US assault on free speech and freedom of expression

[swansont]

8 hours ago, MSC said:

Is it just me or does this read like it's written by an extremely jealous woman trying to tear down another women and attempting to make it sound like it's over something people should actually care about?

Sharing this here because it's starting to feel like not only are peoples free speech rights under attack for what they do say, but now here they are being attacked for what they didn't say. It wasn't enough for the writer of this trash when Ms Rachel said "All children deserve to be safe", no they wanted an explicit mention of a few children in a very specific circumstance. It seems the tables have turned a little because now one side is saying "all lives" while the other is demanding an explicit specific mention of a certain group, in a complete switcheroo. 

No, it’s not just you, it’s become all too common. Someone posts “I like pancakes” and some idiot responds “why do you hate waffles?”

It’s the fallacy of argument from siilence. But some people do like to communicate in bad faith. It’s unreasonable to expect comprehensive coverage of topics, especially in short-form communication like social media, but even books and articles have length/scope limits.

 

[CharonY]

It is also a very aggressive variant of the classic spin. Except that with the help of the amplifying powers of the internet, the more emotionally loaded version at some point seems to overwrite the original context, if that makes sense.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, toucana said:

Real military units, real military insignia, real military ranks - as opposed to the ersatz fake ones favoured by cosplay fascist paramilitaries trying to make their penises feel bigger 😛

You're not really getting the reality, of which I hmm'd over; anyone can dress up as a tramp... If that's the fashion 😣

Bing Videos

Edited Monday at 12:12 PM by dimreepr

[toucana]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're not really getting the reality, of which I hmm'd over; anyone can dress up as a tramp... If that's the fashion 😣

Bing Videos

If you had read the link I supplied about the Sturmabteilung (SA), then you might also have found this threaded article about their uniforms and insignia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_and_insignia_of_the_Sturmabteilung

The point is that practically all of the various titles and ranks commonly associated with the worst manifestations of the German Nazi military machine such as Fuhrer, Sturmfuhrer, Gruppenfuhrer and Obergruppenfuhrer - were all originally invented out of thin air by the Sturmabteilung in the early 1930s, and were later adopted in toto by the Schutzstaffel (SS) which took over their role after ‘The Night of the Long Knives’ in 1934. No such ranks or insignia existed in the regular Wehrmacht (Army) or Kriegsmarine (Navy).

None of this was about ‘fashion’ or ‘looks’. It was about the systematic weaponisation of racist and antisemitic street thugs into organised paramilitary groups by cladding them in war surplus uniforms and giving them imaginary military ranks in order to channel their aggression, and control their violence and hatreds.

That is why fascists “..always need a uniform”.

Edited Monday at 10:36 PM by toucana
corrected Sturmabteilung - para.2

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, toucana said:

If you had read the link I supplied about the Sturmabteilung (SA), then you might also have found this threaded article about their uniforms and insignia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_and_insignia_of_the_Sturmabteilung

The point is that practically all of the various titles and ranks commonly associated with the worst manifestations of the German Nazi military machine such as Fuhrer, Sturmfuhrer, Gruppenfuhrer and Obergruppenfuhrer - were all originally invented out of thin air by the Sturmabteilung in the early 1930s, and were later adopted in toto by the Schutzstaffel (SS) which took over their role after ‘The Night of the Long Knives’ in 1934. No such ranks or insignia existed in the regular Wehrmacht (Army) or Kriegsmarine (Navy).

None of this was about ‘fashion’ or ‘looks’. It was about the systematic weaponisation of racist and antisemitic street thugs into organised paramilitary groups by cladding them in war surplus uniforms and giving them imaginary military ranks in order to channel their aggression, and control their violence and hatreds.

That is why fascists “..always need a uniform”.

You're not 'really' getting the nuance implied by the word hmm, hmm... 🙄

But, if we can get back to topic, what is the current uniform of the US fascist's?

I'll bet it's closer to a Tramp Viking warrior... 😉

The model maybe the same but the colours are always different...

 

Fool me once etc.

[npts2020]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

what is the current uniform of the US fascist's?

It's a Brioni suit and silk necktietie, isn't it?

