Shutdown

[stimpy]

Stimpy, no idea what you're looking for, but here's five cents you didn't ask for but I will share, heh. You, like most RP posters, make posts that are amalgamation of opinions and facts (often offered to support said opinions). One thing I learned way back in Gone Gold days is that there is a pretty smart and experienced bunch of posters here (dwindling in the age of reddit and FB but still). If I post testable facts I should be fully prepared to be challenged and have citations or I get exposed as having my facts wrong. This happened to me back in GG days over some Israeli RP issues and I was pretty thoroughly debunked. Over the years after that and increased study, I came to realize my old opinions were based on more bias than information and today my views are quite different. I share this, because I see you sharing testable facts that very clearly don't hold up and I don't see you replying with any sources to back up your facts. So all we are left with is your opinion that everything is a dialectic, both sides are and shall always be equally to blame. Or something, I am still frankly even struggling with defining your thesis.

To wit, when you post things like:

Dems haven't been able to or been concerned enough to do shit about it in how many years that they were in control.

That is not an opinion. We can actually go back and explore the history of border protection and immigration actions and see, in other words what you're stating is a testable fact. So do you have any sources that prove this? You don't. Fact is that border spending has absolutely skyrocketed as of late under both R and D presidents and particularly under labor/union Dems, the Bushes and Obama. Since 2000, the border wall has gone from well under 100 miles to well over 600. The amount of border troops has skyrocketed. We can go on and on, but why when you are apparently conflating fact with opinion. Don't believe me?

Here, from a conservative source just in case that matters to you,

President Obama has a mixed record on immigration. On one hand, he is the most stringent enforcer of immigration laws in American history — far outstripping the deportation numbers of the George W. Bush and earlier administrations. On the other hand, his executive actions have helped shield large swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation. [ed. note: read DACA ]

The Obama administration has deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants. This record-setting pace of deportations holds up even when counting only those from the interior of the United States — 1.18 million of them under Obama’s watch. By contrast, the Bush administration deported 2 million people and a confirmed 555,164 from the interior of the United States. Interior deportation numbers for the first two years of the Bush administration aren’t available but under any realistic assumption his numbers could not possibly exceed Obama’s.

The chance that an illegal immigrant will be deported under the Obama administration is an average of 1.48 a year compared to 0.83 percent under the Bush administration. The Obama administration has surged enforcement immigration laws against employers — issuing 15.5 times as many fines against employers and 8.3 times as many arrests for violating immigration laws as his predecessor. Detention for those who crossed the border has also increased under the Obama administration — including for many of the roughly 227,000 children and families who have surged across the border since 2010.

There is just no two ways about it, President Obama initiated and expanded a harsher immigration enforcement regime than President Bush or any other President in American history.

Now, I don't see eye to eye with CATO on everything but I can't argue with their facts that Obama increased DACA protections while simultaneously increasing border enforcement on an almost epic level. Sorting out whether those odd-bedfellows of policies are a good match is when we get to apply opinion and more facts. But opinions by themselves without nurturing facts are just a gateway drug to bias. And of course, just like assholes, everyone has got one.

Edit: Border security spending really got kicking in the modern age in 1986 after one of the most recent major overhauls of the immigration/border system.

I appreciate this post and the thoughtful way you presented it.

[GreenGoo]

Edit: deleted my post as it seems that some progress is being made and I would hate to cause any backsliding.

[hepcat]

Only if I can mousse your hair while you're doing it.

There may be an opening on the night crew.

[Zarathud]

I don't agree with stimpy at all, but do people expect a serious response to this kind of ganging up? It's... Not conductive to the very discussions everyone is trying to say they are seeking. Even if stimpy wanted to give his opinion it's not very fun to give a counter argument here. How those who continue these ganging up conversations don't see that is beyond me.

The difference is between having an floating an opinion out there, and making an opinion a stance but not defending or explaining it. stimpy revels in his uninformed opinions and refuses any responsibility because it's "just an opinion."

Have enough conviction to believe in what you say, if you're going to say it. If you don't care, don't be a dick to people who do care. Pretty basic lesson of civilization.

