Could you be friends with people you disagree politically?

[Quasar44]

Leftist have zero common sense or survival skills

 

[Man of Ethics]

I’ve heard it said, and it rings true based on the silencing and censoring of conservatives by liberals, that conservatives think liberals are merely misguided or poorly informed while liberals think conservatives are just plain evil.

I agree 100%.

In my opinion, Totalitarian Progressives are evil. Hopefully more Conservatives and Independents will understand it. Hopefully Conservatives and Independents will learn the art of boycott and boycott businesses which employ Progressives -- in small Counties this should be effective.

I myself hold many Liberal views on many issues.

 

[Quasar44]

Toffeenut Baconsmuggler

No
I am indep conservative

Any leftist I won’t even talk too

 

[Quasar44]

My nieces and nephews in Chicago are little tiny Eichmanns and I won’t talk to any

 

[Man of Ethics]

This is a good point. This being true, do we really have freedom of speech? I agree, it's not good to have speech that is violent in nature, or calls for actions that are harmful, but, should we have that right? If you say no, then what else do we need to curtail? Do we have qualifications on what is and is not acceptable to say? Who makes those distinctions? Lefties? Righties?

So, if we start down that road, then it tells you that we don't really have freedom of speech, we have freedom of "acceptable speech". The problem with "speech having consequences" is the people who are in charge of what is considered "acceptable".

I hold many Liberal views. I can be friends with Liberals, Conservatives, and Independents. I can never be friends with those who want to cancel me for my views. Totalitarian Progressives are the enemy.

 

[Road Runner]

Depends who they are and what they saw. I'm friends with a few people on here,.. a few mind you who are from the left because they aren't as pushy about their beliefs. I still voted yes though if they treat me kindly and respectfully then I will do the same for them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have found myself in a similar situation with a cousin. After Biden was elected, she decreed that we can continue our relationship as long as I refrain from saying anything critical of Biden because she “doesn’t want to hear it.” This rule of hers came after four years of my having to listen to her complain how Trump is a racist, how he did nothing in response to COVID, and all the rest, and now I am required to keep my mouth shut about Biden.

Our relationship has cooled to a 20-minute phone call about once every three or four months.

God bless my husband, who is the only one who can needle my sister about politics with impunity, and does so every chance he gets with great amusement. I'm not sure I could restrain myself if he wasn't around to say the things I want to say.

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn

I no longer to speak to my Sister and her 3 kids and my dad
All die hard leftist vermin.

At some point that's gotta end. Because living with the knowledge you wasted those years feuding over the "hot stuff" is gonna feel awful to BOTH sides when things get down and serious and someone's not well or in trouble.

In my case, I'm just waiting for inflation, immigration, foreign affairs and all the other crises to reach a nice panic spot and then --- I'll crank call him at 3AM with "Let's Go Brandon" chants and we'll end it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She sounds like my brother-in-law. He's a great guy but he likes to steer conversations toward politics and he gets louder and angrier the longer it goes.

I change the subject when she does it. If she keeps pushing it, I say, "I'm not discussing this with you, and you know it." If she STILL doesn't let it go, I just stop talking and hit her with a silent, flat stare. It's the same one I use on my kids when they're misbehaving, and it has about the same effect.

But it's fucking ridiculous that she's okay with a double standard for behavior.

 

[Quasar44]

flacaltenn

it would end but I live in Las Vegas and they all live in Chicago

Before 2015: I flew out to Chicago once a year from 2005 to 2015 !! Ten times wow

 

[Quasar44]

It all stated to get bad in 2015 when the kids were discussing GW and that North America was going to be under water in a few decades or less
I interrupted and said come utter rubbish

then their parents accused me of corrupting their kids
. At the time I did not care but months later I felt a burn

 

[Cecilie1200]

At some point that's gotta end. Because living with the knowledge you wasted those years feuding over the "hot stuff" is gonna feel awful to BOTH sides when things get down and serious and someone's not well or in trouble.

In my case, I'm just waiting for inflation, immigration, foreign affairs and all the other crises to reach a nice panic spot and then --- I'll crank call him at 3AM with "Let's Go Brandon" chants and we'll end it.

Well, this is why I'm willing to tolerate the need to bite my tongue and censor myself for someone who refuses to do the same. Outside of politics, my sister's a generous, thoughtful, kind person who jumps in to help her family and friends when they need it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I can be friends with people who are in my Overton Window. That window is rather wide and broad. I am grateful to many people I disagree with.

I can not be a friend to someone (almost always Progressive) who thinks I should be cancelled for my views.

