RW new sites and pundits are starting to attack the Parkland students

[Calthrina950]

^ Sorry for reacting like a human being instead of a cold, unfeeling robot to kids being slaughtered and Republicans having no response but to tear their faces off and show the void within.

Once again, someone doesn't get it. Policy based upon base emotion is not sound policy at all.

That's a bunch of BS. That's just an excuse to pick the heartless position. Also it worked in Australia...unless you don't like facts.

Come on! I came on here to defend someone else's right to express their opinion, and I also provided my views about how gun control reform can be approached. Yet people cannot tolerate debating the merits of an argument, and resort quickly to insults. That is one of the things about the Internet that is most unfortunate: people hide behind computer screens and insult each other without reason.

[AtorBoltox]

Stop with the talking points about ‘civility’, no one cares. This is an issue where one side is unequivocally in the right and the other in the wrong

[Calthrina950]

Stop with the talking points about ‘civility’, no one cares. This is an issue where one side is unequivocally in the right and the other in the wrong

This is a serious issue, and it should be treated as such. Screaming at each other, calling each other names, and insulting each other (as on the Town Hall thread), is not the way to go if you genuinely want to deal with this issue. There are proposals from both ends of the spectrum (Democratic and Republican), that could be brought together into a bipartisan, comprehensive bill. The bill being debated in the Florida legislature right now is an example of that.

[publicunofficial]

"I think the the shooting was made up, and that all these kids are paid actors, and even if they are not I'm still going to mock them."

"Hmm, a strong argument sir, would you care to debate the merits of it? Perhaps over a cup of tea?"

F**k. That.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

"I think the the shooting was made up, and that all these kids are paid actors, and even if they are not I'm still going to mock them."

"Hmm, a strong argument sir, would you care to debate the merits of it? Perhaps over a cup of tea?"

F**k. That.

Thank you.

[Calthrina950]

"I think the the shooting was made up, and that all these kids are paid actors, and even if they are not I'm still going to mock them."

"Hmm, a strong argument sir, would you care to debate the merits of it? Perhaps over a cup of tea?"

F**k. That.

I don't condone the conspiracy theories by the far-right regarding this shooting. I am referring specifically to discussion about policies related to gun control. I am saying that there should be a rational and clear debate on this topic. Instead, many of the commentators here are driven by emotion and blind hate.

[Calthrina950]

"I think the the shooting was made up, and that all these kids are paid actors, and even if they are not I'm still going to mock them."

"Hmm, a strong argument sir, would you care to debate the merits of it? Perhaps over a cup of tea?"

F**k. That.

I don't condone the conspiracy theories by the far-right regarding this shooting. I am referring specifically to discussion about policies related to gun control. I am saying that there should be a rational and clear debate on this topic. Instead, many of the commentators here are driven by emotion and blind hate.

Did you even read the thread or just skim it and decide to be a condescending scold to make yourself feel like a good centrist?

Please direct me to the posters posting legitimate arguments that got nothing but bile in return, all I see are a bunch of conspiracy theorists you claim not to condone rightfully being told to f**k off and die.

No. I'm trying to contribute to the debate here, but partisanship poisons all here. What you say is truly uncalled for. Why do people assume that they have the freedom to shout down others who they disagree with? That's something I don't understand.

[Calthrina950]

"I think the the shooting was made up, and that all these kids are paid actors, and even if they are not I'm still going to mock them."

"Hmm, a strong argument sir, would you care to debate the merits of it? Perhaps over a cup of tea?"

F**k. That.

I don't condone the conspiracy theories by the far-right regarding this shooting. I am referring specifically to discussion about policies related to gun control. I am saying that there should be a rational and clear debate on this topic. Instead, many of the commentators here are driven by emotion and blind hate.

Did you even read the thread or just skim it and decide to be a condescending scold to make yourself feel like a good centrist?

