Here Today... Gone To Hell! | Message Board


Guns N Roses
of all the message boards on the internet, this is one...

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 05:04:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
1227698 Posts in 43242 Topics by 9264 Members
Latest Member: EllaGNR
* Home Help Calendar Go to HTGTH Login Register
+  Here Today... Gone To Hell!
|-+  Guns N' Roses
| |-+  Guns N' Roses
| | |-+  Official Guns N Roses and Axl Twitter & Facebook updates
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 288 289 [290] 291 292 ... 302 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Official Guns N Roses and Axl Twitter & Facebook updates  (Read 1452328 times)
PermissionToLand
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1792


« Reply #5780 on: February 03, 2019, 11:36:39 PM »

Yeah. I prefer 80's anarcho-capitalist GN'R to the modern left-wing liberals before us. These guys have become typical coastal elites. What a bore.


Your username perfectly illustrates your maturity. Let's all hear what "Poops Magee" has to say about socio-political issues...

Spot on. Both of you guys just hit the nail on the head. AllwaysTired, your sense of liberal is what I referred to as "classical liberal", so we totally agree there. And that's what gets me. It seems incongruent that they don't say, go after people on the left who want to crack down on free speech, etc. Where are those tweets?



I love how colleges dis-inviting trolls like Milo "pedophilia is okay" Yiannopolis is somehow "cracking down on free speech", but Trump's attacks on the free press are not. FOH

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, so please excuse my confusion. Are you referring to what the PMRC did with warning labels? That was lead by Tipper Gore. Not exactly a neo-con. It just appears to me that the band went from anti-establishment to anti-Republican, and I find that lame. It's lame for the reason that it's the safe play. For example. Many of us love stand-up comedy. Including our favorite lead singer. Listen to an interview with any comedian worth their salt, and they'll say that stand-up is harder now for good comedians and easier for hacks. You will be ostracized for using "offensive" (gasp!) language, but so long as you bash Trump you're fine. That's not pushing the boundaries. That's the status quo. Not very GN'R if you ask me.

To your other points: It is not ironic that I bring up leftists cracking down on free speech. They are the ones doing it. Trump calling people fake news does not deprive them of the right to broadcast it. The fact that he tells lies also has nothing to do with restricting free speech. In fact, it is a shining example of the concept. Think he's lying? Prove it. Start a dialogue. Right-wing conspiracy theorists also have the right to speak their mind too. Surely, you don't believe that those people should not be allowed to do so?

Thanks for hearing me out. I hope I've been respectful.

You realize that Republicans were the establishment in 1987-1993, and they are again today, right?

I love how you presume to speak for every comedian. The whiners are lousy comedians like Chris Rock and Seinfeld who make lazy jokes based on tired old stereotypes and who haven't been relevant in over a decade. And it is not offensive language that people are taking issue with (nobody is getting in trouble for saying "fuck" in 2019), it's offensive concepts, like Kevin Hart saying he would beat his son for being gay.

Also, censorship is targeted at left wingers MORE than at right wingers. Funny how the data directly contradicts the right wing narrative of persecution:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/16/the-campus-free-speech-crisis-is-a-myth-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.333367399d2d

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-shuts-down-free-speech-too/2016/12/15/745fa352-c30d-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.f35e4d8818b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/the-free-speech-hypocrisy-of-right-wing-media.html

Kicking outlets out of the White House Press Room that criticize him is not violating free speech? He has repeatedly stated his desire to "open up those libel laws" and put outlets that criticize him out of business. He is taking lines right out of Putin and every other authoritarian's playbook in attacking the free press to consolidate power. Your definition of free speech is awfully conditional and one-sided...

You can play your little "objective unbiased observer" game all you want, but you're not fooling anyone.

I think it's kinda obvious that bashing Trump is low hanging fruit, but that's my opinion.

And to bring this back around, I would like to refer you to Axl's rant at the Ritz before Out Ta Get Me--"People who tell you what you can say and what you can't say. I personally don't need that!, I don't need that s**** in my life!" God I love this band.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is low hanging fruit. Stop and think about that for a second and why you are dismissing any criticism of the leader of the free world as simply being bandwagoning. *facepalm*

I'll say the same thing I said to people crying about GNR deleting One in a Million; in the past 30 years, Axl grew the fuck up and matured and learned from his mistakes. When he was 25 at the Ritz, he was an angry kid lashing out. Since then, his views on society have become more nuanced.

Free speech absolutism is a radical and dangerous position. A slippery slope fallacy of censorship does not outweigh the real consequences of hateful rhetoric.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/08/free-speech-absolutists-arent-protecting-democracy-they-may-even-be-endangering-it/?utm_term=.6592fc0035eb

https://lithub.com/when-fascists-weaponize-free-speech-absolutism/
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 11:57:21 PM by PermissionToLand » Logged

"This sweater I made for you
I think you know where that comes from, guitarcomeon" - Stuff McKracken
rebelhipi
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2668


You Dig What The Fuck I'm Saying, Homefuck''?!''