"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos." -Walter Sobchak

[Zarathud]

I also object to the pity party because the dog pile used to include Rip, Mr. Fed, Tareeq and the other forum libertarians if you disagreed drug legalization. We must be getting old, since we don't pile on with The Treatment like we used to.

[Victoria Raverna]

While I don't agree with stimpy, I can see the problem of piling on or being hostile to people who have unpopular opinion or maybe according to the majority here is a lesser quality opinion.

[GreenGoo]

While I don't agree with stimpy, I can see the problem of piling on or being hostile to people who have unpopular opinion or maybe according to the majority here is a lesser quality opinion.

All he had to do was defend his position. He choose not to do so. Then it would have been his ideas under scrutiny, not his behaviour. There is no freedom from criticism in freedom of speech. The entire point of the marketplace of ideas is to run them through the wringer, which is to have your ideas battle tested by yourself and others.

That's probably not something you're familiar with. No country in the world has as much freedom of speech as the US.

[Combustible Lemur]

Fwiw, enough's post is excellent and gets to the heart of the issue. While degrees and subjective perceptions can be opinions,
this forum expects a level of objectivism. Facts and opinions are not the same thing. If you conflate them you get The Pile. One of the things that makes Rip such an effective troll is he rarely makes that mistake and is perfectly happy to follow grotesque logic to its irrational extremes. Health care, stigginit, libertarianism.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Victoria Raverna]

While I don't agree with stimpy, I can see the problem of piling on or being hostile to people who have unpopular opinion or maybe according to the majority here is a lesser quality opinion.

All he had to do was defend his position. He choose not to do so. Then it would have been his ideas under scrutiny, not his behaviour. There is no freedom from criticism in freedom of speech. The entire point of the marketplace of ideas is to run them through the wringer, which is to have your ideas battle tested by yourself and others.

That's probably not something you're familiar with. No country in the world has as much freedom of speech as the US.

You'll be surprised about the "freedom of speech" that people have in other countries. Even a country that is "oppressive" according to US standard. There are limit and you can get in trouble sometime but most of the time you're free to share your opinion even unpopular one.

With internet, it is hard to limit speech. We even have the same problem with fake news (real fake news, not Trump's) that is used to attack politically.

Funny thing is in OO maybe people think I'm anti west but in local Indonesian forum, people think I'm pro US or other western countries because my personal view on freedom, LGBT, death penalty, drug offenses, and religions are closer to westerners (non conservative westerners).

The only different in the discussion or debate in Indonesian forum and in maybe US forum is that people are getting angry more easily in Indonesian forum and people are more hostile there to opposing view. But it seems like OO also become more hostile to people with opposing view or unpopular opinions.

[GreenGoo]

You'll be surprised about the "freedom of speech" that people have in other countries. Even a country that is "oppressive" according to US standard. There are limit and you can get in trouble sometime but most of the time you're free to share your opinion even unpopular one.

No I wouldn't. I live in a country where it can be decided that hurting someone's feelings is against the law. Most countries have less freedom of speech than mine does, although in all likelihood there are many countries where it's ok to hurt the feelings of certain citizens but not others, typically based on class.

The point being, only America has a full implementation of the market place of ideas (well, like free market it's still limited, but in reasonable and principled ways). In that context Americans should be aware of how awesome that is and more importantly, what it means. There is *no* freedom of speech on this forum, yet we all attempt to uphold the concept anyway. That means feelings are free to be hurt (although if things degrade into straight up exchange of insults, that's of limited value and tend to be quashed) and no one's ideas are free from scrutiny or commentary.

For the record I don't think you're anti-west or even anti-US. I disagree with many of your positions but I have agreed with some of them. Just being exposed to more cultures gives you perspective than many people lack, including myself. An outsider's view can be valuable and help keep perspective, but with that said it's a fool (which has been explained to me personally a large number of times over the years) who believes they know better than those living it. I'm not saying I know what your speech is like, either legally or practically, but I do know that most western countries have a great amount of freedom as compared to the rest of the world, and no one has more than Americans.

[Kraken]

I'm not saying I know what your speech is like, either legally or practically, but I do know that most western countries have a great amount of freedom as compared to the rest of the world, and no one has more than Americans.