Could you be friends with people you disagree politically?​

NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!
I would happily disown my own children if they became leftists. I hate leftists far more than Hitler hated Jews.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Freedom of speech has always been limited. It has to be because it can be harmful to others (yelling fire in a crowded place is an often-cited example.) Libel and tort law is another.

As to who decides. The courts basically, since whenever a speech restriction is challenged it is invalid until the government can show the court that that restriction is constitutional. Speech in the US is given very broad deference.

To make another point. Freedom of speech as expressed here isn't so much freedom of speech but rather freedom of consequences from that speech amongst individuals or companies. A notion that if you would think about it is ludicrous. Unrestrained speech in this context would, for instance, mean that an employee can call every customer an asshole and the employer wouldn't have the right to fire him because of it. I think we can both agree that wouldn't be a good idea.

I agree, you wouldn't want to insult your customers, but that is business etiquette. But freedom of speech, like all of our constitutional protections, are a limitation on what the government can do.

Outside of government, yes, there are certain restrictions, such as employers, and a few other instances, where if you represent them, or are on their property, they can request that you conduct yourself in a certain way. Out in public, though, as long as you are not harming the reputation of your employer or some other organization, then, do those same restrictions apply? That's where it gets murky, because some would say "no", there are still consequences. Obviously, if you are threatening someone or engaging in criminal behavior, those are unacceptable, but,just because you say something that someone else disagrees with, doesn't that person have the right to say it? And shouldn't that person be free from consequence? If no, then what you are really saying is "you can say anything you want, except these things we don't like, or we'll punish you". That's not freedom.

I notice you said "until the government tells the court it's constiturional..."constitutional..., shouldn't that be the other way around? When it comes to free speech, depending on who controls government, those restrictions could be very different.

 

[forkup]

I agree, you wouldn't want to insult your customers, but that is business etiquette. But freedom of speech, like all of our constitutional protections, are a limitation on what the government can do.

Outside of government, yes, there are certain restrictions, such as employers, and a few other instances, where if you represent them, or are on their property, they can request that you conduct yourself in a certain way. Out in public, though, as long as you are not harming the reputation of your employer or some other organization, then, do those same restrictions apply? That's where it gets murky, because some would say "no", there are still consequences. Obviously, if you are threatening someone or engaging in criminal behavior, those are unacceptable, but,just because you say something that someone else disagrees with, doesn't that person have the right to say it? And shouldn't that person be free from consequence? If no, then what you are really saying is "you can say anything you want, except these things we don't like, or we'll punish you". That's not freedom.

I notice you said "until the government tells the court it's constiturional..."constitutional..., shouldn't that be the other way around? When it comes to free speech, depending on who controls government, those restrictions could be very different.

I'm doing it like this because different points are being made. Just FYI

But freedom of speech, like all of our constitutional protections, are a limitation on what the government can do.

Yes, exactly. They are not about how individuals amongst themselves or companies interact with individuals or companies.
"Cancel culture" how the right seems to define it, is.

Out in public, though, as long as you are not harming the reputation of your employer or some other organization, then, do those same restrictions apply?

What restrictions are you referring too?

some would say "no", there are still consequences.

Those "some" are correct.

just because you say something that someone else disagrees with, doesn't that person have the right to say it?

Of course, that person does. Just like another person is free to disagree with that person.

And shouldn't that person be free from consequence?

This is in my opinion where you fail to grasp the essence of freedom of speech. The answer to that question is no.
I'll try to illustrate.
-If a shopkeeper is a proud member of the Ku Klux Clan. Freedom of speech means he is free to express that fact. It is covered under the first amendment and the government can not silence him. There are very few people who would claim he doesn't have that right, and if they do they would be wrong.
-I however as a private citizen am equally free and have the right under the constitution to refuse to go to his store as part of me expressing myself. It is the same right.
-If you call me an asshole (publicly or privately) doesn't matter I have the right to yell back or just refuse to deal with you from that point on.
-To make it less hypothetical. Joe Rogan has the right to have anybody on his show he wants. Eric Clapton has a right to refuse to use a platform that allows Joe Rogan to do that. And that platform is allowed to put warnings on his content as a compromise.

Just because you are free to say what you want, doesn't mean you are absolved from the consequences of you expressing your view.

It is basically all about the same right. The right to say what you want within certain well-established limits you touch on yourself and people expressing disagreement with what you say.

until the government tells the court it's constiturional

I didn't say that.

the government can show the court that that restriction is constitutional.

This is what I said. The government doesn't "tell" the courts how to rule. The whole point of it is that the courts rule purely on their interpretation of the law. In these cases, the benefit of the doubt is given to allowing speech free reign. And the government (the DOJ) has to prove (show) that they have the right to curtail it.


