Does society have a duty to prevent the insane from damaging it via that insanity?

[soulcougher73]

I wouldnt say we have a duty to do that, but it sure helps to do that

 

[Ken g6]

I don't like plans like this. The First Amendment may be the most important amendment. Ideas like this veer dangerously close to "thought police".

 

[WelshBloke]

I don't like plans like this. The First Amendment may be the most important amendment. Ideas like this veer dangerously close to "thought police".

Is being able to lie with impunity about your job to your employer something that should be allowed?

Because that's where we are with politicians.

And I don't mean lying about things they are promising to do, they have always over promised, I mean lying about things that have actually happened and are verifiable.

 

[Jaskalas]

What difference does it make when the result is the destruction of the rest of your country and ultimately yourself. And isn't it only a simple combination of how the human mind deals with the insanity threat? Are there rational and irrational threats and shouldn't real ones be dealt with? Aren't the barking mad dangerous?

Aren't we all barking mad?

Granted, I get the premise. "Republicans are detached from reality." Is it not within their rights to be? They are a risk to our nation... do we burn the nation down in order to save it? I do not presume that such an end is beneficial to anyone. A doctor should not kill the patient to treat a disease. This is a subject that necessitates treading carefully.

Thus we should examine the issue. You are anxious over Republican detachment. But I dare say, Humanity in general has never held a very firm grasp on reality. As a species we delve into flights of fancy quite often. Primitive tribes and their gods. Kingdoms and their organized religions. Humans have always been a danger unto themselves, and each other. Neither is delusion anything new.

What has changed is the internet. Our form of communication, the ease at which organizations and ideas may spread. Couple that with polarization and not only do you see crazy - but crazy becomes an industry. A commodity for media to promote and spread further. In turn, you are now able to bear witness to the delusions of others. Previously, in Salem, the witch trials were largely a local phenomenon. What if such hysteria was broadcast for the whole world to witness? What if their fear of the "other" could reach hundreds of million of people in mere minutes? That would have lead to many more witch trials, a great spread of fear and delusion.

Thus, our current state of affairs. As a species we have promoted the spread of misinformation. Of fear and delusions. And it is fueled by the politics of our own Democracies. That combination is the real danger. The institutions of science, of education, they are viewed as partisan things. News is viewed as partisan. Which means there is no information that is beyond reproach, is there? Not anymore. I believe this means that the underpinnings of our society have come undone. Knowledge is the most important thing - and we may have corrupted it.

 

[richaron]

I don't like plans like this. The First Amendment may be the most important amendment. Ideas like this veer dangerously close to "thought police".

Agreed in principle. The concept of free speech and even free thought or free actions should be accepted as basic human rights. So everybody should in theory have the rights to say, do, or believe anything they want.

But this doesn't mean what everybody says or thinks or does is correct. And there has been a long standing (and justifiable) precedent of a social responsibility to stop those with "disorders" of causing harm to themselves or others (let alone a nation). And there have been plenty of examples of those causing indirect harm being held responsible; no matter what belief system or communications channels they subscribe.

Personally I don't think the belief in space-wizards or any other "structured" belief is the point at all. It's more about the fact there's a paranoid narcissistic man-baby as POTUS who will do or say whatever they want, on a whim, with personal gain as the obvious driving force. Personal gain is not their job description, and can easily be in contradiction to their social or legal responsibilities.

 

[Ken g6]

Is being able to lie with impunity about your job to your employer something that should be allowed?

Because that's where we are with politicians.

And I don't mean lying about things they are promising to do, they have always over promised, I mean lying about things that have actually happened and are verifiable.

Ah. I could see the legality of restricting the speech of politicians.

However, I don't think politicians started this. I think it started on talk radio, then on the Internet, and restricting the speech of politicians probably would not have the desired effect. Other sources would tell people things different from what the politicians said, and people would think there was a conspiracy to prevent politicians from telling the truth. And there would be a conspiracy to prevent politicians from telling what some people thought was the truth.

The best solution I can come up with for Internet posts is the following:

Wherever people make posts on sites, there needs to be a link to independent fact-checkers. Anyone can pay any registered fact checker to fact-check any post on the Internet. (That means anyone can have their own or anyone else's post fact-checked.) Any fact checking done on any post must be displayed on that post. This could start off as voluntary on sites like Facebook and Twitter; that might be enough that a law is not required. If a small portion of the payments for fact-checking went back to the site, this could become very popular indeed!

There's one problem I haven't solved with this: Who validates the fact-checkers? (Who watches the watchers?)

