|
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 14:35 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:32 Nebuchad wrote: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.
Oh sorry man, I guess it was just a joke.
|
I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to
Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists.
Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights?
Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is.
|
On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Show nested quote +Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is.
Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse.
|
On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse.
Okay, I'm a fascist. Let's debate those other issues.
|
On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse.
That's some straight up David Copperfield shit. It's impossible to have the conversation because of the "regressive left"...
Yeah, surely it's not the same bigoted people that have been dragged into that conversation for the last 200+ years.
Don't get me wrong, let the idiots speak for all I care, protest to your hearts content, but save the violence for people not recognizing your freedom of religion to celebrate Saturnalia.
But no one is going to buy this the political discourse is being made impossible by the regressive left. Just cut it with that type of non-sense.
EDIT: Before you respond (hopefully) think about the fact that Republicans just elected a guy who for years pushed a wild conspiracy theory about the president regularly on national television.
|
On March 04 2017 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. Okay, I'm a fascist. Let's debate those other issues.
Great, the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have a problem. Now go convince the rest of your ilk that they also are fascists, and get everyone to repent and cease degrading political discourse.
|
On March 04 2017 14:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
But no one is going to buy this the political discourse is being made impossible by the regressive left. Just cut it with that type of non-sense.
Oh really? There's basically no one left on the right that doesn't hold this truth to be self-evident. Y'all did too good of a job weaponizing identity politics.
|
On March 04 2017 14:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. Okay, I'm a fascist. Let's debate those other issues. Great, the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have a problem. Now go convince the rest of your ilk that they also are fascists, and get everyone to repent and cease degrading political discourse.
That's going to take me a while, and during all this time we won't be able to have this conversation about those other issues that you so badly want to have cause you think it's important. Since that's also what you want, perhaps you can think of a shortcut?
|
I refuse to take seriously that it's the regressive left shutting down tools from speaking on campuses that the problem and not having a president who insults people like a third grader that would have a bigger impact. Seriously, that's so absurd I'd expect it from RiK not xDaunt.
I'll let pass a lot of ridiculous stuff, but that's too much.
|
I'm sure some people find great comfort knowing that political discourse has shut down across the country because internet and TV celebrities can't get into university auditoriums, disappointing all the fans who read and hear their words every day.
|
On March 04 2017 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I refuse to take seriously that it's the regressive left shutting down tools from speaking on campuses that the problem and not having a president who insults people like a third grader that would have a bigger impact. Seriously, that's so absurd I'd expect it from RiK not xDaunt.
I'll let pass a lot of ridiculous stuff, but that's too much.
What's going on at university campuses is just one aspect of the larger problem.
|
On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse.
But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics?
|
Canada11607 Posts
On March 04 2017 12:59 Amui wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself? IMO free speech allows you to say whatever the fuck you want(provided it isn't hate speech and the like). You are not guaranteed a platform for people to listen to you, nor should you be guaranteed government protection to let you speak out at a public venue(this is different if there's a threat to safety). If your message gets drowned out by people who don't want to listen to you or people who disagree with your message, that's also protected, provided it's all done lawfully.
Right. So I agree you are not guaranteed any platform you would like. (I'll accept that correction from Danglar- you can demand it, but no one is obligated to give it.)
But is it really free speech or freedom of expression if every time you spoke you were drowned out by shouts and chants? Are you really expressing freely? I'll take my second scenario: would we really consider it an acceptable amount of free speech afforded to non-binary/ gender fluid advocates if every-single-time they spoke, you couldn't hear because they were drowned out by chants or amplified white noise? Is that actually free speech? I'm just trying to drill down to what does free speech or free expression actually entail (which is very likely different from what the First Amendment does or does not do.)
|
On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse.
aw shit guys, should we tell him who just got elected president?
|
On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics?
You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here.
|
On March 04 2017 15:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I refuse to take seriously that it's the regressive left shutting down tools from speaking on campuses that the problem and not having a president who insults people like a third grader that would have a bigger impact. Seriously, that's so absurd I'd expect it from RiK not xDaunt.
I'll let pass a lot of ridiculous stuff, but that's too much. What's going on at university campuses is just one aspect of the larger problem.
Yeah, one freakishly small and inconsequential aspect, that's the point I think folks are trying to drive home.
To the point where this much fixation on it is wholly unwarranted and emblematic of a much larger, more serious, and immediate problem.
|
On March 04 2017 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I refuse to take seriously that it's the regressive left shutting down tools from speaking on campuses that the problem and not having a president who insults people like a third grader that would have a bigger impact. Seriously, that's so absurd I'd expect it from RiK not xDaunt.
I'll let pass a lot of ridiculous stuff, but that's too much. What's going on at university campuses is just one aspect of the larger problem. Yeah, one freakishly small and inconsequential aspect, that's the point I think folks are trying to drive home. To the point where this much fixation on it is wholly unwarranted and emblematic of a much larger problem.
We on the right like to focus on the campus issue because it so clearly illustrates what the larger problem is. Burning shit down is far more attention grabbing than simply calling someone a racist.
|
On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here.
Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you.
|
On March 04 2017 15:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2017 15:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I refuse to take seriously that it's the regressive left shutting down tools from speaking on campuses that the problem and not having a president who insults people like a third grader that would have a bigger impact. Seriously, that's so absurd I'd expect it from RiK not xDaunt.
I'll let pass a lot of ridiculous stuff, but that's too much. What's going on at university campuses is just one aspect of the larger problem. Yeah, one freakishly small and inconsequential aspect, that's the point I think folks are trying to drive home. To the point where this much fixation on it is wholly unwarranted and emblematic of a much larger problem. We on the right like to focus on the campus issue because it so clearly illustrates what the larger problem is. Burning shit down is far more attention grabbing than simply calling someone a racist.
+ Show Spoiler +
What's the much larger issue in your view?
|
Personally, I think this train of discussion makes much more sense if you imagine xDaunt to be a preteen girl screaming "Leave Milo alone!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