Reporters Without Borders ranks the US #45, down two places from last year. Canada is #18. They rank freedom of the press, as opposed to the more nebulous "free speech," which I take to mean the rights of you and me to say whatever we want without official repercussions. Their methodology is explained on their site.

[Victoria Raverna]

I'm not saying I know what your speech is like, either legally or practically, but I do know that most western countries have a great amount of freedom as compared to the rest of the world, and no one has more than Americans.

Reporters Without Borders ranks the US #45, down two places from last year. Canada is #18. They rank freedom of the press, as opposed to the more nebulous "free speech," which I take to mean the rights of you and me to say whatever we want without official repercussions. Their methodology is explained on their site.

Indonesia is #124. Much lower than US but still higher than other countries in the region like Philippines (133), Thailand (140), Malaysia (145), Singapore (151), Brunei (153), Vietnam (175) which is surprising to me.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not saying I know what your speech is like, either legally or practically, but I do know that most western countries have a great amount of freedom as compared to the rest of the world, and no one has more than Americans.

Reporters Without Borders ranks the US #45, down two places from last year. Canada is #18. They rank freedom of the press, as opposed to the more nebulous "free speech," which I take to mean the rights of you and me to say whatever we want without official repercussions. Their methodology is explained on their site.

I'm struggling to imagine a country with freer press than the US. There is nothing "nebulous" about your free speech either. Canada's freedom of expression on the other hand, is the very definition of nebulous. The idea that Canada has freer speech than the US is appealing, but it's simply not true. Your libel and slander laws are much more stringent as well. There's a reason Americans sue international media companies in the UK, as opposed to the US (or Canada).

I'll take a look, but I'm skeptical, to say the least.

edit: While I don't see it defined, they use violence against journalists as a metric. Assuming this is not government sanctioned violence, and that the violence is against the law and the law is enforced in good faith, I'm struggling with this one. I get that if a journalist doesn't feel safe reporting, they don't feel free, and to a certain extent I agree. At the same time, private citizens running amok is somewhat counter to the idea of freedom of speech, which is freedom from government sanctions for speech. Violence against people who's ideas you don't like is not a restriction on speech any more than violence against people who like tofu is a restriction on peoples' right to eat tofu. If it's government sanctioned violence, I'm more open to the idea though. If the government refuses to prosecute those who attack tofu eaters, that's a significant difference.

edit: Yeah, they've got Romania, South Korea and the UK as having more freedom of speech than the US. I don't care what methodology they use, that's simply incorrect. Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty. To claim that the US has less free speech than that is ridiculous.

edit: The site appears to be talking about freedom of information, which is not the subject being discussed, although it is related, granted. I'm talking about the freedom to say things, not the freedom to know things.

I'll take a closer look tomorrow.

[LordMortis]

You'll be surprised about the "freedom of speech" that people have in other countries. Even a country that is "oppressive" according to US standard. There are limit and you can get in trouble sometime but most of the time you're free to share your opinion even unpopular one.

Until recently I have always been surprised to limits on speech in other countries. The idea that the Internet scrubbed by gub'ment in China is hard for me to comprehend. So much so, I can't imagine I have even rudimentary understanding what it's like. In my mind an extreme attack on speech leads to North Korea. That is until the allusions made here in the US of controlling fake news, and the support it gets, and this coming on the heels on the US government agencies trying to set legal precedent on their rights to force decryption. I had happily taken for granted and was blissfully ignorant the the globe is nearly universal in its freedom of speech at the opening of the 21st century. Heck, when Pussy Riot started speaking out and getting censors a few years ago, I thought that was the extreme.

It's looking like that's been a whole lot of wrong on my part.

[noxiousdog]

I just noticed you're a moderator.....lol.
That explains a lot.
And do tell, oh wise one.....what exactly is my MO and show me what led you to that OPINION?
(That should buy me 45 minutes....)

@chrisoc13 - The above example is why he's getting piled on.

[$iljanus]

I just noticed you're a moderator.....lol.
That explains a lot.
And do tell, oh wise one.....what exactly is my MO and show me what led you to that OPINION?
(That should buy me 45 minutes....)

Moderators! Nowhere else will you find a worse group of scum and villainy!

[stimpy]

I just noticed you're a moderator.....lol.
That explains a lot.
And do tell, oh wise one.....what exactly is my MO and show me what led you to that OPINION?
(That should buy me 45 minutes....)

