|
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 10 2017 08:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:11 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:45 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 07:22 ZasZ. wrote:
Yeah I would normally be on board with the Danglars "let him speak" approach, but Milo has always walked the fine line between exercising his first amendment rights, and directly inciting harassment and violence on other people. There have been many cases where "letting him speak" resulted in real danger to his targets. In my eyes this is the difference between protesting Milo and protesting someone like Ben Shapiro, who is just a conservative commentator. I'm seeing a whole lot of violence/threats of violence the other way. But to your point, the result is a nanny state that dictates a low bar for "inciting violence," since children are the ones that think the man is calling for physical assaults. "Directly inciting harassment" is also in the eyes of the beholder; criticizing your elected leaders and public figures is an American tradition for centuries. Your fine line shows no respect for the concept of free speech whatsoever, in all honesty. The only legitimate other side should be along the lines of "will someone rid me of this troublesome priest." And like the before-linked essays show, there's a very tepid response on the topic of causing violence against an invited speaker in this very thread. Good luck finding a moral basis to argue he's directly causing violence if you excuse violence against him. The only difference between Ben Shapiro and Milo should be how much you find yourself agreeing with them, not which one is allowed to have rights and which topics he's allowed to speak on and how passionate and flippant he's allowed to be before your fine line dividing civil rights from permissive censorship is crossed. No one is arguing violence is the solution. Just the the natural outcome of not giving a shit about other peoples fears or concerns. People like Bannon, Milo, Richard Spencer, David Duke and others all feeling emboldened and in power scares people. And it has become abundantly clear that no one gives a shit. The election pretty much proved that. It is naive to think that things would get less aggressive and violent after electing Trump. Justifying violence is exactly what the essays that started this topic did. Now, I forget if you responded to Nevuk's essays, so I don't know if you also personally justify the violence. It wasn't a natural outcome collection of essays. Just like the natural outcome of disrupting a campus group's speakers should be arrests and prosecution. I've got no problems with one natural outcome until the first natural outcome becomes as rare as protestors blocking black students from going to school.
I'm not justifying it. The protesters who act violently should be arrested and charged. I just don't clutch my pearls when it happens to people like Milo or Spencer. They are on a path of aggression and challenging the very basic social contract that all of our lives have value. And they are going to get what they are looking for.
|
On February 10 2017 08:51 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:47 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. I agree with what you are saying, we are not ready for a good faith debate. You know how I know this? If you go to my initial comment, you will see I was talking about people I spoke and know, not myself. I provided my impressions of their feelings. I didn't say I held these views or agreed completely. But to you, I am the problem. People aren't here for debate, they are here to watch people get "owned". That is why they go to Milo. It is entertainment. Debate isn't about exploring the issues, its about who rekts who. Its points. Youtube clips. Memes. That isn't good faith debate. And some people are tired of being the punchline. I assumed your anecdote about your progressive friends was in alignment with your views, given how you worded your post. Am I wrong?
Yes. That should have been your opener.
|
On February 10 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
Every single legally-minded person in this thread takes exception to Trump's attitude towards the courts.
I don't know, xDaunt seemed rather convinced that Trump's Muslim ban comments could not be used to prove intent on the EO.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 10 2017 08:48 farvacola wrote:Everyone speaks the language of work, oneofthem 
i don't get the reference, please expand.
but it really is a longterm problem with learning to read and learning to care.
|
On February 10 2017 08:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
Every single legally-minded person in this thread takes exception to Trump's attitude towards the courts. I don't know, xDaunt seemed rather convinced that Trump's Muslim ban comments could not be used to prove intent on the EO.
That is some moon law logic right there.
|
|
|
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-airline-executives-war-crimes-a33d3c610eba
After talking about the condition of American airports, Trump said, “We spent 6 trillion dollars in the Middle East. We’ve got nothing. We never even kept even a little tiny oil well. I said, ‘Keep the oil.’”
Trump suggested that the oil proceeds could fund a major government infrastructure project. “We’ve spent 6 trillion dollars in the Middle East. We have nothing, and we have an obsolete plane system, obsolete airports, obsolete trains, we have bad roads. We’re going to change all of that folks. You’re going to be so happy with Trump. I think you already are.”
Robber in chief
|
On February 10 2017 08:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:51 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:47 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:40 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed. That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy. But you will notice how you completely disregarded their views and blamed them? And me by extension. This is the root of the problem, we are not ready for good faith debate. Both sides have lost faith in the other. We are just being honest about it now. You basically said conservatives are irrational and not worth arguing with, and it is better to find "other ways" to get their point across. You are the problem. I'm not about to defend violence, or banning someone from speaking simply because I disagree with them, or that I consider them arguing in bad faith. The majority of the people in this thread who voted on my poll thought a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason... That is a radical, extreme, progressive opinion rooted in ideological dogma the exact same way a conservative would say "life starts at conception". However if someone came to a college campus to give a talk on such a ridiculous position, banning that person from speaking, or starting fires and damaging buildings no matter how much I disagree is not something that should occur. We can end the debate by calling each other fascists, but we still have rights to speak and speak freely. I agree with what you are saying, we are not ready for a good faith debate. You know how I know this? If you go to my initial comment, you will see I was talking about people I spoke and know, not myself. I provided my impressions of their feelings. I didn't say I held these views or agreed completely. But to you, I am the problem. People aren't here for debate, they are here to watch people get "owned". That is why they go to Milo. It is entertainment. Debate isn't about exploring the issues, its about who rekts who. Its points. Youtube clips. Memes. That isn't good faith debate. And some people are tired of being the punchline. I assumed your anecdote about your progressive friends was in alignment with your views, given how you worded your post. Am I wrong? Yes. That should have been your opener.