« Reply #5781 on: February 04, 2019, 08:13:40 AM »

Yeah. I prefer 80's anarcho-capitalist GN'R to the modern left-wing liberals before us. These guys have become typical coastal elites. What a bore.


Your username perfectly illustrates your maturity. Let's all hear what "Poops Magee" has to say about socio-political issues...

Spot on. Both of you guys just hit the nail on the head. AllwaysTired, your sense of liberal is what I referred to as "classical liberal", so we totally agree there. And that's what gets me. It seems incongruent that they don't say, go after people on the left who want to crack down on free speech, etc. Where are those tweets?



I love how colleges dis-inviting trolls like Milo "pedophilia is okay" Yiannopolis is somehow "cracking down on free speech", but Trump's attacks on the free press are not. FOH

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, so please excuse my confusion. Are you referring to what the PMRC did with warning labels? That was lead by Tipper Gore. Not exactly a neo-con. It just appears to me that the band went from anti-establishment to anti-Republican, and I find that lame. It's lame for the reason that it's the safe play. For example. Many of us love stand-up comedy. Including our favorite lead singer. Listen to an interview with any comedian worth their salt, and they'll say that stand-up is harder now for good comedians and easier for hacks. You will be ostracized for using "offensive" (gasp!) language, but so long as you bash Trump you're fine. That's not pushing the boundaries. That's the status quo. Not very GN'R if you ask me.

To your other points: It is not ironic that I bring up leftists cracking down on free speech. They are the ones doing it. Trump calling people fake news does not deprive them of the right to broadcast it. The fact that he tells lies also has nothing to do with restricting free speech. In fact, it is a shining example of the concept. Think he's lying? Prove it. Start a dialogue. Right-wing conspiracy theorists also have the right to speak their mind too. Surely, you don't believe that those people should not be allowed to do so?

Thanks for hearing me out. I hope I've been respectful.

You realize that Republicans were the establishment in 1987-1993, and they are again today, right?

I love how you presume to speak for every comedian. The whiners are lousy comedians like Chris Rock and Seinfeld who make lazy jokes based on tired old stereotypes and who haven't been relevant in over a decade. And it is not offensive language that people are taking issue with (nobody is getting in trouble for saying "fuck" in 2019), it's offensive concepts, like Kevin Hart saying he would beat his son for being gay.

Also, censorship is targeted at left wingers MORE than at right wingers. Funny how the data directly contradicts the right wing narrative of persecution:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/16/the-campus-free-speech-crisis-is-a-myth-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.333367399d2d

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-shuts-down-free-speech-too/2016/12/15/745fa352-c30d-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.f35e4d8818b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/the-free-speech-hypocrisy-of-right-wing-media.html

Kicking outlets out of the White House Press Room that criticize him is not violating free speech? He has repeatedly stated his desire to "open up those libel laws" and put outlets that criticize him out of business. He is taking lines right out of Putin and every other authoritarian's playbook in attacking the free press to consolidate power. Your definition of free speech is awfully conditional and one-sided...

You can play your little "objective unbiased observer" game all you want, but you're not fooling anyone.

I think it's kinda obvious that bashing Trump is low hanging fruit, but that's my opinion.

And to bring this back around, I would like to refer you to Axl's rant at the Ritz before Out Ta Get Me--"People who tell you what you can say and what you can't say. I personally don't need that!, I don't need that s**** in my life!" God I love this band.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is low hanging fruit. Stop and think about that for a second and why you are dismissing any criticism of the leader of the free world as simply being bandwagoning. *facepalm*

I'll say the same thing I said to people crying about GNR deleting One in a Million; in the past 30 years, Axl grew the fuck up and matured and learned from his mistakes. When he was 25 at the Ritz, he was an angry kid lashing out. Since then, his views on society have become more nuanced.

Free speech absolutism is a radical and dangerous position. A slippery slope fallacy of censorship does not outweigh the real consequences of hateful rhetoric.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/08/free-speech-absolutists-arent-protecting-democracy-they-may-even-be-endangering-it/?utm_term=.6592fc0035eb

https://lithub.com/when-fascists-weaponize-free-speech-absolutism/
Top Post! ok
Logged

Helsinki 06.07.06
Helsinki 05.06.10
Bangkok 28.02.17
Hämeenlinna 01.07.17
Berlin 03.06.18
Tallinn 16.07.18
Algés 04.06.22
Prague 18.06.22
Madrid 09.06.23

GN'R
pilferk
The Riddler
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11710


Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!


« Reply #5782 on: February 04, 2019, 08:36:40 AM »

Yeah. I prefer 80's anarcho-capitalist GN'R to the modern left-wing liberals before us. These guys have become typical coastal elites. What a bore.


Your username perfectly illustrates your maturity. Let's all hear what "Poops Magee" has to say about socio-political issues...

Spot on. Both of you guys just hit the nail on the head. AllwaysTired, your sense of liberal is what I referred to as "classical liberal", so we totally agree there. And that's what gets me. It seems incongruent that they don't say, go after people on the left who want to crack down on free speech, etc. Where are those tweets?



