How much has changed over the years

My Recent Posts

Some people seem to have no sense of being embarrassed - ever.  Yes, they have the right to speech, and they expect NO consequences of their actions and speech.  Too bad for them, as eventually they will run into someone who will take them down a notch or two - or worse.  I have no complaint whatsoever whenever there is a difference in opinion - that is totally fine, but when someone uses hate speech without provocation, that is totally different.  After all, they claim to have their feelings "hurt" by words that they use all the time, and as far as I am concerned, when such words are used indiscriminately, repercussions are inevitable, irregardless of their feelings.

I just say "Tough."  They want to bring me down to their level, they have a major problem in that I don't deal with children, no matter what their physical age.  If you wish to call that "censoring", you are right.  But considering that I was born before the USAF was created in September 1947,  I have grown up in a world where if someone said some of those words in public, they'd be either in a hospital or worse.

And why has the civility and politeness suffered?

Think of it in terms of being responsible for your own actions.  Before, if you went on someone's property in any manner other than to visit, you could well have been shot.  This included the police, and I am not joking.  The police were required to politely knock on your door, but never at night.  They could hand you whatever papers were used - search warrant, arrest warrant, or whatever - but they could not barge in with guns drawn.  They would have been met with an equal firepower.

Then, in the 1950s and later, there were pushes and campaigns, and laws passed to outlaw "harsh treatment" of criminals.  The death penalty was abolished, or made so complicated that decades might pass before the sentence was carried out.  Moreover, the requirements of the sixth amendment were glossed over, with trials being held behind closed doors, where the public was excluded from the deliberations.  The sixth amendment specifically states a speedy and PUBLIC trial.

Now, what about the death penalty?

When a murderer kills someone by planning or simply as a malicious act, that murderer is now placed in accommodations for anywhere from a few months to up to life in prison.

Where is the incentive to stop a repeat of the crime?  Not only is the murderer allowed to live, he gets free library, Internet access, TV, health care, food, clothing and exercise as he sees fit.  His victim(s) get none of that.
I think one of the worse things ever passed as law was the removal of public executions.


Because no one sees the horrible results that come with the consequences of breaking the law that carries a capital punishment.
I have watched the degradation of society that closely parallels that of Nazi Germany, where I grew up due to the fact that my father was military and assigned there right after WWII.  I literally played in bomb craters next to buildings that only had a couple of walls still standing.  I know well what Nazi means, having talked to many survivors of that time personally.  The USA is in the same throes the Weimar Republic was in the 1930s, and I tell you - it is scary to see the criminality experienced by the Germans repeating itself in the land where I was born - the USA.  I remember well the 48-star flag of the USA.
The Democrats have shown themselves as Nazis in so many different ways, stifling speech, advocating "in your face" activities, such as creating mobs (which they certainly do not like that word), and marching in lock step politically, not allowing dissent within their own ranks.

Worse, they are using lies as a weapon, and for many ill-informed, it is working.  It is just too bad that the ill-informed will soon become fodder for the very ones they support.

Sure, they call conservatives "Nazis" and blame conservatives for everything they do, but look beyond their rhetoric:  They are violent, ignorant of basic decency, and many of them post most hateful of statements, then complain if we use the same words on them.  But the main stream media is the propaganda arm of the liberals, the Democrats are the equivalent of the Nazi party, and their tactics are right out of the history books that the Nazis used to spring Hitler to power.

The sad thing I see is the rise of another Nazi uprising pushed by the liberals and the Democrats, only this time it is not the Jews being targeted, it is the Caucasian and later, the Latino.  Count on it.


