If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Trump again manages the impossible. I feel bad for Jeff Sessions.
I might feel bad for him if he was trashing him after he resigned. Sessions chooses to be shit on so he can lock up more black people. Sympathy not found.
I might feel bad for him if he was trashing him after he resigned. Sessions chooses to be shit on so he can lock up more black people. Sympathy not found.
He's clearly trying to get him to resign, right?
That's what it looks like to me.
I don't have an overwhelming amount of sympathy for him, but wow... he got lit the **** up.
Taking the foil hat off and going back to the assumption things are more or less as they appear...
To the consternation of some, I'm willing to cut geriatric, white Republicans some slack for being kinda ignorant.
I have a feeling I'd like Jeff Sessions.
With Trump, if he were so inclined, I'm sure he could charm me, but at the end of the day I'd much rather ask Jeff over for a pile of sugar with a drop of tea, and some banter about the means of ideal governance.
The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
I hope the AG does, it's getting out of control. Maybe they'll tackle the silencing and de-platforming, on public universities, of anyone the far-Left doesn't agree with, while they're at it. Until they start pulling federal funding, it won't be addressed and is only getting worse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I hope the AG does, it's getting out of control. Maybe they'll tackle the silencing and de-platforming, on public universities, of anyone the far-Left doesn't agree with, while they're at it. Until they start pulling federal funding, it won't be addressed and is only getting worse.
Is it actually causing any real problems though?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Are you serious? An utter lack of free expression on federal and state-funded universities? Yeah, that causes serious problems. These places are where future policy is tested and evaluated.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Are you serious? An utter lack of free expression on federal and state-funded universities? Yeah, that causes serious problems. These places are where future policy is tested and evaluated.
Its not a total lack, its just a partial one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If the debate was even it wouldn't be so easy to de-platform these people. Truth is they probably further their opponents causes more by banning them than if they let them speak.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
If the debate was even it wouldn't be so easy to de-platform these people.
It isn't "easy" at all. They use physical violence, barriers, campus police intimidation, vandalism (they like to pull fire alarms during debates), and arson.
Truth is they probably further their opponents causes more by banning them than if they let them speak.
If the media actually reported such things, it likely would, but it goes against their agenda, so...
Here's an example of the tactics used, and this was at a school approved lecture, at least until they pulled the fire alarm and cleared the whole building:
What was his crime? He was against using made-up pronouns like "zhe" or "zer".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm aware of the tactics they use. Its easy because they have a huge majority over the right wing students who actually want to sit and listen and agree with the speakers the left doesn't like. If the numbers were more even then the violence would be fighting instead of just vandalism.
I'm a little surprised that some shouting and setting a couple of trashcans on fire is enough to scare away right wing (presumable heavily armed) tough guys.
I don't condone the violence. They have a right to protest if they want to do that peacefully then thats what they should do. I guess the Universities should have a policy of expelling anyone who goes too far in that regard. Maybe heavily fining them for trying to curb free speech. I guess they don't like expulsion because it costs them tuition but fines should make them happy right?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm aware of the tactics they use. Its easy because they have a huge majority over the right wing students who actually want to sit and listen and agree with the speakers the left doesn't like. If the numbers were more even then the violence would be fighting instead of just vandalism.
I'm a little surprised that some shouting and setting a couple of trashcans on fire is enough to scare away right wing (presumable heavily armed) tough guys.
That's a silly misrepresentation of what's going on. I applaud the speakers for not becoming violent in retaliation, against such a flagrant abuse of power and privilege. BLM should take notes regarding how it's done. Also, that's not how owning and carrying a firearm works, either, you certainly don't shoot people who block you from entering an auditorium, or blast a bullhorn over top of you when you're talking. (I am once again relieved that some people can't own guns, however.)
I don't condone the violence.
Sure sounded like it. Apparently you don't respect someone unless they're throwing punches and setting fire to things.
They have a right to protest if they want to do that peacefully then thats what they should do. I guess the Universities should have a policy of expelling anyone who goes too far in that regard. Maybe heavily fining them for trying to curb free speech. I guess they don't like expulsion because it costs them tuition but fines should make them happy right?