I love how colleges dis-inviting trolls like Milo "pedophilia is okay" Yiannopolis is somehow "cracking down on free speech", but Trump's attacks on the free press are not. FOH

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, so please excuse my confusion. Are you referring to what the PMRC did with warning labels? That was lead by Tipper Gore. Not exactly a neo-con. It just appears to me that the band went from anti-establishment to anti-Republican, and I find that lame. It's lame for the reason that it's the safe play. For example. Many of us love stand-up comedy. Including our favorite lead singer. Listen to an interview with any comedian worth their salt, and they'll say that stand-up is harder now for good comedians and easier for hacks. You will be ostracized for using "offensive" (gasp!) language, but so long as you bash Trump you're fine. That's not pushing the boundaries. That's the status quo. Not very GN'R if you ask me.

To your other points: It is not ironic that I bring up leftists cracking down on free speech. They are the ones doing it. Trump calling people fake news does not deprive them of the right to broadcast it. The fact that he tells lies also has nothing to do with restricting free speech. In fact, it is a shining example of the concept. Think he's lying? Prove it. Start a dialogue. Right-wing conspiracy theorists also have the right to speak their mind too. Surely, you don't believe that those people should not be allowed to do so?

Thanks for hearing me out. I hope I've been respectful.

You realize that Republicans were the establishment in 1987-1993, and they are again today, right?

I love how you presume to speak for every comedian. The whiners are lousy comedians like Chris Rock and Seinfeld who make lazy jokes based on tired old stereotypes and who haven't been relevant in over a decade. And it is not offensive language that people are taking issue with (nobody is getting in trouble for saying "fuck" in 2019), it's offensive concepts, like Kevin Hart saying he would beat his son for being gay.

Also, censorship is targeted at left wingers MORE than at right wingers. Funny how the data directly contradicts the right wing narrative of persecution:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/16/the-campus-free-speech-crisis-is-a-myth-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.333367399d2d

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-shuts-down-free-speech-too/2016/12/15/745fa352-c30d-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.f35e4d8818b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/the-free-speech-hypocrisy-of-right-wing-media.html

Kicking outlets out of the White House Press Room that criticize him is not violating free speech? He has repeatedly stated his desire to "open up those libel laws" and put outlets that criticize him out of business. He is taking lines right out of Putin and every other authoritarian's playbook in attacking the free press to consolidate power. Your definition of free speech is awfully conditional and one-sided...

You can play your little "objective unbiased observer" game all you want, but you're not fooling anyone.

I think it's kinda obvious that bashing Trump is low hanging fruit, but that's my opinion.

And to bring this back around, I would like to refer you to Axl's rant at the Ritz before Out Ta Get Me--"People who tell you what you can say and what you can't say. I personally don't need that!, I don't need that s**** in my life!" God I love this band.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is low hanging fruit. Stop and think about that for a second and why you are dismissing any criticism of the leader of the free world as simply being bandwagoning. *facepalm*

I'll say the same thing I said to people crying about GNR deleting One in a Million; in the past 30 years, Axl grew the fuck up and matured and learned from his mistakes. When he was 25 at the Ritz, he was an angry kid lashing out. Since then, his views on society have become more nuanced.

Free speech absolutism is a radical and dangerous position. A slippery slope fallacy of censorship does not outweigh the real consequences of hateful rhetoric.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/08/free-speech-absolutists-arent-protecting-democracy-they-may-even-be-endangering-it/?utm_term=.6592fc0035eb

https://lithub.com/when-fascists-weaponize-free-speech-absolutism/

I'm going to stay out of the general argument, but I wanted to add to your (excellent) post:

Freedom to say anything does not equal being able to say anything you want without consequence.

It specifically means there should be no laws made abridging free speech.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you should not bare the responsibility of your rhetoric. And societal outcry, and condemnation, is among the consequences of using that right to free speech.

You knowingly utter offensive things and you bare the responsibility of those words.

A private organization not wanting to be associated with those words are not abridging your right to free speech.

The government kicking out members of the press because their coverage is unflattering IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

An internet forum not wanting to allow certain types of speech is not abridging your right to free speech.

A president calling things "fake news" and discrediting the press without evidence, from a government podium, IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

Getting heckled from the audience, when you say something about beating your gay son, is not abridging your right to free speech.

A representative of the government, going after a private citizen's business interests, because they disagree with them (or refused them service out of political differences....which, FYI, the Supreme Court just basically affirmed to the Republicans vociferous cheers), is abridging your right to free speech (and implied freedom of expression).

