Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's nothing fake about anything I've posted here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
If someone called your mom a cheap ugly fat *****; and you punch that person in the face. Are you against free speech?
What a bizarre question.
There are no words someone could use, save for possibly a direct threat of imminent violence, that would legally or morally justify violence on my part. Is this permissible in your world? To initiate violence based solely on speech?
-------------------------
How about these questions:
Do you look forward to further exhibitions of violence that prevent invited people from being able to speak?
Do you long for the future wherein this has become the norm and no one who doesn't 'fit the narrative' is allowed to speak?
Would you encourage this silencing not just on campus but in general society?
-------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
You right-wingers always say you don't want political correctness, well you got it.
No. This is an abomination of political correctness. This is being so 'sensitive' that it veers into violent opposition to the ability and right of a person to express ideas for fear they might upset the PC narrative that must be adhered to (which begs questions about how steady and strong that narrative is if it can't allow ideas to be heard or questions as to its validity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
We liberals will defend your right to say offensive things, but right after we've done that we will come down on the offensive party like a ton of bricks.
Can we summarize your position? A group of students on a campus invite a speaker to come speak. Another group of students and some professors don't like what said speaker might say, but instead of just *not going,* which is what I believe a classical liberal would do, they decide they should organize to prevent said speaker from being able to say it, at all, to anyone. It gets violent -- to the point that the speaker is not able to complete or even begin the presentation to the students who want to hear the speaker due to the students who don't want anyone to hear the speaker.
And then you come along to defend those actions and vilify the speech (that wasn't heard) while having the audacity to claim it was a support of free speech. All the while the opposing students and professors by and large haven't read let alone critically assessed the speaker's points (which is kind of beside the point, as the content of speech should not determine whether or not it is able to be expressed).
This article in the Weekly Standard, The Middlebury Mob discusses how none of the "resisters" had even read anything Charles Murray has written. To use a favorite leftist expression, the efforts to shut down his speech were "bullying."
that does not come as any surprise, unfortunately. these are mindless robots we're talking about here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains
If I couldn't stand trumpsters delusional hysterics I wouldn't be on city data either. But how much much fun would that be?
I have no idea what you are babbling about. perhaps you intended to post this brilliance on another thread?
There's nothing fake about anything I've posted here. What a bizarre question.
There are no words someone could use, save for possibly a direct threat of imminent violence, that would legally or morally justify violence on my part. Is this permissible in your world? To initiate violence based solely on speech?
-------------------------
How about these questions:
Do you look forward to further exhibitions of violence that prevent invited people from being able to speak?
Do you long for the future wherein this has become the norm and no one who doesn't 'fit the narrative' is allowed to speak?
Would you encourage this silencing not just on campus but in general society?
-------------------------No. This is an abomination of political correctness. This is being so 'sensitive' that it veers into violent opposition to the ability and right of a person to express ideas for fear they might upset the PC narrative that must be adhered to (which begs questions about how steady and strong that narrative is if it can't allow ideas to be heard or questions as to its validity). Can we summarize your position? A group of students on a campus invite a speaker to come speak. Another group of students and some professors don't like what said speaker might say, but instead of just *not going,* which is what I believe a classical liberal would do, they decide they should organize to prevent said speaker from being able to say it, at all, to anyone. It gets violent -- to the point that the speaker is not able to complete or even begin the presentation to the students who want to hear the speaker due to the students who don't want anyone to hear the speaker.
And then you come along to defend those actions and vilify the speech (that wasn't heard) while having the audacity to claim it was a support of free speech. All the while the opposing students and professors by and large haven't read let alone critically assessed the speaker's points (which is kind of beside the point, as the content of speech should not determine whether or not it is able to be expressed).
You point out where you object to my assessment.
There are a few posters here who I think would or have put on the black masks themselves. They're idiots, and cannot be allowed to win with these tactics. It is exactly why I will not vote for a Democrat again even if I agree with some of their policies (and I do).
Trend developing : Conservative right leaning speakers , either prevented from speaking , or when they do speak , making mincemeat of the opposing viewpoints.
It has happened over and over again. When Liberals have to defend their opinions , they wither under their own lack of focus and lack of confidence or conviction in what they are saying. Only other option available , get obnoxious and violent as a means of not having to debate or made look silly again.
Back to the books and practice time for Liberals. As they are unable to debate or even worse still , not even know for sure what they are angry about.
Trend developing : Conservative right leaning speakers , either prevented from speaking , or when they do speak , making mincemeat of the opposing viewpoints.
