|
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 March 04 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh.
Jesus, are you really going to compare a rebellion in which the system was outright overthrown to issues of compliance within the current system? Do you not understand how stupid the comparison is?
|
On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. How are you not allowed to talk about stuff? I haven't shot you or kidnapped you. Tell me which civil right I'm violating and exactly how I'm violating it protesting you. And yes, there are topics on TL that end up with the thread shut down every single time. Certain topics people can't handle. Not talking about free speech in general with this statement, but a specific incident. Show nested quote +Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You should read what the post is quoting to sometimes. Especially when they are quoting you.
He didn't say you couldn't' talk about it. And there is no free speech on TL.
|
On March 04 2017 06:08 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. but... isn't that exactly the point? The government did not impact it? Unless you're claiming that the police is lying about it turning into a dangerous situation
Have you seen the videos of what happened in Berkeley?
But I'm happy to use lesser examples where conservative/right wing speakers show up at college campuses have had to cancel their shows due to the actions of protesters who aren't necessarily violent. The analogous argument from the left is that the campus administrators shouldn't do anything to ensure that the speakers get to speak because it would violate the rights of the protesters. This is still a bullshit argument that amounts to acquiescence to mob rule.
|
On March 04 2017 06:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. How are you not allowed to talk about stuff? I haven't shot you or kidnapped you. Tell me which civil right I'm violating and exactly how I'm violating it protesting you. And yes, there are topics on TL that end up with the thread shut down every single time. Certain topics people can't handle. Not talking about free speech in general with this statement, but a specific incident. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You should read what the post is quoting to sometimes. Especially when they are quoting you. He didn't say you couldn't' talk about it. And there is no free speech on TL.
He made the argument "I'm going to insult you and your side but I don't want you to talk about it". moving the goal posts doesn't change the facts.
|
On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak. Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this.
I don't think you understand what your constitution actually says.
Hint: It doesn't include private entities, and it doesn't force anyone to do anything.
|
I for one have absolutely no problem admitting I don't want Milo to speak on a college campus.
|
On March 04 2017 06:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak. Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this. I don't think you understand what your constitution actually says. Hint: It doesn't include private entities, and it doesn't force anyone to do anything.
Public universities are not private entities. The constitution says you have the right to free speech. That means that you are free to speak. Stopping your ability to speak violates that as you're not free to do it anymore.
|
On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. How are you not allowed to talk about stuff? I haven't shot you or kidnapped you. Tell me which civil right I'm violating and exactly how I'm violating it protesting you. And yes, there are topics on TL that end up with the thread shut down every single time. Certain topics people can't handle. Not talking about free speech in general with this statement, but a specific incident. Show nested quote +Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You should read what the post is quoting to sometimes. Especially when they are quoting you. The civil rights was your right to free speech but I was useing it to illustrate how like the KKK and WBC you were acting when useing their logic to justify yourself. Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak. Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this.
I told you in PMs the topic in question and why I didn't specifically name it so that's a dead topic.
I'll ask you again to tell me what civil right I've violated specifically and exactly how it is I've violated it?
|
On March 04 2017 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I for one have absolutely no problem admitting I don't want Milo to speak on a college campus.
Bravo. The honesty is commendable.
|
On March 04 2017 06:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh. Jesus, are you really going to compare a rebellion in which the system was outright overthrown to issues of compliance within the current system? Do you not understand how stupid the comparison is?
It is way off, just like you like you evoking the framers when discussing Milo. The free and open discourse of ideas was always prized by the framers, but it would be been carefully weighed against the specter of violence and civil unrest that followed the speaker. Especially from someone who had actively courted that level of unrest while also being a feckless charlatan for their own enrichment.
You seem to want to remove that second part and just blame the left because it fits into your pro-wrestling view of politics. Just flatten the issue down and cheery pick the aspect of history you like, forget the rest.
|
On March 04 2017 06:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. How are you not allowed to talk about stuff? I haven't shot you or kidnapped you. Tell me which civil right I'm violating and exactly how I'm violating it protesting you. And yes, there are topics on TL that end up with the thread shut down every single time. Certain topics people can't handle. Not talking about free speech in general with this statement, but a specific incident. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You should read what the post is quoting to sometimes. Especially when they are quoting you. The civil rights was your right to free speech but I was useing it to illustrate how like the KKK and WBC you were acting when useing their logic to justify yourself. On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak. Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this. I told you in PMs the topic in question and why I didn't specifically name it so that's a dead topic. I'll ask you again to tell me what civil right I've violated specifically and exactly how it is I've violated it?
