Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

TLK Valentine · Apr 26, 2021

LockeeDeck said:
A lot of factors entered into that specific situation and I don't think politicians played any major part in that. Specifically no one involved claimed to be doing it because of a specific leader.

I ask again, is a leader responsible for their followers actions if they are acting in the leaders name?

I'm curious about what you think of my response in post #165:

A leader needs to make their "will" clear to their followers. If they send mixed signals by accident, they're not very competent leaders, and they're at fault for their ignorance.

If they deliberately send mixed signals -- saying "do this" and then claiming "I didn't really mean it" when some of their followers actually do "this" -- then clearly they knew what they were saying was wrong, and shouldn't be allowed to slither out of it.

It's the Nuremburg Defense in reverse. Given that "I was just following orders" is neither morally nor legally acceptable, then "I was just giving orders, but I didn't really mean it," isn't either.

Only when a leader makes their will clear -- "do this, this, and this... but don't do that!" and his followers go ahead and do "that" anyway -- can we hold the leader blameless.

Thoughts?

TLK Valentine · Apr 26, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
Who controls that court?

That would depend on what part of the country the followers ran amuck in, wouldn't it?

LockeeDeck · Apr 26, 2021

TLK Valentine said:
I'm curious about what you think of my response in post #165:

Thoughts?

You are thorough in your response, I don't have much to add. In general I would agree, being clear in your intent is a requirement for a leader and failure to do that means the leader should still be responsible for the outcome of that misunderstanding. I would like to get the thoughts on this subject from the Trump defending posters.

A small thing I would disagree with is that it would be tricky to attribute malice to misunderstanding though as sometimes malice and incompetence are indistinguishable.

NotreDame · Apr 27, 2021

RestoreTheJoy said:
In reality, Trump told attendees at the rally to walk down to the Capitol and make their voices peacefully, patriotically heard, as I have already said. Your ludicrous assertion that "I must deny it" is false on its face. Read the posts. I stated so more than once, if I recall correctly (not just once).

Most declined and went home. A couple hundred walked down. Fewer climbed up and came in. The entire event was concluded in about 3-4 HOURS after it began. I said all of this before.

He told them to "fight like hell for their country" metaphorically, rhetorically, in exactly the same way that all politicians use the word. These are the metaphorical, rhetorical uses of the word ‘fight', which hypocrites seem to only understand when it is done by people of whom they approve, yet feign outrage when someone else uses exactly the same language.

Trump was not in any way telling anyone to use physical violence. That just did not happen.

Congress people and other office holders or seeker do this ALL THE TIME. Warren has told people to fight. Harris has told people to fight, and to stay in the streets and continue, even after the ongoing riots. "They should not stop", she said. Maxine Waters has done it repeatedly, most recently in the tinderbox situation of the Chauvin trial, which was horrifically irresponsible, given the situation. Chuck Schumer has told people to fight. Cory Booker has told people to fight. Castro said Democrats would "fight Trump the Congress, in the Courts and in the streets".

Pelosi said to her inexplicable followers after half a century that they have to "be ready to punch".

It is acceptable for them. But for some nonsensical reason, when Trump says "if you don't fight like hell, you aren't going to have a country anymore", suddenly it is interpreted hypocritically by the very supporters that praise the ongoing violence in the streets for the past year, as well as use terms like "fight" for every kind of speech and event when they don't like something.

Get out of here with that ridiculous hypocrisy. That's all I'm saying. If Maxine Waters is walking around free, and all the others who use such language regularly to advocate their views without retaliation, just put a sock in it.

Remove the hypocrisy, and I will listen to rational views to dial back the fighting language and support them.

And yes, I have most decidedly been in positions of leadership (though not in politics). Even in Little League, they are told to "keep on fighting!" In hockey, basketball, football...you name it.

Context matters. You are not comparing parallel contexts for some of your examples, and there are a lack of facts pertaining to the other examples you reference to properly determine whether they are parallel enough to Trump’s use of the phrase to support the allegation of hypocrisy and infer Trump’s use of a phrase was permissible.

To suggest, as you have, the phrase “keep on fighting” in the context of sports is analogous to the entirety of Trump’s speech and the facts surrounding the speech, is an untenable comparison. The reason the comparison is untenable is based on the facts and context in which Trump made his speech and used a phrase with the word “fight” in the phrase and speech. Those facts and context surrounding Trump’s speech will be highlighted before.