Dino Manalis Added Oct 11, 2018 - 3:04pm
 We need to move forward, not backward, with civility and compromise to address problems.
Autumn Cote Added Oct 11, 2018 - 3:28pm
Please note, the best way to draw more attention to your work is to comment on the work of others.  As always, many thanks for your participation with Writer Beat!
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 12:16am
Dino Manalis, the problem with civility is that some people were never reared to understand the word or its implications.  In such instances, THEY need to learn civility before someone decides that they need to be flattened out a bit, such as shown on YouTube all the time.
Flying Junior Added Oct 12, 2018 - 3:50am
Your leading paragraph is quite nebulous.  I can't imagine who it is that you are talking about.  Who are these shameless people with their free use of bad words?  What are the consequences that they deserve?  What is the hate speech?  Maybe a more specific complaint?
Has someone attacked the U.S. military?  Certainly this is very rare.  It's the last sacred cow.
I agree that civility is lacking on both sides.  Someone just called me a leftist fucktard just yesterday.  How stupid is that?  Nothing is accomplished by mindless name-calling.
So on one hand you object to indiscriminate usage of the term Nazi, having grown up in the very aftermath of the Third Reich.  In the very next sentence you accuse democrats of having characteristics of Nazis.
Which is it?  Maybe you are protesting my own speeches.  I freely label alt-right white supremacists as Nazis, particularly those who like to play with Nazi flags, uniforms and paraphernalia.  It's not a game.  I have had the participants themselves tell me that it is deadly serious.
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 4:30am
Flying Junior, those you claim as "alt-right white supremacists" are definitely not conservative leaning.  In making that statement, you show your lack of understanding of the term.  In fact, most of those violent people wearing black clothing and sporting Nazi flags, uniforms and paraphernalia are Democrat voters. 
Liberals are trying to install socialism, and Nazis were the nationalist socialist German workers party, which is the direct translation of their official title (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), so calling anyone supporting Nazi flags and other such stuff are definitely socialists.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist (he said so in a speech; I forget where, but I'm sure you can find it if you look), as is Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and anyone else who claims to be all for the people, but by physical evidence, they are all for themselves.
Follow the money, and you'll see where they live, how they live, and how they treat the "peons" around them.  Hillary just asked for interns to work for her for free three days a week, as if she's "dead broke" again.
Flying Junior Added Oct 12, 2018 - 4:45am
Thank you for an honest response.  I have trouble believing that the Nazi dress-up guys are registered democrats.  Maybe you have intel.
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 5:24am
Flying Junior, keep an open mind and question what seems to be obvious.  I'd recommend reading some history of Nazi Germany.  It will amaze you the almost exact things happening today in the USA were done in the 1930s.  "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" would be a very good start.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 12, 2018 - 7:39am
It is always interesting watching cognitive dissonance at work. Quite often, those who are in fact the most deluded, are the most incapable of seeing their delusions for what they really are. 
Johnny Fever Added Oct 12, 2018 - 8:59am
but when someone uses hate speech without provocation, that is totally different”
This is the flaw in your argument.  You are not the judge and jury in determining what speech qualifies as unprovoked hate-speech, nor is anyone else.  After all, for some, Donald Trump is almost always practicing unprovoked hate speech.  Should they be allowed to silence him?  Obviously not, meaning all speech, even speech you deem to be unprovoked hate speech, should be allowed.     
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 9:29am
Johnny Fever, that is not a flaw, per se.  It is acknowledged publicly that certain words and/or actions are defined as "hate speech", and in most cases, public utterances and writings have such words bleeped out or disguised.
I do not claim to be judgmental, but if someone flips me the finger, that is certainly defined as a hateful act, and how many people have gotten hurt by such an "innocent" gesture or similar words?
I might ignore it, but someone else might take the act or utterance to extreme levels, and you know this to be true.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 12, 2018 - 10:25am
But unless you are a white male, you cannot be capable of uttering "hate speech" ... so states the Statist Bible. 
Johnny Fever Added Oct 12, 2018 - 5:12pm
It is not “acknowledged publicly that certain words and/or actions are defined as "hate speech.” Again, for most liberals, Donald Trump’s speech is the epitome of hate speech.  Given the power to silence him, I’m sure they would.  So my argument is to allow hate speech otherwise everyone will label speech they disagree with as hate speech and look to have the government silence people.  Let’s say you still disagree with me, how would you go about enforcing a hate speech law?
As for name calling and cursing, I think people should be allowed to express themselves however they please.  To the extent someone tells you to fuck-off, my recommendation is to ignore that individual and communicate with nicer people.
Isn’t my solution of free speech the most reasonable approach to this subject?  Your solution requires a bunch of new rules and regulations and as a conservative and GOPer, you’ll never get me to agree with you.  However, I’m sure most liberals like the sound of what you’re suggesting. 
Ken Added Oct 12, 2018 - 5:52pm
You summed it up in the first paragraph.  The problem is there is no accountability, no consequences for many actions.  The left loots, vandalizes, riots, and no one ever calls them to account.  Most towns they do it in look the other way.
The younger generation is "entitled" many are just incredibly spoiled with everything they could ever want at their fingertips.
