It seems to me that the fringes have become the loudest voices in both parties, but it's the right who is legislating based on their fringe (no more global warming according to the soon to be defunded epa is just one good example of that). Fortunately, the far left can't implement their banning of words (legally) in the U.S.....our constitution makes that impossible.

Big government is bad, but then you need to actually look into which party grew government and spending, you'll find that they both are near equal these days, no matter what rhetoric they spout.

The civil war pushed us to think that the state's deciding everything with no federal protections for human rights leads to trouble....but I do agree there should be less interference from on high. Consider, if the state's were allowed to be self deterministic, Calexit or Wexit (what I call the plan for all West coast states to form a new country) would be a serious consideration for us and a likelihood.

I would say you seem to have it backwards, the left of today is actually implementing the plans of the right from 20+ years ago, not the other way around.

If people are free (to work and make money) and markets are free (to sell european cars in the US eithout excessive tariffs) Volkswagen can sell more cars and make more money. So yeah, human rights matter.

That way they also create more jobs and pay more towards pensions and have money to make Superbowl ads, possibly the most expensive "free publicity" in the world.

Not the worlds' moral standard setters though, obviously, VW.

Terrorists are usually not from countries that America or even previously the Soviets have been bombing the shit out of.

ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven.

The countries with one of the most intolerant cultures, are some of the best educated and wealthiest people on the planet. Countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. These countries are best buds with the west, and yet they still jail women when they are raped (not the rapist), and they stone and crucify protesters asking for human rights. These are the actual laws, not a few extremists, or terrorists, it's the law of the country. They are intolerant and oppressive by law, thanks to their theocratic ruling system.

To sum up the above, it's not an educational issue, it's not a poverty issues, it's not a revenge issue. It's culture, attitudes, and religion.

I'm really only regurgetating what people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have said in their books and podcasts. So I'll direct you there, as they articulate it way better than me.
There is also http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/muslims-and-islam/ which the statistics are quite alarming, and the left choose to ignore many of these. They assume that everyone in the world is a good person, and that they would do good if they had the same opportunities. It's simply not the case.
All religions are not equal either (and I'm a staunch atheist), and neither are all cultures.

We might not have a perfect world, but it's dishonest to try to claim that everything and everyone is the same. It's dishonest to ignore that the majority of the world has decided to stop stoning gays, crucifying human rights protesters, and treating women worse than dogs. Just to name a few things.

all i'm hearing is "religion was used to promote progressive values and human rights in the past and now it's used to stop progressive values and human rights".

Pretty much interview scripted by Putin personally.

Why the drama about US - russian relations if the russians supposedly are not dangerous and Putin is not evil.

Building a case to sell Poland and the Baltic countries to Putin. Worked like a charm with Hitler and Czechoslovakia before WWII. Poland these days does not even have a border with Russia proper, only with what used to be Koenigsberg. Poland is part of NATO and if Abby and her friend the professor want to give that up then it is them who are pushing us all closer to a war (cold or not).

Ukraine has already exploded. Putin has already taken 1/3 of the country breaking bilateral treaties. Cant get much worse, hard to imagine how the US can get involved, Trump notwithstanding.

Syria - its basically over, except for the humanitarian and human rights catastrophe. Putins ally won - a slightly pyrrhic victory perhaps, but for the meantime Assad stays. Did they level cities or liberate them? Hard to tell the difference. Probably both. That said US involvement in the middle east is a grave shitstorm.

This awesome "analysis" somehow misses the biggest current problem of NATO - Turkey - possibly because Putin does not have a good handle on Turkey yet so its off-limits. Also Pakistan/India and North Korea does not get a mention for the same reason - no chance to push Putins agenda.

NATO might have reassured Gorby it had no intention to spread. It is important to understand that Warsaw pact countries generally accepted Russians as saviours from German occupation, by the 1970s this had changed firmly to perceiving Russians as occupants, political persecutors and economic idiots.

After the economic collapse of the USSR (supposedly somehow caused by Ronald Reagan :-) all these countries needed reassurance that the Russians were not coming back. The only possible reassurance was joining NATO. If that meant breaking a promise made to an ex-representative of a no longer existing country, that is fine by me. If NATO had promised not to spread to Mother Theresa I would be more concerned.

The problem with the Ukraine is that we (EU) made an offer that put them in danger (from Putin) and we could not back that up with real economic or military assistance. Dumb move. But also Ukrainian politics is an incredible mess and simply too many ethnic russians live there giving Putin a strong nationalist base.

@ChaosEngine
agreed.
context matters and i think being a decent human being plays a large role in that dynamic.

people tend to attempt to break down complex ideas and/or ideologies into more easily digestible morsels.this "twitter speak",in my opinion,is largely responsible for the decay of human interactions.

we all are biased.
we all hold prejudices,and preconceptions based on our learned experiences.
which are subjective.

we see the world through the lens of our own subjectivity and even the most open minded and non-judgemental person,when trying to sympathize/empathize with another person, will use their own subjective understandings in order to understand that person.

this tactic,which we all employ,will almost always fall short of true understanding.

so we rely on words,metaphors,allegory etc etc in order to communicate fairly complex emotions and experiences.

what brendon o'neill is pointing out,is that when we start to restrict words as acceptable and unacceptable,we infantilize our interactions.

words are inert.
they are simply symbols representing a thing,action or emotion.
it is WE who apply the deeper meanings by way of our subjective lens.

i am not trying to make something simple complicated,but bear with me.
a rock will always be a rock,but a cunt has a totally different meaning here in the states than in britain.(love you brits,and cunt is a brilliant word).

the problems of culture,region,nationality or race all play a role in not only how we communicate but how that communication is received ...and interpreted.

so misunderstandings can happen quite easily,and then when we consider that the persons intent is by far the greatest metric to judge the veracity of the words being spoken,and just how difficult it is to discern that intent....this is where nuance and context play such a major role,but we need to have as many tools in our language box to express oftentimes very difficult concepts,multi-layered emotions and complicated ideologies.

and,unfortunately,there are attempts to legislate speech.

of course well intentioned,and reasonable sounding,but like any legislation dealing with the subjective nature of humans,has the possibility of abuse.

case in point:http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

a new canadian addendum to their human rights statute.on the surface this is a fairly benign addition to canadas already existing human rights laws,but there is the possibility of abuse.

a psychology professor from university of toronto was critical of this new addendum,and has created a flurry of controversy in regards to his criticism.

which you can check out here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

now he was protested,received death threats,there was even violence and a new internet star was born affectionately labeled "smugglypuff".

see:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smugglypuff

i agree that free speech cannot be viewed with an absolutist mindset.absolutist thinking leads to stagnation and a self-righteous fundamentalism,so we NEED the free flow of ideas...even BAD ideas..even offensive and racist..because this brings all those feelings/thoughts/ideologies into the market of ideas to be either absorbed or ridiculed and ultimately ostracized for the shit philosophy they represent.

i WANT to know who the racists are.
i want to know who is bigoted or prejudiced.
i want to know who is holding on to stupid ideas,or promoting fascism dressed up as nationalistic pride.

and the only way to shine a light on these horrendous and detrimental ideas is to allow those who hold them openly state who and what they are...so we can criticize/challenge and in some cases..ridicule.

we should be free to say whatever we wish,but we are not free from challenge or criticism.
we can say whatever pops into our pretty little head,but we are not free from consequences.
we are also not free from offense.

i know this is long,and i hope you stayed with me,and if you did,thanks man.i know i tend to ramble.

but we can use the banning of gorillaman as a small microcosm of what we are talking about here.

i felt that we,as a community,could take gorilla to task for his poor choice in verbiage "nigger prince" and i attempted to make the case by using his history,dark humor and bad taste to add context to his poor choice of wording.

bareboards felt it was a matter for the administrators to deal with.i am not saying her choice was wrong.just that we approached the problem from different perspectives.

now gorilla decided to become the human torch and flame out.which threw my approach right out the window.

but the point i am making in that case,is that bad ideas,bad philosophies,bigotry and racism will ALWAYS reveal themselves if we allow that process to ultimately expose bad ideas/shit person.

the free flow of ideas is the proverbial rope that ultimately hangs all shit ideas.

thanks for hanging kids.
love you all!

You treat the internet as if it is something intrinsic to itself, but it's just simple, open, freeform communication, programmed and hypertextualized to be pleasing to the eye. You're here communicating with us on the internet and getting your point across. Everyone should be allowed to do the same without restriction. It should be considered a human right.

Mhm, would have been awesome with a person like Clinton as president who bullied Bernie out of the race and then Bernie kissed her ass, as if nothing happened, pretty much selling his soul to the devil. Much better than Trump. Mhm. For sure.

Not to mention Trump isnt even president yet.

What really makes me angry, is seeing such MASSIVE and unbelievably disgusting hypocrisy from the "good guys". In the last few months you guys completely changed my opinion about humanity and the world that we are living in. Congratulations.

Yeah, I know how allergic you guys react to un-PC stuff and people who try to make reality clear to you. So, you can save your replies.

But I agree. Grow the fuck up and fix your system, dont allow corrupt... individuals and whole god damn parties to speak for you, dont vote for them, dont support them in any way, speak up against lying media campaigns, even if they are against someone you dont like or for someone you support, and then maybe we can talk about real freedom of speech, democracy and human rights. Until then NOBODY, N O B O D Y with at least half a brain will take you seriously and will only see you as what you really are.

You should read what Trump supporting veterans say about him: Belligerent and entitled; a shame to military servicemen. No joke, in the fucking comments of the USAT article.

Some people even had the gall to say this veteran's shameful actions will harm Chili's business and that he shouldn't have fought over the meal. He should have been the bigger man and left without a free dinner, because military people don't sweat the small stuff -- you know, the small stuff, like human rights violations.

See what I'm doing? I'm breaking the influence of your echo chamber so you can hear the reasonable arguments from the Trump supporters you've been ignoring while you remain clueless talking with all your liberal friends about propaganda.

Come on, the reasonable qualities of racism are important issues largely being ignored by the left. At least listen. lolllllllllllll

Nothing is going to get done in Congress because the animosity between the two parties at this point in Congress is at Defcon 1. Bipartisanship is completely DOA. Both sides are just looking to criticize the other while crafting the narrative that their side is the one that knows what's best for the American people.

I think what you're going to see more of are things like what's happening in Hawaii. State representatives are going to realize the untapped voter potential that's out there by crafting gun laws before Congress does. In fact, probably the best solution to this problem right now is for States to work with each other and standardize all disparate gun laws across the U.S.

The real question here is how the Supreme Court is going to view these state laws when they (inevitably) get challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Scalia is gone now, so I honestly don't know how the Court will decide. But if you look at how gay marriage was essentially legalized in the U.S. state-by-state, I think you can see a road-map to how gun control laws could follow a similar path.

What's missing right now is an advocacy group that cares as much about this issue as the NRA does about "gun rights." It's easier to get people behind the legalization of gay marriage because it's a human rights issue and at the end of the day most people have a relative or friend (or several of each) who is affected. Sadly, it may take a day to come when everyone has a relative or friend who has suffered from gun violence to get the same kind of groundswell necessary to nudge things meaningfully forward.

You spent that entire dialogue pretending he said everyone and all behavior is equally preferable / moral, when he was actually saying that fundamental human rights are fundamental - we don't have freedom of speech because all speech is fantastic, we don't have freedom of religion because all religion is fantastic - we have those rights in spite of shitty speech like yours and in spite of shitty religion. Then you declared victory because you were victorious in not listening to him.

Why do you think that makes anyone the least bit interested in being 'next' to engage you?

@Mordhaus

"We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. "

Don't you think that that idea is outdated in 2016? Fine, that's the culture. Change the fucking culture.

When I grew up in Ireland, nobody gave a second thought to driving drunk. Sunday after church, people went to the pub, had a few pints with the neighbours, the kids played space invaders and then the whole family got back in the car and drove home.

And most of the time, it was absolutely fine. People got home, there was the occasional accident, but ya know, what can ya do?

Until it wasn't fine. And it took decades, but eventually, it became socially unacceptable to drive drunk.

"I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision."
I get that. But be reasonable. You're ok with not letting people fly, but you draw the line at owning weapons?

That is some fucked up list of priorities. I would be far more concerned with restricting someones right to travel (essentially restricting their freedom of movement, or a lighter form of incarceration) than whether they can own a gun.

You say that owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas travel isn't. I say that freedom of movement is a fundamental basic human right... oh, look at that, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

I'm completely willing to say that it should be a lot harder to put someone on this kind of list, but there's no way the right to own a weapon is more important than freedom of movement.

Finally, re: slippery slopes
"The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights."

The Patriot Act wasn't a slippery slope, it started at the bottom of the slope and went straight over a fucking cliff. It should never have been passed in the first place.

What is really sad is that the post that seemed to set Newt off irt me is:

Newt, srsly mate, you're overdoing the point. BB is right here, the word she chooses to define herself as is her business regardless of what that word means to you.

What matters is her attitude, and she has clearly and repeatedly espoused equality for all. I don't agree with everything she has put forward, but on that she has been very consistent. Now you're just doing what she mentioned earlier, keeping the conversation bouncing along on a thin pretext way past it's point of usefulness.

Do you see any gender politics in there one way or the other? The right to self determination includes Bareboard's right to identify as whatever she wants, and that is (or should be) a standard human right that humanists would hold pretty sacred. Right?

Newt keeps trying to turn it in to "The 3rd wave feminazis are trying to tear me down" so he doesn't come off looking like the total twat he's made of himself in this thread, but that's not the conversation that occurred, at least imo.