Where to begin, so much has been happening in the SI towns in the land of paltalk it is hard to know where to begin. Most might know that Banned is in fact a freedom of speech and expression room, Banned's principals are still the same as they always were. The main reasons for Banned are as follows, a room that allows and even encourages freedom of speech no matter your party, or lack of one. Banned is also different in a way since admin have limited 'power' such as the no bouncing or banning rule and NOT red dotting due to a chatter(s) disagreeing with them, yes the admins of Banned are a specail breed indeed and I'm so honored to have them. The admins in Banned were always meant to be a diverse group as written in Banned's room rules, never was Banned to only be a Liberal ran room. For fairness to be allowed for all we cannot disregard requests to be an admin at Banned due to one's political beliefs, different opinion of others Banned's admins, past history with a Banned's admin (rather it be personal or political) or their popularity in pal-land. I was disappointed in how many said they truly believe in freedom of speech reacted, I expected more than some could give. I'm happy to say that most of the present admins of Banned were at least open to the idea of discussing new admins. I feel one must always leave the door crack for the chance of change, not slamming and locking the door against hope.
Aren't we to be the champions of freedom, chances, hope, solutions, empathy, openness, not allow our personal bias get in the way and aren't we suppose to welcome those they have chosen to remove their blinders? I know quiet a few of people that have made that huge step in removing their blinders and I only wonder what would have happened if everyone shut the door of democracy in their faces. Everyday more and more people are waking up and seeing the facts for what they really are and are refusing to blindly follow. Shouldn't we as liberals; as fellow humans, open our arms and our knowledge to them? I know many think it is a lost cause, but then I remember the days people used to say that about certain chatters that did in fact change their opinions.
How can anyone learn if you only surround and allow interaction with people that are in total agreement with all of your views? How can there be any hope to better the world if the speech of different opinions is limited? How can there even be a chance at all, if everyone refuses to give one? I still cannot understand why so many think that an SI room cannot exist with both conservatives and liberals as chatters and admins. Within the short time i have had Banned open my eyes have been opened to things I had been refusing to see. I saw that both sides of the political fence have their very own fascists that want to limited others RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!! Seems some on both sides have forgotten what freedom and liberalities truly means in their fight to protect them. So many times I sit back and watch conservatives and liberal say the same thing, yet they cannot see they do agree on at least one issue. I remember seeing once in Banned two people debating an issues they ended up saying we can just agree to disagree on that issue, but we do agree on this. They then continued onto debating another issue that in fact they did agree upon, yet so many refuse to even allow this type of opportunity to take place.
So many times in history the group that dare to reach for more and amelioration have been attacked from all including same-minded groups, a perfect example is the Women's Suffrage. After the civil war Republican party politicians believed enfranchisement of the ex-slaves would be defeated if harnessed to the even more unpopular cause of woman's suffrage. They succeeded in passing the 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which gave the vote to black men but not to women. In the wake of the passage of these amendments, suffragists split into two rival factions. Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, her longtime colleague, refused to support the 15th Amendment because it did not enfranchise women, favoring passage of another constitutional amendment to do so. They formed the National Woman's Suffrage Association (NWSA) in 1869. Conservative feminists, led by Lucy Stone; her husband, Henry Blackwell; and Julia Ward Howe, supported the 15th Amendment and campaigned for the passage of state laws to enfranchise women. They established the American Woman's Suffrage Association (AWSA) in 1869. Even though they were working towards the same cause difference on how to reach their common goal became the issue leading to a schism. Eventually the AWSA and NWSA reconciled and in 1890 merged to become the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) By 1910 women had the right to vote in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, and Washington, I can only hope for such a reconciliation in SI.
Never will I attack any group rather in pal-land or in real-world that seem to have freedoms truly at heart, even if their way difference from mine. For so long now the split of the American people (and the citizens of the world) has worked to the advantage of the selected few. So long people have been conditioned that limitations of freedoms must be in place that most do NOT see it. So many do not see when they attack a fellow like-minded person for trying a new approach, they are helping the very people they are fighting against. Fear is so rampant with so many, so incorporated is this fear most refuse to acknowledge it. Fear to never allow true freedom, fear to give a known opponent a chance, fear of new approaches, fear of the unknown.
I think we can change that, I see us being able to remove the cloak of fear that has been wrapped ever so tightly around us all at one time or another. I believe that there is still a chance for freedom, no matter how hard some try to distorted it. Although mistakes will undoubtedly be made, changes never come if one fears failure. Thank goodness that so many before and hopefully after us, dare to take chances and were willing to hope for betterment of humanity. Always remember all changes start with one daring to take a chance.
Posts
11 comments:
Hope. It is a curagous emotion, one that can withstand much abuse, yet.... it is not always without end. I am glad that some people still have enough of their's (hope)intact to still have dreams for the future. If humanity ever does stand a chance, it is with the minority of people who still truely have hope, dreams, and the willingness to share them.