 

[Josephus312]

I guide agree but I see little evidence that any of that is of relevance to them, hence my question as to whether their madness will require intervention.

You can't intervene, ignorance is not illegal.

Education is the answer but the only way to better education is to stop the idiocy going on with our education system right now and I think the Democrats should focus very hard on that because if things keep going the way they are going now the end result will be that someone like Trump will win every time.

When you are not interested in observable reality but prefer your ideals that are not based in reality to be put forth in actions that go directly against those ideals then .... Wait... that's insane, isn't it? These are people who want small government and a government that censors news and social media as well as search engines that speak ill of their dear leader... They are literally authoritarian big government proponents but fancy themselves the opposite of what they are.

You may be right, after all, but there is little room for legal action. We'll just have to ensure better education and less inbreeding.

 

[Josephus312]

I don't like plans like this. The First Amendment may be the most important amendment. Ideas like this veer dangerously close to "thought police".

This is the protection of the first amendment against those who praise and adore someone who would happily do away with it and has, in fact, postuled that perhaps criticizing him should be illegal.

You have to restrict people like that from taking that action (Trump, not the moronic imbeciles who cheer it on in the name of free speech) from making such statements.

If Merkel or May had said something like that they would be out on their arse, immediatly without any discussion on the matter.

 

[WelshBloke]

However, I don't think politicians started this. I think it started on talk radio, then on the Internet, and restricting the speech of politicians probably would not have the desired effect.

Talk radio and websites should also be held to account. Talk bullshit about people in a derogatory way? Prepare to get sued.

 

[woolfe9998]

There is no legal basis to lock up the criminally insane?

Sure, if someone commits a crime they can be sent to a mental institution or a prison, depending on whether or not they are able to prevail with an insanity defense. Which has little to do with your original post, in which you suggested not only "jail," but banning the republican party. Banning political parties is what Putin does. It's what fascists do. We don't do that here, and for good reason.

 

[Josephus312]

Talk radio and websites should also be held to account. Talk bullshit about people in a derogatory way? Prepare to get sued.

Agreed, people who for example spew hatred and incite people to do things like shooting up a Pizza joint or threaten death of families who have lost their kids should be held responsible for their incitement to violence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sure, if someone commits a crime they can be sent to a mental institution or a prison, depending on whether or not they are able to prevail with an insanity defense. Which has little to do with your original post, in which you suggested not only "jail," but banning the republican party. Banning political parties is what Putin does. It's what fascists do. We don't do that here, and for good reason.

They did in Germany because of millions upon millions of deaths. When is enough enough? Do millions have to die all over again? Do we ever learn from history? Do you see any signs from the right they will stop us from where Trump is headed?

 

[Josephus312]

They did in Germany because of millions upon millions of deaths. When is enough enough? Do millions have to die all over again? Do we ever learn from history? Do you see any signs from the right they will stop us from where Trump is headed?

I think you need to have a little faith in democracy and the order of things but like you I do see a November election not going the way that we thought it would just like the last election.

If that happens you better strap in son because it's getting mighty fascist out there.

 

[Moonbeam]

Agreed, people who for example spew hatred and incite people to do things like shooting up a Pizza joint or threaten death of families who have lost their kids should be held responsible for their incitement to violence.

The Democrats are running away from talking about impeachment. Perhaps, if you like shoulds, they should be running on bringing up Republican leaders on charges of treason for failure to uphold their sworn oath to defend it and not their own party.

 

[Josephus312]

The Democrats are running away from talking about impeachment. Perhaps, if you like shoulds, they should be running on bringing up Republican leaders on charges of treason for failure to uphold their sworn oath to defend it and not their own party.

That wouldn't lead anywhere, what is needed is actual policy that helps the people they are representing but I'm not seeing that either. In fact I'm not seeing anything at all other than a luke warm "we might do something if you vote for us". As you can probably tell by now, when it comes to politics and education I'm a bit of a pragmatist.

You're perfectly right on one thing, passion is sorely needed or we'll end up with a massive red wave come November.

 

[woolfe9998]

The Democrats are running away from talking about impeachment. Perhaps, if you like shoulds, they should be running on bringing up Republican leaders on charges of treason for failure to uphold their sworn oath to defend it and not their own party.

Talk of jailing political opponents after you take office is what Trump did. You don't oppose fascism by acting like a fascist yourself. Whether the dems should actually prosecute someone like Trump after being elected is a different issue because it depends on what crimes can be proven. However, talk of it as an election pitch sounds too much like you intend to use the justice system for political purposes.