[MSC]

https://newrepublic.com/post/193395/agriculture-department-ban-words-safe-drinking-water

Quote

A leaked memo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Research Service division revealed Sunday that the agency has banned some key language from its vocabulary, including the words “climate” and “vulnerable,” as well as the phrase “safe drinking water

Other baffling entries on the memo’s banned language list are “greenhouse gas emissions,” “methane emissions,” “sustainable construction,” “solar energy,” and “geothermal,” as well as “nuclear energy,” “diesel,” “affordable housing,” “prefabricated housing,” “runoff,” “microplastics,” “water pollution,” “soil pollution,” “groundwater pollution,” “sediment remediation,” “water collection,” “water treatment,” “rural water,” and “clean water,” among dozens of others.

“When evaluating agreements, those entries that include these terms or similar terms cannot be submitted,” wrote Sharon Strickland, the USDA’s Northeast area financial management, travel and agreements section head, in an internal March 20 email. The review will “ensure that we maintain compliance with the Administration’s EOS.”

It’s unclear how the guidance would do anything other than completely hinder the department’s ability to monitor the health and edibility of crops, or aid America’s rural development—some of its primary functions. What is clear, however, is that purging such basic speech will stifle scientific research and discourse.

Stupid doesn't even come close to describing this. This is just becoming insane. It's not even funny "safe drinking water" banned? What on the hell kind of lunatics world are we living in? 

 

Is it free speech that is under attack or is it just truth and facts that are under attack? Feels like lies have become the currency of the day in the USA. 

[TheVat]

5 minutes ago, MSC said:

https://newrepublic.com/post/193395/agriculture-department-ban-words-safe-drinking-water

Stupid doesn't even come close to describing this. This is just becoming insane. It's not even funny "safe drinking water" banned? What on the hell kind of lunatics world are we living in? 

 

In related news, Roget's Thesaurus now tops the national bestseller list, as a million civil servants scramble to find synonyms not on a banned language list.  "Aqueous potables!" shouts a USDA worker, receiving cheers and applause from nearby cubicles.

[CharonY]

50 minutes ago, MSC said:

Is it free speech that is under attack or is it just truth and facts that are under attack? Feels like lies have become the currency of the day in the USA. 

Both tend to be related. Wittgenstein has argued that language is our key tool to construct reality, or at least our understanding of it. Limiting it, as explored in Orwell's 1984 would also limit our experience of reality. The cons have taken that as an instruction manual, after heavily projecting that the libs are doing it for nefarious purposes such as addressing systemic inequality. Instead, they are doing it to combat important things, like drinking water.

[MSC]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Both tend to be related. Wittgenstein has argued that language is our key tool to construct reality, or at least our understanding of it. Limiting it, as explored in Orwell's 1984 would also limit our experience of reality. The cons have taken that as an instruction manual, after heavily projecting that the libs are doing it for nefarious purposes such as addressing systemic inequality. Instead, they are doing it to combat important things, like drinking water.

Yes I remember that of Wittgenstein. What I hadn't thought about much was the inverse of limiting it. I explained his work to a friend of mine by providing this example; Imagine that instead of the term lying in the English language, imagine instead there had been a specific words for different types of falsehoods in different contexts. Lying to a friend would have a different word than say deceiving an enemy. Now what would this world look like if you had always conceived of falsehoods in this way? How would this line of thinking impact someone like Kant for example? One problem with Kants arguments against lying is that it doesn't address using someone as a means, to thwart them doing it to someone else, so protecting that person is your end. The thought scenario Kant applies of someone showing up to murder a loved one and your telling the truth leading to their death, is only one outcome and I'd argue that more often than not, lying to this "enemy" would not lead to them being able to carry out their threat but more often than not would effectively shield someone from harm. I guess ultimately I also just cannot imagine a world where people don't engage in some kind of falsehood. So which falsehoods are right and which ones are wrong? I can't have a categorical imperative to not engage in falsehoods when I can't conceive of a world where it can't happen, not unless we are all omniscient and omnipresent. 

Rounding back to something I talked about earlier in a different thread but is related to the topic of free speech and what I've talked about here; Would it be immoral of me, to fabricate a conspiracy theory that paints someone in a negative light, when believing the truth about them would do the same? For example there is no public conclusive proof that 47 is a willing Russian asset, engaged in a conspiracy with Putin. However since the truth of the matter is that he is a threat to democracy, the environment, free speech, US citizens, people in general etc, and since he is going to lie his pants off anyway, why shouldn't there be a counter flooding of the zone, with what we would call defensive lies that are designed to push people away from him ideologically? He plays on certain fears, so should Democrats and old school republicans play to different ones? The fear of being lied to, manipulated, changed over time against your will, abused etc. 

