The line, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," hasn't aged well because people weaponize "fact" to mean something incontrovertible when it isn't. Your follow-up definition of civic rationalism, debate governed by logic and reason, and a shared reality is much better for the current day and age.
Facts, maybe by definition, aren't controversial and so politically charged topics aren't likely to rest on them. The shared reality step in most political discussions needs to start with an acknowledgement of values or priorities instead of trying to define a "fact".
And just like that we see why rational civic speech will remain elusive. Every well thought essay written to inspire a better discourse brings out people who have no interest in even thinking about a better way.
"Shut up."
"No you shut up."
"Well you started it!"
"Nuh ah. You did!"
And on and on in the childish discourse we see in these comments. And people aren't even ashamed. In fact, they are self-righteous.
Both "sides" are pushing each other to the extremes. Nobody considers themself "hateful", so the _truth_ the article is talking about is usually a difference in values, priority, or approach. If you call someone hateful who doesn't think of themselves as hateful, you have the effect of pushing them farther out, as their response to you will push you farther out, over and over until we can't talk to each other anymore.
I did not call anyone “hateful.” I was talking about hate speech. Trump’s blaming “the left” for Charlie Kirk’s death before a shooter was even found, for instance. Blaming LGBTQ+ persons and Trans people is hate speech. I don’t have to tell you what hate speech is, Nathaniel. It is everywhere.
Presumably people who engage in hate speech are hateful -- if that wasn't your intent, I'm happy to be corrected. That distinction made, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my comment. Trump's blaming seems to bother you -- it bothers me too -- but isn't your comment an example of the same problem? That's my point: both sides are making each other angrier and angrier. It won't stop until we all stop.
I said if he would dial it back we could get back to civil discourse. I did not call him ugly names. But the things he said after the shooting were divisive, were they not? What is your definition of hate speech?
People don't like to be accused of hate speech when they don't feel like they are hateful people (or people behaving hatefully, if that's more your intent). Trump's words were divisive, yes. If someone called your words hate speech, wouldn't you feel that person was also being divisive?
I am not the POTUS. Go back and read what trump said about Democrats and Trans people regarding Charlie Kirk’s death. He has called immigrants “rapists, gang members, etc. “. He said the Haitians were “ eating people’s cats and dogs” in Ohio. That was debunked. If all of the immigrants that ICE has rounded up and put in detention here and abroad were rapists, gang members, etc., we would have had an explosion of crime in this country. However, we have not.
By that definition, saying that I find the peculiar shade of magenta which women of particular ilk often color their hair unaesthetic would be hate speech.
When you hear it, you know it! Just like when Brian Kilmeade said yesterday on his little morning show that the homeless people should be euthanized. What do you call that, Bob?
BRAVO! I commit to do better.
The line, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," hasn't aged well because people weaponize "fact" to mean something incontrovertible when it isn't. Your follow-up definition of civic rationalism, debate governed by logic and reason, and a shared reality is much better for the current day and age.
Facts, maybe by definition, aren't controversial and so politically charged topics aren't likely to rest on them. The shared reality step in most political discussions needs to start with an acknowledgement of values or priorities instead of trying to define a "fact".
And just like that we see why rational civic speech will remain elusive. Every well thought essay written to inspire a better discourse brings out people who have no interest in even thinking about a better way.
"Shut up."
"No you shut up."
"Well you started it!"
"Nuh ah. You did!"
And on and on in the childish discourse we see in these comments. And people aren't even ashamed. In fact, they are self-righteous.
Well stated. Now, if the Republicans would dial back their hate speech, maybe we could return to civilized discourse.
Both "sides" are pushing each other to the extremes. Nobody considers themself "hateful", so the _truth_ the article is talking about is usually a difference in values, priority, or approach. If you call someone hateful who doesn't think of themselves as hateful, you have the effect of pushing them farther out, as their response to you will push you farther out, over and over until we can't talk to each other anymore.
I did not call anyone “hateful.” I was talking about hate speech. Trump’s blaming “the left” for Charlie Kirk’s death before a shooter was even found, for instance. Blaming LGBTQ+ persons and Trans people is hate speech. I don’t have to tell you what hate speech is, Nathaniel. It is everywhere.
Presumably people who engage in hate speech are hateful -- if that wasn't your intent, I'm happy to be corrected. That distinction made, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my comment. Trump's blaming seems to bother you -- it bothers me too -- but isn't your comment an example of the same problem? That's my point: both sides are making each other angrier and angrier. It won't stop until we all stop.
I said if he would dial it back we could get back to civil discourse. I did not call him ugly names. But the things he said after the shooting were divisive, were they not? What is your definition of hate speech?
People don't like to be accused of hate speech when they don't feel like they are hateful people (or people behaving hatefully, if that's more your intent). Trump's words were divisive, yes. If someone called your words hate speech, wouldn't you feel that person was also being divisive?
I am not the POTUS. Go back and read what trump said about Democrats and Trans people regarding Charlie Kirk’s death. He has called immigrants “rapists, gang members, etc. “. He said the Haitians were “ eating people’s cats and dogs” in Ohio. That was debunked. If all of the immigrants that ICE has rounded up and put in detention here and abroad were rapists, gang members, etc., we would have had an explosion of crime in this country. However, we have not.
If it’s everywhere, then it’s nowhere.
“Hate” speech is always identified selectively.
Hate speech is when you talk badly about innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
By that definition, saying that I find the peculiar shade of magenta which women of particular ilk often color their hair unaesthetic would be hate speech.
Now, see there, “of a particular ilk,” is rude, bordering on bigoted. It was not “the magenta” color being “unaesthetic” that was hate speech.
When you hear it, you know it! Just like when Brian Kilmeade said yesterday on his little morning show that the homeless people should be euthanized. What do you call that, Bob?
Who is Brian Kilmeade? Is he important?
Not in my opinion. He is one of the “entertainers” on Fox and Friends, Fox’s morning show.