BTW, I and many others repeatedly pointed out that all the Hilary hate from Bernie supporters wasn't helping and that whatever her flaws, she was vastly more qualified than Trump. Now that you see the danger in the situation we're in, maybe you'll think twice about trashing a dem opponent of Trump for not being progressive enough. Since everything you suggest is basically illegal, that means the ballot box is our remedy. In that regard, the left very much needs to be unified in 2018 and especially, in 2020.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Democrats are running away from talking about impeachment.

Of course they did. Thus far all Mueller has brought back is covering up an affair we already knew about. There is no criminal impetus for the public supporting impeachment. It's bad campaign rhetoric in the face of a "booming" economy and no real substance to impeach on. Moral panic didn't sell in 2016, it's not likely to sell in 2018. The Democrat's best chance of impeachment is winning Congress, and then having Mueller bring in a closer.

There is no chance Republicans buckle without a landslide against them. So we focus on that, not Trump.

 

[Moonbeam]

Aren't we all barking mad?

Granted, I get the premise. "Republicans are detached from reality." Is it not within their rights to be? They are a risk to our nation... do we burn the nation down in order to save it? I do not presume that such an end is beneficial to anyone. A doctor should not kill the patient to treat a disease. This is a subject that necessitates treading carefully.

Thus we should examine the issue. You are anxious over Republican detachment. But I dare say, Humanity in general has never held a very firm grasp on reality. As a species we delve into flights of fancy quite often. Primitive tribes and their gods. Kingdoms and their organized religions. Humans have always been a danger unto themselves, and each other. Neither is delusion anything new.

What has changed is the internet. Our form of communication, the ease at which organizations and ideas may spread. Couple that with polarization and not only do you see crazy - but crazy becomes an industry. A commodity for media to promote and spread further. In turn, you are now able to bear witness to the delusions of others. Previously, in Salem, the witch trials were largely a local phenomenon. What if such hysteria was broadcast for the whole world to witness? What if their fear of the "other" could reach hundreds of million of people in mere minutes? That would have lead to many more witch trials, a great spread of fear and delusion.

Thus, our current state of affairs. As a species we have promoted the spread of misinformation. Of fear and delusions. And it is fueled by the politics of our own Democracies. That combination is the real danger. The institutions of science, of education, they are viewed as partisan things. News is viewed as partisan. Which means there is no information that is beyond reproach, is there? Not anymore. I believe this means that the underpinnings of our society have come undone. Knowledge is the most important thing - and we may have corrupted it.

I think this makes a lot of sense, but I don't think all of us are barking mad.

 

[Ken g6]

Talk radio and websites should also be held to account. Talk bullshit about people in a derogatory way? Prepare to get sued.

That's called slander, or libel in print. Slander and libel suits are expensive for those suing, and also for those sued, even if the suits are completely frivolous. Frivolous slander suits could be a good way for the bad actors to shut down real news.

 

[Josephus312]

That's called slander, or libel in print. Slander and libel suits are expensive for those suing, and also for those sued, even if the suits are completely frivolous. Frivolous slander suits could be a good way for the bad actors to shut down real news.

In other nations slander and libel are criminal charges that the state can bring. Perhaps that is needed?

 

[Moonbeam]

woolfe9998: Talk of jailing political opponents after you take office is what Trump did.

M: I'm not talking of jailing opponents. I am talking about notifying them of an intention to hold them responsible for breaking their oath. Have they broken it or not and what should the penalty be?

w: You don't oppose fascism by acting like a fascist yourself.

M: No the normal way is a World War that costs millions of lives.

w: Whether the dems should actually prosecute someone like Trump after being elected is a different issue because it depends on what crimes can be proven. However, talk of it as an election pitch sounds too much like you intend to use the justice system for political purposes.

M: Doesn't it go without saying there must be proof. Isn't there already, for that matter.

w: BTW, I and many others repeatedly pointed out that all the Hilary hate from Bernie supporters wasn't helping and that whatever her flaws, she was vastly more qualified than Trump. Now that you see the danger in the situation we're in, maybe you'll think twice about trashing a dem opponent of Trump for not being progressive enough.

Nope. Sanders was the best choice and I supported him right up to the time the choice was Trump or Hillary, in which case the choice was obviously Hillary. She lost, by the way. maybe next time you'll listen. Only the brainwashed and the conditioned can't turn on a dime.

w: Since everything you suggest is basically illegal, that means the ballot box is our remedy. In that regard, the left very much needs to be unified in 2018 and especially, in 2020.