I wasn't responding to you so it doesn't matter. The civil rights that you are violating are political because you're discriminating based on their politics that you don't agree with.
|
On March 04 2017 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I for one have absolutely no problem admitting I don't want Milo to speak on a college campus.
I don't either, because I don't consider anything he says to be of value and there are better conservative speakers. And I don't feel bad when the unrest that he has actively courted his entire career catches up with him and prevents him from speaking.
|
On March 04 2017 06:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak. Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this. I don't think you understand what your constitution actually says. Hint: It doesn't include private entities, and it doesn't force anyone to do anything. Public universities are not private entities. The constitution says you have the right to free speech. That means that you are free to speak. Stopping your ability to speak violates that as you're not free to do it anymore.
You are still very confused. Accepting that a university is a government body:
The constitution does not say you have the right to free speech. It says the government will not impede your speech. That means it limits what a government can do, not what they must provide.
The university shutting down a protest would then be a government body shutting down speech.
University students are not government representatives. Them drowning out another person is not a constitutional violation.
|
On March 04 2017 06:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 04 2017 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. The constitution disagrees with you unfortunately. The first amendment protects peoples right to free speech and that doesn't end where people disagree with them. You can protest them but you can't violate their civil rights. Who said anything about violating civil rights? Protesting awful people violates nothing. You've created some sort of civil rights violation strawman. No I created a clear civil rights argument beacuse you think protesting what you think are "awful people" is somehow okay despite useing the same exact rational that the people you are against use to protest gays, blacks, and jews. I'm pretty sure the WBC protests because they think gay people are "awful people" and have successful sued on first amendment rights to people stoping them from protesting. Protesting is first amendment protected free speech. Going to a funeral the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and blocking them and shouting them down is a fabulous thing and completely protected under the constitution. You can not like being yelled at for having bad ideas but there's absolutely zero civil rights violations happening there at all, no matter how much you'd like there to be. You get to have your bad ideas and I get to tell you your ideas are bad, end of. There's also some incredible irony that Milo fans called other public people pussies for backing out of public speaking because they were getting shouty backlash but when he does it its somehow different. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You can't violate other peoples constitutional rights in exercise of your own. It doesn't matter what your opinon is on peoples use of their right to free speech (clearly you missed taht you are useing the same logic as the KKK and WBC but oh well) you have to allow them to exercise it. Don't start with some "I'm going to talk about stuff but you're not allowed to" at the end of your post. It just makes you look really dumb. There is no black hole that no one recoveres from in this thread. We got out of obamacare even if it took us 2k pages to do it. How are you not allowed to talk about stuff? I haven't shot you or kidnapped you. Tell me which civil right I'm violating and exactly how I'm violating it protesting you. And yes, there are topics on TL that end up with the thread shut down every single time. Certain topics people can't handle. Not talking about free speech in general with this statement, but a specific incident. Really quite cute actually, but I don't want to derail the thread since that particular topic seems to be a black hole that no thread recovers from on TL. You should read what the post is quoting to sometimes. Especially when they are quoting you. The civil rights was your right to free speech but I was useing it to illustrate how like the KKK and WBC you were acting when useing their logic to justify yourself. On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak. Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this. I told you in PMs the topic in question and why I didn't specifically name it so that's a dead topic. I'll ask you again to tell me what civil right I've violated specifically and exactly how it is I've violated it? I wasn't responding to you so it doesn't matter. The civil rights that you are violating are political because you're discriminating based on their politics that you don't agree with.
That isn't how the first amendment works. You've got every right to spout bad ideas and I've got every right to protest you and your bad ideas. There's no discrimination there. You're not protected from me doing anything besides assaulting you which protesting very clearly isn't.
|
aren't these the same conservatives who complain that a private business should be allowed to serve whomever they want
|
On March 04 2017 06:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I for one have absolutely no problem admitting I don't want Milo to speak on a college campus. I don't either, because I don't consider anything he says to be of value and there are better conservative speakers. And I don't feel bad when the unrest that he has actively courted his entire career catches up with him and prevents him from speaking.
