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.
but he's being politically incorrect...I thought that's what people wanted. I'm confused.
Don't be obtuse.
The leftist version of PC is take any little perceived slight (real or not) and try to damage a person of a different ideological perspective. An example would be if a (R) said a term like n iggardly, ignorant (D's) act as if he said something racist. Then they demand the (R) who said it apologize for the (D's) own ignorance of what the word means.
Yet liberals, especially minorities, feel entitled to spew actual racist and potentially violent speech with impunity.
You mean like the losers at Berkeley that wouldn't allow Coulter or Yiannopoulos to speak because they didn't agree with them?
Pot, meet kettle.
I was vehemently opposed to the actions by leftists and the antifa in those instances as well.
I see that people like you as well as Kibby are trying to portray me as a leftist, a democrat or worse. I am a Libertarian. I was a die hard conservative republican for more than 20 years, then I woke up to the fact that republicans and conservatives are just as bad at being statists as democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists and communists.
The words used in frustration by the professor did not in ANY way encroach upon the natural rights or property of anyone. All malum in se crime laws are based upon an action or inaction that encroaches upon the natural rights or property of another. Crimes committed under those conditions are defacto crimes and would be crimes regardless of whether or not there was a law.
If what the professor did is considered a crime, it is merely so due to malum prohibitum crime laws. These are laws passed to prohibit action and inaction because a group of people "don't like" what the person did, even though neither that person's action nor inaction encroached upon the rights or property of another.
While I don't agree with the professor's rants and posted words, I certainly support his natural right to rant and post what he wants as long as he isn't encroaching upon another person's natural rights or property.
Some here would like to argue that the professor's words either incite others to commit malum in se crimes OR are meant to incite others. I vehemently disagree. I cannot control, one way or another, the actions of another person merely by my words. If another chooses to commit a malum in se crime after having heard or read my words, it is by their own choice that they have done so. I cannot compel them to make this choice merely by my words unless my words are those of coercion and/or extortion which would be malum in se crimes.
Free speech is a very fickle thing. Political correctness (from both the left AND the right) is at the root of any and all harm to free speech. The desire to compel others to only express ideas, beliefs, etc., that we agree with, demanding they say nothing which we disagree with, is at the very root of harming any and all free speech. Furthermore, when society insists a person should be punished for that speech that we "don't like", causing them to be fired or worse, jailed... simply because we find their expressed opinions abhorrent, is the epitome of political correctness, otherwise known as the critical theory portion of cultural Marxism.
You either support the free speech of those whom you vehemently disagree with the most OR you do NOT support free speech. It's really that simple.
What I find most pathetic is the fact that as a child, I was taught the saying, "Sticks and stone can break my bones BUT words will never hurt me."
Have we as a society been turned 180 degrees? Are we so far gone that we cannot accept that our "feelings" simply are NOT a reason nor a justification for demanding another cannot say something or else we should have that person crucified or some other form of punishment? Are YOU so mentally incapable of recognizing these bold truths?
If YOU, the people on C-D give a rat's rear about genuine free speech, at least read the quotes of these very famous men on the subject. THEN, when your finished reading their quotes, come back on here and tell me how I am wrong. Quotes About Freedom Of Speech (259 quotes)
Last edited by KS_Referee; 06-24-2017 at 01:03 AM..
Well we get plenty of anti black hate speech on this forum so you can all stop with the crocodile tears. This has nothing to do with elections or even politics for that matter.
Well we get plenty of anti black hate speech on this forum so you can all stop with the crocodile tears. This has nothing to do with elections or even politics for that matter.
Really?.....
Show me a post or thread here that's anti black hate speech.
And even if there was a post like that, CD moderators are very good at quickly deleting them -- stop with your fake news.
I was vehemently opposed to the actions by leftists and the antifa in those instances as well.
I see that people like you as well as Kibby are trying to portray me as a leftist, a democrat or worse. I am a Libertarian. I was a die hard conservative republican for more than 20 years, then I woke up to the fact that republicans and conservatives are just as bad at being statists as democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists and communists.
The words used in frustration by the professor did not in ANY way encroach upon the natural rights or property of anyone. All malum in se crime laws are based upon an action or inaction that encroaches upon the natural rights or property of another. Crimes committed under those conditions are defacto crimes and would be crimes regardless of whether or not there was a law.