M: I don't see how it can be illegal to pass a law, or even a constitutional amendment, if need be, outlawing the Republican party. This is what sanity would look like, it seems to me.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think this makes a lot of sense, but I don't think all of us are barking mad.

Well, at our core we are all corruptible with our own biases. It takes knowledge to understand and appreciate that reality is specific. It has objective rules and traits. That the truth can be determined and recognized. That it should not be subjective or equivocated. It takes a society to stand for those values, people to Identify with for the Ego to accept such truths, to find them agreeable and not a threat to be challenged or ignored. The threat we face today are from people identifying with those who lie. Who deny reality. Not only is misinformation spread in this manner, so too is the contagion of accepting belief over fact.

We need a majority of our people to identify with science and education. With institutions that promote knowledge. The real threat is if we dumb ourselves down and fall prey to mass hysteria and delusions. You are correct that such a thing may topple our society. But if we understand exactly what it is, and how it is spread, perhaps we can determine ways of stopping it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course they did. Thus far all Mueller has brought back is covering up an affair we already knew about. There is no criminal impetus for the public supporting impeachment. It's bad campaign rhetoric in the face of a "booming" economy and no real substance to impeach on. Moral panic didn't sell in 2016, it's not likely to sell in 2018. The Democrat's best chance of impeachment is winning Congress, and then having Mueller bring in a closer.

There is no chance Republicans buckle without a landslide against them. So we focus on that, not Trump.

I have a notion that those who are insane due to irrational fears might be treatable by turning attention from the irrational to the real. The party of personal responsibility never faces real consequences, and needs something real to fear. Something like justice.

 

[Fern]

Is anybody really sane?

Don't the insane believe they're the sane ones?

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

woolfe9998: Talk of jailing political opponents after you take office is what Trump did.

M: I'm not talking of jailing opponents. I am talking about notifying them of an intention to hold them responsible for breaking their oath. Have they broken it or not and what should the penalty be?

There is no legal path when someone "breaks an oath." The penalty for that is political, not legal.

w: You don't oppose fascism by acting like a fascist yourself.

M: No the normal way is a World War that costs millions of lives.

No, the normal way in this country is to vote him out of office. Trump may be a fascist, and his followers certainly look like fascist followers, but he still exists in a system which permits us to vote him out.

w: Whether the dems should actually prosecute someone like Trump after being elected is a different issue because it depends on what crimes can be proven. However, talk of it as an election pitch sounds too much like you intend to use the justice system for political purposes.

M: Doesn't it go without saying there must be proof. Isn't there already, for that matter.

My point is there must be proof of a specific crime in order to prosecute someone. So long as we have that, then we can prosecute the person for specific criminal offenses. I was distinguishing this from using prosecution as a campaign pitch, the way Trump did with "lock her up," because it implies a willingness to jail someone for political reasons and it's exactly how dictators behave.

w: BTW, I and many others repeatedly pointed out that all the Hilary hate from Bernie supporters wasn't helping and that whatever her flaws, she was vastly more qualified than Trump. Now that you see the danger in the situation we're in, maybe you'll think twice about trashing a dem opponent of Trump for not being progressive enough.

Nope. Sanders was the best choice and I supported him right up to the time the choice was Trump or Hillary, in which case the choice was obviously Hillary. She lost, by the way. maybe next time you'll listen. Only the brainwashed and the conditioned can't turn on a dime.

The constant trashing of Clinton and saying she isn't better than Trump spilled over into the general election because some Sanders supporters actually believed it and either didn't show up to vote or else voted for someone like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I'm arguing that we should be more measured and cautious in our criticisms of dem candidates right now.

I would also add, in your particular case, that you offered actual praise for Trump, who is a vile, malignant piece of trash, on more than one occasion. I get that you ultimately voted for Clinton, which is fine. But many of your statements about Clinton and Trump were not accurate and didn't make a lot of sense.

If all you had said was that you preferred Bernie in the primary because you agreed with his policies more, and you thought he'd do better than Clinton against Trump, that would be a different story. But that's not all of what you said.

w: Since everything you suggest is basically illegal, that means the ballot box is our remedy. In that regard, the left very much needs to be unified in 2018 and especially, in 2020.

M: I don't see how it can be illegal to pass a law, or even a constitutional amendment, if need be, outlawing the Republican party. This is what sanity would look like, it seems to me.

Yes it is. You realize the repubs would just form another political party with a different name, right? Conservatives are going to have a political party which represents their views. And if that party gets elected, the first thing they do is ban the democrats. The party isn't the issue really. It's the people in it.

Let's handle this in a democratic way.