But first it is perhaps helpful to first explore the soundness of your reasoning.

Somehow, you’ve treated phrases with the word “fight” in it to be equal, such that if someone else used the word “fight,” and it was at least ostensibly permissible, then Trump’s use of the word “fight” in his speech is also permissible. It isn’t sound logic to think, without more, that since Maxine, Schumer, Harris, Warren, at some point in time used the word “fight” in a phrase also means Trump’s use of the word “fight” was lawful, permitted, or acceptable. This ignores the possibility, no excludes as impossible that Trump’s use of the word “fight” in a phrase cannot be justified or permissible by the fact others have used the word “fight” in a phrase.

Person X says, “I’ll kill you.” Person Y says, “I’ll kill you.” Based on your logic, the fact Y used the exact same phrase as X would mean it was okay for Y to say the phrase because X said it without repercussions. Yet, with context, and facts, X made the phrase by saying, “John, I love bro, but you are the king of tweeting spoilers too soon. If you ruin the final episode of Game of Thrones by tweeting spoilers too soon, I’ll kill you.” And person Y made the phrase by saying, “If you call the police on me for what I did, then I’ll kill you.”

One phrase lawfully uses the word “kill” while another phrase unlawfully uses the word “kill.” The use of the word “kill” is permissible in one phrase, but not in the other.

So, context and facts matter in reaching a determination whether some word was lawfully or unlawfully used, whether some use of a word was permissible, and observing others used the word doesn’t inform whether the word used in a phrase elsewhere is permissible or lawful.

The suggestion of hypocrisy is not established. There’s not enough information provided in the posts to say Chucky’s, Harris, Warren, or Waters use of the word “fight” is similar to Donny’s, such that any repudiation of the latter is hypocritical where repudiation of those other 4 is absent.

And so what if there is hypocrisy? This doesn’t exonerate Trump. Yes, it can both be true that Trump’s speech and use of the word “fight” was impermissible, improper, amd that those making this true statement are hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn’t negate or preclude the truth value of a statement, conclusion, or claim.

And, calling for violence, advocating for violence, need not be explicitly stated or else it never happens. Yes, advocating violence, calling for violence, can be so strongly implied by the facts surrounding the comments, and based on the entirety of the comments themselves, as to constitute as the equivalent of explicitly advocacy.

To properly assess Trump’s use of the word “fight,” and whether he incited the crowd to violence, requires looking at the totality of the speech and the events leading up to his speech.

Prior to January 6, Trump spent weeks teeeting to his loyal followers, and in certain media outlets, the election was stolen, the election was a fraud. Trump formally recognized in a tweet the rallies occurring around the country supporting his claims of election fraud, and coalescing into a movement of “Stop the Steal.”

In other tweets, he invites his supporters to D.C. on January 6, the same date the electoral college votes are to be counted and confirmed. Trump says the rally will be “wild.”
Subsequently, on January 1st, Trump tweets, “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!”

Then Trump retweets Kylie Jane Kremer, chair of Women for America First, an organizer of the rally. “The calvary[sic] is coming, Mr. President! JANUARY 6th.”

At a pre-election rally in Georgia, Donald Trump, Jr. tells the crowd, “We need to fight.” President Trump tells the crowd, “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”

on January 6 Trump again repeated the claim of election fraud when he tweets, “The States want to redo their votes. They found out they voted on a FRAUD. Legislatures never approved. Let them do it. BE STRONG!”

So, Trump summoned this mob of loyal supporters to D.C., in which Trump has a very receptive audience he’s addressing, an audience that some, perhaps many, have been conditioned to believe this election is a rip off.

Then Trump addresses his receptive audience. Trump refers to “bad people,” “radical left Democrats” who stole the election, and that “third world countries have more honest elections.”

Trump augments his claims of fraud by invoking an attorney for purposes of legitimacy to his claim. At the same time, Trump also presents his VP as a possible Benedict Arnold. “John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, ‘What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ He looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing...All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people....I just spoke to Mike. I said, ‘Mike, that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage,’ and then we’re stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years. We’re just not going to let that happen....We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution.”

Trump of course predictably demonized the left and told the crowd it was up to Pence to “save” the constitution and nation. “The radical left knows exactly what they’re doing. They’re ruthless and it’s time that somebody did something about it. And Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I’m not hearing good stories.”