Please direct me to the posters posting legitimate arguments that got nothing but bile in return, all I see are a bunch of conspiracy theorists you claim not to condone rightfully being told to f**k off and die.

No. I'm trying to contribute to the debate here, but partisanship poisons all here. What you say is truly uncalled for. Why do people assume that they have the freedom to shout down others who they disagree with? That's something I don't understand.

Lol, I call you a condescending scold and you act like I spat out random vulgarities about your mother.

Also in case you haven't noticed, I'm not a Democrat, and you're not a Republican, so "partisanship" isn't the reason I think you are an asshat.

The fact that you feel free to insult someone who you don't even know ties in directly to something which I have observed, time and time again, on the Internet: the hurling of insults by people against one another, hiding behind the comfort of their computer screens. I came into this discussion seeking to defend the freedom of speech made by one of the posters, and to emphasize that he was, in no way, siding with the killer over these students. And what do I receive for my efforts? Blowback from you, and from other users, who call me a "scold", an "asshat", and other such things.

I know that you aren't a Democrat; I can read the user identification tags. But when I talk about partisanship, I am talking about how people are unable to reason with one another, are too quick to give in their own emotions, and are unwilling to give others the benefit of the doubt. This is a phenomenon which seems to be present on both sides of the political spectrum. People here act just as bad as people on partisan right-wing websites such as Gateway Pundit. It's testimony to the pettiness and cruelty which human beings are, unfortunately, capable of.

Since it seems that you are unwilling to have a reasoned debate, I'm not going to even try. I don't like to deal with people who are mean, who are petty, who are cruel, and who are without reason or are not rational. That is all I have to say.

[Sestak]

This thread is a mess...

[Calthrina950]

This thread is a mess...

It wasn't my intention for it to be. But it goes to show you how emotionally sensitive issues such as this can rile people up.

[RINO Tom]

Ah yes, I’m sure this is the party of Lincoln that RINO Tom likes to remind us of!

Though credit where it’s due to ChairmanSanchez for being the only Republican to face the music in this thread, no matter how much his posts make one want to vomit.

LOL, I know you get off on these types of strange posts, but when is the last post of mine that I referenced the "Party of Lincoln"?

[HillGoose]

"Think of the children! They don't need to be exposed to that lifestyle!"

-idiots on Gay Marriage and adoption

"Who cares what kids think!"

-those same idiots after children watch their classmates being slaughtered

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I came into this discussion seeking to defend the freedom of speech made by one of the posters

Who in this thread is preventing that poster's speech? Have they been moderated? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Anyone can say what they like and anyone can respond to that how they like: that's freedom of speech. By trying to shut down debate through scolding people for voicing their disagreement with each other, it's you who is narrowing the bounds of what speech is acceptable. If anyone's the authoritarian here, it's you.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Stop with the talking points about ‘civility’, no one cares. This is an issue where one side is unequivocally in the right and the other in the wrong

The problem is, each side is convinced they're the one that is in the right.  Just simply saying again and again "You're wrong!!!!!" doesn't ever convince anyone.  Now if all you are interested in is letting off some steam, go ahead and keep doing that. If you actually hope to change people's minds somewhat, you'll need to be somewhat civil.  There's a chance that we can get a modest reform or two out of this, such as an increase in the age at which one can buy a gun. Nothing as significant as is needed, but with them in place, future support for the merchants of death will be reduced.

[Calthrina950]

I came into this discussion seeking to defend the freedom of speech made by one of the posters

Who in this thread is preventing that poster's speech? Have they been moderated? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Anyone can say what they like and anyone can respond to that how they like: that's freedom of speech. By trying to shut down debate through scolding people for voicing their disagreement with each other, it's you who is narrowing the bounds of what speech is acceptable. If anyone's the authoritarian here, it's you.  

