Comments on: Banal Evil, Free Speech http://silent-nation.com/2005/02/10/banal-evil-free-speech Like Barbarians At The Gates Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:29:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Björn Hallberg http://silent-nation.com/2005/02/10/banal-evil-free-speech/comment-page-1#comment-5 Björn Hallberg Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:29:17 +0000 #comment-5 Ironic! What some type of conservatives (and others as well) can't understand is that the only way to build a safe, humane world and nation foremost is to play it "liberal". At least in terms of not viewing dissenters as "traitors". And implying that their non-cooperation and opposition will invite "terrorists" or whatever. Now that is a pretty strange doctrine. I say it's the other way around, if America had played it differently over only these last 30-40 years, been a different society, you could be laughing at the prospect of so called "terrorist" attacks right now. I'm not going to convince you so easily but it's rather apparent from where I'm standing that your policy is inviting hatred and violence. That is also part of what Churchill said, with his twist on the old "chickens coming home to roost". The "fighting words" practise is probably a good thing to fall back on but it does not cover this event. I thought it was meant for more overt insults, inciting riots. That kind of thing. Professor Churchill, after all, was following a scientific discourse, one that is not so unusual in social sciences. I should know. To even bring up the "fighting words" as a muffle in that context shows how far the US has fallen. But sure. He will have to pay the public price for what he wrote. Even if the timing is odd. And I feel that there has been too little trashing of people holding the opposite view. Say for example a crackpot like Ann Coulter. The obvious difference being of course that she does not in the same way question the powers to be, the elite. Or indeed America. Churchill and others, the more eloquent Chomsky for example, have a hard lesson for the US that you must learn if we are all going to escape the abyss. Ironic! What some type of conservatives (and others as well) can’t understand is that the only way to build a safe, humane world and nation foremost is to play it “liberal”. At least in terms of not viewing dissenters as “traitors”. And implying that their non-cooperation and opposition will invite “terrorists” or whatever. Now that is a pretty strange doctrine. I say it’s the other way around, if America had played it differently over only these last 30-40 years, been a different society, you could be laughing at the prospect of so called “terrorist” attacks right now. I’m not going to convince you so easily but it’s rather apparent from where I’m standing that your policy is inviting hatred and violence. That is also part of what Churchill said, with his twist on the old “chickens coming home to roost”.

The “fighting words” practise is probably a good thing to fall back on but it does not cover this event. I thought it was meant for more overt insults, inciting riots. That kind of thing. Professor Churchill, after all, was following a scientific discourse, one that is not so unusual in social sciences. I should know. To even bring up the “fighting words” as a muffle in that context shows how far the US has fallen.

But sure. He will have to pay the public price for what he wrote. Even if the timing is odd. And I feel that there has been too little trashing of people holding the opposite view. Say for example a crackpot like Ann Coulter. The obvious difference being of course that she does not in the same way question the powers to be, the elite. Or indeed America. Churchill and others, the more eloquent Chomsky for example, have a hard lesson for the US that you must learn if we are all going to escape the abyss.

]]> By: Ephraim F. Moya http://silent-nation.com/2005/02/10/banal-evil-free-speech/comment-page-1#comment-4 Ephraim F. Moya Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:21:46 +0000 #comment-4 The problem with you libs is that you believe that free speach has no cost. It has two costs, one of blood and the other of consequence. Just recently our supreme court allowed as that there is such a thing as 'fighting words'. People like Churchill (and the rest of the blame America first crowd) need to understand that they are resposible for the reaction to their words. They're free to say whatever they want. They just have to accept the consequences of saying it. The problem with you libs is that you believe that free speach has no cost. It has two costs, one of blood and the other of consequence.

Just recently our supreme court allowed as that there is such a thing as ‘fighting words’.

People like Churchill (and the rest of the blame America first crowd) need to understand that they are resposible for the reaction to their words. They’re free to say whatever they want. They just have to accept the consequences of saying it.

]]>