Official Guns N Roses and Axl Twitter & Facebook updates

[PermissionToLand]

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/

[rebelhipi]

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!

[pilferk]

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.

[jarmo]

Axl Rose
‏Verified account @axlrose
10 hours ago

Happy Birthday Duff n’ Del!!🎉🔥🎁




/jarmo

[PermissionToLand]

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.

[allwaystired]

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.

[PermissionToLand]

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.

[AdZ]

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

[GypsySoul]

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

[kyrie]

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)

[GypsySoul]

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.

[Poops Magee]

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.

[pilferk]

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.



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.....

[PermissionToLand]

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".

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...

[GypsySoul]

Guns N' Roses @gunsnroses

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

[cineater]

Aww, Melissa is sick.  Feel better.

[GypsySoul]

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

[allwaystired]

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

[(t)]

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.

[allwaystired]

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!