Then Trump opines about the culture wars, specifically the proverbial cancel culture, and the dire consequences if Biden wins. “We will not. Cancel culture. They wanted to get rid of the Jefferson Memorial, either take it down or just put somebody else in there. I don’t think that’s going to happen. It damn well better not. Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.”

Then, Trump again tells the people the country is in peril and facing destruction and “they” will not allow this to happen. “We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”

Now, Trump didn’t spare casting aspersions upon Republicans. “The weak Republicans, they’re pathetic Republicans and that’s what happens. If this happened to the Democrats, there’d be hell all over the country going on. There’d be hell all over the country. But just remember this. You’re stronger, you’re smarter. You’ve got more going than anybody, and they try and demean everybody having to do with us, and you’re the real people. You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation.”

Then Trump gets to the follow the yellow brick road to the Capitol part, and display strength.“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump then tells the crowd they will have a false President, propped up by a lying media, colluding together to suppress the truth of fraud. “You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it.”

Then, once again, Trump returns to the country will be destroyed and is in need of saving. “We won’t have a country if it happens.”

Trump then recounts a conversation he had with Pence, and retells an admonishment he made to Pence. “Sir, yes, the United States, the constitution doesn’t allow me to send them back to the States.’ Well, I say, ‘Yes, it does because the constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our constitution and you can’t vote on fraud,’ and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.”

Trump praises how great “they” have made the nation. “We are the greatest country on earth and we are headed, and were headed, in the right direction. You know, the wall is built, we’re doing record numbers at the wall.”

Then he warns of the hordes of people that will be allowed to pour over the southern border if he loses, and the consequence will be to “rip off” the country. These comments were made to an overwhelmingly white mob. “Now they want to take down the wall. Let’s let everyone flow in. Let’s let everybody flow in. We did a great job in the wall. Remember the wall? They said it could never be done. One of the largest infrastructure projects we’ve ever had in this country and it’s had a tremendous impact and we got rid of catch and release, we got rid of all of the stuff that we had to live with. But now the caravans, they think Biden’s getting in, the caravans are forming again. They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.“

Then Trump equates a lack of fighting like hell to the consequence of losing the country. “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”

Trump then goes on to say they all face insurmountable odds, painting a picture it’s hopeless, doom and gloom, and they’re alone, it’s all on them. After all, he said the media is left leaning, has embraced the election as legitimate while denouncing claims of a stolen election, schools are indoctrinating their children as a “comprehensive assault on our democracy,” and says they can’t rely on the Supreme Court, they ruled against him in his election fraud suits, despite his loyalty to three appointees as he fought for them, and that Mike Pence can’t be relied upon, the Republicans in Congress are weak and not willing to act, Congress will vote to certify so, Congress can’t be counted on as well.

The message is they alone, the mob alone, is now the only entity left to save the country and constitution. The judiciary, his VP, the media, and Congress are allowing this fraud to continue, a fraud that will let in mass numbers of brown people at the border to “rip off” the U.S. and continue with the poisoning of young minds in school with left wing ideology.

He then tells the crowd some of the imminent, marvelous accomplishments if he is elected four more years, such as taking on the lying, fake news media, the censoring of conservatives by social media, address voter fraud, build more of the wall to keep illegals out at the border.

So, Trump’s message is one of dire despair. They are going to lose the country they love and nobody is coming to the rescue, unless they “fight”, “fight like hell.” The Supreme Court isn’t coming to the rescue, they’re disloyal despite his loyalty to them. Mike Pence isn’t coming to the rescue. “Weak Republicans” in Congress aren’t coming to the rescue. Congress isn’t coming to the rescue. Neither is the media/social media, which silences conservatives, embraces the election and denounces claims of fraud. The illegals are coming in droves with Biden and Dems, as they will reverse building the wall, and let more illegals in to “rip off” America. And this cycle of radical left is set to perpetuate itself as their kids are poisoned by left ideology in schools. He then demonizes the left and Democrats.

After making them feel hopeless, it is a lost cause, nobody is on their side, he encourages them to “fight” and to “fight like hell” to “save” their “country.”

He’s told them they have to take matters into their own hands and “fight like hell” now because nobody else cares, and nobody else is supporting them. “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”

And unsurprisingly, that’s exactly what they did, as they forced entry into the Capitol building, looking for Pence, among others. They were the saviors of the Constitution, of the country, when everyone else was against them and letting them down, betraying them and Trump.

