Never having to fear financial disruption due to an opinion does afford one a sense of liberty. No company is going to fire your shares and stop sending dividends.

jon's clever attempt to sway public opinion on a fools tweet lines his pockets with book royalties and speaking fees. He's profiting from a special kind of sinister back door racism. It enriches him financially and psychologically with the praises from the suckers who are being told to all go buy his book.

The very thought of being embarrassed or shamed by profiting from racism in a country built by slaves is truly hilarious. No matter if you stand or take a knee all are paying rent or interest.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

Blaine is a pain. But if we resurrect George Carlin to voice act him that could be fun.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this, they've clearly taken liberties, but then most of what I have seen could still fit into the lore of the books.

I like the casting choices, but it looks like they took a lot of liberties with the story. I'll have to watch more trailers before I get a solid idea.

Would seem fitting for the Walkin Dude to be posting of his exploits. Hollywood remix of the story seems to take many liberties but one must hope The Writer has blessed and guided it still.

No, I'm aware of the difference, and I meant patriotism.

From your article:
"Patriotism is fundamental to liberty because pride in one’s nation-state, and a willingness to defend it if necessary, is the basis of national independence. Patriotism is the courage of national self-determination."

If you believe national independence and national self-determination are good things, then yes.

But it's still just another form of tribalism.

I am happy for people to defend IDEAS, but the concept that there are "French values" or "American values" seems increasingly silly to me.

There are ideas I support and ideas I oppose and the nationality of those espousing them should be irrelevant. I don't blame all Americans for Trump (especially since most of them didn't vote for him) any more than I credit all Germans for Einstein.

Again, I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, since I'm not even really sure of my own position. I'm very proud of both my country of birth and my adopted homeland.

I just wonder if patriotism isn't something that's ultimately bad for us as a species.

On my tablet, each individual we rented an airbnb from in Iceland automatically had their chosen profile picture attached to each email, and many were landscape or building photos, so this part at least is not so odd. I'm just guessing it works the same on cell phones, I don't have one.

It is ironic that a civil liberties counselor had this happen, but that's probably why it gained attention. This kind of thing happens daily, but usually not so blatantly or with such a clear 'paper trail' of emails. It still could be fake, but anyone with 1/2 a brain would know that faking something like this will be exposed quickly and ruin their future, so I hope it's not.

A comment from Youtube:
"So, this horrible and blatant act of racism happened to occur to a former ACLU civil liberties counselor who majored in Critical Race Studies -- described as a major aimed at "naming one's own reality" by "using narrative to illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression." Isn't it ironic and unfortunate that this would happen to her of all people?

What's also a little ironic is that Ms. Suh not only received these texts from a "Tami," but also happens to have a Facebook friend named "Tami" who posts on Facebook about "Tiny House Listings" -- a house rental service.

Speaking of which, it's kind of interesting that Tami showed up as "Tami" on Ms. Suh's phone, rather than as a phone number, isn't it? And there's a photo for Tami too. That means Tami is saved as a contact. It's a little odd for some random Airbnb host that Ms. Suh never met in-person to be a contact with a photo on her phone, isn't it?

Interestingly, if you look at Facebook-friend "Tami's" photos, they're all sort of artistic, colorful photos of inanimate objects -- just like Tami's photo in the texts.

If I didn't know better, I would almost, almost think that this stilted, formal, perfect little racist exchange between house-renter Tami and critical race studies major Ms. Suh, and the passionately tearful speech in the rain that followed -- why was she making speeches in the rain anyway? -- was, in fact, a carefully constructed "narrative" that Ms. Suh conspired to create with her Facebook-friend Tami.

But hey, that couldn't be right, could it?"

Hmmmm...

@ChaosEngine

hehe,specifically it was a dude i was in boot camp with.he was a massive hendrix and zeppelin fan and was not into sabbath.which of course our first liberty we both got drunk and traded our favorite songs from both bands.

but i even heard it when i moved to jacksonville florida.everybody told me that zeppelin were the masters of metal and sabbath were only good for a couple of songs.

say whaaaaaaaa?

i had to show them the error of their ways.

