Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 "Free speech isn’t contingent on democracy" Phil. Well, it is. Think about the origins of western Democracy. Think Greek and Athens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 And of of course it needs to be protected. Only the peoples can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Now I see what the title of the thread is referring to...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 "Moving on".“American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens Yes, the old world articled those thoughts you merely copied....oops, forgot about the gun thing...fastest on the draw......all yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) "Moving on".“American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens" a bag full of sht... Yet black folks were still hanged from trees at that time by the KKK.....and today the KKK are still on the streets. Edited July 12, 2018 by Allen Herbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvR9Yf_g8lE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Suicide. Not a lynching... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 This Striking Image Shows A Different Side Of America's Racist History Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 KKK still exists in your Democracy; today. They hanged black men because they were black. The KKK still preaches their hate today, If I was a American I would hold my head down in shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 something about...love is all you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Is there any actual photographers on PN or just mouth organs, spouting politics.... without a single photo to offer among them. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 Plato and the Disaster of Democracy The politics of mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 You should definitely limit your words to pictures. Much as you have limited your reading to picture books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Yet black folks were still hanged from trees at that time by the KKK Uh again, you might want to review history. There was no KKK “at that time”. You are making a Fool of yourself..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidTriplett Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Allen, you have crossed a line once again where you previously described your own behavior as "rude and out of order." I'll not honor your behavior with further attention nor responses, and I recommend likewise to others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 I’ve said my piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Well, pretty soon we can't discuss anything anymore. Unless you want photography that only fits within a pre-approved narrative. If I'm ever going to be an artist, then it's my responsibility to speak up against any suppression of free speech, and I don't give a rat's ass on which side you are. How is your un-relenting belligerence on most any topic not an implied suppression of free speech? You keep throwing out your liberal this or that memes that are so general in nature that they are both polemic and programmed, and its pretty much b.s. Distortions often have a seed of truth in them that gives them power, but at the end of the day, they really are just distorted truth. So how are you not simply projecting what you think you are on everyone else and demanding respect for it and then attacking anyone when they don't roll over on you? Sorry, you just sound like a bright but angry child who throw tantrums in order to get their way and I think you are a lot better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 "...such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." “American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. The Electoral College mechanism present in the indirect United States presidential electionsystem, and the phenomenon of faithless electors allowed for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent such a scenario, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for an authoritarian, dictatorial or other system of oppressive government.[3] As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".[4]” Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia Yes, and look at the current result. It seems the electoral college is failing in that task depending on your point of view :) People should understand that the U.S. isn't a democracy, its a Republic based on democratic principals which is different structurally from a pure democracy. The idea of a Republic was exactly to avoid a "tyranny of the majority" whereby by mere numbers they could trample the rights of anyone outside the majority. The electoral college was another institution to attempt the same. Its just in the modern age, with digitalized and instant communication, its an open topic on the efficacy of the college. I think it was Buckminster Fuller who floated the idea of instant balloting on any issue. The underlying assumption in all these systems is that people will educate themselves about the issue/s and vote accordingly. Problem is, any democratic system is dependent on a responsible public, but I think the polarization in society has basically created two opposing "tribes" who pre-concieve every issue according to whom they identify with. This is enforced by the power of media, particularly social media, that when manipulated, weaponizes language usually in the form of "them" or "us" and each claiming the moral high ground. This mangling of ideas and values is a death knell of any democratically formed country and it seems to just be getting worse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Additionally...... From the same link.... While James Madison referred to the same idea as "the violence of majority faction" in The Federalist Papers, for example Federalist 10, the phrase "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788.[8] It was also used by Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), where he said that "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny." It was further popularised by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859). The Federalist Papers and the phrase (in translation) is used at least once in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879).