@chrisoc13 - The above example is why he's getting piled on.

Way to jump in so late to the party.
Love how you conveniently skip the previous posts where he was making it personal.
Whatevs....

[abr]

Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty.

Not really. I am not sure that §103 StGb was ever used until Erdogan brough the complaint against Böhmermann. The prosecutor found that it was not clear that he had violated the law and the case was dismissed. This incident led to the law being stricken from the books in 2017. Since then, the same laws apply to dignitaries as to anyone else. Carry on.

[stimpy]

Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty.

Not really. I am not sure that §103 StGb was ever used until Erdogan brough the complaint against Böhmermann. The prosecutor found that it was not clear that he had violated the law and the case was dismissed. This incident led to the law being stricken from the books in 2017. Since then, the same laws apply to dignitaries as to anyone else. Carry on.

Huh....GreenGoo making an unsubstantiated post.....
Try to back it up with facts next time please.

[ImLawBoy]

Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty.

Not really. I am not sure that §103 StGb was ever used until Erdogan brough the complaint against Böhmermann. The prosecutor found that it was not clear that he had violated the law and the case was dismissed. This incident led to the law being stricken from the books in 2017. Since then, the same laws apply to dignitaries as to anyone else. Carry on.

Huh....GreenGoo making an unsubstantiated post.....
Try to back it up with facts next time please.

Here's where we can see a potential difference. Let's watch GG's reaction to this information. Will he alter his position? Do more research? Or just double down on what he previously said?

[TheMix]

Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty.

Not really. I am not sure that §103 StGb was ever used until Erdogan brough the complaint against Böhmermann. The prosecutor found that it was not clear that he had violated the law and the case was dismissed. This incident led to the law being stricken from the books in 2017. Since then, the same laws apply to dignitaries as to anyone else. Carry on.

Huh....GreenGoo making an unsubstantiated post.....
Try to back it up with facts next time please.

Oh good lord. Enough with the persecution complex already.

The difference here is that Green Goo will absolutely revise his "opinion" now that facts have been presented. Whereas, you continue to maintain your "opinions" despite all the facts that have presented to dispute them. Stop trying to draw false equivalencies. Enough.

[stimpy]

Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty.

Not really. I am not sure that §103 StGb was ever used until Erdogan brough the complaint against Böhmermann. The prosecutor found that it was not clear that he had violated the law and the case was dismissed. This incident led to the law being stricken from the books in 2017. Since then, the same laws apply to dignitaries as to anyone else. Carry on.

Huh....GreenGoo making an unsubstantiated post.....
Try to back it up with facts next time please.

Here's where we can see a potential difference. Let's watch GG's reaction to this information. Will he alter his position? Do more research? Or just double down on what he previously said?

Ooooooo....I can't wait.......

[stimpy]

Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty.

Not really. I am not sure that §103 StGb was ever used until Erdogan brough the complaint against Böhmermann. The prosecutor found that it was not clear that he had violated the law and the case was dismissed. This incident led to the law being stricken from the books in 2017. Since then, the same laws apply to dignitaries as to anyone else. Carry on.

Huh....GreenGoo making an unsubstantiated post.....
Try to back it up with facts next time please.

Oh good lord. Enough with the persecution complex already.

The difference here is that Green Goo will absolutely revise his "opinion" now that facts have been presented. Whereas, you continue to maintain your "opinions" despite all the facts that have presented to dispute them. Stop trying to draw false equivalencies. Enough.

Eh...I was ready to not even participate in the back and forth until the dog pile happened and I was made to try and feel bad for having an opposing opinion, fact based or not. Now I'm involved. So yeah.....thanks but I'll stop when I feel like it.
And just what opinion have I stuck to and what facts have been presented to dispute them?
To me, this is all just been a shit show of a weak attempt at internet bullying.
Sorry I find it funny.

[ImLawBoy]

And just what opinion have I stuck to and what facts have been presented to dispute them?
To me, this is all just been a shit show of a weak attempt at internet bullying.
Sorry I find it funny.

You've given the opinion that the Ds did nothing on border security and that Trump is finally doing something. Facts have been provided to the contrary.

