|
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 13:29 Sermokala wrote:
Alright fine the government doesn't have to protect anyone's ability to exercise their ability to any of the constitutional rights. People are allowed to discriminate others ability to assemble and no one really cares if unpopular speech is protected in anyway.
I guess I was hoping for too much out of people.
If you feel like arguing what the government should do, and have the power to do, by all means go ahead.
But you should at least know what your actual constitution says, and that you are actually advocating government mandated bodyguards, not constitutional rights.
|
On March 04 2017 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 13:29 Sermokala wrote:
Alright fine the government doesn't have to protect anyone's ability to exercise their ability to any of the constitutional rights. People are allowed to discriminate others ability to assemble and no one really cares if unpopular speech is protected in anyway.
I guess I was hoping for too much out of people. I'm sorry, was someone preventing from saying something, or were they just denied their desired audience?
They were prevented from saying things to the audience that showed up.
|
On March 04 2017 13:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2017 13:29 Sermokala wrote:
Alright fine the government doesn't have to protect anyone's ability to exercise their ability to any of the constitutional rights. People are allowed to discriminate others ability to assemble and no one really cares if unpopular speech is protected in anyway.
I guess I was hoping for too much out of people. I'm sorry, was someone preventing from saying something, or were they just denied their desired audience? They were prevented from saying things to the audience that showed up.
Remind me where your constitution mentions this.
|
On March 04 2017 13:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2017 13:29 Sermokala wrote:
Alright fine the government doesn't have to protect anyone's ability to exercise their ability to any of the constitutional rights. People are allowed to discriminate others ability to assemble and no one really cares if unpopular speech is protected in anyway.
I guess I was hoping for too much out of people. I'm sorry, was someone preventing from saying something, or were they just denied their desired audience? They were prevented from saying things to the audience that showed up.
So their right to speech wasn't denied then? Glad that's settled and we can move on.
|
You know, now I'm actually curious how Danglars, xDaunt and Sermokala would react if the government provided all University speakers guaranteed, government-funded police protection.
|
On March 04 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 12:53 TheYango wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Your repeated appeal to a first amendment argument when this isn't a first amendment issue isn't doing you any favors. xDaunt's "withholding of police powers" argument has been far more convincing, though I'm not legally well-versed enough to assess it's validity. Third party's characterization of somebody else's argument isn't germane if he wants to quote and respond to me. Snip-quote and pivot to the side should be grounds to not respond at all (should he think it's been properly addressed).
Dude when I said that I don't want a troll to speak at a university as if he was some sort of accepted intellectual that had a thought-provoking message to transmit as opposed to garbage that should be dismissed by anyone who is trying to learn anything at any time in the history of learning, you have answered that that meant I was at odds with the constitution and that I should admit that I was and attempt to amend the constitution... Like, wtf? There are so few people on your side of this argument that even xDaunt isn't there, and you act like we should just accept that you're right in the premise of your response to my position. This isn't an honest premise and I'm not going to pretend it is one.
|
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes.
|
On March 04 2017 13:51 Plansix wrote:
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes.
And we can only ever deal with one problem at a time.
Perhaps you should revisit some of your earlier posts and edit them before someone bothers digging up the multiple times you (rightly) argued to the contrary. Hypocrite.
|
On March 04 2017 14:01 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 13:51 Plansix wrote:
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes. And we can only ever deal with one problem at a time. Perhaps you should revisit some of your earlier posts and edit them before someone bothers digging up the multiple times you (rightly) argued to the contrary. Hypocrite.
You seem confused. One of those things isn't a problem worth solving. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with the whole shitlord thing.
|
On March 04 2017 12:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Your repeated appeal to a first amendment argument when this isn't a first amendment issue isn't doing you any favors. xDaunt's "withholding of police powers" argument has been far more convincing, though I'm not legally well-versed enough to assess it's validity.
My argument isn't really meant to be a legal argument so much as it's a policy argument that exposes the very obvious problems with the regressive left's position -- notably their misplaced and cowardly reliance on the First Amendment protections for the protesters and the equal protection implications of treating a certain class of people differently. Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. If I were an enterprising and conservative-minded civil rights attorney looking to advance the cause against university administrators, I'd consider using the same laws and jurisprudence that pro-gay groups used to force bakers to make wedding cakes for gay marriage. However, I suspect that adequately defining a cognizable class would be a major impediment.
|
On March 04 2017 14:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:01 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 13:51 Plansix wrote:
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes. And we can only ever deal with one problem at a time. Perhaps you should revisit some of your earlier posts and edit them before someone bothers digging up the multiple times you (rightly) argued to the contrary. Hypocrite. You seem confused. One of those things isn't a problem worth solving. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with the whole shitlord thing.
You seem confused. One of those thing might not be a problem worth solving to you, but it might be to others (the possibility that people who disagree with you might have valid concerns is not something you've argued before, so good on you for staying consistent for once).
