I'm still waiting for one Progressive on this site to address State sponsered hate speech.
I don't support this type of speech either. I thought I had made that clear when you first raised this.
I would like to understand your logic of how you feel the left think this acceptable.
Do you have quotes from politicians, news organizations and other groups saying that they support it?
It's sad that someone such as yourself, who has the education and ability to write a coherent sentence, keeps missing the entire point. I would suggest you completely understand the point but lack the integrity to admit it.
You asked me where I get the notion that the Left thinks displaying Trump's severed head on the walls of public Colleges is acceptable. Let me explain the obvious.
The Democrat Party has no problem funding public universities that choose to display hate Art such as Trump's severed head! THAT'S IT! We also hear no outrage or protests in the streets from these same Leftists who scream everytime Trump sneezes.
This means it is acceptable to the Left because there is no call by the Left to cut funding to the very Colleges that would do such a barbaric thing. This is nothing less than Government funded hate Art.
If you want me to actually believes this type of hate Art bothers the Left, then show me where Democrats are calling to defund these Colleges if they refuse to stop displaying hate Art.
I have a problem with it.
You seem to be repeatedly claiming that the "Democratic Party" has no problem with it.
It made the news on Brietbart, the Blaze, and Fox for one day and one article. I follow the former and the latter (maybe 3-4 times a week) and completely missed them.
I follow twitter (even right wing stuff), and it wasn't on any trending articles; I didn't see it figuring prominently on much or any media.
I searched the NYT, WaPo and MSNBC and couldn't find any mention of it; and no article in support of it.
Indeed, when I did a full news google search of it and it shows no major news articles from any network (including Brietbart, or Fox) and barely leaks into the second page.
You claim, that the Left and the democratic party have no problem with this:
How do you know that? Who have you talked to?
Are you just basing this off a lack of comment by anyone but the one or two people in the university involved?
If Democrats or the left are unaware of it; I suspect it's pretty unfair for you to presume that it's evidence that they support it.
Indeed, in this one example; it seems you are mostly just asserting, with no evidence or justification that democrats support this type of hate speech even though all the evidence points to it not being a very prominent news story, and not one that made it very far in the media to the point where I would expect many democrats to come out in support/reject it.
I agree with you, this is an unacceptable image and should be removed. It is unacceptable for the same reason that Kathy Griffin's depiction of Trump was unacceptable.
Here's what you ignore.
Do Democrats tolerate hate speech : Generally, No.
As I (and others) pointed out, examples where people cross the line are generally widely denounced by the democrats: Kathy Griffin is a case in point. You pretend that somehow that she is a private citizen and the college is a public institution makes it somehow a different thing: but both are effectively depicting the same image for the same reason, it is the INTENT and CONTEXT that matters (as I've kept stating).
The Shakespear play; was DEFENDED by WaPo, and the NYT through freedom of speech grounds; there was no uproar when Guthrie presented a depiction of Obama in Julius Caesar 5 years ago; nor his death in Kingsman.
You and the OP are sitting there, and investing some narrative that if such depictions had been made against Obama the left would have reacted differently.
I have two, specific actual examples where the democrats have denounced hate speech when it was against Trump (something you say they do not do), and have not kicked up a fuss or screamed when Obama was portrayed in Julius Caesar (something the OP said they would do).
Like I said, I'm not trying to say that Democrats or the Left are perfect and there are MANY things that I think need to change; but if you want a discussion about that, you have to accept the faults in your own team rather than acting as if everything wrong with the world is because of them; and you have to stop manufacturing these false accusations that do not stack up to the actual facts or evidence as has been shown here.
Last I checked, you hold and maintain a somewhat extensive ban list of your more vocal opponents, so it's not terribly surprising that they don't respond to your statements (which are, quite ironically, almost exactly like those of certain other persons, if opposite in ideological polarity).
You should check again because the people I ban are not just vocal. They are deceptive, they are childish, they are vulgar. Each person I ban has different traits that belong nowhere on the debates I create.
I am vocal and passionate about the issues I speak to but one thing I am not is deceptive, childish or vulgar.
I do not care when people ban me but they seldom do because I always strive to be honest and civil to those who are honest and civil to me.
I look at the ban feature as I do the power of the boycott. We all have the power within us to make America a better place.
We can improve our businesses with the power of the boycott. We can improve our debate sites with the power of the ban. Vulgar people woud not be vulgar if everyone banned them. They need an audience to spew their vulgarity.
People on this site constantly say that we should allow all people to express their opinions, and if we don't it is considered censorship.
I say it is anything but censorship. They have every right to keep creating their vulgar deceptive childish debates, but no one has to be forced to listen to it.
I guarantee you that if everyone started banning bad behavior, the bad behavior would improve. This is how society functions. We hold people accountabile for their actons. This is how we raise our children, this is how businesses hire and fire people, this is how we send a message to Government with our vote, etc. etc.
When we allow unchecked irresponsibility, it will only get worse.
Have I ever banned someone who did not deserve it? Probably so, but I try not to make a habit of it. I give people second chances on my debates and the ones on the ban list have had multiple opportuinities to be honest.
I may have banned you before yet here you are. When you stay honest and civil I will most times reply in kind.
If I recall correctly (and as you acknowledge in your last statement), I was previously on your ban list for some time. Now, being quite prideful of both my mannerisms and rationality, I can't say I've ever been "deceptive," "childish," and "vulgar," particularly on a debate site. Would you kindly inform me, then, as to the reasoning behind my ban?
Political art on the walls of public colleges is nothing new. A college can endorse an artist's right to create art (remember the first amendment) without endorsing their message. "State sponsored hate speech" is a massive stretch.
If a public university brings in a speaker who is controversial, is that amoral?
Do you want to try it again? Or do you want to get banned once more for telling others I ban people who simply dissagree with me? THAT'S A LIE!
First of all Community Colleges are not funded by our Federal Government, so the people in individual communities decide for themselves what they display on their walls. If i were a tax payer in an area where my taxes help pay for hate Art, I would try to stop it.
Secondly, you show me LOVE ART, not hate Art!
They are depicting Obama as the greatest man to ever walk on this Earth. A man with no sin, who loved the world so much that he was willing to die for us all.
Nice try, keep looking.
My point is that colleges, and state-sponsored institutions, fund artists, fund political thinkers, fund speakers, and fund people with opinions. And there's no "hate art" exceptions to the first amendment. You can endorse someone's right to create work and hang that work on a wall without endorsing the work, be it "love art" or "hate art" or anything of the sort.
If i were a tax payer in an area where my taxes help pay for hate Art, I would try to stop it.
So you would only support the funding of artists if the artists were spouting a message that you find appropriate? I personally think that's rather problematic.
Or do you want to get banned once more
Dude, I don't care if you ban me. Last time you banned me because I "spouted the lies" that you have, in the past, banned people for being off-topic (which you have, and that's well within your right) and because I said that anti-Obama art exists. I stand by both of those statements, you can do what you want.
There is only one Party that is supporting hate Art on public Government sponsered walls.
Democrats always refuse to cut funding for Colleges, Art galleries, Museums, etc. when they display hate Art.
I'm waiting for someone to show me where Conservative's are displaying hate speech or hate Art on public walls.