I'm not trying to shut down debate. I'm merely criticizing the incivility of people here. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but when you get to the level of demeaning people who you have never met or never will meet, insulting them and using derogatory language to refer to them, that does not foster a positive debate environment. If you are insulted by someone else, when you're trying to explain your side of the argument or to offer solutions, then that makes it less likely that such solutions can be reached.

I loathe extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum. That is why I identify as an independent. And unfortunately, I see both left-wing and right-wing extremism, on this website and on others, on a daily basis.

[publicunofficial]

I came into this discussion seeking to defend the freedom of speech made by one of the posters

Who in this thread is preventing that poster's speech? Have they been moderated? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Anyone can say what they like and anyone can respond to that how they like: that's freedom of speech. By trying to shut down debate through scolding people for voicing their disagreement with each other, it's you who is narrowing the bounds of what speech is acceptable. If anyone's the authoritarian here, it's you.  

I'm not trying to shut down debate. I'm merely criticizing the incivility of people here. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but when you get to the level of demeaning people who you have never met or never will meet, insulting them and using derogatory language to refer to them, that does not foster a positive debate environment. If you are insulted by someone else, when you're trying to explain your side of the argument or to offer solutions, then that makes it less likely that such solutions can be reached.

I loathe extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum. That is why I identify as an independent. And unfortunately, I see both left-wing and right-wing extremism, on this website and on others, on a daily basis.

https://www.gq.com/story/on-rudeness

[Calthrina950]

I came into this discussion seeking to defend the freedom of speech made by one of the posters

Who in this thread is preventing that poster's speech? Have they been moderated? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Anyone can say what they like and anyone can respond to that how they like: that's freedom of speech. By trying to shut down debate through scolding people for voicing their disagreement with each other, it's you who is narrowing the bounds of what speech is acceptable. If anyone's the authoritarian here, it's you.  

I'm not trying to shut down debate. I'm merely criticizing the incivility of people here. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but when you get to the level of demeaning people who you have never met or never will meet, insulting them and using derogatory language to refer to them, that does not foster a positive debate environment. If you are insulted by someone else, when you're trying to explain your side of the argument or to offer solutions, then that makes it less likely that such solutions can be reached.

I loathe extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum. That is why I identify as an independent. And unfortunately, I see both left-wing and right-wing extremism, on this website and on others, on a daily basis.

https://www.gq.com/story/on-rudeness

The article merely reinforces my point. I don't think that it is necessary to use profanity to advocate for social change. Yes, President Trump is very vulgar (and for the record, I did not vote for either him nor Clinton). And yes, there are many Republicans who are racist, sexist, and so on. But at the same time, it is possible for one to push for change without going over the top in their methods. The Civil Rights Movement is a great example of how people can protest to move things forward, while maintaining their dignity.

[publicunofficial]

I came into this discussion seeking to defend the freedom of speech made by one of the posters

Who in this thread is preventing that poster's speech? Have they been moderated? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Anyone can say what they like and anyone can respond to that how they like: that's freedom of speech. By trying to shut down debate through scolding people for voicing their disagreement with each other, it's you who is narrowing the bounds of what speech is acceptable. If anyone's the authoritarian here, it's you.  

I'm not trying to shut down debate. I'm merely criticizing the incivility of people here. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but when you get to the level of demeaning people who you have never met or never will meet, insulting them and using derogatory language to refer to them, that does not foster a positive debate environment. If you are insulted by someone else, when you're trying to explain your side of the argument or to offer solutions, then that makes it less likely that such solutions can be reached.

I loathe extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum. That is why I identify as an independent. And unfortunately, I see both left-wing and right-wing extremism, on this website and on others, on a daily basis.

https://www.gq.com/story/on-rudeness

The article merely reinforces my point. I don't think that it is necessary to use profanity to advocate for social change. Yes, President Trump is very vulgar (and for the record, I did not vote for either him nor Clinton). And yes, there are many Republicans who are racist, sexist, and so on. But at the same time, it is possible for one to push for change without going over the top in their methods. The Civil Rights Movement is a great example of how people can protest to move things forward, while maintaining their dignity.

