The problem is all of this discussion is talking past each in an attempt to stick people with "icky" labels. Right and left as originally conceived in the French Revolution have almost nothing to do with right or left now. These are just bats to beat people with. When someone on the left says the Nazis are "right wing" despite sharing almost no views with the "right wing" in any modern country they are just trying to use labels to fight. Its the same from the right in trying to say the Nazis were socialists. Sure they were socialists (Snopes is great for debunking internet rumors but have no intellectual heft for thoughtfully discussing serious history) but almost nothing like the modern left of socialist democracies. Its just stupid labels all the way around. But thinking beyond labels is hard.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Hate Speech: 'You Have No Place on Our Platform'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is all of this discussion is talking past each in an attempt to stick people with "icky" labels. Right and left as originally conceived in the French Revolution have almost nothing to do with right or left now. These are just bats to beat people with. When someone on the left says the Nazis are "right wing" despite sharing almost no views with the "right wing" in any modern country they are just trying to use labels to fight. Its the same from the right in trying to say the Nazis were socialists. Sure they were socialists (Snopes is great for debunking internet rumors but have no intellectual heft for thoughtfully discussing serious history) but almost nothing like the modern left of socialist democracies. Its just stupid labels all the way around. But thinking beyond labels is hard.
Fair enough. If you can't defend your position, we'll just give a free pass and accept your rhetoric as gospel.
NOT
Now...
Minorities have not been exclusively oppressed by whites. Minorities, native Indians, people of color, etc. have oppressed and have been at war with each other also throughout history. Heck, whites have oppressed other whites.
Yes, I would oppose such a law. I generally believe that we should prioritize individual liberties to a greater extent than we currently do and to the greatest extent reasonably possible. Of course, organizing as societies means that we necessarily give up some degree of individual liberty. But it doesn't require that we give up individual liberty to the extent we currently do. And what you're suggesting would further limit individual liberty (i.e. in so far as government curtailment of such is concerned).
Beyond my own ideological preferences, the kind of law you're referring to - if my sense of what you're suggesting is more or less correct - would likely have constitutional problems. We've long interpreted free speech as including freedom from government-compelled speech (with some exceptions). Generally speaking, the government can't compel one to speak just as it can't prohibit them from speaking. So, e.g., a newspaper generally couldn't be required to publish thoughts it didn't want to publish. Likewise, an online forum generally couldn't be required to host speech it didn't want to host.
OHHHH, so it's OK...is that what you are saying? Were blacks in America the ONLY slaves the world has ever seen? Were they the only people ever repressed? (not justifying it, just trying to figure out why you think this is OK)
Not saying its ok, just saying the scenario isnt a clear 1:1.
[doublepost=1543962928][/doublepost]
Please tell me more which race has an imperialistic grip on the world right now
Right now? Where? Here in the West only? That argument is so weak and ignorant. But justify racism however you want. I don't care if that crap stays on iTunes...n fact I prefer that crap to be out in the open but to say it's OK because whites have power is just dumb.
I didnt say its ok. I said its not as bad, and if you fail to see why read some history
I somewhat agree with you on the notion that everything we think about is tainted by personal bias. Having said that, someone who opposes another person's views, should therefore be able to pick out exactly where that person is "objectively" wrong? No?
It's actually quite annoying, since I almost never hear any compelling arguments come from the left for any of the popular issues that they stand for or believe in. I am personally a centrist so I carefully assess each individual issue and make up my mind, but the right really has been more productive when it comes to making the arguments. I mean, it's always the right wingers who are asking liberals to come onto their show or just to talk, almost always having them decline the offers.
Think of it what you will.
It's the easiest to just use group identities when talking about oppression. It's what the left loves. It allows a non-white person, who was born after the year 2000, to claim victimhood because people who had the same skin colour as them had it bad in the past. Even though they have not experienced any slavery or enforced government segregation.
Last edited:
So you're saying that you're literally are considering the possibility of coming over and attaching yourself to my body? You are a liar.
I’m sorry, I don’t see how the white race has an imperialistic grip on the world right now. We may be the majority population wise, but that doesn’t mean that we rule the world somehow.
Everyone should beware of Tim Cook and the other 'Masters of the Universe' deciding what is "hate speech" and what is not. Because while today it may not include you, tomorrow it damn sure might. In their world, dissent is not allowed and that should frighten anyone that thinks freely.
where did he say he liked ms-13, or are you just stupid?
[doublepost=1543967785][/doublepost]
I know right? weren't the guns already supposed to be taken away by Bill Clinton? or was it Obama? or was it every other democratic president? maybe next time!!! /s
guessing you missed the Clinton ban? and every single democrat keeps trying to endlessly regulate them.
disarm and regulate.....wonder if these words are the same....... im sure you can go out and buy enough guns to pretend you're a militant who will fight the government and save the world, and always will be. republicans love to give into fear of guns being taken away
oh please. you guys wish you could regulate them into obscurity. not one more inch.........
Objectivity is generally only applicable when something is quantifiable. For example, when someone on the right says there are objectively only two genders, that's fundamentally incompatible with the view on the left, where it's seen as more of a spectrum separate from biological sex. An abstract, unquantifiable concept.
Also, the left does not enjoy engaging with the right anymore because the modern right tends to argue in bad faith. They will drag you down to their level and then chastise you for being there.
As for modern centrism...
Centrism used to be its own thoughtful place on the political spectrum, rather than trying to be a medium between the left and the right.
Last edited:
This is really only a valid criticism if we're to believe that those on either side of the spectrum are completely honest about their intentions and open to in-depth arguments based in logic and facts.
Often people are not, and usually they all tend to fall in the same end of the spectrum.
Your response is a perfect example of playing into fear.
[doublepost=1543969908][/doublepost]
his job as CEO is to do whatever he wants.