Note the differences here.  They're pretty stark, and obvious.  The ones involving private entities/organizations are not violations.  The ones involving the government, their laws, and their representatives, ARE.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 08:45:02 AM by pilferk » Logged

Together again,
Gee, it's good to be together again,
I just can't imagine that you've ever been gone
It's not starting over, it's just going on
jarmo
If you're reading this, you've just wasted valuable time!
Administrator
Legend
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 38796


"You're an idiot"


WWW
« Reply #5783 on: February 06, 2019, 05:59:39 AM »


Axl Rose
‏Verified account @axlrose
10 hours ago

Happy Birthday Duff n’ Del!!🎉🔥🎁





/jarmo
Logged

Disclaimer: My posts are my personal opinion. I do not speak on behalf of anybody else unless I say so. If you are looking for hidden meanings in my posts, you are wasting your time...
PermissionToLand
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1792


« Reply #5784 on: February 15, 2019, 08:31:08 PM »

I'm going to stay out of the general argument, but I wanted to add to your (excellent) post:

Freedom to say anything does not equal being able to say anything you want without consequence.

It specifically means there should be no laws made abridging free speech.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you should not bare the responsibility of your rhetoric. And societal outcry, and condemnation, is among the consequences of using that right to free speech.

You knowingly utter offensive things and you bare the responsibility of those words.

A private organization not wanting to be associated with those words are not abridging your right to free speech.

The government kicking out members of the press because their coverage is unflattering IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

An internet forum not wanting to allow certain types of speech is not abridging your right to free speech.

A president calling things "fake news" and discrediting the press without evidence, from a government podium, IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

Getting heckled from the audience, when you say something about beating your gay son, is not abridging your right to free speech.

A representative of the government, going after a private citizen's business interests, because they disagree with them (or refused them service out of political differences....which, FYI, the Supreme Court just basically affirmed to the Republicans vociferous cheers), is abridging your right to free speech (and implied freedom of expression).

Note the differences here.  They're pretty stark, and obvious.  The ones involving private entities/organizations are not violations.  The ones involving the government, their laws, and their representatives, ARE.

Indeed. However, I do think we could learn something from Germany in regard to hate speech. Indeed, even the first amendment is not absolute; one cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

I had this argument with my brother; he insists that white supremacy is dying off and will die off naturally because there are enough counter arguments debunking it (i.e. the solution is more free speech). But this is demonstrably not the case. Fascists and White Nationalists are not dying off, they are enjoying a resurgence, particularly in Europe. Logical counter arguments will not prevent people from joining them because the drive does not come from a logical place, but an emotional one.

Why would a liberal democracy allow speech that seeks to undermine the very freedoms it is taking advantage of to gain power? At the end of the day, we should be weighing the societal good of allowing Nazis to spread propaganda against protecting the people they target. I would think this an easy decision.
Logged

"This sweater I made for you
I think you know where that comes from, guitarcomeon" - Stuff McKracken
allwaystired
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2455

Here Today...


« Reply #5785 on: February 17, 2019, 07:25:40 AM »

I'm going to stay out of the general argument, but I wanted to add to your (excellent) post:

Freedom to say anything does not equal being able to say anything you want without consequence.

It specifically means there should be no laws made abridging free speech.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you should not bare the responsibility of your rhetoric. And societal outcry, and condemnation, is among the consequences of using that right to free speech.

You knowingly utter offensive things and you bare the responsibility of those words.

A private organization not wanting to be associated with those words are not abridging your right to free speech.

The government kicking out members of the press because their coverage is unflattering IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

An internet forum not wanting to allow certain types of speech is not abridging your right to free speech.

A president calling things "fake news" and discrediting the press without evidence, from a government podium, IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

Getting heckled from the audience, when you say something about beating your gay son, is not abridging your right to free speech.

A representative of the government, going after a private citizen's business interests, because they disagree with them (or refused them service out of political differences....which, FYI, the Supreme Court just basically affirmed to the Republicans vociferous cheers), is abridging your right to free speech (and implied freedom of expression).

Note the differences here.  They're pretty stark, and obvious.  The ones involving private entities/organizations are not violations.  The ones involving the government, their laws, and their representatives, ARE.

Indeed. However, I do think we could learn something from Germany in regard to hate speech. Indeed, even the first amendment is not absolute; one cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

I had this argument with my brother; he insists that white supremacy is dying off and will die off naturally because there are enough counter arguments debunking it (i.e. the solution is more free speech). But this is demonstrably not the case. Fascists and White Nationalists are not dying off, they are enjoying a resurgence, particularly in Europe. Logical counter arguments will not prevent people from joining them because the drive does not come from a logical place, but an emotional one.

Why would a liberal democracy allow speech that seeks to undermine the very freedoms it is taking advantage of to gain power? At the end of the day, we should be weighing the societal good of allowing Nazis to spread propaganda against protecting the people they target. I would think this an easy decision.

The rise is also being fuelled by the damgerous spread of 'alternative facts' and the ubdermining of trusted news sources. Once you can get people to not believe anything they read or hear, despite the evidence, you can cobtrol them and make them believe anything. It's terrifying how many people now think things like climate change are not true.

Ignorance is now regarded as a good thing, and people are free to pick and choose what facts they want to believe and what they don't.
Logged

"Beyond the realms of dedication, venturing worryingly deep sometimes into obsessional delusion"
PermissionToLand
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1792


« Reply #5786 on: February 17, 2019, 09:29:17 PM »

I'm going to stay out of the general argument, but I wanted to add to your (excellent) post:

Freedom to say anything does not equal being able to say anything you want without consequence.