"This guy swears therefore he's wrong"

No, see, you're proving my point.

[pbrower2a]

Stop with the talking points about ‘civility’, no one cares. This is an issue where one side is unequivocally in the right and the other in the wrong

The opposite of civility is barbarism. The fine ermines and jewels of a corrupt and despotic king barely cover the barbarism.

Simple kindness, at least as a norm, works wonders.  Ethical principle best serves those who ultimately win.

[Calthrina950]

Stop with the talking points about ‘civility’, no one cares. This is an issue where one side is unequivocally in the right and the other in the wrong

The opposite of civility is barbarism. The fine ermines and jewels of a corrupt and despotic king barely cover the barbarism.

Simple kindness, at least as a norm, works wonders.  Ethical principle best serves those who ultimately win.

This is exactly what I have been arguing. In the Civil Rights Movement, for example, the ideology of "civil disobedience" and of "nonviolence" which was adhered to by Dr. King and by many of his associates did eventually have an effect. I would say that the same applies here.

[Calthrina950]

I came into this discussion seeking to defend the freedom of speech made by one of the posters

Who in this thread is preventing that poster's speech? Have they been moderated? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Anyone can say what they like and anyone can respond to that how they like: that's freedom of speech. By trying to shut down debate through scolding people for voicing their disagreement with each other, it's you who is narrowing the bounds of what speech is acceptable. If anyone's the authoritarian here, it's you.  

I'm not trying to shut down debate. I'm merely criticizing the incivility of people here. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but when you get to the level of demeaning people who you have never met or never will meet, insulting them and using derogatory language to refer to them, that does not foster a positive debate environment. If you are insulted by someone else, when you're trying to explain your side of the argument or to offer solutions, then that makes it less likely that such solutions can be reached.

I loathe extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum. That is why I identify as an independent. And unfortunately, I see both left-wing and right-wing extremism, on this website and on others, on a daily basis.

https://www.gq.com/story/on-rudeness

The article merely reinforces my point. I don't think that it is necessary to use profanity to advocate for social change. Yes, President Trump is very vulgar (and for the record, I did not vote for either him nor Clinton). And yes, there are many Republicans who are racist, sexist, and so on. But at the same time, it is possible for one to push for change without going over the top in their methods. The Civil Rights Movement is a great example of how people can protest to move things forward, while maintaining their dignity.

"This guy swears therefore he's wrong"

No, see, you're proving my point.

You are simplifying what I said. The author does have some valid points, but I think that his overall premise is incorrect. I do think that this is an issue that demands action, but I don't agree with his view that "rudeness" is the best means to grab the attention of policymakers.

[AtorBoltox]

Stop with the talking points about ‘civility’, no one cares. This is an issue where one side is unequivocally in the right and the other in the wrong

The opposite of civility is barbarism. The fine ermines and jewels of a corrupt and despotic king barely cover the barbarism.

Simple kindness, at least as a norm, works wonders.  Ethical principle best serves those who ultimately win.

This is exactly what I have been arguing. In the Civil Rights Movement, for example, the ideology of "civil disobedience" and of "nonviolence" which was adhered to by Dr. King and by many of his associates did eventually have an effect. I would say that the same applies here.

Being rude is akin to violence now?

[Gustaf]

I'm not blaming the victims.

Anyone who has to state this is obviously blaming the victims.

If only you guys would have read my post instead of screaming "TEH CHILDREN! TEH CHIDRUN!" I wouldn't have had to clarify now would I?

Why do Republicans insist on taking the side of criminals and blaming the victims? What happened to law and order?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Wait, there was a cop on duty at the school who did nothing and it's Trump and the NRA's fault that this happened?

[MasterJedi]

Wait, there was a cop on duty at the school who did nothing and it's Trump and the NRA's fault that this happened?

Yes