The unemployment numbers of 28, 29, 35, and 42% is a weird sequence. So he starts by jumping 1%, then 6%, then 7%. So if we keep the pattern going if could be: 1 6 7 13 20 33 53. It may have been 28, 29, I heard 35, maybe 42, could even be 55, even as high as 88 or *gasp* 141%.

Or it could be up by 1, then up by 5, up by 1 and then up by 5 as in: 1 6 7 12 13 18 19 24 25

But since he stopped at 42, let's get the range: 42 - 28 = 14

Since it's America and it's somewhat appropriate, in the mystical ways of presidential numerology (the only way to understand Trump), the range of 14 must be referring to the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

There are some valid points here, but I think there are multiple interpretations to these issues and it's not so clear cut.

I'll just pick an easy one. Trigger warnings are no more a restriction of free speech then calling a movie rated R VS PG13, it's just more specific, so lets get that out of the way. Take a read of a classic like John Stuart Mills “On Liberty”. He does a great dissemination of freedom and balancing it with causing harm developing the harm principle and the offense principle. It's well thought out and addresses these very issues. There is a recognition that free speech should be regulated depending on if it causes harm. For instance it's illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater since it could cause harm from a stampede of people trying to leave. I apologize if I get things wrong, but the following is my understanding here, but look here if you're interested. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Theory_of_liberty)

It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense. This means that harm is less universal and depends on the individual and it leads to the idea of separating spaces based on the line between offense and harm. My understanding is the idea of rating systems, red light districts come from this. Also, now, a newer concept of safe spaces. It's easy to say that people should just suck it up, but it's not always that clear cut and there is historical precedence for this idea.

Here you go, don't test the nerds

Oct 22, 2015
"To call the Glowforge a 3D laser printer isn’t quite right. But the liberties the machine’s three co-founders have taken with the name are really more for the sake of having an intelligible way to describe a working laser cutter that’s the size of a desktop yet can perform the functions of the hulking, 700-plus pounds, $10,000-plus laser CNC cutter-engravers that are found in makerspaces and garages.
“I had a traditional laser cutter in my garage, and I would show it to people all the time,” says co-founder Dan Shapiro. “They would say, ‘Your laser printer is amazing.’ I’d say, ‘That’s not a laser printer.’ … At some point I learned the business advice that you’re supposed to be learning from your customers rather than lecturing to them.”
The machine Shapiro and co-founders Tony Wright and Mark Gosselin have created from their headquarters in downtown Seattle is really a laser cutter. It’s a subtractive manufacturing tool, as opposed to the additive nature of 3D printers." - Fortune Magazine

@Fairbs
while i agree that russia is the aggressor in regards to crimea,can you provide evidence that our election was hacked by russia?

was there actually cyberspying going on?
probably,all major nation states play that game,and all deny participating.(looking at you china).

because i see a LOT of accusations,and declarations of russian hacking,but i don't see any actual..you know..evidence.so i remain skeptical of the russian hacking meme,and am even MORE skeptical that the hacking was intentionally to give trump an edge.

and you are right,maddow simply reported the troop deployment in poland.she reported that this deployment was rushed,and before schedule,,,

and then she did something very curious.
she posits the question,and implies that it will answer a previous question..that she does not actually STATE..but "after all the worry.we are actually about to find out..if...maybe..russia has something on the new president"?

this is the old "i am not saying your sister is a whore..i am just saying your sister is a whore".

she never directly speaks of russian hacks.
she never directly accuses putin of influencing our election.
she just puts it out there,that if trump withdraws troops,then maybe..possibly..he is sucking putins cock.

i'm juuuust saying.
with all due respect...
your sisters a whore.

look man,i adore maddow and i love her analysis,but can we have a moment of honesty here?
she is fairly biased,and is particular on the stories she will cover,and during the run up to the election and even during..she has engaged in some serious apologetics in regards to hillary clinton.

as for the host from secular talk.
this is just his opinion.maybe he did take some liberties,and made some assumptions but i agree with him on calling maddow out for her dog whistle tactics.

lately the democrats have been beating this drum like indians on meth,and when i see so many tv pundits all beating the same tune,without providing tangible evidence....my bullshit alarm starts to go off.

That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.