You've given the opinion that both sides are to blame for the shutdown. Facts have shown that the Rs and Ds had agreed on a resolution until one person (Trump) nixed it.

I'm sure there are others.

P.S. Simply calling something bullying doesn't actually make it bullying.

[stessier]

P.S. Simply calling something bullying doesn't actually make it bullying.

Says you!

(Am I doing this right?)

[ImLawBoy]

Thought of another one.

You've given the opinion that Trump is just trying to fulfill his campaign promise. Facts have been provided showing that part of his campaign promise included Mexico paying for the wall.

[Zarathud]

You're not getting involved by this performance, you're being a dick.

Or a little insecure about your boy Trump's performance. Of the 8 policy proposals Trump offered, 1/4 were to cure AIDS and childhood cancer. Weak.

[stimpy]

And people wonder why neither side wants to compromise these days.
You do and all you get is called out as being weak and caving in.

Democracy at it's finest.

This. This is the post that set everyone off.
Looking back, was the resulting reaction really warranted?

[stimpy]

You're not getting involved by this performance, you're being a dick.

Or a little insecure about your boy Trump's performance. Of the 8 policy proposals Trump offered, 1/4 were to cure AIDS and childhood cancer. Weak.

I am not gonna deny I'm taking it personal now.
I'll try to reign myself in as I think it's as fruitless to try and continue this particular issue in a civil manner as you guys probably think it is.

[Holman]

And just what opinion have I stuck to and what facts have been presented to dispute them?
To me, this is all just been a shit show of a weak attempt at internet bullying.
Sorry I find it funny.

You've given the opinion that the Ds did nothing on border security and that Trump is finally doing something. Facts have been provided to the contrary.

You've given the opinion that both sides are to blame for the shutdown. Facts have shown that the Rs and Ds had agreed on a resolution until one person (Trump) nixed it.

I'm sure there are others.

P.S. Simply calling something bullying doesn't actually make it bullying.

I stayed entirely out of the tedious round and round yesterday. (I get points for that, right??)

I'm pretty sure ImLawBoy's post here finishes the argument. Can we move on now?

[ImLawBoy]

And people wonder why neither side wants to compromise these days.
You do and all you get is called out as being weak and caving in.

Democracy at it's finest.

This. This is the post that set everyone off.
Looking back, was the resulting reaction really warranted?

Actually, the initial responses to that post were quite reasonable until you started responding to the responses.

[stimpy]

And people wonder why neither side wants to compromise these days.
You do and all you get is called out as being weak and caving in.

Democracy at it's finest.

This. This is the post that set everyone off.
Looking back, was the resulting reaction really warranted?

Actually, the initial responses to that post were quite reasonable until you started responding to the responses.

Ugh.

[Zaxxon]

Stop trying to draw false equivalencies. Enough.

Hey now, let's not drag Enough into this. He's a reasonable chap.

[pr0ner]

And I think in general, it is (despite pr0ner being clearly wrong in his opinion of Jersey Mike's).

You know, I've tried it 3 times, I've even gotten what friends who love it have suggested, and it just gets a big *meh* from me.

I'm always willing to give it another shot but I'd need a really strong recommendation to do so.

[NickAragua]

What's so difficult about making a turkey sub anyway? You just take some bread, apply condiments of choice to bread, put turkey (and optionally cheese) on it, add whatever other ingredients you want, then you're done. I mean, yeah, you have to make sure that you don't put so much stuff in there that the damn thing falls apart, but still.

[Zaxxon]

Actually, the initial responses to that post were quite reasonable until you started responding to the responses.

Indeed. Now that I'm on a computer, let's take a look...

I get that in certain cases, largely when those piling on are trolls. But that's not what's happening here (or, frankly, what ever really happens here). In this case, the poster in question posits poorly thought-out drivel, then refuses to engage.

This was a response to Chrisoc13, but you took umbrage to my reference to you as positing poorly thought-out drivel, then refusing to engage. Both of these claims are objectively true, as most recently mentioned by ImLawBoy. In short--your opinions as placed in this topic are garbage, and you are not interested in revising said opinions.