just another example of the general principle that one should be very cautious in making assumptions.
|
On February 10 2017 08:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:https://thinkprogress.org/trump-airline-executives-war-crimes-a33d3c610ebaShow nested quote +After talking about the condition of American airports, Trump said, “We spent 6 trillion dollars in the Middle East. We’ve got nothing. We never even kept even a little tiny oil well. I said, ‘Keep the oil.’”
Trump suggested that the oil proceeds could fund a major government infrastructure project. “We’ve spent 6 trillion dollars in the Middle East. We have nothing, and we have an obsolete plane system, obsolete airports, obsolete trains, we have bad roads. We’re going to change all of that folks. You’re going to be so happy with Trump. I think you already are.” Robber in chief
There are so many reasons why you don't steal a nation's natural resources, but the practical one is that its like heroin. Once you get that free money flowing around in the national budget, it gets real hard to give it up. Especially when the people you are taking it from can't vote.
|
On February 10 2017 08:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If Milo wrote A Modest Proposal it would be about something like advocating we should stone gays to death.
Thing is, that's not so funny or illuminating when gays are actually being stoned to death and other people are actually advocating it. Satire works better when you don't say "jokes on you, I was only pretending to be like all those other people!"
I mean Swift's whole point in AMP was to de-normalize treating the Irish like animals. And he succeeded.
Maybe Milo's whole point is reacquainting the American left with the values of free speech. He might succeed too. College campuses aren't predestined to be illiberal forever.
|
Looking forward to xDaunts interpretation of this ruling. Going to admit the administrations chances aren't looking good?
|
why we still gotta keep talking about somethign unimportant like milo? bleh. people never/rarely want to really talk about policy.
|
On February 10 2017 09:04 zlefin wrote:
why we still gotta keep talking about somethign unimportant like milo? bleh. people never/rarely want to really talk about policy.
We had that huge healthcare discussion yesterday.
But I agree Milo is a shitty topic not worth discussing. The change in tone of protest around him and politics in general is more interesting.
|
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions since I'm clearly missing something.
|
On February 10 2017 09:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If Milo wrote A Modest Proposal it would be about something like advocating we should stone gays to death.
Thing is, that's not so funny or illuminating when gays are actually being stoned to death and other people are actually advocating it. Satire works better when you don't say "jokes on you, I was only pretending to be like all those other people!"
I mean Swift's whole point in AMP was to de-normalize treating the Irish like animals. And he succeeded. Maybe Milo's whole point is reacquainting the American left with the values of free speech. He might succeed too. College campuses aren't predestined to be illiberal forever.
College campus or not, the enormous majority of scientists will always be "liberal" so long as the bible is used as reasoning for "conservative" values.
|
United States44190 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something.
As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality". It turns out that if you say over and over that you want to do an unconstitutional thing then when you subsequently try and find a loophole that allows you to do it you can't claim that it was never your intention to do the unconstitutional thing and it's just a happy accident.
|
On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions since I'm clearly missing something.
It isn't. The TRO was granted because it was rolled out to quickly and the states argued for irreparable harm. The 14 day TRO was granted. Trump's DOJ challenge that and requesting the TRO be stayed(rather than dissolved, which from my understanding is the correct away to handle it.) That request was denied. There are more hearings, but the ban is on hold. But the appeals court does not seem to be moved by the reasoning provided by the DOJ.
We got a long way to go before this one wraps up.
|
On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions since I'm clearly missing something.
i'm pretty sure it's possible to give judges some partial briefing on the topic, though that may not be done at preliminary proceedings like this.
or at least for the judges to ask some vague but useful questions that can be answered without endangering anything.
as to constitutionality, i dunno, have to wait and see for the full ruling text.
|
I tire of the talk about milo as well. Hes a jester that falls under the "I disagree with what you say but I have to defend your right to say it." He gets money based off of people protesting him and trying to stop him from that.
|
On February 10 2017 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 09:08 biology]major wrote:
How is this ban unconstitutional? That is what I want to know, not due to my own bias but because I thought the president had great leeway in allowing who comes into the country. How can the judges possibly weigh on the relevance of the national security risk when they have no knowledge on the subject? That is up to the discretion of the executive branch, anyways I look to learn about their opinions and I'm clearly missing something. As I understand it, the problem is that it's a religious test on immigration. They had to make it on countries rather than religious to try and get around that issue but given that he said that the purpose of it was to introduce a religious test they're holding him to his intent and not letting him loophole with "just because it almost exclusively impacts people of that religion doesn't mean it's about religion, it's about nationality".
That is such a stretch, given the trump administration has the exact same justification as Obama administration for targetting the 7 countries. I think it is fairly obvious that there was a religious discrimination element at the start, but once candidate trump realizes that that is not legal (understandable since he has 0 political experience), he should be allowed to change his stance to protect the country how he sees fit. The Trump administration just went one step further than the obama admin and just straight banned people from entering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