If what the professor did is considered a crime, it is merely so due to malum prohibitum crime laws. These are laws passed to prohibit action and inaction because a group of people "don't like" what the person did, even though neither that person's action nor inaction encroached upon the rights or property of another.
While I don't agree with the professor's rants and posted words, I certainly support his natural right to rant and post what he wants as long as he isn't encroaching upon another person's natural rights or property.
Some here would like to argue that the professor's words either incite others to commit malum in se crimes OR are meant to incite others. I vehemently disagree. I cannot control, one way or another, the actions of another person merely by my words. If another chooses to commit a malum in se crime after having heard or read my words, it is by their own choice that they have done so. I cannot compel them to make this choice merely by my words unless my words are those of coercion and/or extortion which would be malum in se crimes.
Free speech is a very fickle thing. Political correctness (from both the left AND the right) is at the root of any and all harm to free speech. The desire to compel others to only express ideas, beliefs, etc., that we agree with, demanding they say nothing which we disagree with, is at the very root of harming any and all free speech. Furthermore, when society insists a person should be punished for that speech that we "don't like", causing them to be fired or worse, jailed... simply because we find their expressed opinions abhorrent, is the epitome of political correctness, otherwise known as the critical theory portion of cultural Marxism.
You either support the free speech of those whom you vehemently disagree with the most OR you do NOT support free speech. It's really that simple.
What I find most pathetic is the fact that as a child, I was taught the saying, "Sticks and stone can break my bones BUT words will never hurt me."
Have we as a society been turned 180 degrees? Are we so far gone that we cannot accept that our "feelings" simply are NOT a reason nor a justification for demanding another cannot say something or else we should have that person crucified or some other form of punishment? Are YOU so mentally incapable of recognizing these bold truths?
If YOU, the people on C-D give a rat's rear about genuine free speech, at least read the quotes of these very famous men on the subject. THEN, when your finished reading their quotes, come back on here and tell me how I am wrong. Quotes About Freedom Of Speech (259 quotes)
Really? Calling for first responders to let lawmakers f-ing die isn't a problem? Someone like this is hateful and in a position to influence students. If you're ok with what he said, there's something wrong with you.
"Free speech" has limits. It's like Maxine Waters yelling "No justice, no peace!". She's inciting a riot. But hey, free speech, right?
As a college professor, he should be held to a higher standard. It's his kind that yells and screams about fascism and racism but tries to shut down any opposing views. Who the real fascist?
The people who called and made threats to the college are just as bad.
It's his position that makes this a problem. Really? He's supposed to be teaching about racism? Or is he teaching people to become racist? The same would go for a white supremacist teacher who teaches about establishing better race relations. It doesn't fit.
And then there's his nonsense about immigrants and others being attacked daily. Propaganda anyone?
Given his position he should be given all kinds of grief.
Well we get plenty of anti black hate speech on this forum so you can all stop with the crocodile tears. This has nothing to do with elections or even politics for that matter.
I'm calling you out on this... I don't think I've seen one Anti Black post on this forum. I DO see some Anti White posts.
Responding is one thing. Demanding one be fired because you "don't like" what they say, depriving them of their job because you "don't like" what they advocate, THAT is NOT supporting free speech. The FACT is you DON"T support free speech. You only support free speech that YOU agree with.
I understand the principal behind what you're saying. However, in cases like this when someone is in a position of authority, and/or has taken the responsibility of teaching young people the bar gets set a bit higher as to how they ...express themselves. They have a duty to set a proper example. This professor set an extremely poor example and was advocating for violence. Makes me wonder what he's teaching in his classroom.
Free speech is a guaranteed right, but everybody is also accountable for the words of their voice. This guy was speaking in such a manner as to be considered inflammatory and was overtly calling for the support of violence to further political goals. If he wants to espouse such views he is indeed free to do so, but not from his current position in the university. I'm sure Nation of Islam and/or the New Black Panthers will be happy to have him, but as far as his position in the university is concerned, he's done.
This would certainly be the case if he were spouting KKK or neo Nazi hate speech. Outside holding a position as a professor he is now free to hit the podium, write a book, and say whatever he chooses in whatever manner he chooses. But while he holds that position there can and should be consequences for how he chooses to express himself. Nobody is saying he needs to be censored or otherwise silenced. Just that in his current position he is responsible for what he says and how he says it. Not criminally responsible, but to his employer most certainly he can and should suffer consequences.
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.