EDIT: Hint: That the aforementioned shitlord wasn't allowed to speak in the case of Berkeley IS an issue in a democratic lawful society. When you allow the mob to rule the state of law ceases to exist - just because it was convenient (that is: we disagree with everything the idiot stands for) for us in the case of Milo doesn't mean we should condone it or defend it.
|
On March 04 2017 13:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
You know, now I'm actually curious how Danglars, xDaunt and Sermokala would react if the government provided all University speakers guaranteed, government-funded police protection.
At many universities the inviting group has to pay the extra security cost, if such security deemed necessary.
|
On March 04 2017 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:07 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 14:01 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 13:51 Plansix wrote:
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes. And we can only ever deal with one problem at a time. Perhaps you should revisit some of your earlier posts and edit them before someone bothers digging up the multiple times you (rightly) argued to the contrary. Hypocrite. You seem confused. One of those things isn't a problem worth solving. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with the whole shitlord thing. You seem confused. One of those thing might not be a problem worth solving to you, but it might be to others (the possibility that people who disagree with you might have valid concerns is not something you've argued before, so good on you for staying consistent for once).
Which isn't a free speech issue. Which is the core of this argument.
I've followed the rise of Milo from when he was a shitty tech blogger. Attracting the rage and anger he does was always his end goal. He wants his talks canceled. He hopes for it and courts it.
He isn't being repressed. He is still able to speak.
|
On March 04 2017 14:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 14:07 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 14:01 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 13:51 Plansix wrote:
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes. And we can only ever deal with one problem at a time. Perhaps you should revisit some of your earlier posts and edit them before someone bothers digging up the multiple times you (rightly) argued to the contrary. Hypocrite. You seem confused. One of those things isn't a problem worth solving. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with the whole shitlord thing. You seem confused. One of those thing might not be a problem worth solving to you, but it might be to others (the possibility that people who disagree with you might have valid concerns is not something you've argued before, so good on you for staying consistent for once). Which isn't a free speech issue. Which is the core of this argument. I've followed the rise of Milo from when he was a shitty tech blogger. Attracting the rage and anger he does was always his end goal. He wants his talks canceled. He hopes for it and courts it.
Moving the goalposts again. The core of our "argument" was whether Milo getting to talk or not was a problem.
You are not going to find any argument from me contending that Milo got exactly what he wanted and that he is overall a shitty, troubled person.
|
On March 04 2017 14:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 12:53 TheYango wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Your repeated appeal to a first amendment argument when this isn't a first amendment issue isn't doing you any favors. xDaunt's "withholding of police powers" argument has been far more convincing, though I'm not legally well-versed enough to assess it's validity. My argument isn't really meant to be a legal argument so much as it's a policy argument that exposes the very obvious problems with the regressive left's position -- notably their misplaced and cowardly reliance on the First Amendment protections for the protesters and the equal protection implications of treating a certain class of people differently. Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. If I were an enterprising and conservative-minded civil rights attorney looking to advance the cause against university administrators, I'd consider using the same laws and jurisprudence that pro-gay groups used to force bakers to make wedding cakes for gay marriage. However, I suspect that adequately defining a cognizable class would be a major impediment.
The regressive left isn't actually a thing, it doesn't exist. When you use it as a slur for leftists, it's kind of funny coming from you, 1) because you keep harping about how the term "racism" is empty and shouldn't be thrown at people and here you are throwing an empty word at other people when it suits you to do so, and 2) because it's a slur that takes it for granted that right wing politics are inferior to left wing (with the whole "regressive" being used as a negative in it), and you're a rightwinger. I understand that you could use it to mean that the left is soooo regressive that it makes it the party that's actually regressive as opposed to the right, but that is what we call "nonsense", or, "a fabrication". Reality doesn't support that, and even the creator of the made-up concept of "the regressive left" doesn't support that (he very clearly intends this denomination to represent people on the left who become just as bad as rightwingers because of their tolerance for illiberal principles and ideologies.)
|
On March 04 2017 14:17 Plansix wrote:
I've followed the rise of Milo from when he was a shitty tech blogger. Attracting the rage and anger he does was always his end goal. He wants his talks canceled. He hopes for it and courts it.
Dude. No fucking shit Milo wants the publicity. He understands that every time the regressive leftists shut down one of his speaking engagements, it not only creates news for him, but it also exposes the fascist tendencies of the regressive leftists, which undermines the fascist leftists, and furthers Milo's goal of being a popular champion of the right. He's banking on the regressive left being the fascist assholes that he knows that they are. But like Ghostcom says, this is all completely irrelevant and unrelated to the fact that the regressive left is fascist in the first place.
