The narratives about Trump thread.


Yes, I suppose watching their feeble hopes being ground into dust is punishment enough. This is the first step in preparing themselves for Trump’s second term.


Democracy is a system of government in which two foxes and a chicken vote on what to have for dinner so, for me, a president like Donald Trump is a dream come true. Completely incompetent, unable to get anything done. As long as he’s in charge I’m safe.




Is this true, O Great One? @discobot fortune


:crystal_ball: Outlook not so good


Don’t take the GE’s name in vain, Ibby! :rage:


So those poor souls cannot even rely on the God Emperor’s forgiveness…?

What a wretched existence. May the God Emperor have mercy on their souls.


First, they must repent for their sins and say ten Hail Melanias.


So there’s still hope!

The God Emperor giveth, the God Emperor taketh.


Quite a long listen with an interview with Katy Tur who was covering the Trump campaign and provides interesting insight from the point of view of a Journalist who was often on the receiving end of Trumps calling out the press at his rallies, but worth it if you like to listen to podcasts.


The future is certainly cloudy in America, As Donald Trump implodes and Democrats form their usual circular firing squad when things don’t go their way flying the coop for good is looking like the best choice.


They have souls?


Shh, don’t tell Azathoth! :zipper_mouth_face:


China seems to do OK without it.

We have two things here, expression and speech. One is more physical form of the other.
If someone wants to give a platform to people who espouse their joys and pleasures of pederasty, rape, racial superiority, ethnic cleansing, and genocide then that would be free speech in common parlance, no?

Isn’t the response to that itself freedom of speech/expression? Shouldn’t people who disagree be afforded the same rights and protections? Or is it a one-way street?


China an ok place?



As this university Professor notes, there are clear limits to free speech.

free speech is not absolute and can be punished when it incites illegal activity, constitutes a “true threat” that causes a person to fear imminent harm to his or her physical safety, or rises to the level of prohibited harassment.

Clearly pederasty, rape, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are illegal and inciting physical harm. Not free speech.

That leaves racial superiority. You would need to do this across the board, Muslims talking of infidels, Jewish people who think of themselves as superior, Christians, White people, black people, Asian people. But let’s just talk about Neo-Nazi’s and white supremacists, everyone hates the Nazi’s.

Except who gets to decide who the Nazi’s are? The term is thrown around so loosely as a means to shut down someone you simply disagree with and then claim “hate speech is not free speech”

Well, actually yes it is. Precisely because of the potential misuse of this claim. It really is opening the flood gates and the people pushing this narrative, REALLY haven’t thought through the consequences of this.

It seems this conversation comes up every generation or so, in my generation which was late 80’s early 90’s we were having this discussion with regard the internet, free speech was one out of half a dozen topics that were being discussed and as a result some organizations like the EFF were set up.

Good honest people who want to protect the rights of people, like you and me, not a bunch of racist , sexist, homophobic Islamophobic bigots. So it’s not surprising after the shocking events at Charlottesville to see them weigh in.

But all they are doing in essence is reaching the same conclusions that were reached back in the 60’s when the civil rights movement was going on and cases were being held that now form the basis of today’s freedom of speech laws.


I don’t know if it’s true but apparently trump ate kong pow chicken and seafood chowder in china :joy: and of course he ate burgers in Japan…, I hope it’s at least Kobe beef burgers.


The Soviet Union had constitutionally protected “freedom of speech” too.

Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.
Adopted at the Seventh (Special) Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Ninth Convocation On October 7, 1977

True freedom of speech which allows the expression of any idea short of explicit threats or slander is an unattainable ideal and it’s time to drop the pretense, particularly in an age in which even western democracies are degenerating into police states.


I get the feeling that those Asian governments spent a lot of time analyzing Trump and decided in the end that the way you treat him is like a child-king. Entertain him, give him all the pomp, make him feel like an emperor, and everything goes smooth from there. Having him sit and watch Peking opera though, that seems like a subtle nasty move, they were probably giggling behind the curtains watching him suffer during that performance.


I think we came up at the same time.

I belive you hit it directly on the head. Hate speech should not be allowed, but who gets to define hate speech? To paraphrase Justice Potter, I don’t know what hate speech is, but I know it when I hear it. Is kinda where we are at.

You are also right is is a generational thing. We have a generation of kids that have been brought up to believe that the US constitution is an absolute document and is infallible. I can say what I want, when I want and no one can do anything about it. This is a fallacy to nth degree. While the constitution does put limits on the governments power and is quite explicit in doing so, it also grants the government way more power than people think and it has been that way since its initial ratification. Your rights can be curbed, they just cannot be curbed haphazardly. That said, it is my firm belief that constitutional arguments are not simply legal, but rather moral arguments instead.

When I was finishing high school, I read an article from Robert Bork, a rightists rightist who was nominated by Reagan for a seat on the Supreme Court that ultimately went to Kennedy. He wrote about freedom of speech, which at the time was a brewing topic. It was a changing landscape of American TV at the time. Pushing the limits, if you will. To paraphrase him, he said that you have the absolute right to spew whatever filth you deem necessary. But, you do not have the right to do at 3am on a loudspeaker.

He was effectively saying that speech can be regulated. Justices over time have ruled just that.

At focus of my argument was Milo speaking at UC Berkeley and the protests that lead to the cancellation of his talk. Later, Ann Coulter would fall to the same forces. [Milo is a walking contadiction. He is an openly gay Jewish Greek, who openly and proudly supports the Golden Dawn, an ultra-rightwing nationalist group that wants an ethnically pure Greece and hates Jews and homosexuals.] Milo has been open about and is seemingly supportive of man/boy love. A viewpoint that lost him his gig at Breitbart. Ann Coulter has view points so outrageous, I think they are just random thoughts that sprout into her head. Her views are so radical, I think Fox News brings her on just so they can say “See? We are not so bad!” Even Breitbart won’t give her a platform.

I would tend to disagree that not allowing them to speak, or domains shutting down hate groups, is a “slippery slope.” As with domains, Twitter, FB, Forumosa, or whatever it is simply a private group doing what is legally afforded to them as long as it is applied consistently. You cannot say “no cursing!” then allow some people to curse, while restricting others.

Sorry for so long reply.