Many parents today were hippies in the 60s or children of the hippies.  They would rather be "friends" than parents.
If the parents don't grow up, how can they teach the children?
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 6:01pm
Johnny Fever, your statement "To the extent someone tells you to fuck-off, my recommendation is to ignore that individual and communicate with nicer people." is precisely my point.  The term "hate speech" is defined differently by different people, and the trouble is when some people get into other people's faces raucously, they do not believe that is hate speech.  It is.
As for disagreeing, we can disagree without being hateful, right?
Ken, I have to hand it to you:  The last sentence nails it perfectly.
Ken Added Oct 12, 2018 - 7:15pm
they do not believe that is hate speech.  It is.
It isn't necessarily hate speech, however it is inappropriate.  Your right end where another individual's begin.  Even if you are "in their face" yelling "You're the greatest"! it is inappropriate and a violation of their rights.
As you note, "hate speech" is subjective - which is why it MUST be protected and is covered by the first amendment.  The 1st amendment isn't there to protect speech you agree with - it is there to protect the speech you most vehemently disagree with.
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 12, 2018 - 7:42pm
Ken, you are correct.  But let's not let them call hate speech a crime.  It isn't.
Ken Added Oct 12, 2018 - 8:16pm
agreed SK, that is why I state that it MUST be protected.
People don't get it, especially the college kids (and why they are often referred to as snowflakes). 
You DO NOT have the right to not be offended.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 13, 2018 - 2:55am
Grandfather always said the reason there are so many assholes these days is because there aren't enough ass whippings.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 13, 2018 - 3:10am
Your right end where another individual's begin.
Absofuckinlutely wrong. 
All rights exist on the same plane. You have the same rights I have at the same moment in time. 
Ari Silverstein Added Oct 13, 2018 - 7:11am
Equating what the liberals are doing to Nazi Germany is an insult to every victim of the Holocaust.  There is an old adage on the internet called Godwin’s Law.  Paraphrasing it states: If an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds.  Following this occurrence, the discussion ends and the person making the comparison loses the debate.  It’s closely linked to Reductio ad Hitlerum. This is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler.  Because nothing was as bad as Hitler, it’s a logical fallacy to compare anyone’s position to that of Adolf Hitler. 
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 13, 2018 - 8:01am
Ari Silverstein, I did not compare anyone to Hitler; the comparison is the acts of the Democrats and their liberal supports to the acts that the Nazi Brownshirts and Schutzstaffel (SS), which were well documented for their violence and brutality, the same violence and methods used by the liberals and some Democrats.
Furthermore, that is not any insult to any victim of the Holocaust, as they were victims, not perpetrators.  What it is is a direct comparison to the perpetrators, not the victims, who, today are identified as the Caucasians and Republicans, and once those are gone, the Latinos and Asians will be next on the list.
Keep your mind clear and don't jump to wrong conclusions.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 13, 2018 - 10:36pm
Violence in the streets? Check.
Shouting down detractors? Check. 
Instigating acts of violence against detractors? Check. 
Ignoring historical context and what fate ultimately befell the useful idiots in implementing Socialist and Communist Utopian Paradises before? Check. 
Sounds pretty much like the SA to me. (The SA was the original Brownshirts ... until Hitler discovered the plot to remove him from office ... from my sources ... yes, people who were there ... amazing the people you meet as expats sometimes ... the Nazi Party originally believed Hitler to be too radical and unstable to actually rule the party, but was hoped to be used as a tool to bring the Party to popular fronts and then move into a position of power. Hitler, utilizing the newly formed SS (blackshirts) in response, much the same as Mao, PolPot, Stalin ... and even Lenin to a lesser degree, upon assuming power, merely killed off the useful idiots so there would be no protesting in their new Utopian Paradise)
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 13, 2018 - 10:42pm
Ward Tipton, you get the prize!  That is exactly what I know happened in the 1930s from some Germans who were there (the last live one I talked to was in 1978).
And those happenings are being repeated today, but the "useful idiots" are claiming that will never happen to them.  If the Democrats get into power as they hope to do, then the carnage of US citizens will be unreal, and a third world war will ensue.
Ari Silverstein Added Oct 15, 2018 - 8:26am
A comparison to Nazis is a comparison to Hitler.  When the liberals start rounding up conservatives and systematically executing them, you can make that comparison.  Until then you sound like a fool.  Lo and behold, only a fool would write an article on free speech and then drone on about the death penalty and then divulge into Holocaust comparisons.   
Sunshine Kid Added Oct 15, 2018 - 9:50am
Wrong, Ari.  A comparison to Nazis is like a comparison to the Democrats.  Hitler was a single person, so a comparison to Hitler is not a comparison to the Nazis, even though he was the head of it.  The closest comparison to Hitler would be to compare the head of the Democratic National Convention, or whomever is nominated to head the Democrats in any particular election.
Remember, my comparison is to the Nazis, who were in the public view long before Hitler arrived on the scene.  True, he took over the Nazi party, but he did NOT start it.  In fact, he was in jail long before he gained power to take over Germany while much of the atrocities were being conducted by Nazis, so he had no part in those events.
Don't conflate Hitler and the Nazis as one and the same; they are not.
And I made no comparisons to the Holocaust.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 18, 2018 - 6:37pm
Scumshine IS INNOCENT!!!  He ist not a NAZI, as agreed, that's insulting Nazis.  According to Scumshine, it's Ds that are Nazis, so that's good and bias confirming for rightists.  MS13 is about to attack, Scumshine.