Despite this, you responded thusly:

Who the fuck are you to judge my posts as poorly thought out drivel???
Sorry I don't measure up to the eloquent posts you make. Don't read them. You may get stupid. Like me.
Oh sorry...you're not trolling, are ya?

Doesn't help your cause, but I'll respond directly: I am the fuck someone who listens to reason and attempts to sort out fact from fiction. In the case of your opinions, they are fiction. Despite being shown this by others here, you double down. They are therefore also poorly thought-out.

I then continued engaging Chrisoc13 as follows:

I don't think this incident is all that relevant. Frankly, some opinions are worth more than others, and some are flatly wrong. The current political environment has brought out the knives more than in the past, but a large piece of that is that while everyone's entitled to an opinion, not every opinion is deserving of respect.

Maybe stimpy would be more open to friendly engagement if others here had come in with arms open and weapons sheathed, but those interactions are informed by prior postings by stimpy. Plainly, we all know stimpy's MO, and know that (s)he's highly unlikely to listen to reason. A day's discussion doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Again, this is all pretty objectively true. Your opinions in this thread are flatly wrong. Not all opinions are deserving of respect. You have a history of failing to engage in thoughtful discourse that preceded this thread.

You then continued our interaction as follows:

I just noticed you're a moderator.....lol.
That explains a lot.
And do tell, oh wise one.....what exactly is my MO and show me what led you to that OPINION?
(That should buy me 45 minutes....)

Again, not helping your cause, either through poor grammar or ad hominem.

Throughout, others (most notably Enough and ImLawBoy) took the high[er than mine] road and attempted to educate you, all attempts at which you rejected (though you were polite in your response to Enough, which I do appreciate, you failed to acknowledge the evisceration of your opinion that he presented).

Later on, after Noxiousdog pointed out one of your low-quality responses, you jumped on him, again failing to actually engage on the facts of the matter and, further, suggesting that I've made this personal with you:

Way to jump in so late to the party.
Love how you conveniently skip the previous posts where he was making it personal.
Whatevs....

You can say that I made it personal due to the fact that I personally responded to you, or that I accurately characterized your posts. But the implication is that I made ad hominem attacks against you, which is not the case. In short, you've elected to remain in the kitchen despite failing to be able to take the heat. It's not the community's fault (eg 'piling on') if you sustain some minor burns from said heat.

I stayed entirely out of the tedious round and round yesterday. (I get points for that, right??)

I'm pretty sure ImLawBoy's post here finishes the argument. Can we move on now?

You do get points, and yes, it does and I believe we can.

You know, I've tried it 3 times, I've even gotten what friends who love it have suggested, and it just gets a big *meh* from me.

I'm always willing to give it another shot but I'd need a really strong recommendation to do so.

I agree that it's not haute cuisine, but it's a high quantity of fresh meat with some delicious toppings. I fully admit that my views are likely tainted by the other sandwich shops near me largely consisting of Subway (ugh) and Jimmy John's (good, but still a high bread-to-meat ratio), and no Potbelly or other such of that ilk nearby.

[Kraken]

I'm not saying I know what your speech is like, either legally or practically, but I do know that most western countries have a great amount of freedom as compared to the rest of the world, and no one has more than Americans.

Reporters Without Borders ranks the US #45, down two places from last year. Canada is #18. They rank freedom of the press, as opposed to the more nebulous "free speech," which I take to mean the rights of you and me to say whatever we want without official repercussions. Their methodology is explained on their site.

I'm struggling to imagine a country with freer press than the US. There is nothing "nebulous" about your free speech either. Canada's freedom of expression on the other hand, is the very definition of nebulous. The idea that Canada has freer speech than the US is appealing, but it's simply not true. Your libel and slander laws are much more stringent as well. There's a reason Americans sue international media companies in the UK, as opposed to the US (or Canada).

I'll take a look, but I'm skeptical, to say the least.

edit: While I don't see it defined, they use violence against journalists as a metric. Assuming this is not government sanctioned violence, and that the violence is against the law and the law is enforced in good faith, I'm struggling with this one. I get that if a journalist doesn't feel safe reporting, they don't feel free, and to a certain extent I agree. At the same time, private citizens running amok is somewhat counter to the idea of freedom of speech, which is freedom from government sanctions for speech. Violence against people who's ideas you don't like is not a restriction on speech any more than violence against people who like tofu is a restriction on peoples' right to eat tofu. If it's government sanctioned violence, I'm more open to the idea though. If the government refuses to prosecute those who attack tofu eaters, that's a significant difference.

edit: Yeah, they've got Romania, South Korea and the UK as having more freedom of speech than the US. I don't care what methodology they use, that's simply incorrect. Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty. To claim that the US has less free speech than that is ridiculous.

edit: The site appears to be talking about freedom of information, which is not the subject being discussed, although it is related, granted. I'm talking about the freedom to say things, not the freedom to know things.

I'll take a closer look tomorrow.

<shrug> You claimed that the US is #1 by a country mile at free speech. In light of yesterday's dustup over supporting one's opinions, I decided to check that and found evidence to the contrary. Whether the US should be #48 or #26 or #10 is not something I want to quibble over; I'm only interested in your claim that we're #1. Now I think you're expected to support or modify your opinion. You may also restate it more obstinately, attack my source, move the goalposts, erect a strawman, or insult my mother.

I've already agreed that "freedom of the press" is not exactly the same thing as "free speech" so I'm open to other rankings, but I do think Reporters Without Borders is a pretty good judge. Violence against journalists in the US is not state-sponsored but it's undeniably encouraged by POTUS.

[$iljanus]

And I think in general, it is (despite pr0ner being clearly wrong in his opinion of Jersey Mike's).

You know, I've tried it 3 times, I've even gotten what friends who love it have suggested, and it just gets a big *meh* from me.

I'm always willing to give it another shot but I'd need a really strong recommendation to do so.

When I was growing up in the swamps of Northern NJ, Blimpie's was our Jersey Mike's. I wonder how it holds up these days...

On a more mundane moderation note, just a friendly reminder to feel free to continue the spirited discussion but try to keep it somewhat civil. Doesn't have to be just a dry dissertation of facts and figures although I rather enjoy that on occasion since I learn something in the process and it appeals to the retired scientist in me. But when it really starts to venture into the realm of insults then is it really fun or informative anymore?

Carry on!

[Chrisoc13]

I just noticed you're a moderator.....lol.
That explains a lot.
And do tell, oh wise one.....what exactly is my MO and show me what led you to that OPINION?
(That should buy me 45 minutes....)

@chrisoc13 - The above example is why he's getting piled on.

I understand why the pile-on is continuing, and I'm not defending anyone's actions here (including stimpy). But would it have reached that point if stimpy had not felt cornered by the forum? I'm not sure. None of us really are. But I can say I have lost my cool eventually after a pile-on and written some stupid stuff. So I could see that happening. Now we can point back since there has been a bit of a meltdown and say "See? They deserve the pile-on now. See what they are doing? So unreasonable, how can we not pile-on?" Then the person eventually gets turned into a caricature (through no help of themselves) and the forum moves on happy that everyone is again dang close to being on the same page.

Doesn't matter, the pool of divergent opinions in R&P is dwindling but it seems people are happy with that. Personally it has changed for me from somewhere that was my go-to for political discussion to somewhere I go if I want to see what the left of center think of ideas and read debates between various left of center ideas. Which again, is fine. No pity party here, I'm just no longer surprised when I see these scenarios play out.

On another note I find the discussion about free speech incredibly interesting. I always see these lists claiming the US has poor free speech and I think much like GreenGoo my reaction is Whaaaaaat???? Of course I don't look into the methodology but it always strikes me as strange since it seems you can't have much for freedom of speech than you have in the US. But then I shrug my shoulders and move on figuring I don't understand some of the methodology involved, so I am enjoying reading about it more.

[YellowKing]

Having been on the wrong side of the pile-ons when I was heavily conservative, I know how stimpy feels. At the same time, I also acknowledge that I was misguided in those days and wrong on a lot of fronts.

However, that's a realization everybody has to come to on their own.

I will say that even in those days, as long as I had facts and figures to back up my argument, people were respectful even in their disagreement. The folks on here are smart and aren't going to get suckered in by logical fallacies, whataboutism, and the like.

Rather than run from it, embrace it. There's no better way to get better at debate than to debate really intelligent people who disagree with you and can point out your weaknesses.