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.
I do not believe for a second that a 10 question test can determine with any reliability one's I.Q.
For one person taking one short test there would be a big margin of error, but comparing large groups of people taking many tests the numbers should be pretty reliable.
I've noticed Leftists are afraid of hearing alternative viewpoints or learning anything that contradicts their group think. This is especially true of younger Leftists in college where their growing brains should be exposed to as many ideas as possible so they can develop critical thinking.
Do you have the right to get someone fired for their speech?
Rights are great and all until they butt up against other rights. I can see limits to the heckler's veto, as it can be incitement to violence (not violence itself), or doxing since it infringes on the right to privacy.
Shouting people down and doxing are bully tactics, and *way* more outre than patiently arguing a point with evidence, no matter how controversial the point is.
What's missing from absolutist defenses of free speech rights in a civil society (as opposed to free speech rights under the government) is that style and content both matter, and both have to be proportional. Shouting at someone who is speaking is disproportionate and bad style. Strawmen arguments and other fallacies in a debate with someone who is trying to play it straight is disproportionate and bad content.
Doxing or otherwise threatening consequences for speech in unrelated parts of a person's life is particularly pernicious because it's a weaponized ad hominem, bad style and bad content to the nth degree.
At the least, keeping things proportional and within some mutually agreed boundaries makes debate *possible*.
The civility of society has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of free speech. That's a discussion for a different thread.
Public universities, like Berkeley, can’t bar or make it difficult for certain speakers to speak as they had in the past. That is why the DOJ is currently looking into them, and weighed in on a law suit filed by conservative groups.
Many institutions, groups, and influential people, not just the government, effect society in regards to expression, making it more free or less free. This thread is not intended to discuss First Amendment rights or who can and cannot violate them in a narrow legal sense. As stated in the first post, it's about whether or not you as an individual believe that everyone, even those you disagree with, should be allowed to speak in public, and the answer from you appears to be a clear "no". Fortunately, you have no power here in this forum to "shout down" anyone, but if you were given moderator status that might change, and freedom of expression here might get a little less free.
The First amendment right to Free Speech is not a narrow legal anything. It was written to constrain the government alone.
Say what you want, but if I disagree and shout you down, I am simply exercising my right to Free Speech just as you are. The way Free Speech is used by a lot of people who have no idea what they are talking about is that they should have the right to say wahatever they want with no consequences and no pushback. That is not how things work. You say it, you own it.
The First amendment right to Free Speech is not a narrow legal anything. It was written to constrain the government alone.
Say what you want, but if I disagree and shout you down, I am simply exercising my right to Free Speech just as you are. The way Free Speech is used by a lot of people who have no idea what they are talking about is that they should have the right to say wahatever they want with no consequences and no pushback. That is not how things work. You say it, you own it.
I'm not saying you are saying anything different.
You are right, where the 1st Amendment is concerned it's constraints are on the government. If I do not want to hear what you have to say in my living room I can evict you.
There is a bigger Free Speech issue though. I believe everyone should be able to have their say. Yes, you should then be able to counter them if you disagree. I will also defend your right to shout someone down even though I really do not support someone doing that.
This sort of name calling, use of scare quotes and tut-tutting over who associates with who is absolutely worthless. Rather than attaching silly labels, why not try to actually understand what people say or write? You're better off doing that, even if your only motivation is to discredit.
Hit a nerve, didn't I?
So go ahead and defend your use of white supremacist sources. In fact, your use of "The Dark Enlightenment" is a reference to a neo-fascist ideology. Why am I not surprised?
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.