Please understand I'm not trying to advocate for people being silenced, de-platformed, fired, or anything, I'm just expressing my view on the legality of it. As I said before I don't like how touchy people are in general and don't like overreacting to viewpoints I don't agree with.

What bothers me about it, is how it's being used by politicians and right-wing pundits, as some kind of cudgel to beat every liberal over the head with. Making the argument that if you express your disagreement with something that for instance "Trump" says you don't believe in freedom of speech. While it's simply you availing yourself of the same right Trump uses to say the thing you disagree with.

 

[lennypartiv]

Got kids who are single and dating? Tell them they should find out the political views of the person they are dating. It should be a question asked in the first month of dating.

 

[Who_Me?]

I think I'm going to give up this sewer of hate otherwise known as the USMB for lent. See you after Easter.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm doing it like this because different points are being made. Just FYI

Yes, exactly. They are not about how individuals amongst themselves or companies interact with individuals or companies.
"Cancel culture" how the right seems to define it, is.

What restrictions are you referring too?

Those "some" are correct.

Of course, that person does. Just like another person is free to disagree with that person.

This is in my opinion where you fail to grasp the essence of freedom of speech. The answer to that question is no.
I'll try to illustrate.
-If a shopkeeper is a proud member of the Ku Klux Clan. Freedom of speech means he is free to express that fact. It is covered under the first amendment and the government can not silence him. There are very few people who would claim he doesn't have that right, and if they do they would be wrong.
-I however as a private citizen am equally free and have the right under the constitution to refuse to go to his store as part of me expressing myself. It is the same right.
-If you call me an asshole (publicly or privately) doesn't matter I have the right to yell back or just refuse to deal with you from that point on.
-To make it less hypothetical. Joe Rogan has the right to have anybody on his show he wants. Eric Clapton has a right to refuse to use a platform that allows Joe Rogan to do that. And that platform is allowed to put warnings on his content as a compromise.

Just because you are free to say what you want, doesn't mean you are absolved from the consequences of you expressing your view.

It is basically all about the same right. The right to say what you want within certain well-established limits you touch on yourself and people expressing disagreement with what you say.

I didn't say that.

This is what I said. The government doesn't "tell" the courts how to rule. The whole point of it is that the courts rule purely on their interpretation of the law. In these cases, the benefit of the doubt is given to allowing speech free reign. And the government (the DOJ) has to prove (show) that they have the right to curtail it.


Please understand I'm not trying to advocate for people being silenced, de-platformed, fired, or anything, I'm just expressing my view on the legality of it. As I said before I don't like how touchy people are in general and don't like overreacting to viewpoints I don't agree with.

What bothers me about it, is how it's being used by politicians and right-wing pundits, as some kind of cudgel to beat every liberal over the head with. Making the argument that if you express your disagreement with something that for instance "Trump" says you don't believe in freedom of speech. While it's simply you availing yourself of the same right Trump uses to say the thing you disagree with.

No, I think you and I are on the same page. My point being, the government cant put restrictions on speech that isn't direct calls to action or harmful in some way.

In your examples, yes, you have the right to refuse do do business with someone if they do or say something you don't like, thats personal choice. But if someone is in a public space and is saying something you don't like, does that mean you can advocate for government to stop them?

 

[forkup]

No, I think you and I are on the same page. My point being, the government cant put restrictions on speech that isn't direct calls to action or harmful in some way.

In your examples, yes, you have the right to refuse do do business with someone if they do or say something you don't like, thats personal choice. But if someone is in a public space and is saying something you don't like, does that mean you can advocate for government to stop them?

I'll just answer the last bit since that's the only thing that seems unclear.

But if someone is in a public space and is saying something you don't like, does that mean you can advocate for government to stop them?

Yes, you can. A person can advocate for anything they like. That's freedom of speech (within the restrictions of course). It is then ultimately for the courts to decide whether or not your objection to that speech can stand up to scrutiny. They will rule against you if that speech falls under protected speech.

You just keep on falling for the same trap. An individual does not have the right to curtail speech. They can only express their own viewpoint.

 

[g5000]

I can be friends with people who are in my Overton Window. That window is rather wide and broad. I am grateful to many people I disagree with.

I can not be a friend to someone (almost always Progressive) who thinks I should be cancelled for my views.

Some of my friends are liberals. I live in a blue state so it is unavoidable.

I have other friends who are far right Trumpsters. My brother is about as Trumpie as it gets. He stockpiles guns and can't wait for the civil war to start.

We just avoid talking politics. No problem.