It's basically a question I asked to this thread not so long ago. If you're demonstrably wrong and/or dishonest, is it authoritarian to expect you change your views. I don't see why we should let people spread known falsehoods in colleges under the pretense that free speech exists. Just because you have the right and the capacity to be wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't aspire to be right, and especially so in the context of an institution where you're here to learn stuff.
|
On March 04 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh. Jesus, are you really going to compare a rebellion in which the system was outright overthrown to issues of compliance within the current system? Do you not understand how stupid the comparison is? It is way off, just like you like you evoking the framers when discussing Milo. The free and open discourse of ideas was always prized by the framers, but it would be been carefully weighed against the specter of violence and civil unrest that followed the speaker. Especially from someone who had actively courted that level of unrest while also being a feckless charlatan for their own enrichment. You seem to want to remove that second part and just blame the left because it fits into your pro-wrestling view of politics. Just flatten the issue down and cheery pick the aspect of history you like, forget the rest.
No, you're mistaken on pretty much every level, including why I mentioned the founders and why your reference to the Revolutionary War is so badly misplaced. I mentioned the Founders as an explanation for how and why the First Amendment works the way it does as a limit on government. You bringing up inane things like dueling and the conduct of the Founders during the Revolutionary War demonstrates that you really don't understand the issue of balancing the First Amendment with the police power of the state at all.
|
On March 04 2017 06:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:08 Toadesstern wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?
People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic. "Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. but... isn't that exactly the point? The government did not impact it? Unless you're claiming that the police is lying about it turning into a dangerous situation Have you seen the videos of what happened in Berkeley? But I'm happy to use lesser examples where conservative/right wing speakers show up at college campuses have had to cancel their shows due to the actions of protesters who aren't necessarily violent. The analogous argument from the left is that the campus administrators shouldn't do anything to ensure that the speakers get to speak because it would violate the rights of the protesters. This is still a bullshit argument that amounts to acquiescence to mob rule.
yeah I have, but I wouldn't call that an issue with free speech. It's an issue with being not prepared for what is basicly hooligans getting into these events, I don't really know how to solve that issue though but I can certainly understand the situation from Universities to cancel such events if them going south is a reality right now.
|
I do think there's some issues on some universities that are excessive; past that it's hard to say. If I were in charge of everything, it's one of the many things i'd look into to see what can be done about it, and to get a clearer sense of the actual situation.
|
On March 04 2017 06:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:29 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 06:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 06:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Isn't there a difference between protesting outside and actively trying to prevent an event from taking place? Preventing a speech is very different from having a huge protest against a speech.
Then again, violent Sharia'esque and Nazi stuff is illegal. You can't pretend all speech should be protected. But Milo shouldn't be prevented from speaking. This is why I like you. You approach the issues honestly. And this is exactly the point. What the regressive left is doing is advocating that it is okay for protesters to act in ways that make it unsafe for other speakers to speak, thereby forcing the cancellation of events. So basically you want a safe space on a university campus for people to speak. Its almost like the constitution tells them to do this. Or there was a movement for this. I don't think you understand what your constitution actually says. Hint: It doesn't include private entities, and it doesn't force anyone to do anything. Public universities are not private entities. The constitution says you have the right to free speech. That means that you are free to speak. Stopping your ability to speak violates that as you're not free to do it anymore. You are still very confused. Accepting that a university is a government body: The constitution does not say you have the right to free speech. It says the government will not impede your speech. That means it limits what a government can do, not what they must provide. The university shutting down a protest would then be a government body shutting down speech. University students are not government representatives. Them drowning out another person is not a constitutional violation.
I didn't say it was a government body I said it was a public university. you are the one confused as you seem to be hallucinating different words then what is there. You can't bash someone for an argument they lost before you make the argument. If we have to fight on basic process of thought we've got bigger problems.
Do we want to have an argument about how related the university of Berkeley is to the government and how much influence the government has on the university? It seems thin at best to say that a state university is a private entity because its not directly controlled by the legislature. Segregation couldn't be enforced because the university of Mississippi was a private entity is a better argument then the university of California doesn't have to respect the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
