She is exactly right. Ignore does not work. It is a poor substitute for moderation.

Ignoring only works if everyone does it...and possibly not even then. It only takes one person to take the bait to make a troll thrive. If everyone actually did ignore, then it's no different from booting the troublemaker so quit beating around the bush and just boot the troublemaker. One method shifts the burden on the community members who many have given up after seeing how ineffectual ignore is and left, the other method shifts the burden where it should be, on those who run the site.

This site has been going downhill for a long while now because problem members have not been kicked out. It has been noted that the #1 video now only requires 40-ish upvotes where in years past it needed over double that.

I think I even recall @lucky760 voicing his concerns about the continued existence of this site in Sift Talk a while back.

All it takes is a short glance at comment histories to see who is here to contribute to the community and who is here only to incite and rile up and do not contribute to civilized discourse. Most people who read this will know who I am referring to. Dissenting opinions are still required to back their points up. Simply dissent by itself doesn't make the viewpoint valid or else you've just lowered yourself to the level of youtube comments, at a minimum, ad hom attacks and the bigger more well known logical fallacies should not be tolerated.

A good community requires moderation. All the strong forum communities out there depend on moderation to lay down the law on a regular basis...not just when one feels like showing up on the site once every month or so.

FYI I was thinking $1500/month to 3000$/month. Which would make 75 to 150$/day.

Its nice to have a civil discourse with you.


Other than the clarification above I AGREE WITH ALL THE BENEFITS YOU MENTION.


All I am saying is it the responsibility of the employer to pay for this benefit?


Should the young couple or single woman wait till they can afford such time off? With all the family planning available should the couple or single woman take some responsibility.


According to report California and few other states have placed a tax of sorts to spread this cost over all its citizens. I do not see an issue with this as long all are taxed equal.

-----------------------------------------------------
My reform plan

We do need welfare and social security reform ( which will have to happen) it should be 1 in the same. Everyone over 25 should be able to take 10 years of government paid time off (PTO).

All get 10 years, All pay a tax, call it what you want. But when it is used up then that's it. no more government cheese.

If I am 25 and going to school I should be able to collect a year or two OF government PTO ( paid time off). Your choice.

If I have a baby and want to take 3 months off then I will have 9 years 9 months left for retirement.

If I turn 40 and find myself lost in life and just want to check out of society and go back to school or travel the world for 2 years then I would have 8 years left.

I don't care what you spend you government check on. Schooling, traveling, hookers, drugs. Its you life.

When I turn 65 and think I will still live another 20 I better not retire with my remaining PTO time.

Its your life use it when you need it.


This would stop all the complaining towards welfare people. Also it will keep people from retiring early and sucking tax dollars for years to come. It would naturally provide an incentive to work and to stay working.

There would be no unemployment benefits. Other programs eliminated and rolled into this program. It would streamline the government. Reduce government costs create a a level playing field for citizens. Your PTO pay should be based on you current skill level with minimums and caps.


Granted this is a pie in the sky ideal world thought. But it does have some merit.

Have a good day.

@newtboy
i totally understand my friend and i dont necessarily disagree,but what do you think makes a greater impact?
banning an intelligent person,who may cause some controversy from time to time but is VITAL to human discourse.
OR...
as we are seeing here,a community coming together to admonish that person for breaking the rules?

which is the point i was trying to make.i want trance to acknowledge that what he did was out of an emotional,ego-driven response,but i dont want his voice silenced just because we may disagree from time to time.

and i am willing to bet that trance gets the point.he is no fool and understands full well the implications.the community is telling him:
bad trance..baaaaaad....

shunning is a FAR more powerful tool than clicking a button to silence someone.
just ask the amish.

not everybody fits into this category.there have been some who were deliberate in their offensiveness.those people SHOULD be banned from civil discourse but trance has something to say.we may not always agree but to silence him over an emotional over-reaction is a tad harsh..in my opinion.

and thats all it really is..my opinion.

i also dont think it fair to drag dag into becoming supreme overlord to pass judgement.i dont think he created this site with that in mind.i think he wanted a community driven enterprise that self-regulated without the need for moderators.

which is exactly what we are doing here..yes?

remember siftquistions?
good times my friends..good times.

They're invited??....The difference between them and me (as choggie) is that I WAS here and available to defend myself, and some of the more egregious violators of civil discourse, simply hit the convenient "ignore" button, which is for pussies and the spineless. They stayed, I was outed. AND...they are still here and choose not to rear their heads. Any questions??

NOw...Back to culling the Sift of some dead, tired, shit.

It gets noticed in the same way a train wreck gets noticed. There is no positive direction with this. If anything, it sounds more Republican than a Republican... Both, to me and many others, were identical--the protester and the protested.

You're suggesting that the Republican way is "getting more necessary?" I doubt it.

Intelligent debate, period. We respect Neil Degrasse Tyson because he is an honorable man. We respect Charlie Crist and Obama because they let people speak in civil discourse.

>> ^lantern53:

What ever happened to civil discourse?


What do you mean? those guys were talking well and getting along just fine.

I see you went to the Sarah Palin school of talkifying good and using words korretly.

What ever happened to civil discourse?

when civil discourse is abused to spread misinformation and divide opinion, than civil disobedience is the first answer. a lot of people skip the civil discourse part and go right to killing off and suppressing people.