|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I remember that article, it was quite unsound, but interesting to know who he is. not surprising he was given a post.
|
On February 03 2017 00:46 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 00:39 Toadesstern wrote:On February 03 2017 00:23 bardtown wrote:
He should be going after the police for allowing antifa to nigh on murder people in the streets. yeah that's the thing I don't really understand here either... I don't see how a University would be able to "defend" itself from such a situation. That's an issue for sure but not one the university is to blame for. What are they supposed to do there? Let the show move on and let get people seriously hurt? If it's such a big issue that it happens all the time you probably have to treat it like we treat hooligans? Sorry but can't really come up with a better comparison Yeah I'm really struggling to see what the university did wrong here unless it somehow comes out that they were negligent in preventing the disruptive parts of the protest, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Even if they sanctioned the protest a non-violent protest is as much free speech as anything else. It doubly so makes sense to cancel considering a pro-Milo person shot someone at a protest just a week ago. Legallord (I think?) mentioned before about creating all sorts of twitter accounts to make fake outcries (or something along those lines), but equally a big a problem is outsiders inciting violence at protests and that's a pretty real and dangerous threat that can come from all sides ( even law enforcement).
Yes, considering how frequent a tactic it is for police to dress up as masked "anarchists" and cause riots amongst causes they dislike I'm reluctant to ever accept accounts like the one currently going around unless the anarchists are claiming credit while unmasked. It is an extremely common tactic for use amongst both sides of the political aisle.
Especially because this was basically the best outcome Milo could have dreamed of.
|
On February 03 2017 02:51 zlefin wrote:
I remember that article, it was quite unsound, but interesting to know who he is. not surprising he was given a post.
"quite unsound" lol. i wonder sometimes if you ever listen to yourself. talking about "soundness" without regard for aim.
|
On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed?
Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do.
|
Fascinating. Good to finally know who it was.
|
Also, I'm not sure I'd credit Bannon for the Trump defunding tweet. Apparently it was very shortly after a fox and friends segment suggesting it.
|
On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do.
So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Or Republicans crafting congressional districts along racial lines (that then get tossed out fortunately)? Or republicans openly targeting Democrats with voter laws?
|
On February 03 2017 02:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:51 zlefin wrote:
I remember that article, it was quite unsound, but interesting to know who he is. not surprising he was given a post. "quite unsound" lol. i wonder sometimes if you ever listen to yourself. talking about "soundness" without regard for aim.
I do listen to myself, and I care more about soundness and rigor than rhetorical flourish.
I also like to fight against unsound hyperbole.
|
maybe thats why no one pays attention to you
|
It's much more amusing to replace "Right" or "Left" with "myself" and "people I don't like". Discussions here make much more sense after that.
|
On February 03 2017 03:04 IgnE wrote:
maybe thats why no one pays attention to you
probably; like I said, most people aren't that interested in thorough and rigorous reasoning. it doesn't sell well. reality is boring.
it's too bad because it's a very effective tool, and the world would be better if it were more widely used.
I'd rather be right and ignored, than wrong and listened to.
|
On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation?
Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes.
|
Gregory Korte
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration eased U.S. sanctions against Russia Thursday, giving a specific exemption for the Russian spy agency implicated in hacking the Democratic National Committee e-mails.
The "general license" applies to the Federal Security Service, or FSB, allowing Americans to do business with the spy agency as long as payments do not amount to more than $5,000 a year.
The Treasury Department and the White House would not immediately explain the general license.
President Obama impose additional sanctions on Russia in December in retaliation what intelligence officials said was a concerted effort by President Vladimir Putin to interfere in the U.S. election and get Trump elected.
Source
Symbolic and kind of meaningless but still, lol.
|
On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes.
There's a huge difference between using the apparatus of the state to stifle dissent and using societal pressure, no matter how insidious.
|
On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes.
It's not about neutrality, it's about ending conversations.
Plus you said you are very much a strict law an order type of person and pro free speech. Why so silent on the issue now?
(I also edited my original statement to include voter laws and congressional districts).
|
On February 03 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. It's not about neutrality, it's about ending conversations. Plus you said you are very much a strict law an order type of person and pro free speech. Why so silent on the issue now?
The exercise of free speech doesn't give you license to be an asshole who blocks traffic. There is no unequivocal right to protest anywhere at any time and adversely affect "civilians." These bills are content neutral and reasonable regulations on the right to protest. I don't think that they amount to the silencing of the opposition at all.
|
On February 03 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +
Gregory Korte
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration eased U.S. sanctions against Russia Thursday, giving a specific exemption for the Russian spy agency implicated in hacking the Democratic National Committee e-mails.
The "general license" applies to the Federal Security Service, or FSB, allowing Americans to do business with the spy agency as long as payments do not amount to more than $5,000 a year.
The Treasury Department and the White House would not immediately explain the general license.
President Obama impose additional sanctions on Russia in December in retaliation what intelligence officials said was a concerted effort by President Vladimir Putin to interfere in the U.S. election and get Trump elected.
SourceSymbolic and kind of meaningless but still, lol.
What exactly can anyone buy from the FSB for less than $5,000 a year unless they already have another deal cut? What a weird/bizarre thing to do.
|
On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Or Republicans crafting congressional districts along racial lines (that then get tossed out fortunately)? Or republicans openly targeting Democrats with voter laws?
That's the key distinction from the right and left. The left protests and sjwing repressing people at the pleb level while the rights dick heads are on office repressing people through policy.
|
On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:29 Scarecrow wrote:
I love how xDaunt just condescendingly craps on Biff's seemingly legitimate criticism of Milo without saying why the left is ill-equipped, or what the underlying point is beyond hate speech and trolling. How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. It's not about neutrality, it's about ending conversations. Plus you said you are very much a strict law an order type of person and pro free speech. Why so silent on the issue now? The exercise of free speech doesn't give you license to be an asshole who blocks traffic. There is no unequivocal right to protest anywhere at any time and adversely affect "civilians." These bills are content neutral and reasonable regulations on the right to protest. I don't think that they amount to the silencing of the opposition at all.
Street-blocking laws are not the only protesting bills being introduced.
http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/24/minnesota-house-committee-approves-bill-that-would-charge-protesters/
|
On February 03 2017 03:03 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:59 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2017 02:51 zlefin wrote:
I remember that article, it was quite unsound, but interesting to know who he is. not surprising he was given a post. "quite unsound" lol. i wonder sometimes if you ever listen to yourself. talking about "soundness" without regard for aim. I do listen to myself, and I care more about soundness and rigor than rhetorical flourish. I also like to fight against unsound hyperbole.
On February 03 2017 03:04 IgnE wrote:
maybe thats why no one pays attention to you
The overly dismissive are easily dismissed. It's kind of ironic that "he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness" immediately preceded this page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