Also apologies if I've crossed the bounds of being OT with some of this, I'd been wanting to do a thread in the ethics section about the study of falsehoods through Wittgensteins pragmatic lense but was hesitant because I don't feel entirely ready to defend it here. But hey ho, it came up. 

[toucana]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're not 'really' getting the nuance implied by the word hmm, hmm... 🙄

OK - let's assume that English is my fifth language (it isn't) - perhaps you'd like to explain precisely what nuance in "hmmm" I'm missing  ?

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, toucana said:

OK - let's assume that English is my fifth language (it isn't) - perhaps you'd like to explain precisely what nuance in "hmmm" I'm missing  ?

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

Wittgenstein has argued that language is our key tool to construct reality, or at least our understanding of it.

 

20 hours ago, MSC said:

Yes I remember that of Wittgenstein. What I hadn't thought about much was the inverse of limiting it. I explained his work to a friend of mine by providing this example; Imagine that instead of the term lying in the English language, imagine instead there had been a specific words for different types of falsehoods in different contexts. Lying to a friend would have a different word than say deceiving an enemy. Now what would this world look like if you had always conceived of falsehoods in this way? How would this line of thinking impact someone like Kant for example? One problem with Kants arguments against lying is that it doesn't address using someone as a means, to thwart them doing it to someone else, so protecting that person is your end. The thought scenario Kant applies of someone showing up to murder a loved one and your telling the truth leading to their death, is only one outcome and I'd argue that more often than not, lying to this "enemy" would not lead to them being able to carry out their threat but more often than not would effectively shield someone from harm. I guess ultimately I also just cannot imagine a world where people don't engage in some kind of falsehood. So which falsehoods are right and which ones are wrong? I can't have a categorical imperative to not engage in falsehoods when I can't conceive of a world where it can't happen, not unless we are all omniscient and omnipresent. 

Rounding back to something I talked about earlier in a different thread but is related to the topic of free speech and what I've talked about here; Would it be immoral of me, to fabricate a conspiracy theory that paints someone in a negative light, when believing the truth about them would do the same? For example there is no public conclusive proof that 47 is a willing Russian asset, engaged in a conspiracy with Putin. However since the truth of the matter is that he is a threat to democracy, the environment, free speech, US citizens, people in general etc, and since he is going to lie his pants off anyway, why shouldn't there be a counter flooding of the zone, with what we would call defensive lies that are designed to push people away from him ideologically? He plays on certain fears, so should Democrats and old school republicans play to different ones? The fear of being lied to, manipulated, changed over time against your will, abused etc. 

Also apologies if I've crossed the bounds of being OT with some of this, I'd been wanting to do a thread in the ethics section about the study of falsehoods through Wittgensteins pragmatic lense but was hesitant because I don't feel entirely ready to defend it here. But hey ho, it came up. 

The problem, I find, with Orwell's concept of limiting language from authority is, 'cockney rhyming slang'.

The current assault on free speach is due to the imbalanced demographics, the ever growing numbers of old folk that can't stand the music of the 'yout's'... 

20 hours ago, toucana said:

OK - let's assume that English is my fifth language (it isn't) - perhaps you'd like to explain precisely what nuance in "hmmm" I'm missing  ?

That's the problem with nuance, in order to understand the nuance, we both have to speak the same language, precisely... 😉

[toucana]

Are you kidding me ? I grew *up* with the music of David Bowie and many others of the era  (I recall watching him perform ‘Space Oddity’ his very first hit on TOTP in 1969). I lived through the summer of ’69 and heard all the music of the Doors, the Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead etc. the first time round, as well as the second and third…

On the subject of language  -  I’m currently  on a 1,932 day unbroken streak on Duolingo (Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Scottish Gaelic) - Check me out there if you wish to have a discussion about language 

[MigL]

I'm of the opinion that this is not orchestrated from the top, and there is no grand plan.
D Trump is just a moron who doesn't understand much, his loyalists millionaires/billionaires are either just like him ( E Musk, H Lutnick ) or too scared to tell him ( J Bezos, M Rubio ), and his supporters are just angry and jealous of everyone else.

