|
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. |
On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
why don't you guys pick a single specific bill to discuss? that'd probably work better. otherwise he picks and chooses the decent ones and talks about those while you pick the bad ones and talk about those.
|
On February 03 2017 03:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. why don't you guys pick a single specific bill to discuss? that'd probably work better. otherwise he picks and chooses the decent ones and talks about those while you pick the bad ones and talk about those.
I edited one in, but since it may not get seen, I was thinking of bills like: http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/24/minnesota-house-committee-approves-bill-that-would-charge-protesters/
|
On February 03 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:03 zlefin wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
I can't even tell what your point is here, so I'm not even sure if I disagree or not.
also not seeing the irony described.
|
On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/
I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished.
|
On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished.
Civil rights movement..?
|
On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished.
Like, I dunno, dumping the British Empire's tea shipment into the Boston Harbor? Or a black woman refusing to give up her seat for a white man?
|
On February 03 2017 03:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished. Civil rights movement..?
Not even that, the article linked mentions a similar bill that was ruled unconstitutional.
|
On February 03 2017 03:07 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
what a contradiction. you profess to be focused on practical problem solving except for the problem of convincing others of your solutions so that they can actually be implemented! who knew that you, slefin, would turn out to be the greatest idealist among us!
|
On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 01:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why on earth would a university invite Milo? To give a lecture about online harassment, misoginy and hatred?
It's not like the guy ever did anything else.. Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant. It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? I have and the answer is no, although i am quite sure that some people struggle to distinguish deep thought and the mysogynic and racist bullshit speech from a sexually insecure young male talking to other secually insecure young males. Because let's be clear, that's all there is to Milo. I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right.
I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing
|
On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished.
They already are punished via arrest and associated charges, which can include fines. This is about directly charging them for the police response costs in addition to the crime committed (which is not even done for normal crimes, unless I'm mistaken).
Basically it makes public assembly and protest specifically targeted unprotected types of crimes with additional punitive measures.
|
On February 03 2017 03:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:07 zlefin wrote: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. what a contradiction. you profess to be focused on practical problem solving except for the problem of convincing others of your solutions so that they can actually be implemented! who knew that you, slefin, would turn out to be the greatest idealist among us!
it is indeed a very strange mix of pragmatism and idealism.
the problem of convincing others is the hardest of problems. it's not that hard to fix social security, or write a good healthcare system, the hard part is getting it passed into law. an unfortunate flaw in our system that a lot of fixable issues aren't addressed due to such things, and their underlying causes.
I'm not entirely against work on implementation or anything, but it matters alot to have the right ideas implemented.
pushing through bad ideas simply isn't helpful.
and at any rate, i'm simply very bad at convincing people throug hanything other than rational argument. so partly I play to my strengths.
|
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.
Saw this too and it looks to be a refinement rather than an easing of sanctions and may not have even gotten higher than an Obama appointee for approval. The FSB apparently does routine licensing in Russia for IT products, so no one could sell those products.
|
On February 03 2017 03:02 Nevuk wrote:
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.
This shows you Trump's depth on policy, or lack thereof. Those talking heads are bloviating to appeal to a TV audience - but that is where Trump gets actual ideas. Incompetence and mental instability are the risks Trump's voters have accepted for us - and they don't have a damn clue how it turns out.
|
Looking through the article on that protest bill, I have several concerns. first, I'd have preferred more o fthe people voting for it to pass through committee to actually stand up and say why. the article indicates only one of them spoke up.
I'm not seeing the direct text of the bill, which would help clarify some points.
I'm wondering what kind of liability is being applied, and whether the law is clear enough and limited enough in its scope on application of liability. I hope joint and several liability is not being applied, because that would be dumb and excessive.
there's a serious justiciability issue in apportioning the liability in any event.
It also places a far greater onus on poor protester than rich protesters.
I am a bit surprised protestors convicted can't already be sued for damaged, most crimes have an associated civil tort after all. I guess that doesn't apply to the cost of processing or some such.
I'm leery of assessing liability in this way given the problems that have been caused by civil forfeiture laws.
What would the litigation costs of doing this for cases be? what would be the net profit afterward? are tehe social costs of assessing such fees in excess of the money to be gained?
are the criminal penalties not sufficient for addressing the problems of unlawful protest? why not change the criminal laws instead to address them?
|
My conservative/libertarian heart just warmed up a bit.
Funny how an homosexual is one of the current symbols of the right.
|
On February 03 2017 03:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished. Like, I dunno, dumping the British Empire's tea shipment into the Boston Harbor? Or a black woman refusing to give up her seat for a white man?
You don't get it. The justness of the cause is irrelevant.
|
On February 03 2017 03:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished. They already are punished via arrest and associated charges, which can include fines. This is about directly charging them for the police response costs in addition to the crime committed (which is not even done for normal crimes, unless I'm mistaken). Basically it makes public assembly and protest specifically targeted unprotected types of crimes with additional punitive measures.
So? I'm basically saying that I'm in favor of punishing unlawful protesters who cause a ton of collateral damage in their communities even more. Apparently the current laws on the books aren't enough to dissuade rioters, so let's fix that.
|
Someone dumping someone else's goods into the sea should absolutely be punished.
|
On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished.
You don't realize it might be very easy to make illegal any protest the administration doesn't enjoy? It practically kills freedom of assembly with huge financial burdens.
|
On February 03 2017 03:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:21 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 03:14 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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/ I see nothing wrong with that bill. Protesters conducting illegal activities or who pose a legal nuisance should be punished. You don't realize it might be very easy to make illegal any protest the administration doesn't enjoy? It practically kills freedom of assembly with huge financial burdens.
No, this is what we call bullshit fearmongering. The bill targets illegal protests and particularly those that cause a nuisance (ie rioters). And even if the bill was overbroad, I still wouldn't worry about it because there are courts around that serve as check and balance against legislative overreach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bSE7HyM)
EPT