It has happened over and over again. When Liberals have to defend their opinions , they wither under their own lack of focus and lack of confidence or conviction in what they are saying. Only other option available , get obnoxious and violent as a means of not having to debate or made look silly again.
Back to the books and practice time for Liberals. As they are unable to debate or even worse still , not even know for sure what they are angry about.
Watch some Youtubes of Pink Alliance debating with Ted Cruz. He invited them to the podium to debate when they were heckling him. They had remarkably little to say.
Watch some Youtubes of Pink Alliance debating with Ted Cruz. He invited them to the podium to debate when they were heckling him. They had remarkably little to say.
There are countless similar examples on Youtube of Liberals getting reamed in debates with Conservatives. What is most telling is how , when debating facts , these same people will appear dumbfounded as they are left to defend their opinions.
Is it any wonder globalist and corporate interests use this army of zombies to further their own agenda?.
If the incident we are discussing here is any evidence then no, you will not. You will scream and chant to prevent ideas you dislike from being expressed.
Screaming and chanting is a form of free speech too, my friend. You guys have the right to scream and chant too.
What's evident is that you right-wingers thinks the First Amendment means your stupid ideas are not allowed to be challenged.
.
There's nothing fake about anything I've posted here. What a bizarre question.
Many can spot fakeness from miles away, especially when it is packaged with poor logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
There are no words someone could use, save for possibly a direct threat of imminent violence, that would legally or morally justify violence on my part. Is this permissible in your world? To initiate violence based solely on speech?
Yes, there are words/speech that crosses the line. You have a right to say it, but you have to accept the consequence. Right wingers are people who call someone's mom a *****, and then act surprise and righteous when he gets punched in the face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
-------------------------
How about these questions:
Do you look forward to further exhibitions of violence that prevent invited people from being able to speak?
Protest is form of speech. Basically, you are proposing we suppress some form of free speech (aka **** on the first amendment) because you don't agree with the message of the protest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
Do you long for the future wherein this has become the norm and no one who doesn't 'fit the narrative' is allowed to speak?
Do you?? Because that IS exactly what you are proposing!
Do you long for the future where if people dislike the speaker that was invited to speak at their school, they will just have to keep silent and not allowed to voice their frustration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
Would you encourage this silencing not just on campus but in general society?
No. That is exactly why I am here standing up for the right to protest. Yes, some people went too far, but they WERE exercising their First Amendment rights. You don't have to like it, but you should defend their rights to voice their opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
-------------------------No. This is an abomination of political correctness. This is being so 'sensitive' that it veers into violent opposition to the ability and right of a person to express ideas for fear they might upset the PC narrative that must be adhered to (which begs questions about how steady and strong that narrative is if it can't allow ideas to be heard or questions as to its validity). Can we summarize your position? A group of students on a campus invite a speaker to come speak. Another group of students and some professors don't like what said speaker might say, but instead of just *not going,* which is what I believe a classical liberal would do, they decide they should organize to prevent said speaker from being able to say it, at all, to anyone. It gets violent -- to the point that the speaker is not able to complete or even begin the presentation to the students who want to hear the speaker due to the students who don't want anyone to hear the speaker.
Yes, you expected the classical liberal to be politically correct and not attend the event, but instead they decided to throw politically correctness out the window and took their free speech rights to the extreme!
Surprise, surprise! This what unpolitically correct looks like!
I would not disagree if you had say the protesters took things too far and infringed upon other people's desire to hear the speaker. But you shamelessly spun this as the liberals against free speech and that is NOT what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
And then you come along to defend those actions and vilify the speech (that wasn't heard) while having the audacity to claim it was a support of free speech. All the while the opposing students and professors by and large haven't read let alone critically assessed the speaker's points (which is kind of beside the point, as the content of speech should not determine whether or not it is able to be expressed).
You point out where you object to my assessment.
See above.
Free speech is two-way street, my friend. This is something that many right-wingers don't get.
.
After swarming Murray and two school officials, the protesters shouted profanities, shoved members of the group and then blocked them from getting to a vehicle in a nearby parking lot. Witnesses said the confrontation was aggressive, intimidating and unpredictable and felt like it was edging frighteningly close to outright violence.
Seems to me that until sanity returns, colleges might want to try doing Skype-like presentations so that speakers can interact in real time via a screen but be kept at a distance and still get their message across. It is not ideal but also not cowardly at all considering the way things are going right now on campuses everywhere. They can't give up completely but things are getting mighty dangerous for them out there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