I'm glad you're finally agreeing that at least something should be done. Since it appears the current administration is signing an EO blocking all federal funds from Unis who don't work to protect free speech, pretty much as we speak (coincidentally), I'm willing to bet college administrations are going to change their tune very quickly.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I understand why they want to de-platform these speakers and I don't believe its as simple as a difference of opinion. It can be done without resorting to violence but I don't like it even then but I do agree with them sometimes that the ideas these people are trying to spread should not be spread. It would be nice if everyone was smart enough to hear these ideas without being swayed by the dodgy reasoning and tricks typically employed to help them spread but its difficult to say exactly which speakers should be banned altogether.
I'm not sure I see a lot of value in arranging talks with exclusively right wing speakers. The Universities should probably just wash their hands of those altogether. If student groups want to organise those events themselves they can do it outside of university premises etc. I would look at insisting that a debate format be used in order for university endorsement or participation.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I understand why they want to de-platform these speakers and I don't believe its as simple as a difference of opinion. It can be done without resorting to violence but I don't like it even then but I do agree with them sometimes that the ideas these people are trying to spread should not be spread. It would be nice if everyone was smart enough to hear these ideas without being swayed by the dodgy reasoning and tricks typically employed to help them spread but its difficult to say exactly which speakers should be banned altogether.
I'm not sure I see a lot of value in arranging talks with exclusively right wing speakers. The Universities should probably just wash their hands of those altogether. If student groups want to organise those events themselves they can do it outside of university premises etc. I would look at insisting that a debate format be used in order for university endorsement or participation.
No one should be banned, and that's the point. In fact, the people with the "dodgiest" views should be heard first, and swiftly countered, so that those beliefs don't go underground. Treating humans like children, believing that there are ideas that are simply too awful to address, leads to infantilization and an intellectually weaker society (which is where we are now).
Then they to stop arranging talks with exclusively Left wing speakers, as well. Personally, I believe society needs to "wash its hands" of perspectives like yours, because they're why we're in this perilous state in the first place. History has shown us, time and again, they're always how totalitarian regimes begin.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
People inciting violence cannot be tolerated. There are laws against that even in your country I think.
The problem is that college kids today are more like children than they used to be. Exposing them to extreme ideas when they are still highly impressionable is risky. And these talks they are boycotting are not always (if often) offering any opportunity to counter, its echo chamber stuff.
In a totalitarian left wing regime, the worst thing that happens is that people are forcibly inconvenienced by having to learn other peoples new pronouns all the time. Thats why the skew is allowed to happen in favour of lefty speakers, because totalitarian right wing regimes are the ones that lead to mass murder.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
People inciting violence cannot be tolerated. There are laws against that even in your country I think.
Not from mere speech during a discussion, speech, or debate, no. We're not talking about someone getting up and preaching about having people killed (unlike certain individuals on the Left, ex. Farrakhan specifically calling for the killing of cops), it's just speech, and no matter how distasteful some may find it to be, it's protected under our 1A, and this has been upheld time and again by our courts.
The problem is that college kids today are more like children than they used to be. Exposing them to extreme ideas when they are still highly impressionable is risky. And these talks they are boycotting are not always (if often) offering any opportunity to counter, its echo chamber stuff.
They're mentally and emotionally weak, like young children, because they've been sheltered from speech, by people who believe like you. University exists to challenge people, sometimes making them uncomfortable, that's its job. What's risky is thrusting them out into the real world unprepared. That's why we have the "snowflake" problem we have today, and why 25 year-olds leaving college are about as emotionally mature as 16 year-olds were just a half century before.
In a totalitarian left wing regime, the worst thing that happens is that people are forcibly inconvenienced by having to learn other peoples new pronouns all the time. Thats why the skew is allowed to happen in favour of lefty speakers, because totalitarian right wing regimes are the ones that lead to mass murder.
I apologize in advance here, but that's so painfully uninformed. No, in Leftist authoritarian regimes people have been murdered by the millions for wrongthink, like what happened in the USSR and China, when (supposed) Right-wing intellectuals were systematically drug out of their homes and executed in the streets by the gov't, all to "protect the youth" from "dangerous ideas". Both extremes are bad, Left and Right, and all speech should be protected so that the citizenry stays informed and no extreme becomes dominant. If that means a few loonies get to stand up in public and yell "White power!" or "F*ck Whitey!", then so be it. Delicate flowers on both sides need to put on their big-kid pants. It's easily worth the cost.
