I was shocked how good Meryl Streep was in Into the Woods. She was AWFUL in Mama Mia. I felt bad for Russell Crowe. They kicked that music up way out of his range.
Yes it should. I find it funny because I got warning a month or so ago because I mentioned a Presidential candidate by name. I was given a warning because we are not allowed to post political things. Yet every day I see people talking about the govt. and the President and racism, etc.. I have not seen any of these threads shut down. Seems to be very selective.
This thread is about BLM though.
BLM isn't political either.
That's why they get locked.
Agree, and it's understandable because there is no central organization and the meaning of the term varies from locale to locale, from person to person, and from moment to moment.
Well, my Dad was one of those heroes and I think he would be proud of us.
), but people are expressing their opinions on important issues, and that is what freedom of speech is about. THAT is not the problem. It has always been thus.
As with everything else on the planet...it's up to US.
I agree and my whole family were those heroes in WW II. While none of them were killed, a few of them were never the same( one floating in shark infested waters with body parts all around him for 24 hours when his ship was hit; ,enlisted at 17 suffered a different type of "death" ) but one thing they were adamant about was the Constitution and amendments. I am sure you will agree that while there is theoretically freedom of speech, true freedom of speech would occur when people are not demonized or afraid to express themselves with a differing point of view. In this country today that is not the case and I think that many people express what is popular or expedient NOT what they truly feel out of fear of repercussion.Agree, and it's understandable because there is no central organization and the meaning of the term varies from locale to locale, from person to person, and from moment to moment.
Neither staunch advocates of BLM nor strong opponents of BLM can agree among themselves what they are arguing FOR or AGAINST.
So it's quite impossible to have a lucid conversation about a topic when nobody on any side has the same definition.
Well, my Dad was one of those heroes and I think he would be proud of us.
We are having a conversation. We're not sure what we're talking about (
The First Amendment does not specify that only coherent, sensible, honest speech is protected. ALL speech is protected unless you go really "Fire in a crowded theater" crazy.
It's not only that we should not suppress ideas that confront -- and sometimes offend -- us.
We NEED to hear those ideas. And the more we disagree, the more we need to listen -- and protect their freedom to speak.
In the extreme example of a true, bloodthirsty racist -- what better way to defeat that person than to expose their ideas? Suppressing them is NOT the answer.
THAT is not the problem. It has always been thus.
People do not respect differing opinions, and if you disagree, I will pound a bump on your head!
The real problem is that too many people and organizations (including REAL leaders in our society) are unwilling to put their big kid panties on and say, "Wait a minute -- let's hear both sides of this."
Instead, the moment anyone is (or pretends to be) "offended," they are shutting down the conversation and doing silly symbolic curtsies to the non-offensive avoidance of controversy.
As with everything else on the planet...it's up to US.
The difference between the DIS and the real world is that there are no mods in the real world.
I have had the conversation with my very insightful 21 year old about the kneeling during the anthem. We both agree that if you protest in your back yard, how does that bring change? The best way to make change is to make people uncomfortable.Agree, and it's understandable because there is no central organization and the meaning of the term varies from locale to locale, from person to person, and from moment to moment.
Neither staunch advocates of BLM nor strong opponents of BLM can agree among themselves what they are arguing FOR or AGAINST.
So it's quite impossible to have a lucid conversation about a topic when nobody on any side has the same definition.
Well, my Dad was one of those heroes and I think he would be proud of us.
We are having a conversation. We're not sure what we're talking about (
The First Amendment does not specify that only coherent, sensible, honest speech is protected. ALL speech is protected unless you go really "Fire in a crowded theater" crazy.
It's not only that we should not suppress ideas that confront -- and sometimes offend -- us.
We NEED to hear those ideas. And the more we disagree, the more we need to listen -- and protect their freedom to speak.
In the extreme example of a true, bloodthirsty racist -- what better way to defeat that person than to expose their ideas? Suppressing them is NOT the answer.
THAT is not the problem. It has always been thus.
People do not respect differing opinions, and if you disagree, I will pound a bump on your head!
The real problem is that too many people and organizations (including REAL leaders in our society) are unwilling to put their big kid panties on and say, "Wait a minute -- let's hear both sides of this."
Instead, the moment anyone is (or pretends to be) "offended," they are shutting down the conversation and doing silly symbolic curtsies to the non-offensive avoidance of controversy.
As with everything else on the planet...it's up to US.
The difference between the DIS and the real world is that there are no mods in the real world.
As they say, talk is cheap, actions speak louder. I think most people are judging it by the actions it doing. You know, the burning and destruction of our cities maybe? The looting, stealing, and murdering?