Bill Mahar often tells the story of D Trump and his followers railing against the millions spent on TRANSGENIC mice, which are used for genetic research, because they have them confused with transgendered mice.

This is simply a whole 'nother level of stupid.

 

and just to prove his stupidity ...

'Mad king': Trump baffles observers by suggesting he'll tariff illegal drugs

Edited Wednesday at 04:07 PM by MigL

[dimreepr]

45 minutes ago, toucana said:

Are you kidding me ? I grew *up* with the music of David Bowie and many others of the era  (I recall watching him perform ‘Space Oddity’ his very first hit on TOTP in 1969). I lived through the summer of ’69 and heard all the music of the Doors, the Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead etc. the first time round, as well as the second and third…

On the subject of language  -  I’m currently  on a 1,932 day unbroken streak on Duolingo (Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Scottish Gaelic) - Check me out there if you wish to have a discussion about language 

No doubt we were lost in translation...

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I'm of the opinion that this is not orchestrated from the top, and there is no grand plan.
D Trump is just a moron who doesn't understand much, his loyalists millionaires/billionaires are either just like him ( E Musk, H Lutnick ) or too scared to tell him ( J Bezos, M Rubio ), and his supporters are just angry and jealous of everyone else.

Bill Mahar often tells the story of D Trump and his followers railing against the millions spent on TRANSGENIC mice, which are used for genetic research, because they have them confused with transgendered mice.

This is simply a whole 'nother level of stupid.

 

and just to prove his stupidity ...

'Mad king': Trump baffles observers by suggesting he'll tariff illegal drugs

I think it is again a situation where both elements apply. It is stupid, but there is also a vague idea behind it. On the least ideological side there is simply the desire to keep the fires of culture wars going. It has given right-wing politics a huge boost and they want to keep that in addition of other emotional issues, such as immigration, nativism, and so on. Folks like Bannon have openly mentioned that as a key strategy before the first administration. 

In addition, they have realized that breaking up shared realities is incredibly powerful to get rid of any accountability (fake news, luegenpresse, etc.). This effectively neuters media and public control. Institutions that are involved in fact-finding include courts (and we see ongoing assaults there) but also universities, where one of the goal of research is to understand complex and intricate issues. This can lead to political undesirable facts. This includes issues like climate change, evolution, vaccines, but also sex and gender, which is used as a wedge issue to discredit other of science. It doesn't really matter in that context whether the mice are transgenic or transgender (especially as one could manipulate hormone receptors and observe developmental changes....). There is a concerted effort to replace deep understanding with "common sense", i.e. just replace it with things that feel emotionally true and can be whatever folks want. 

Thus, scaring institutions involved in fact-checking into compliance provides control and further removes accountability. That is pretty much what for example the Soviets did.

I am sure that they are doing that in stupid ways and many of the folks involved are genuinely stupid. But I don't think that there is no intent behind it as a whole. I think of it as an emergent property of stupid and malicious hunger for power.

[iNow]

Nobody’s talking about the citizens he’s disappearing, and how even ones they admit were sent to Venezuelan prisons in error are still there and being ignored. 

[CharonY]

To be fair, this thread is about free speech. We should add another for trampling habeas corpus or perhaps just generally trampling on rights and the constitution.

But I do agree, the outcry of vanishing someone into a foreign prison, blatantly admitting to the "error" (referring to the person who was known by ICE to be in protected status) and then refusing to remedy the situation by bringing it back is rather disheartening. There will be more "errors". Already, I have colleagues living in the US either as greencard holders, but also dual citizens who are very afraid to travel. And those are generally well-recognizable and comparatively privileged folks.

 

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

The problem, I find, with Orwell's concept of limiting language from authority is, 'cockney rhyming slang'.

The current assault on free speach is due to the imbalanced demographics, the ever growing numbers of old folk that can't stand the music of the 'yout's'... 

That's the problem with nuance, in order to understand the nuance, we both have to speak the same language, precisely... 😉

Ok, another neg for an attempt to explain what you fail to understand; would you expect to understand the nuance of a physics professor explaining why a mirror reflects left and right, not up and down?

