Should It Be Illegal To Speak About Other People?

[HydrogenBond]

Didn't Donna Brazile give Hillary Clinton questions ahead of one of the debates with Trump. Now has;t she been rewarded for being lawless? She was promoted to the head of the DNC; head scoundrel.  If a distinction between lawful and lawless mattered to the Democrats and Liberals, this would not be the case. It looks bad along that dividing line, of lawful and lawless. But it does not look bad, if you can merge lawful and lawlessness into confusion, based on race or sex. The reason this divides people is because deep down people are good, but they are force to compensate for the evil they accept, because of their affiliation with the left. 

 

The DNC has used PC word games to make it harder to reach their base. There are good people, who are misled by the scoundrels. The games are so unnatural to common  sense this has impacted the ability to cope. The Russian hack of the DNA is the story and not the fact that two faces of the Democrats were exposed and led to the downfall of Hillary. The left does not see themselves as doing anything wrong, since two faces and the merger of lawlessness with lawful is normal to them. The ends justify the means even if lawless. 

 

Trump continues to say the things the base are trained to fear, until they can get used to it. It is like going to the beach in the late spring. After the winter the bathing suits can be very stimulating. But as the season goes on, the same bathing suits become another day. Once it is easier to cope and the college kids are not running and hiding, from the bogeyman, then they can be reached. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[Turtle]

For some reason, the left is conditioning people to be overly sensitive. Hypersensitivity creates more virtual chips on your shoulder. Trump is trying to desensitize people, so free speech can return.  

...

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

 

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

•Fear and aggression

•Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

•Uncertainty avoidance

•Need for cognitive closure

•Terror management

The study: >>Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

 

Abstract

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

[billvon]

Didn't Donna Brazile give Hillary Clinton questions ahead of one of the debates with Trump. Now has;t she been rewarded for being lawless? She was promoted to the head of the DNC; head scoundrel.  If a distinction between lawful and lawless mattered to the Democrats and Liberals, this would not be the case.

And if it mattered to republicans, Trump would never have even been considered as a candidate.  But it does not.  Indeed, republicans are trying their best to dismantle government watchdogs so they can more easily violate the law.

[Essay]

Didn't Donna Brazile give Hillary Clinton questions ahead of one of the debates with Trump. 

 

...just fyi, not Trump.

 

"...Brazile funneled two questions to Ms Clinton ...before a CNN-sponsored debate and voter town hall event [Feb. 23, 2016] against Vermont senator Bernie Sanders."

~

[Zina]

It would be very hard to come with any news if you don't speak about others, tough to tell lies about others and countries should be illegal.

[GAHD]

Should it?

That's like saying "it should be illegal for some people to speak" or banning all languages except Esperanto.

It's a great idea when it affects other people, not so much when it affects you personally.

EG: I might hate 98% of the speech and tones that come out of a lib-tard SJW 's vegan-hole, That doesn't mean it's a good idea to sew their lips shut and implant a feeding straw. (or nip and tuck their hands if they use ASL)

 

Legal vs Illegal is a nasty tightrope. On one hand a large chunk of people seem to be a cancerous waste, and legal measures to curtail wanton wasting of resources seems prudent. On the other hand, who or what could really define an objective moral framework that everybody can follow? Legislature and language has a dark history if you follow Marxist examples to their conclusion.

Semi-related: On the dangers of legislating language.

[Mariel33]

That's like saying "it should be illegal for some people to speak" or banning all languages except Esperanto.

It's a great idea when it affects other people, not so much when it affects you personally.

EG: I might hate 98% of the speech and tones that come out of a lib-tard SJW 's vegan-hole, That doesn't mean it's a good idea to sew their lips shut and implant a feeding straw. (or nip and tuck their hands if they use ASL)

 

Legal vs Illegal is a nasty tightrope. On one hand a large chunk of people seem to be a cancerous waste, and legal measures to curtail wanton wasting of resources seems prudent. On the other hand, who or what could really define an objective moral framework that everybody can follow? Legislature and language has a dark history if you follow Marxist examples to their conclusion.

Semi-related: On the dangers of legislating language.

 

Should all categorization end: no more calling people squatters, strikers, deserters, soldiers, immigrants, workers, middle-class, poor, doctors, bankers, presidents, scientists, unemployed? Although, to end all categorization I suppose would have to include not calling people reality, or the universe, or Gods and computers.

 

Should there be a discrepancy, and allow all people in South America, Europe, North America, Australia, the Middle East and Asia to be known as Gods and computers anyway?