• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:22
CEST 13:22
KST 20:22
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0
StarCraft 2
General
Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO8 - Group A Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) Bellum Gens Elite: Stara Zagora 2025 $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Armies of Exigo - YesYes?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 33395 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7034

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 7032 7033 7034 7035 7036 10093 Next
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.
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
March 04 2017 04:34 GMT
#140661
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.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13842 Posts
March 04 2017 04:36 GMT
#140662
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.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
March 04 2017 04:37 GMT
#140663
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.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23072 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-03-04 04:37:50
March 04 2017 04:37 GMT
#140664
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.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
March 04 2017 04:47 GMT
#140665
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.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12081 Posts
March 04 2017 04:48 GMT
#140666
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.
"It is capitalism that is incentivizing me to lazily explain this to you while at work because I am not rewarded for generating additional value."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
March 04 2017 04:51 GMT
#140667
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.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-03-04 05:01:55
March 04 2017 05:01 GMT
#140668
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.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
March 04 2017 05:07 GMT
#140669
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.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-03-04 05:10:22
March 04 2017 05:09 GMT
#140670
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.
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-03-04 05:16:20
March 04 2017 05:13 GMT
#140671
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.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4714 Posts
March 04 2017 05:13 GMT
#140672
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.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-03-04 05:22:03
March 04 2017 05:17 GMT
#140673
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.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
March 04 2017 05:23 GMT
#140674
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.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12081 Posts
March 04 2017 05:27 GMT
#140675
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.)
"It is capitalism that is incentivizing me to lazily explain this to you while at work because I am not rewarded for generating additional value."
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
March 04 2017 05:28 GMT
#140676
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.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
March 04 2017 05:30 GMT
#140677
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.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12081 Posts
March 04 2017 05:32 GMT
#140678
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.
"It is capitalism that is incentivizing me to lazily explain this to you while at work because I am not rewarded for generating additional value."
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
March 04 2017 05:35 GMT
#140679
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.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-03-04 05:39:00
March 04 2017 05:35 GMT
#140680
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.
Prev 1 7032 7033 7034 7035 7036 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
GSL Code S
09:30
Ro8 - Group A
Rogue vs SolarLIVE!
GuMiho vs Maru
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech69
EnDerr 52
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 20905
Calm 7141
Rain 4725
Bisu 2772
Jaedong 1036
Horang2 915
Pusan 794
BeSt 413
EffOrt 238
Last 168
[ Show more ]
TY 156
Mini 146
Soulkey 143
Snow 100
PianO 94
ToSsGirL 88
ZerO 78
Dewaltoss 69
Hyun 55
Shine 48
[sc1f]eonzerg 45
Aegong 40
Killer 34
NaDa 28
Icarus 21
Mong 21
Movie 18
Sharp 17
hero 17
sorry 16
Sacsri 13
JYJ12
Barracks 11
HiyA 7
Dota 2
420jenkins469
XcaliburYe421
BananaSlamJamma377
Fuzer 220
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss953
x6flipin568
Super Smash Bros
Westballz11
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor158
Other Games
singsing2309
B2W.Neo733
DeMusliM325
Crank 264
crisheroes245
XaKoH 170
ZerO(Twitch)9
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream7372
Other Games
gamesdonequick386
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 37
lovetv 7
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• WagamamaTV122
Upcoming Events
Online Event
12h 38m
Replay Cast
14h 38m
GSL Code S
22h 8m
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
22h 38m
Replay Cast
1d 12h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 23h
OSC
2 days
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
SOOP
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
Cheesadelphia
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
GSL Code S
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Wardi Open
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
6 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.