|
On March 04 2017 14:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 12:53 TheYango wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Your repeated appeal to a first amendment argument when this isn't a first amendment issue isn't doing you any favors. xDaunt's "withholding of police powers" argument has been far more convincing, though I'm not legally well-versed enough to assess it's validity. My argument isn't really meant to be a legal argument so much as it's a policy argument that exposes the very obvious problems with the regressive left's position -- notably their misplaced and cowardly reliance on the First Amendment protections for the protesters and the equal protection implications of treating a certain class of people differently. Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. If I were an enterprising and conservative-minded civil rights attorney looking to advance the cause against university administrators, I'd consider using the same laws and jurisprudence that pro-gay groups used to force bakers to make wedding cakes for gay marriage. However, I suspect that adequately defining a cognizable class would be a major impediment. The regressive left isn't actually a thing, it doesn't exist. When you use it as a slur for leftists, it's kind of funny coming from you, 1) because you keep harping about how the term "racism" is empty and shouldn't be thrown at people and here you are throwing an empty word at other people when it suits you to do so, and 2) because it's a slur that takes it for granted that right wing politics are inferior to left wing (with the whole "regressive" being used as a negative in it), and you're a rightwinger. I understand that you could use it to mean that the left is soooo regressive that it makes it the party that's actually regressive as opposed to the right, but that is what we call "nonsense", or, "a fabrication". Reality doesn't support that, and even the creator of the made-up concept of "the regressive left" doesn't support that (he very clearly intends this denomination to represent people on the left who become just as bad as rightwingers because of their tolerance for illiberal principles and ideologies.)
Don't waste people's time with arguments over semantics. I think my usage of the term is clear enough (I'm labeling the illiberal leftists), and that's all that matters.
|
On March 04 2017 14:23 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:17 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 14:07 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 14:01 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 13:51 Plansix wrote:
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes. And we can only ever deal with one problem at a time. Perhaps you should revisit some of your earlier posts and edit them before someone bothers digging up the multiple times you (rightly) argued to the contrary. Hypocrite. You seem confused. One of those things isn't a problem worth solving. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with the whole shitlord thing. You seem confused. One of those thing might not be a problem worth solving to you, but it might be to others (the possibility that people who disagree with you might have valid concerns is not something you've argued before, so good on you for staying consistent for once). Which isn't a free speech issue. Which is the core of this argument. I've followed the rise of Milo from when he was a shitty tech blogger. Attracting the rage and anger he does was always his end goal. He wants his talks canceled. He hopes for it and courts it. Moving the goalposts again. The core of our "argument" was whether Milo getting to talk or not was a problem. You are not going to find any argument from me contending that Milo got exactly what he wanted and that he is overall a shitty, troubled person.
You're moving the goalpost too. Your original claim was that Plansix was dishonest because he used the fallacy of relative privation. This isn't true, as Plansix doesn't argue that the Milo situation is such a small problem that it isn't worth solving, but instead argues that it isn't a problem at all. Your original claim is therefore wrong, and you have moved to saying that Plansix is wrong not to consider this a problem and in the same breath you're accusing him of moving the goal post.
|
On March 04 2017 14:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 13:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
You know, now I'm actually curious how Danglars, xDaunt and Sermokala would react if the government provided all University speakers guaranteed, government-funded police protection. At many universities the inviting group has to pay the extra security cost, if such security deemed necessary.
Now, this is sensible.
|
On March 04 2017 14:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:23 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 14:17 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 14:07 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 14:01 Ghostcom wrote:On March 04 2017 13:51 Plansix wrote:
We got systematic voter repression in NC, but the real problem some shitlord not getting to speak at a college because he attracts to many assholes. And we can only ever deal with one problem at a time. Perhaps you should revisit some of your earlier posts and edit them before someone bothers digging up the multiple times you (rightly) argued to the contrary. Hypocrite. You seem confused. One of those things isn't a problem worth solving. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with the whole shitlord thing. You seem confused. One of those thing might not be a problem worth solving to you, but it might be to others (the possibility that people who disagree with you might have valid concerns is not something you've argued before, so good on you for staying consistent for once). Which isn't a free speech issue. Which is the core of this argument. I've followed the rise of Milo from when he was a shitty tech blogger. Attracting the rage and anger he does was always his end goal. He wants his talks canceled. He hopes for it and courts it. Moving the goalposts again. The core of our "argument" was whether Milo getting to talk or not was a problem. You are not going to find any argument from me contending that Milo got exactly what he wanted and that he is overall a shitty, troubled person. You're moving the goalpost too. Your original claim was that Plansix was dishonest because he used the fallacy of relative privation. This isn't true, as Plansix doesn't argue that the Milo situation is such a small problem that it isn't worth solving, but instead argues that it isn't a problem at all. Your original claim is therefore wrong, and you have moved to saying that Plansix is wrong not to consider this a problem and in the same breath you're accusing him of moving the goal post.
I think you might want to learn what sarcasm is before you start commenting on a sarcastic reply to a sarcastic post.
EDIT: Heck, perhaps even just basic contextual reading comprehension? The first reply to me from Plansix was literally him saying that I "misunderstood" him and that he didn't consider it a problem - thus the discussion moved on PLANSIX's initiative (not mine) to whether or not it was a problem that Milo got to speak or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