Ok one last try, however similar this event is to our historical records (Nazi uniforms, et al), this is a unique event and our language will need to catch up, before we try and discuss the nuanced reality.

[toucana]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Ok, another neg for an attempt to explain what you fail to understand; would you expect to understand the nuance of a physics professor explaining why a mirror reflects left and right, not up and down?

Ok one last try, however similar this event is to our historical records (Nazi uniforms, et al), this is a unique event and our language will need to catch up, before we try and discuss the nuanced reality.

 

I really wouldn't bother. Most ppl who have read your comments in this thread will probably concur with a piece of advice originally attributed to Mark Twain:

Quote

Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent!
And never argue with an idiot - it reduces you to their level, and they'll beat you on experience every time!

 

[MSC]

On 4/2/2025 at 12:30 PM, CharonY said:

think it is again a situation where both elements apply. It is stupid, but there is also a vague idea behind it. On the least ideological side there is simply the desire to keep the fires of culture wars going.

This makes me wonder, what is ultimately more dangerous for society? Stupid in charge, or evil in charge? I'd argue stupid, because evil loves to take advantage of stupid. 

There is also a profound danger that will maybe materialize in the next election, assuming Trump definitely won't be able to run, and that is, who is Trump going to open the door for? I recall during the primaries a lot of people were worried that if someone more like Putin were to win the Republican primary, it could be worse than Trump. An example that springs to mind is DeSantis.

[CharonY]

Just now, MSC said:

This makes me wonder, what is ultimately more dangerous for society? Stupid in charge, or evil in charge? I'd argue stupid, because evil loves to take advantage of stupid. 

Isn't it great? We now have an natural experiment where we got two variables in one go!

Just now, MSC said:

There is also a profound danger that will maybe materialize in the next election, assuming Trump definitely won't be able to run, and that is, who is Trump going to open the door for? I recall during the primaries a lot of people were worried that if someone more like Putin were to win the Republican primary, it could be worse than Trump. An example that springs to mind is DeSantis.

I would argue that the midterms are a critical milestone. If the voters decide to keep empowering Trump, the US has truly fallen into autocracy and fascism. I would agree that the existing systems have shown to crumble by the power of not caring and this might open the door to other extremists. That being said, I suspect that being not stupid really matters if there are levers left that need to be manipulated. If, for example the GOP cruises through the midterms despite all the visible and tangible harms they have been doing, you could put a wet Mentos in charge and folks would continue to run any evil agenda they might come up with to feed the mob.

[MigL]

36 minutes ago, MSC said:

There is also a profound danger that will maybe materialize in the next election, assuming Trump definitely won't be able to run, and that is, who is Trump going to open the door for?

Having taken so many of his ideas and actions from the Putin playbook, I would suggest JD Vance is the logical choice.
That is why JD is getting so much exposure ( unlike K Harris as VP ). JD will run as Presidential nominee with D Trump as his running mate, and after a short period, will resign to allow Trump to assume the Presidency again.

Recall D Medvedev, Russian President from 2008-20012, who resigned to let V Putin reassume the Presidency ( and dictatorship ).

[TheVat]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is why JD is getting so much exposure ( unlike K Harris as VP ). JD will run as Presidential nominee with D Trump as his running mate, and after a short period, will resign to allow Trump to assume the Presidency again.

12th Amendment blocks that maneuver, happily.

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 

(and there aren't enough state ratification votes to repeal the relevant amendments - 3/4 of states must ratify any change in the Constitution)

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Having taken so many of his ideas and actions from the Putin playbook, I would suggest JD Vance is the logical choice.
That is why JD is getting so much exposure ( unlike K Harris as VP ). JD will run as Presidential nominee with D Trump as his running mate, and after a short period, will resign to allow Trump to assume the Presidency again.

Recall D Medvedev, Russian President from 2008-20012, who resigned to let V Putin reassume the Presidency ( and dictatorship ).

If there is to be a new Hitler I think Vance is the man. He, unlike Trump, is motivated by ideology rathe than mere personal aggrandisement, he has a plan and he is making sure he gets plenty of exposure, in good time. He is one of the authors of Project 2025 and his hatred for Europe and contempt for its liberal democracy are plain to see. What may undo him is that he has no discernible charisma, apparently.