There’s no comparison at this moment between Trump’s speech, the entirety of it, the facts leading up to it, to the sports analogy you used, or to Waters, Schumer, Harris, and Warren using the word “fight.”

Trump scared the crowd and then whipped them into action based on their fear, based on despair, based on the idea it is all on them, that everyone else has betrayed them and is against them and is against the Constitution and the country and they are not going to help or come to the rescue, so the crowd must act to save the country, it must “fight” and “fight like hell” to save their country. Trump incited the crowd.

NotreDame · Apr 28, 2021

RestoreTheJoy said:
Good grief; have you no conception of an appropriate analogy? Because "thugs storming the center of democracy" was a few guys who broke in and roamed the halls. One sat at Pelosi's desk and took her podium. Another carried some southern flag. Some pushed against police. Most took video of themselves and others and left. People were injured because people are idiots and they should have gone home like the vast majority of the 10,000 people who showed up to hear the President did. A COP shot one woman breaking in; no charges have resulted, last I heard. Another cop died and it was widely reported by the horrific NYT that it was a murder, when in fact, he had a stroke. Three others died after various medical emergencies.

No one "assassinated a member of Congress". No one "overturned an election".

Don't go to or cause riots. Whether BLM or at the Capitol or anywhere. People get hurt and sometimes die.

Because "thugs storming the center of democracy was a few guys who broke in and roamed the halls.

A “few guys” eh? You certainly have abused the use of euphemism, and ventured into the terrain of an untenable meaning of the word “few.”

grasping the after wind · Apr 28, 2021

Bradskii said:
I think we can stop here...

You don't seem to realize that this type of answer is making my point for me.

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
You don't seem to realize that this type of answer is making my point for me.

Sorry. I thought you were looking for an objective answer to a subjective problem.

grasping the after wind · Apr 28, 2021

TLK Valentine said:
That would depend on what part of the country the followers ran amuck in, wouldn't it?

No it would depend on who is in control of the courts whether anyone has already run amok or not. The idea behind censorship of speech, under the circumstances being examined by this thread, is not to punish those that commit violence, but regulate speech based upon a decision about which speech incites violence and which does not. That decision relies heavily upon the opinion of the people that get to make it. If a court is to be given jurisdiction over that decision it very much matters who controls that court.

grasping the after wind · Apr 28, 2021

Bradskii said:
Sorry. I thought you were looking for an objective answer to a subjective problem.

I was looking for an answer that did not avoid the question.

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
I was looking for an answer that did not avoid the question.

No. You were looking for an answer that you could question yet again. Gee, I wonder where it might lead? So let's play.

No-one controls the courts. They self determine. Now you ask me who determines the make up of the courts. Off you go...

TLK Valentine · Apr 28, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
No it would depend on who is in control of the courts whether anyone has already run amok or not.

The word you're looking for is "judges."

The idea behind censorship of speech, under the circumstances being examined by this thread, is not to punish those that commit violence, but regulate speech based upon a decision about which speech incites violence and which does not.

The people who commit the violence already get punished.

The Mob boss who gives the orders will get himself regulated for 25 to life, whether or not they ever actually pull a trigger.

Charles Manson got himself regulated into a California prison cell -- and died in it.

Words have moral consequences; sometimes they have legal ones. Shout "FIRE!" in a theater and see if you don't get arrested for causing a panic.

That decision relies heavily upon the opinion of the people that get to make it. If a court is to be given jurisdiction over that decision it very much matters who controls that court.

Courts are controlled by judges, who interpret the law of the land. That cover the legal decision.

The moral decision rests in the minds of people like you and me, who are controlled by our morals and ethics.

durangodawood · Apr 28, 2021

RayJeena said:
People are responsible for their own actions. Period. How this would even be a question is beyond me.

Yes.

But that still leaves the question open: are people responsible when they influence others to do bad things?

I say yes. You are responsible for your own actions. Among possible actions is influencing others to do bad things. You are responsible when you do that.

TLK Valentine · Apr 28, 2021

NotreDame said:
A “few guys” eh? You certainly have abused the use of euphemism, and ventured into the terrain of an untenable meaning of the word “few.”

A necessary venture in order to absolve the leader of "a few guys" of any and all moral/legal accountability.

NotreDame · Apr 28, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
No it would depend on who is in control of the courts whether anyone has already run amok or not. The idea behind censorship of speech, under the circumstances being examined by this thread, is not to punish those that commit violence, but regulate speech based upon a decision about which speech incites violence and which does not. That decision relies heavily upon the opinion of the people that get to make it. If a court is to be given jurisdiction over that decision it very much matters who controls that court.

Translation: If my in group controls the court, then it’s all good, they can be trusted, they’ll make the right decision. If my out group controls the court then then the decision is flawed, mistaken, erroneous, unless by someone miracle or accident the court makes a decision consistent with the view of my in group.

grasping the after wind · Apr 28, 2021

Bradskii said:
No. You were looking for an answer that you could question yet again. Gee, I wonder where it might lead? So let's play.

No-one controls the courts. They self determine. Now you ask me who determines the make up of the courts. Off you go...

Perhaps you don't have an honest answer as to who exactly should be given the power to determine what speech is acceptable and what speech is not? Should it be put to a vote in a popular plebiscite? Should a legislature provide the specific guidelines including all possible examples of what speech is acceptable and what speech is not? If a court, then what guidelines should judges have to determine acceptability? Their personal opinion? Should we rely solely on the personal opinions of specific judges even when one judge would find differently than another? Should we leave it up to an appointed board of censors? Perhaps one single bureaucrat or government official? Perhaps you believe it will be someone or some group that agrees with your o[pinion on that subject but what if that person or group has a different POV from your own?

RestoreTheJoy · Apr 28, 2021

NotreDame said:
Context matters. You are not comparing parallel contexts for some of your examples, and there are a lack of facts pertaining to the other examples you reference to properly determine whether they are parallel enough to Trump’s use of the phrase to support the allegation of hypocrisy and infer Trump’s use of a phrase was permissible.

To suggest, as you have, the phrase “keep on fighting” in the context of sports is analogous to the entirety of Trump’s speech and the facts surrounding the speech, is an untenable comparison. The reason the comparison is untenable is based on the facts and context in which Trump made his speech and used a phrase with the word “fight” in the phrase and speech. Those facts and context surrounding Trump’s speech will be highlighted before.

But first it is perhaps helpful to first explore the soundness of your reasoning.

Somehow, you’ve treated phrases with the word “fight” in it to be equal, such that if someone else used the word “fight,” and it was at least ostensibly permissible, then Trump’s use of the word “fight” in his speech is also permissible. It isn’t sound logic to think, without more, that since Maxine, Schumer, Harris, Warren, at some point in time used the word “fight” in a phrase also means Trump’s use of the word “fight” was lawful, permitted, or acceptable. This ignores the possibility, no excludes as impossible that Trump’s use of the word “fight” in a phrase cannot be justified or permissible by the fact others have used the word “fight” in a phrase.

Person X says, “I’ll kill you.” Person Y says, “I’ll kill you.” Based on your logic, the fact Y used the exact same phrase as X would mean it was okay for Y to say the phrase because X said it without repercussions. Yet, with context, and facts, X made the phrase by saying, “John, I love bro, but you are the king of tweeting spoilers too soon. If you ruin the final episode of Game of Thrones by tweeting spoilers too soon, I’ll kill you.” And person Y made the phrase by saying, “If you call the police on me for what I did, then I’ll kill you.”

One phrase lawfully uses the word “kill” while another phrase unlawfully uses the word “kill.” The use of the word “kill” is permissible in one phrase, but not in the other.

So, context and facts matter in reaching a determination whether some word was lawfully or unlawfully used, whether some use of a word was permissible, and observing others used the word doesn’t inform whether the word used in a phrase elsewhere is permissible or lawful.

The suggestion of hypocrisy is not established. There’s not enough information provided in the posts to say Chucky’s, Harris, Warren, or Waters use of the word “fight” is similar to Donny’s, such that any repudiation of the latter is hypocritical where repudiation of those other 4 is absent.

And so what if there is hypocrisy? This doesn’t exonerate Trump. Yes, it can both be true that Trump’s speech and use of the word “fight” was impermissible, improper, amd that those making this true statement are hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn’t negate or preclude the truth value of a statement, conclusion, or claim.