Hope is indeed a emotion many find hard to find or to hold close. Hope is always there just with so much pain, disappointments and distrust in life so many cannot see it anymore. Hope is so much more than politics and SI on paltalk. Hope is for all things and for all to have and experience. All of us at one time lose sight of hope anywhere, that is when the hope & compassion of others becomes a great need.
And Babe don't you fret I got hope enough to share. Love ya Girl
I prefer to approach life with a sense of wistful yet sociopathic nihilism. I think it would be better if, rather than viewing other individuals as whole beings, with desires, feelings, and beliefs of their own, we should view them as tiny plastic men that we simply move around the playing field to fulfill our own desires. Does it matter to me if their basic human rights are hideously violated? Why should it? Does it matter to me when the little soldier in Contra runs into a tiny circular bullet, flips over, and dies? No, of course not, there is always a new little soldier who appears, flashing with temporary invincibility, to do the same task. And if you put in the Konami code, (Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start) then you get to start with 30 men instead of 3. ;)
Most do believe in giving chances, but only to one as themselves and they are not willing to give a chance to one opposed to themselves. Life is so full of people with so many different life experiences you never can know exactly why someone acts, reacts and thinks as they do. Yet always the hope for change is ever present, and it is in that hope I trust in. I refuse to believe that a person can never change, nor could I live with myself if I didn't allow myself to give the very chances that at one time in my life someone dared to extend to me. I truly believe that people can and do change if given the chance and the reasons to do so. Extending hope to another is never ever wrong, to allow one the chance to 'prove' themselves is never wasted. For don't you see that if even they don't change or even dare to take the chance, you have given them a new life experience that might very well crack the door for them, a door of understanding and hope?
I'm sorry I respectfully disagree with you Livid, I will always believe in giving chances even to those that actions have been deplorable. There are so many ways to safely give other chances without allowing any real harm.
I would not be able to live with myself if I did not practice what I preach. Everyone always deserves another chance. I've learned that there are people in this world that feed off of hate, greed, and jealousy. I hope you can search your heart and see that I am not one of those people.
No matter what comes my way I will never refuse to give others chances
World peace was declared late today as people across the globe realized that tolerance and understanding were more important than their own selfish gain. Analysts believe that the sudden outpouring of goodness and kindness can be traced to left wing satirists, whose biting and clever writing has completely changed the way humanity perceives itself.
George Bush apologized on national television for his blatant favoring of the rich and the business community. “I have received many calls from financial backers,” he told the nation, “Who intend to forget about profits and simply put the good of the community before their own interests. They have asked me, and I have agreed, to ensure that Government policy reflects these principles in the future.” He further stated, “All military operations around the world will be stopped immediately. And Guantanomo Bay is to be transformed into a theme park for Cuban youth.”
In a gesture of good will, political prisons in countries such as China, Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Vietnam were opened and inmates were allowed to walk free and join their family and friends. “I don’t want to be a mad, oppressive dictator no more,” said the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il
Social analyst, John Murray, speaking on CNN said that it was clear that sharp and witty social commentary of left wing satirists had changed the world. “They were just so clever that it made everyone realise that it’s not cool to be selfish. Basically, we have them to thank for world peace.”
And some say people can't change...pfff
~~~~Always A Facetious Pain~~~
DrPhil says the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Never trust a striped leopard.
I'm just wondering... it is possible to pick up wi-fi connections from a cardboard box in an alley??? If we get into the "sins" of mankind, most should have one of those electricuting dog collars welded to their necks and be regularly shocked back down out of their egotistical delusions. Also, when a mans jeans become extremely tight from scrotal edema, can it cause brain damage? Hmm, I will take some more time to think about all of this and reply again later.
If you are never scared, embarrassed or hurt, it means you never take chances. If the odds are a million to one against something occurring, chances are 50-50 it will. Life isn't worth living unless you're willing to take some big chances and go for broke.
As Helen Keller said "Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope or confidence."
"We have an open society. No one will come and take me away for saying what I am saying. But they don't have to, if they can control how many people hear it. And that's how they do it." Jackson Browne
Freedom of speech:Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if ever) censorship is necessary; in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms places the burden upon the government to demonstrate how a limitation would benefit the public (e.g. hate speech is illegal); and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom outside specific circumstances in which it prescribes censorship (e.g. to protect national security). In most all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
It is important to understand the various theoretical rationales for freedom of speech if we are to form views about the concept's true nature and its rational limits. In part, the justification for free speech is a general liberal or libertarian presumption against coercing individuals from living how they please and doing what they want. However, a number of more specific justifications are commonly proposed for freedom of speech.
For example, Justice McLachlan of the Canadian Supreme Court identified the following in R. v. Keegstra, a 1990 case on hate speech: (1) free speech promotes "The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions" and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms; (2) it promotes a marketplace of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth; (3) it is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualisation of speakers and listeners; and (4) it is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.
Such reasons perhaps overlap. Together, they provide a widely accepted rationale for the recognition of freedom of speech as a basic civil liberty.
Freedom: The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.
All for now ;=)
~~~~~~Forever A Facetious Pain~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Smiles~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post a Comment