"I drank what?!" - Socrates, 399 BCE
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Not from mere speech during a discussion, speech, or debate, no. We're not talking about someone getting up and preaching about having people killed (unlike certain individuals on the Left, ex. Farrakhan specifically calling for the killing of cops), it's just speech, and no matter how distasteful some may find it to be, it's protected under our 1A, and this has been upheld time and again by our courts.
You said no-one should be banned, I'm only saying the likes of people who call for cops to be murdered or Islamic extremists trying to radicalise people into violence or KKK lynch mobs should be banned. People genuinely inciting actual violence. I think we agree here but they aren't really the issue since there are already some laws in place that prevent them from doing that and universities aren't going to book speakers like that. I was merely including their ilk to be thorough.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They're mentally and emotionally weak, like young children, because they've been sheltered from speech, by people who believe like you.
I think they get there before it comes to things like speech so its not people who think like me because I'm not on board with that. These people do have the best of intentions typically, but its the avoidance of hardship, sacrifice, rejection and disappointment that makes them weak long before they would ordinarily be intellectually equipped to deal with speech and extreme ideas. As I say if all such speakers were restricted to formats that allow for a structured and civilised discussion, debate, or perhaps at the very least a thorough Q&A afterwards, I would feel better about it.
Like it or not these kids aren't equipped to deal with such ideas and that includes the ones who are being swayed by them as much as it does the ones throwing tantrums. The way to expos kids to extremism is to be there to answer questions and refute their arguments and reasoning. Its when you leave a kid locked in their room watching one-sided youtube videos that they end up with anti-feminist views like yours. Its important that no-one be exposed to anything too one-sided until they are old enough to think it through rationally and confidently by themselves.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
You said no-one should be banned, I'm only saying the likes of people who call for cops to be murdered or Islamic extremists trying to radicalise people into violence or KKK lynch mobs should be banned. People genuinely inciting actual violence. I think we agree here but they aren't really the issue since there are already some laws in place that prevent them from doing that and universities aren't going to book speakers like that. I was merely including their ilk to be thorough.
and including their "ilk" makes your proposal untenable (and, at least here, illegal). Unless you get it through your head that "Right-wing" doesn't automatically mean evil, no more than Left-wing does, I don't believe there's any way you can come to a rational perspective regarding this. Ex. I may disagree with Antifa's message, but as long as they aren't violent or infringing someone else's liberties, I'll wholeheartedly defend their right to say what they want.
I think they get there before it comes to things like speech so its not people who think like me because I'm not on board with that. These people do have the best of intentions typically, but its the avoidance of hardship, sacrifice, rejection and disappointment that makes them weak long before they would ordinarily be intellectually equipped to deal with speech and extreme ideas. As I say if all such speakers were restricted to formats that allow for a structured and civilised discussion, debate, or perhaps at the very least a thorough Q&A afterwards, I would feel better about it.
I see no proof that's the case at all. "Restriction" and free expression don't mix, ever, and adding qualifiers to it only creates loopholes to be exploited.
Like it or not these kids aren't equipped to deal with such ideas and that includes the ones who are being swayed by them as much as it does the ones throwing tantrums. The way to expos kids to extremism is to be there to answer questions and refute their arguments and reasoning. Its when you leave a kid locked in their room watching one-sided youtube videos that they end up with anti-feminist views like yours. Its important that no-one be exposed to anything too one-sided until they are old enough to think it through rationally and confidently by themselves.
I'm not talking about children, these are adults in college. Before then their parents or guardians are responsible for them, and as much as SJWs and Evangelicals want to make hay over "dangerous content" online, just like with violent video games, there is no proven connection between mere access to said content and negative behavior. Just like an entire generation wasn't "lost" due to exposure to rock-n-roll, despite Jerry Falwell's predictions.
(Also, there's no reason to lie about me being an anti-feminist (I've stated many times that I support the feminism that existed before this crazy 3rd wave crap), it doesn't help your argument.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr