Does my comment re: anti-self defense make sense now? I think you summarized the existing law pretty well - and what it grew out of.
If people feel threatened/are being targeted with a legitimate threat, they’ll react - or die. Regardless of rules or agreements.
That’s happened in the past, and is starting to happen again.
Besides, the Constitution is designed to sustain our nation not just against speech, but even if our most sacred buildings are destroyed and our president is killed. That’s the beauty of it. It’s a clever design by the most brilliant minds of our time. Thus, I’ve never understood some people’s obsession with security. Such people are focused on current office holders and icons they deem important, not the health of the system, and not the ideals and principles enshrined by it. Paranoia and vengeance does not befit us.
Also, it pains me to have to remind self-identified Christians—the ones typically most obsessed with national security—that to “turn the other cheek” is one of the fundamental pillars of the faith, straight out of Jesus’ mouth. (Matthew 5:38–39)
Very little is more existential to even the idea of a nation than the national identity, the in-group, out-group, etc. and that is what it is used for.
And if you think Hollywood didn’t turn that out in spades, I dare you to watch Top Gun and tell me that movie is about people flying planes, hah.
If so, seems remarkably stupid to allow foreign powers to use proven effective techniques against you unchecked, doesn’t it?
Right up there with being convinced that if someone punches you in the face, you can’t punch them right back - or worse - and/or throw them in jail for it.
That last comment is pretty hilarious in the context of geopolitics. Or criminal law.
The court may make you swear on a Bible, but what would you think about a judge telling an assault victim that they going to not give the assailant a day in jail and they should just turn the other cheek?
That judge isn’t going to be on that bench very long, that’s for sure!
This is something well understood in the Bible too - Romans 13:1-13:7 sums it up pretty well.
What is the practical difference between propaganda from the inside and that from the outside? Internal propaganda is often much more dangerous than external propaganda because it has a patina of legitimacy. President Trump, as you may recall, gave Rush Limbaugh a Presidential Medal of Freedom for, among other things, legitimizing the racism and sexism and a fairy-tale version of America that eventually set the stage for his election.
I'd contend we should worry a lot less about what others are saying than what we are saying to each other. Yet it still doesn't mean we should censor speech.
> Very little is more existential to even the idea of a nation than the national identity, the in-group, out-group, etc. and that is what it is used for.
Who is the in-group? Who is the out-group? Who shouldn't be in? Are you sure they're not in already? Should a nation evolve or be the same as when they were founded? What evolution is ok? What's not ok?
My experience is that when people don't want to answer them, it's because they either 1/don't actually know the answers, or 2/are afraid of what their honest answers will reveal about them.
Literally everything you seem to be arguing about has already happened, even on the platform you are arguing on, but you seem oblivious to it.
It’s like arguing with a child about tax policy or something while they insist taxes are bad. Sure, but they are clearly not going to be able to do anything about it, and it isn’t even useful for anyone, so why waste the time?
If you’d like to have a serious intellectual debate, I welcome it.