And, calling for violence, advocating for violence, need not be explicitly stated or else it never happens. Yes, advocating violence, calling for violence, can be so strongly implied by the facts surrounding the comments, and based on the entirety of the comments themselves, as to constitute as the equivalent of explicitly advocacy.

To properly assess Trump’s use of the word “fight,” and whether he incited the crowd to violence, requires looking at the totality of the speech and the events leading up to his speech.

Prior to January 6, Trump spent weeks teeeting to his loyal followers, and in certain media outlets, the election was stolen, the election was a fraud. Trump formally recognized in a tweet the rallies occurring around the country supporting his claims of election fraud, and coalescing into a movement of “Stop the Steal.”

In other tweets, he invites his supporters to D.C. on January 6, the same date the electoral college votes are to be counted and confirmed. Trump says the rally will be “wild.”
Subsequently, on January 1st, Trump tweets, “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!”

Then Trump retweets Kylie Jane Kremer, chair of Women for America First, an organizer of the rally. “The calvary[sic] is coming, Mr. President! JANUARY 6th.”

At a pre-election rally in Georgia, Donald Trump, Jr. tells the crowd, “We need to fight.” President Trump tells the crowd, “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”

on January 6 Trump again repeated the claim of election fraud when he tweets, “The States want to redo their votes. They found out they voted on a FRAUD. Legislatures never approved. Let them do it. BE STRONG!”

So, Trump summoned this mob of loyal supporters to D.C., in which Trump has a very receptive audience he’s addressing, an audience that some, perhaps many, have been conditioned to believe this election is a rip off.

Then Trump addresses his receptive audience. Trump refers to “bad people,” “radical left Democrats” who stole the election, and that “third world countries have more honest elections.”

Trump augments his claims of fraud by invoking an attorney for purposes of legitimacy to his claim. At the same time, Trump also presents his VP as a possible Benedict Arnold. “John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, ‘What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ He looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing...All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people....I just spoke to Mike. I said, ‘Mike, that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage,’ and then we’re stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years. We’re just not going to let that happen....We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution.”

Trump of course predictably demonized the left and told the crowd it was up to Pence to “save” the constitution and nation. “The radical left knows exactly what they’re doing. They’re ruthless and it’s time that somebody did something about it. And Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I’m not hearing good stories.”

Then Trump opines about the culture wars, specifically the proverbial cancel culture, and the dire consequences if Biden wins. “We will not. Cancel culture. They wanted to get rid of the Jefferson Memorial, either take it down or just put somebody else in there. I don’t think that’s going to happen. It damn well better not. Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.”

Then, Trump again tells the people the country is in peril and facing destruction and “they” will not allow this to happen. “We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”

Now, Trump didn’t spare casting aspersions upon Republicans. “The weak Republicans, they’re pathetic Republicans and that’s what happens. If this happened to the Democrats, there’d be hell all over the country going on. There’d be hell all over the country. But just remember this. You’re stronger, you’re smarter. You’ve got more going than anybody, and they try and demean everybody having to do with us, and you’re the real people. You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation.”

Then Trump gets to the follow the yellow brick road to the Capitol part, and display strength.“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump then tells the crowd they will have a false President, propped up by a lying media, colluding together to suppress the truth of fraud. “You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it.”

Then, once again, Trump returns to the country will be destroyed and is in need of saving. “We won’t have a country if it happens.”

Trump then recounts a conversation he had with Pence, and retells an admonishment he made to Pence. “Sir, yes, the United States, the constitution doesn’t allow me to send them back to the States.’ Well, I say, ‘Yes, it does because the constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our constitution and you can’t vote on fraud,’ and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.”

Trump praises how great “they” have made the nation. “We are the greatest country on earth and we are headed, and were headed, in the right direction. You know, the wall is built, we’re doing record numbers at the wall.”

Then he warns of the hordes of people that will be allowed to pour over the southern border if he loses, and the consequence will be to “rip off” the country. These comments were made to an overwhelmingly white mob. “Now they want to take down the wall. Let’s let everyone flow in. Let’s let everybody flow in. We did a great job in the wall. Remember the wall? They said it could never be done. One of the largest infrastructure projects we’ve ever had in this country and it’s had a tremendous impact and we got rid of catch and release, we got rid of all of the stuff that we had to live with. But now the caravans, they think Biden’s getting in, the caravans are forming again. They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.“

Then Trump equates a lack of fighting like hell to the consequence of losing the country. “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”

Trump then goes on to say they all face insurmountable odds, painting a picture it’s hopeless, doom and gloom, and they’re alone, it’s all on them. After all, he said the media is left leaning, has embraced the election as legitimate while denouncing claims of a stolen election, schools are indoctrinating their children as a “comprehensive assault on our democracy,” and says they can’t rely on the Supreme Court, they ruled against him in his election fraud suits, despite his loyalty to three appointees as he fought for them, and that Mike Pence can’t be relied upon, the Republicans in Congress are weak and not willing to act, Congress will vote to certify so, Congress can’t be counted on as well.

The message is they alone, the mob alone, is now the only entity left to save the country and constitution. The judiciary, his VP, the media, and Congress are allowing this fraud to continue, a fraud that will let in mass numbers of brown people at the border to “rip off” the U.S. and continue with the poisoning of young minds in school with left wing ideology.

He then tells the crowd some of the imminent, marvelous accomplishments if he is elected four more years, such as taking on the lying, fake news media, the censoring of conservatives by social media, address voter fraud, build more of the wall to keep illegals out at the border.

So, Trump’s message is one of dire despair. They are going to lose the country they love and nobody is coming to the rescue, unless they “fight”, “fight like hell.” The Supreme Court isn’t coming to the rescue, they’re disloyal despite his loyalty to them. Mike Pence isn’t coming to the rescue. “Weak Republicans” in Congress aren’t coming to the rescue. Congress isn’t coming to the rescue. Neither is the media/social media, which silences conservatives, embraces the election and denounces claims of fraud. The illegals are coming in droves with Biden and Dems, as they will reverse building the wall, and let more illegals in to “rip off” America. And this cycle of radical left is set to perpetuate itself as their kids are poisoned by left ideology in schools. He then demonizes the left and Democrats.

After making them feel hopeless, it is a lost cause, nobody is on their side, he encourages them to “fight” and to “fight like hell” to “save” their “country.”

He’s told them they have to take matters into their own hands and “fight like hell” now because nobody else cares, and nobody else is supporting them. “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”

And unsurprisingly, that’s exactly what they did, as they forced entry into the Capitol building, looking for Pence, among others. They were the saviors of the Constitution, of the country, when everyone else was against them and letting them down, betraying them and Trump.

There’s no comparison at this moment between Trump’s speech, the entirety of it, the facts leading up to it, to the sports analogy you used, or to Waters, Schumer, Harris, and Warren using the word “fight.”

Trump scared the crowd and then whipped them into action based on their fear, based on despair, based on the idea it is all on them, that everyone else has betrayed them and is against them and is against the Constitution and the country and they are not going to help or come to the rescue, so the crowd must act to save the country, it must “fight” and “fight like hell” to save their country. Trump incited the crowd.

Wow. That is the longest post I have ever seen, and I just don't have time to do it justice at the moment.

I will hit a few highlights, I guess.

Nobody used a sports analogy for the fight language. Perplexed by that statement you make. I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense. Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.

The language was used in the EXACT SAME context. You are attempting to deflect into other areas, such as the use of the words, "I'll kill you" (something that should be said by anyone anywhere, in my view), implying that it is fine if you are joking around. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding language politicians routinely use about fighting for issues that are important to them.

Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.

I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone. That's fine. And irrelevant. He spouted a lot of opinions, and was certainly bombastic and obnoxious about it. So noted.

That said, there is always another election coming along. It won't be Trump, but it will be someone to the right of Biden/Harris, in my estimation, which certainly isn't hard to find.

RestoreTheJoy · Apr 28, 2021

NotreDame said:
A “few guys” eh? You certainly have abused the use of euphemism, and ventured into the terrain of an untenable meaning of the word “few.”

The police originally supported a breach of about "50 people". You can find the transcript, I am sure.

Found this:
"People who have watched video of the event have estimated it to be around 100 who actually entered with another 1,000 outside. If there had been 1,000 inside the capitol as one answer claimed then they would have overflowed the House chamber but it’s nearly empty in the pictures of rioters posing at the Speaker’s podium.

Estimates vary but there were between 500,000 and 2,000,000 at the peaceful rally lead by Trump a mile away."

