Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Jeff Sessions, shitstain

Jeff Sessions, shitstain (Page 4)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 02:13 PM
 
Thanks, Obama.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2017, 02:37 PM
 
Mike Lee already called them out.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 09:31 PM
 
Does not resigning after getting shat on by the President make Sessions a cuck?

It's pretty obvious he's so desperate to enact his policies he'll allow himself to be completely humiliated.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 10:34 PM
 
I'm beginning to get the feeling this won't end well.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm beginning to get the feeling this won't end well.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hmm... I hadn't thought of it this way.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:28 PM
 
"Guess who doesn't have to deal with this ****ing bullshit tomorrow?"

- Sean Spicer
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 04:19 AM
 
Interesting twist everybody's compass immediately pointed to this leak being a Trump hit.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 04:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Stupid, sexy JT.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Interesting twist everybody's compass immediately pointed to this leak being a Trump hit.
So, Trump whacks Sessions for his Russia connections as payback for Sessions not cock-blocking the accusation Trump has Russia connections?

     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Interesting twist everybody's compass immediately pointed to this leak being a Trump hit.
I don't buy it. I think Trump trashed Sessions because they knew this was coming.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 06:36 AM
 
So the choices have been narrowed to Cruz, Giuliani, and a knitting needle in my eye socket.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 08:30 AM
 
Trump again manages the impossible. I feel bad for Jeff Sessions.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So the choices have been narrowed to Cruz, Giuliani, and a knitting needle in my eye socket.

Good one.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
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.

He's clearly trying to get him to resign, right?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
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.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 10:29 AM
 
I think I know the answer here, but the obvious question is why not fire him?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 10:39 AM
 
A desire to stay out of prison.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A desire to stay out of prison.
If you're saying what I think you're saying, he wants him gone so he can do something that will get himself in prison.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 11:02 AM
 
I'm thinking more along the lines firing him is another tick in the "obstruction" column.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm thinking more along the lines firing him is another tick in the "obstruction" column.
Presumably he will try to get his replacement to fire Mueller. That's a much larger tick in the obstruction column.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Presumably he will try to get his replacement to fire Mueller. That's a much larger tick in the obstruction column.
Sessions quits, replacement fires Muller: bad optics.

Trump fires Sessions, replacement fires Muller: really bad optics.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 03:39 PM
 
Current scuttle is Sessions won't go without getting fired.

What an odd devil's bargain. Now I have to root for Jeff Sessions so we can have an AG hostile to the president.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 03:49 PM
 
It's not coincidence his ire is boiling over the week lush, manafort and junior meet with senate intelligence, right?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 03:50 PM
 
Sessions or Trump?

(Kushner just finished)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 04:01 PM
 
I should also note the impression has been given the reason Sessions won't quit is because there's no taming his epic justice boner.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sessions or Trump?

(Kushner just finished)
Trump
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I should also note the impression has been given the reason Sessions won't quit is because there's no taming his epic justice boner.
That's what I keep saying.

It is rightfully pointed out that he gave up a safe senate seat to do this.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 04:29 PM
 
Trump says Sessions has no loyalty in interview with wsj. He is going to just completely debase this guy until he cries uncle.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's what I keep saying.

It is rightfully pointed out that he gave up a safe senate seat to do this.
Both good points.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:15 AM
 
Tinfoil hat is considering the idea the whole point of this exercise is to make it appear like Sessions is hostile to Trump.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 10:19 AM
 
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.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 11:15 AM
 
Trump thinks loyalty is everyone goosestepping to his every whim and notion. Loyalty is earned for those who deserve it and act accordingly.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 11:23 AM
 
Not in the business world
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2017, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I said in the quoted post, I'm willing to accept Sessions is vile as a premise.
Here's another for the racist pile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/u...versities.html
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.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2017, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's another for the racist pile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/u...versities.html
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
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
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....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Is it actually causing any real problems though?
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
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2017, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
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....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2017, 02:03 AM
 
Yeah, just half the debate.
"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
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2017, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yeah, just half the debate.
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....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2017, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
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
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2017, 12:55 PM
 
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....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2017, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
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
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2017, 03:48 PM
 
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....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2017, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
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
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2017, 08:07 AM
 
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....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2017, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
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
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2017, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
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 View Post
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....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2017, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
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
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,