It specifically means there should be no laws made abridging free speech.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you should not bare the responsibility of your rhetoric. And societal outcry, and condemnation, is among the consequences of using that right to free speech.

You knowingly utter offensive things and you bare the responsibility of those words.

A private organization not wanting to be associated with those words are not abridging your right to free speech.

The government kicking out members of the press because their coverage is unflattering IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

An internet forum not wanting to allow certain types of speech is not abridging your right to free speech.

A president calling things "fake news" and discrediting the press without evidence, from a government podium, IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

Getting heckled from the audience, when you say something about beating your gay son, is not abridging your right to free speech.

A representative of the government, going after a private citizen's business interests, because they disagree with them (or refused them service out of political differences....which, FYI, the Supreme Court just basically affirmed to the Republicans vociferous cheers), is abridging your right to free speech (and implied freedom of expression).

Note the differences here.  They're pretty stark, and obvious.  The ones involving private entities/organizations are not violations.  The ones involving the government, their laws, and their representatives, ARE.

Indeed. However, I do think we could learn something from Germany in regard to hate speech. Indeed, even the first amendment is not absolute; one cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

I had this argument with my brother; he insists that white supremacy is dying off and will die off naturally because there are enough counter arguments debunking it (i.e. the solution is more free speech). But this is demonstrably not the case. Fascists and White Nationalists are not dying off, they are enjoying a resurgence, particularly in Europe. Logical counter arguments will not prevent people from joining them because the drive does not come from a logical place, but an emotional one.

Why would a liberal democracy allow speech that seeks to undermine the very freedoms it is taking advantage of to gain power? At the end of the day, we should be weighing the societal good of allowing Nazis to spread propaganda against protecting the people they target. I would think this an easy decision.

The rise is also being fuelled by the damgerous spread of 'alternative facts' and the ubdermining of trusted news sources. Once you can get people to not believe anything they read or hear, despite the evidence, you can cobtrol them and make them believe anything. It's terrifying how many people now think things like climate change are not true.

Ignorance is now regarded as a good thing, and people are free to pick and choose what facts they want to believe and what they don't.


Exactly, and it's a move straight out of every authoritarian leader's playbook.

I am afraid this "national emergency" will become Trump's Reichstag fire. He has now realized that he can take advantage of a crisis (real or manufactured) to force through his agenda and sidestep limits on executive power.
Logged

"This sweater I made for you
I think you know where that comes from, guitarcomeon" - Stuff McKracken
AdZ
It's LiberAdZe, bitch!
HTGTH Crew
Legend
*****

Karma: 3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5332



« Reply #5787 on: February 18, 2019, 07:56:31 AM »

I believe there's a whole off topic section where you are free to discuss politics here: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?board=8.0
Logged
GypsySoul
C is for cookie, that's good enough for me
Legend
*****

Karma: 1
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 12248


SLAM DUNK!!!


« Reply #5788 on: April 10, 2019, 07:18:26 PM »

Guns N' Roses @gunsnroses
#GnFnR The Complete Collection. Just press play

Guns N' Roses Complete Collection
Every Guns N' Roses track on Spotify in one place! Just hit play.
Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1UsIeXF8n56wTzqCN8acrc?si=hoV8J35gTLC7p9i94k4zlQ




Logged

God chose those whom the world considers absurd to shame the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)
kyrie
Legend
*****

Karma: 1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1620


Eden has enough to go around


WWW
« Reply #5789 on: April 10, 2019, 10:46:59 PM »

Really bugging me that the "complete collection" on Spotify doesn't include Sympathy for the Devil (not to mention Oh My God, which was an official release on the EOD soundtrack)
Logged
GypsySoul
C is for cookie, that's good enough for me
Legend
*****

Karma: 1
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 12248


SLAM DUNK!!!


« Reply #5790 on: April 17, 2019, 08:44:49 PM »

Guns N' Roses @gunsnroses
#GnFnR limited issue http://bit.ly/2Xd9udi

http://bit.ly/2Xd9udi   links to 
https://gnrmerch.com/collections/accessories-all/products/afd-top-hat-skull-buckle
AFD Top Hat Skull Buckle
Regular price $35.00
Exclusive to the Official GnR Shop. Top hat skull belt buckle. Made out of 100% pewter.

Logged

God chose those whom the world considers absurd to shame the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)
Poops Magee
Headliner
**

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 102


« Reply #5791 on: April 18, 2019, 06:06:19 PM »

Yeah. I prefer 80's anarcho-capitalist GN'R to the modern left-wing liberals before us. These guys have become typical coastal elites. What a bore.


Your username perfectly illustrates your maturity. Let's all hear what "Poops Magee" has to say about socio-political issues...

Spot on. Both of you guys just hit the nail on the head. AllwaysTired, your sense of liberal is what I referred to as "classical liberal", so we totally agree there. And that's what gets me. It seems incongruent that they don't say, go after people on the left who want to crack down on free speech, etc. Where are those tweets?



I love how colleges dis-inviting trolls like Milo "pedophilia is okay" Yiannopolis is somehow "cracking down on free speech", but Trump's attacks on the free press are not. FOH

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, so please excuse my confusion. Are you referring to what the PMRC did with warning labels? That was lead by Tipper Gore. Not exactly a neo-con. It just appears to me that the band went from anti-establishment to anti-Republican, and I find that lame. It's lame for the reason that it's the safe play. For example. Many of us love stand-up comedy. Including our favorite lead singer. Listen to an interview with any comedian worth their salt, and they'll say that stand-up is harder now for good comedians and easier for hacks. You will be ostracized for using "offensive" (gasp!) language, but so long as you bash Trump you're fine. That's not pushing the boundaries. That's the status quo. Not very GN'R if you ask me.

To your other points: It is not ironic that I bring up leftists cracking down on free speech. They are the ones doing it. Trump calling people fake news does not deprive them of the right to broadcast it. The fact that he tells lies also has nothing to do with restricting free speech. In fact, it is a shining example of the concept. Think he's lying? Prove it. Start a dialogue. Right-wing conspiracy theorists also have the right to speak their mind too. Surely, you don't believe that those people should not be allowed to do so?

Thanks for hearing me out. I hope I've been respectful.

You realize that Republicans were the establishment in 1987-1993, and they are again today, right?

I love how you presume to speak for every comedian. The whiners are lousy comedians like Chris Rock and Seinfeld who make lazy jokes based on tired old stereotypes and who haven't been relevant in over a decade. And it is not offensive language that people are taking issue with (nobody is getting in trouble for saying "fuck" in 2019), it's offensive concepts, like Kevin Hart saying he would beat his son for being gay.

Also, censorship is targeted at left wingers MORE than at right wingers. Funny how the data directly contradicts the right wing narrative of persecution:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/16/the-campus-free-speech-crisis-is-a-myth-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.333367399d2d

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-shuts-down-free-speech-too/2016/12/15/745fa352-c30d-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.f35e4d8818b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/the-free-speech-hypocrisy-of-right-wing-media.html

Kicking outlets out of the White House Press Room that criticize him is not violating free speech? He has repeatedly stated his desire to "open up those libel laws" and put outlets that criticize him out of business. He is taking lines right out of Putin and every other authoritarian's playbook in attacking the free press to consolidate power. Your definition of free speech is awfully conditional and one-sided...

You can play your little "objective unbiased observer" game all you want, but you're not fooling anyone.

I think it's kinda obvious that bashing Trump is low hanging fruit, but that's my opinion.

And to bring this back around, I would like to refer you to Axl's rant at the Ritz before Out Ta Get Me--"People who tell you what you can say and what you can't say. I personally don't need that!, I don't need that s**** in my life!" God I love this band.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is low hanging fruit. Stop and think about that for a second and why you are dismissing any criticism of the leader of the free world as simply being bandwagoning. *facepalm*

I'll say the same thing I said to people crying about GNR deleting One in a Million; in the past 30 years, Axl grew the fuck up and matured and learned from his mistakes. When he was 25 at the Ritz, he was an angry kid lashing out. Since then, his views on society have become more nuanced.

Free speech absolutism is a radical and dangerous position. A slippery slope fallacy of censorship does not outweigh the real consequences of hateful rhetoric.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/08/free-speech-absolutists-arent-protecting-democracy-they-may-even-be-endangering-it/?utm_term=.6592fc0035eb

https://lithub.com/when-fascists-weaponize-free-speech-absolutism/

I'm going to stay out of the general argument, but I wanted to add to your (excellent) post:

Freedom to say anything does not equal being able to say anything you want without consequence.

It specifically means there should be no laws made abridging free speech.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you should not bare the responsibility of your rhetoric. And societal outcry, and condemnation, is among the consequences of using that right to free speech.

You knowingly utter offensive things and you bare the responsibility of those words.

A private organization not wanting to be associated with those words are not abridging your right to free speech.

The government kicking out members of the press because their coverage is unflattering IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

An internet forum not wanting to allow certain types of speech is not abridging your right to free speech.

A president calling things "fake news" and discrediting the press without evidence, from a government podium, IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

Getting heckled from the audience, when you say something about beating your gay son, is not abridging your right to free speech.

A representative of the government, going after a private citizen's business interests, because they disagree with them (or refused them service out of political differences....which, FYI, the Supreme Court just basically affirmed to the Republicans vociferous cheers), is abridging your right to free speech (and implied freedom of expression).

Note the differences here.  They're pretty stark, and obvious.  The ones involving private entities/organizations are not violations.  The ones involving the government, their laws, and their representatives, ARE.



Wow. A lot of generalizations and mis-characterizations going on. I think there is some confusion as to what my position is. But that's okay. My final rebuttal and then we can agree to disagree. Free speech does have consequences. Short of directly inciting people to violence, those consequences should not involve prosecution by the government. 

You see homies and homettes, censorship of any kind is like poisonous gas. It is a weapon and can shift with the wind. What you say today may be criminal tomorrow. So get ready!

Also. Someone's user name may tell you something about their maturity level, but devaluing a person's argument because of it actually informs you about theirs. There's never any need for stuff like that. Keep it civil chief.
Logged

Inland Invasion 09/23/06
Gibson Amphitheater 12/20/06
T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, 2nd show, 04/09/16
Qualcomm Stadium, 8/22/16
pilferk
The Riddler
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11710


Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!


« Reply #5792 on: April 18, 2019, 09:24:39 PM »

Yeah. I prefer 80's anarcho-capitalist GN'R to the modern left-wing liberals before us. These guys have become typical coastal elites. What a bore.


Your username perfectly illustrates your maturity. Let's all hear what "Poops Magee" has to say about socio-political issues...

Spot on. Both of you guys just hit the nail on the head. AllwaysTired, your sense of liberal is what I referred to as "classical liberal", so we totally agree there. And that's what gets me. It seems incongruent that they don't say, go after people on the left who want to crack down on free speech, etc. Where are those tweets?



I love how colleges dis-inviting trolls like Milo "pedophilia is okay" Yiannopolis is somehow "cracking down on free speech", but Trump's attacks on the free press are not. FOH

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, so please excuse my confusion. Are you referring to what the PMRC did with warning labels? That was lead by Tipper Gore. Not exactly a neo-con. It just appears to me that the band went from anti-establishment to anti-Republican, and I find that lame. It's lame for the reason that it's the safe play. For example. Many of us love stand-up comedy. Including our favorite lead singer. Listen to an interview with any comedian worth their salt, and they'll say that stand-up is harder now for good comedians and easier for hacks. You will be ostracized for using "offensive" (gasp!) language, but so long as you bash Trump you're fine. That's not pushing the boundaries. That's the status quo. Not very GN'R if you ask me.

To your other points: It is not ironic that I bring up leftists cracking down on free speech. They are the ones doing it. Trump calling people fake news does not deprive them of the right to broadcast it. The fact that he tells lies also has nothing to do with restricting free speech. In fact, it is a shining example of the concept. Think he's lying? Prove it. Start a dialogue. Right-wing conspiracy theorists also have the right to speak their mind too. Surely, you don't believe that those people should not be allowed to do so?

Thanks for hearing me out. I hope I've been respectful.

You realize that Republicans were the establishment in 1987-1993, and they are again today, right?

I love how you presume to speak for every comedian. The whiners are lousy comedians like Chris Rock and Seinfeld who make lazy jokes based on tired old stereotypes and who haven't been relevant in over a decade. And it is not offensive language that people are taking issue with (nobody is getting in trouble for saying "fuck" in 2019), it's offensive concepts, like Kevin Hart saying he would beat his son for being gay.

Also, censorship is targeted at left wingers MORE than at right wingers. Funny how the data directly contradicts the right wing narrative of persecution:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/16/the-campus-free-speech-crisis-is-a-myth-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.333367399d2d

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-shuts-down-free-speech-too/2016/12/15/745fa352-c30d-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.f35e4d8818b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/the-free-speech-hypocrisy-of-right-wing-media.html

Kicking outlets out of the White House Press Room that criticize him is not violating free speech? He has repeatedly stated his desire to "open up those libel laws" and put outlets that criticize him out of business. He is taking lines right out of Putin and every other authoritarian's playbook in attacking the free press to consolidate power. Your definition of free speech is awfully conditional and one-sided...

You can play your little "objective unbiased observer" game all you want, but you're not fooling anyone.

I think it's kinda obvious that bashing Trump is low hanging fruit, but that's my opinion.

And to bring this back around, I would like to refer you to Axl's rant at the Ritz before Out Ta Get Me--"People who tell you what you can say and what you can't say. I personally don't need that!, I don't need that s**** in my life!" God I love this band.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is low hanging fruit. Stop and think about that for a second and why you are dismissing any criticism of the leader of the free world as simply being bandwagoning. *facepalm*

I'll say the same thing I said to people crying about GNR deleting One in a Million; in the past 30 years, Axl grew the fuck up and matured and learned from his mistakes. When he was 25 at the Ritz, he was an angry kid lashing out. Since then, his views on society have become more nuanced.

Free speech absolutism is a radical and dangerous position. A slippery slope fallacy of censorship does not outweigh the real consequences of hateful rhetoric.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/08/free-speech-absolutists-arent-protecting-democracy-they-may-even-be-endangering-it/?utm_term=.6592fc0035eb

https://lithub.com/when-fascists-weaponize-free-speech-absolutism/

I'm going to stay out of the general argument, but I wanted to add to your (excellent) post:

Freedom to say anything does not equal being able to say anything you want without consequence.

It specifically means there should be no laws made abridging free speech.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you should not bare the responsibility of your rhetoric. And societal outcry, and condemnation, is among the consequences of using that right to free speech.