The mainstream media is very vague about actual numbers, attempting to conflate all who attended that day with those who actually climbed up and went into the building, who were just a fraction. But of course there is a narrative to maintain.

TLK Valentine · Apr 28, 2021

RestoreTheJoy said:
Nobody used a sports analogy for the fight language.

Nobody except you, that is -- tail end of post #163.

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
Perhaps you don't have an honest answer as to who exactly should be given the power to determine what speech is acceptable and what speech is not? Should it be put to a vote in a popular plebiscite? Should a legislature provide the specific guidelines including all possible examples of what speech is acceptable and what speech is not? If a court, then what guidelines should judges have to determine acceptability? Their personal opinion? Should we rely solely on the personal opinions of specific judges even when one judge would find differently than another? Should we leave it up to an appointed board of censors? Perhaps one single bureaucrat or government official? Perhaps you believe it will be someone or some group that agrees with your o[pinion on that subject but what if that person or group has a different POV from your own?

I just told you. When the rubber hits the road, it's the courts. Now how about you give an answer yourself rather than spraying umpteen options all over my tablet. I'm eager to hear it.

LockeeDeck · Apr 28, 2021

grasping the after wind said:
Perhaps you don't have an honest answer as to who exactly should be given the power to determine what speech is acceptable and what speech is not? Should it be put to a vote in a popular plebiscite? Should a legislature provide the specific guidelines including all possible examples of what speech is acceptable and what speech is not? If a court, then what guidelines should judges have to determine acceptability? Their personal opinion? Should we rely solely on the personal opinions of specific judges even when one judge would find differently than another? Should we leave it up to an appointed board of censors? Perhaps one single bureaucrat or government official? Perhaps you believe it will be someone or some group that agrees with your o[pinion on that subject but what if that person or group has a different POV from your own?

This reminds of a quote by a judge when ruling on obscenity and what constituted obscenity,
"I know it when I see it".

You are not wrong to be wary of an individual setting guidelines for what is allowable speech and what is not but in general that's not how it works. It's an evolving thing set down by case law and precedent. In other words we as a society decide such things, but unevenly and slowly.

Either way we are way off topic with this.

RestoreTheJoy said:
Wow. That is the longest post I have ever seen, and I just don't have time to do it justice at the moment.

I will hit a few highlights, I guess.

Nobody used a sports analogy for the fight language. Perplexed by that statement you make. I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense. Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.

The language was used in the EXACT SAME context. You are attempting to deflect into other areas, such as the use of the words, "I'll kill you" (something that should be said by anyone anywhere, in my view), implying that it is fine if you are joking around. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding language politicians routinely use about fighting for issues that are important to them.

Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.

I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone. That's fine. And irrelevant. He spouted a lot of opinions, and was certainly bombastic and obnoxious about it. So noted.

That said, there is always another election coming along. It won't be Trump, but it will be someone to the right of Biden/Harris, in my estimation, which certainly isn't hard to find.

You bring up other politicians regarding their remarks on the riots but no one at the riots said they were doing it in a politicians name. It would be different if someone during an interview said they were rioting because a politician said to.

The insurrection on the other hand had people live streaming themselves where they are heard saying things like they are there because Trump ordered them to and that they expected Trump to be with them. Now the level of intent for this outcome is in the air but the fact remains people thought they were following their leaders orders. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?

RestoreTheJoy said:
The police originally supported a breach of about "50 people". You can find the transcript, I am sure.

Found this:
"People who have watched video of the event have estimated it to be around 100 who actually entered with another 1,000 outside. If there had been 1,000 inside the capitol as one answer claimed then they would have overflowed the House chamber but it’s nearly empty in the pictures of rioters posing at the Speaker’s podium.

Estimates vary but there were between 500,000 and 2,000,000 at the peaceful rally lead by Trump a mile away."

The mainstream media is very vague about actual numbers, attempting to conflate all who attended that day with those who actually climbed up and went into the building, who were just a fraction. But of course there is a narrative to maintain.

We are getting off topic with nitpicking about how many were involved. Terrorist acts might only have one person involved that was following the ideology of a leader. The people who were involved clearly thought Trump ordered them to attack the capital. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?

Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Active Member

Domer

Domer

That's grasping after the wind

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

That's grasping after the wind

That's grasping after the wind

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

I've already read the books you want burned.

Dis Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Domer

That's grasping after the wind

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Active Member

Similar threads