[9] Ayn Rand wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual".[10] We see this playing out in the current atmosphere of Democrat legislators publicly encouraging harassment en masse of anyone expressing a differing political view with the explicit purpose of suppression of speech. Well, basically that was Democratic legislator (Maxine Waters) who stated that and it was objected to by other Democratic legislators. Ann Rand, never accepted the tension between public good and individual good as valid. The logical extension of her beliefs are basically untenable in a nation. Individual rights of expression should and are protected constitutionally, but there are limits to certain individual rights. Society also has a right to function for its own benefit within the limits of the law and this is also founded in the Constitution. Obviously, laws that prevent individuals and groups from trampling the rights of other individuals and groups are patently necessary, I just don't agree with her positions on these matters. As for students on campuses screaming at conservative speakers it is not much different than Trump rally's where audiences threaten to beat up reporters and other "lefties" or demand to "lock up" political opponents . People have the right to express their opinions for or against regardless of their beliefs. If people don't like university students screaming at conservative speakers, they can just scream back. What's good for the goose is good for the gander goes the saying. You can't say one group is suppressing free speech and the other doing similar things are not. Free speech is free speech, it doesn't apply differently to the right, left, middle, upside down or whatever. This attack on "liberals" suppressing free speech is just the same thing in another guise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Oh no, you don’t get to have it both ways. You don’t get to thoughtlessly malign me because I’m not blindly following some ill-informed ideological narrative and because I’m not neatly checking off all of your preferred little boxes and because you can’t come up with any valid counter-argument to all the points that I’ve raised. You don’t get to then turn around and say I am the one who is suppressing discourse. Nope, that’s not how it works. Have some self-respect already. What is it that you want me to say? What is your aim? What do you expect out of this continued exchange which I'm not asking for? I’m not interested either way, you’ve blown that chance. I've not expecting anything from you. I really don't have "boxes" I need you to check off and you know what I said wasn't thoughtless. I just wanted you to look at how you go about expressing yourself and instead of justifying it, learn something from it. It seems to me that you are the one who is following some as you say, "ill formed ideological narrative". What I would like to see is simply that you express your ideas more civilly. You don't have to browbeat anyone who doesn't agree with you. You rail on the idea of anyone suppressing discourse, but you don't seem to see how you are doing exactly that with your aggression, anger and bombast. That's all, I think its immature and you can do better, you are obviously intelligent and passionate. You think I'm just interested in putting you down, but that's really not it. I don't expect you to agree with me. But know that sometimes I do agree with some of your statements. So there you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) Uh again, you might want to review history. There was no KKK “at that time”. You are making a Fool of yourself..... Its true that the KKK did lynch several blacks in their time. But M.O. is correct that they didn't exist at that time. They formed in December of 1865. Here's a brief summary from History.com. I can't resist saying that some would say that attempted suppression of the KKK was a liberal plot to suppress free speech, though at the time, the "liberals" were Republicans and reconstruction was itself a very liberal plan. Though in fairness the government attacks on the KKK was more interested in the suppressing the intimidation and lynchings and not so much the speech, though to some, (no one here) a lynching can be a form of speech, technically speaking as is flag burning as another example. Edited July 13, 2018 by Uhooru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 . . . and of course, a lynching is really just murder, pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman 202 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 The electoral college was another institution to attempt the same. Barry, is anyone arguing for a reform of the electoral college given how it “failed” the majority of voters in the last election. Failed in the sense the person with the most votes lost. (This is not an attempt to delegitimise Trump’s “victory” just that the result, mathematically speaking, seems odd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) Barry, is anyone arguing for a reform of the electoral college given how it “failed” the majority of voters in the last election. Failed in the sense the person with the most votes lost. (This is not an attempt to delegitimise Trump’s “victory” just that the result, mathematically speaking, seems odd) Sorry Norman, I thought that Moving On's reference about the electoral college seemed it was responding to some applied comment somewhere and so he included it in his post. Apologize to Moving On if that wasn't his intent. But also, it seemed related to the topic on the Constitution so I commented. It was a weird result, as was Bush v Gore which have spurred obvious debates on that system. One such position might be that the "winner take all" provision of 48 of the states is unfair and leads to skewed results. One argument against that position is the electoral system in integral to our Federalist system which protects the small states from being overwhelmed by large states, protecting minorities from majority excesses. To me it seems that it tends to disenfranchise voters in a certain way. But I doubt it will change at this point. Anyways, I digress.....did I answer you Norman? Sorry if I got longwinded. Edited July 13, 2018 by Uhooru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now