You knowingly utter offensive things and you bare the responsibility of those words.

A private organization not wanting to be associated with those words are not abridging your right to free speech.

The government kicking out members of the press because their coverage is unflattering IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

An internet forum not wanting to allow certain types of speech is not abridging your right to free speech.

A president calling things "fake news" and discrediting the press without evidence, from a government podium, IS abridging free speech (and a violation of freedom of the press).

Getting heckled from the audience, when you say something about beating your gay son, is not abridging your right to free speech.

A representative of the government, going after a private citizen's business interests, because they disagree with them (or refused them service out of political differences....which, FYI, the Supreme Court just basically affirmed to the Republicans vociferous cheers), is abridging your right to free speech (and implied freedom of expression).

Note the differences here.  They're pretty stark, and obvious.  The ones involving private entities/organizations are not violations.  The ones involving the government, their laws, and their representatives, ARE.



Wow. A lot of generalizations and mis-characterizations going on. I think there is some confusion as to what my position is. But that's okay. My final rebuttal and then we can agree to disagree. Free speech does have consequences. Short of directly inciting people to violence, those consequences should not involve prosecution by the government. 

You see homies and homettes, censorship of any kind is like poisonous gas. It is a weapon and can shift with the wind. What you say today may be criminal tomorrow. So get ready!

Also. Someone's user name may tell you something about their maturity level, but devaluing a person's argument because of it actually informs you about theirs. There's never any need for stuff like that. Keep it civil chief.

Me thinks...based on your context...you replied to the wrong post.

Wink

My post (which you replied to) was to PermissiontoLand....and was only the VERY last bit in that quote stream.  That piece (my piece) had nothing in it that you describe in your response so.....
« Last Edit: April 18, 2019, 09:28:55 PM by pilferk » Logged

Together again,
Gee, it's good to be together again,
I just can't imagine that you've ever been gone
It's not starting over, it's just going on
PermissionToLand
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1792


« Reply #5793 on: April 19, 2019, 10:06:07 PM »


Wow. A lot of generalizations and mis-characterizations going on. I think there is some confusion as to what my position is. But that's okay. My final rebuttal and then we can agree to disagree. Free speech does have consequences. Short of directly inciting people to violence, those consequences should not involve prosecution by the government. 

You're free to point out the "generalizations and mis-characterizations". I can wait.

I think it's clear you didn't read any of the links I offered, or you would have more to say than such simplistic platitudes. The issue of free speech (like everything) is far more nuanced and complex than "free speech good".

Quote
You see homies and homettes, censorship of any kind is like poisonous gas. It is a weapon and can shift with the wind. What you say today may be criminal tomorrow. So get ready!

That's a new take on the slippery slope fallacy. Not any less fallacious than the old takes, though. However, I already pointed that out. It's almost like you didn't even read or understand anything I said...
Logged

"This sweater I made for you
I think you know where that comes from, guitarcomeon" - Stuff McKracken
GypsySoul
C is for cookie, that's good enough for me
Legend
*****

Karma: 1
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 12248


SLAM DUNK!!!


« Reply #5794 on: April 19, 2019, 10:36:38 PM »

Guns N' Roses @gunsnroses

25% off select #gnfnr merch through April 23rd https://bit.ly/2Zi6XAh


Logged

God chose those whom the world considers absurd to shame the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)
cineater
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 5972


« Reply #5795 on: April 24, 2019, 11:12:41 PM »

Aww, Melissa is sick.  Feel better.
Logged

but the train's got its brakes on
and the whistle is screaming: TERRAPIN
GypsySoul
C is for cookie, that's good enough for me
Legend
*****

Karma: 1
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 12248


SLAM DUNK!!!


« Reply #5796 on: June 17, 2019, 08:09:20 AM »

Guns N' Roses @gunsnroses
Big. Fn. News: We’re bringing the Not In This Lifetime Tour back to the US this fall - eight new dates announced today. https://gunsnroses.com

Logged

God chose those whom the world considers absurd to shame the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)
allwaystired
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2455

Here Today...


« Reply #5797 on: June 17, 2019, 08:10:02 AM »

Is this the third run through the US? I've lost track a bit!
Logged

"Beyond the realms of dedication, venturing worryingly deep sometimes into obsessional delusion"
(t)
Rocker
***

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 463

Here Today...


« Reply #5798 on: June 18, 2019, 07:12:46 PM »

Is this the third run through the US? I've lost track a bit!

I believe so. Interesting they're still using Not In This Lifetime. I thought that tour had officially concluded.
Logged
allwaystired
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2455

Here Today...


« Reply #5799 on: June 18, 2019, 07:33:44 PM »

Is this the third run through the US? I've lost track a bit!

I believe so. Interesting they're still using Not In This Lifetime. I thought that tour had officially concluded.

Me too- but clearly not!
Logged

"Beyond the realms of dedication, venturing worryingly deep sometimes into obsessional delusion"
Pages: 1 ... 288 289 [290] 291 292 ... 302 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 19 queries.