|
TheImmigrant posted:Not everyone to the right of the Young and Spotty Sandwich Artist Maoist (Reformed) Party is a neo-nazi. Neo-Nazis aren't the only racists there are.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Neo-Nazis aren't the only racists there are. What didn't you hear? You can only be racist if you say you are racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm completely opposed to coercing a private organization to sponsor or publish speech it finds odious. Somehow we made the leap from generic conservative organizations to neo-nazi organizations. This is a prime example of the Che Brigade's hallmark strawmanning. You really must be insecure in your position if you immediately resort to mischaracterization of those who rebut your conclusory statements. No one here is advocating for the KKK to be given equal time at the Harvard commencement address. Not everyone to the right of the Young and Spotty Sandwich Artist Maoist (Reformed) Party is a neo-nazi. You don't need the KKK. The KKK was always an outlet for powerless trash. Powerful trash uses things like "hiring racist history teachers and acting like they haven't done anything wrong when they use their classroom as a platform for racist tirades." Your ilk has transcended the need for anything like a KKK, congratulations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
why is this thread full of leftists supporting restrictions on speech? In the real world you guys are the first ones they'd use the laws against.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You don't need the KKK. The KKK was always an outlet for powerless trash. Powerful trash uses things like "hiring racist history teachers and acting like they haven't done anything wrong when they use their classroom as a platform for racist tirades." This latest straw man is not your best work. But yes, keep stroking each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:why is this thread full of leftists supporting restrictions on speech? In the real world you guys are the first ones they'd use the laws against. fascists don't generally wait for laws to be passed to start doing their thing The Snark posted:There doesn't seem to be discussion here, just circle jerking. Lol is that really it? You're dropping out of the argument already?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
The Snark posted:There doesn't seem to be discussion here, just circle jerking. iron
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:why is this thread full of leftists supporting restrictions on speech? In the real world you guys are the first ones they'd use the laws against. Is that the "real world" full of hulking black menaces? With good white policemen just trying to go home to their families. Rogue's gallery of concerned right-wing faux-intellectuals ITT
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
I have sincerely seen more considerate posting in Hellthread. I am not clear on why that doesn't shame you all. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You're trying to separate the promotion vs discouragement of speech, where people are not required to promote speech but are required not to discourage speech. This distinction is incoherent. They're the same thing. That isn't my position. If Harvard made the foolish decision to host KKK speech, you would be within your right to denounce that decision. However, you would not be within your right to coerce Harvard to host your dissenting speech. By hosting the KKK, Harvard would be endorsing the KKK's speech, and as such, making it its own speech. They need not host your dissent, but you are completely within your rights to oppose it in your own forum or a forum willing to host you. In a public forum, it would be different. If some loon started to rant about 9/11 conspiracies in a public park, you are completely free to shout him down or rebut him or otherwise interrupt him. With lunatics like conspiracy theorists or race-supremacists, I don't think it's a good idea to engage them as equals, as this tacitly acknowledges a validity to their argument. Ignoring or mocking them is a better tactic, but this is a tactical matter rather than a moral or legal one. This really isn't that difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:That isn't my position. If Harvard made the foolish decision to host KKK speech, you would be within your right to denounce that decision. However, you would not be within your right to coerce Harvard to host your dissenting speech. By hosting the KKK, Harvard would be endorsing the KKK's speech, and as such, making it its own speech. They need not host your dissent, but you are completely within your rights to oppose it in your own forum or a forum willing to host you. I don't think you know how free speech works?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I have sincerely seen more considerate posting in Hellthread. I am not clear on why that doesn't shame you all. C-consideration 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Folks, when winning is all that matters- everyone loses. I'd like to think we might have collectively learned that from America's lovely two-party system by now. I can only say I hope no one, especially several of the posters here, are ever able to silence anyone they disagree with because I have zero faith in their ability to do so responsibly. Finally, if you do gain that power and make the world that much worse of a place, I hope you remember these moments when said power is turned on you. You will wrongthink eventually, or simply be labeled as having done so by your peers looking for another nail to hit with that hammer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I don't think you know how free speech works? It means the government, barring a few VERY narrow circumstances, may not infringe on private speech. What does it mean to you? I did this for a year of ConLaw in law school, but I'm open-minded to hear whatever you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I have sincerely seen more considerate posting in Hellthread. I am not clear on why that doesn't shame you all. What does considerate posting mean? That we take you seriously is what I assume you mean, but you haven't really proven you deserve that yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Folks, when winning is all that matters- everyone loses. I'd like to think we might have collectively learned that from America's lovely two-party system by now. Somebody better tell all the white colonialists that this Bill O'Reilly-citing history teacher no doubt praises and admires that "when winning is all that matters- everyone loses."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:
Who is this 'we'? I see this all the time from the most prolific D&D posters. Is there a definitive list of who is in the Gang? Do you have to take a doctrinal purity test to be admitted to 'we'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Oh andThe Snark posted:You will wrongthink eventually, or simply be labeled as having done so by your peers looking for another nail to hit with that hammer. This already happened to us. Maybe when your balls drop you'll learn that racism is the norm in work and schooling, and to challenge it is "wrongthink" in most settings. These must be the settings you're used to thriving in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Who is this 'we'? I see this all the time from the most prolific D&D posters. Is there a definitive list of who is in the Gang? Do you have to take a doctrinal purity test to be admitted to 'we'? Those that are participating in the thread, and are the subjects of his derision. Is shorthand a foreign concept to you, or do you want to me to list every poster involved every time it is brought up. Think hard about this, as you will have to as well everytime you address more than one poster or leftism in general. I do love how you complain about strawman, while fighting your own. That is some next level poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:That isn't my position. If Harvard made the foolish decision to host KKK speech, you would be within your right to denounce that decision. However, you would not be within your right to coerce Harvard to host your dissenting speech. By hosting the KKK, Harvard would be endorsing the KKK's speech, and as such, making it its own speech. They need not host your dissent, but you are completely within your rights to oppose it in your own forum or a forum willing to host you. So I'm allowed to denounce it up to the exact point where it would cause them to change their actions, and no more? Generally the reason people exercise free speech in the first place is to convince other people to alter their actions. Are you saying the KKK aren't trying to persuade people to take action with their speech? Why do they get protection for their speech but not their opponents? I guess whoever speaks first wins in your view, and gets to promote whatever views with no effective opposition And as for the 'public forum' poo poo it doesn't make any sense at all. You're allowed to drown out speech in a public forum, but not outside of it? What does 'public forum' even mean exactly? Wouldn't it make more sense to require free speech in public forums, and not outside of it? Your ideas are incoherent and you don't understand how speech works. Your motivation for arguing appears to be 100% indignation over a liberal strawman that exists only in your head icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:why is this thread full of leftists supporting restrictions on speech? In the real world you guys are the first ones they'd use the laws against. The US in particular has never been shy about shutting down leftist speech when push comes to shove, laws or no laws. So it's not like leftists have much to lose here. TheImmigrant posted:I'm completely opposed to coercing a private organization to sponsor or publish speech it finds odious. Somehow we made the leap from generic conservative organizations to neo-nazi organizations. This is a prime example of the Che Brigade's hallmark strawmanning. You really must be insecure in your position if you immediately resort to mischaracterization of those who rebut your conclusory statements. No one here is advocating for the KKK to be given equal time at the Harvard commencement address. Not everyone to the right of the Young and Spotty Sandwich Artist Maoist (Reformed) Party is a neo-nazi. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is that the "real world" full of hulking black menaces? With good white policemen just trying to go home to their families. "ur a racist" nice rebuttal very apropos
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
I thought so, and anybody can click your post history to get a nice dose of it.CharlestheHammer posted:I do love how you complain about strawman, while fighting your own. That is some next level poo poo. When it comes to inside-the-bubble conservatives and racists, hypocrisy and holding the people you are attacking to a higher standard than you hold yourself isn't exactly next level. It's the first level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So I'm allowed to denounce it up to the exact point where it would cause them to change their actions, and no more? Generally the reason people exercise free speech in the first place is to convince other people to alter their actions. Are you saying the KKK aren't trying to persuade people to take action with their speech? Why do they get protection for their speech but not their opponents? I guess whoever speaks first wins in your view, and gets to promote whatever views with no effective opposition The right to speech is about the speech itself, not results from that speech. It's not about quote:And as for the 'public forum' poo poo it doesn't make any sense at all. You're allowed to drown out speech in a public forum, but not outside of it? What does 'public forum' even mean exactly? Wouldn't it make more sense to require free speech in public forums, and not outside of it? Yes. In a private forum (e.g., a specific newspaper, Something Awful, Stormfront), the owner of the forum is permitted to control the speech. In a public forum (e.g., a park, a city square, the Internet, publishing in general), it is open to all. You are free to create your own forum to broadcast your speech. Once you do so, no one can coerce you to broadcast speech you find abhorrent. quote:Your ideas are incoherent and you don't understand how speech works. Your motivation for arguing appears to be 100% indignation over a liberal strawman that exists only in your head I've explained the principles behind them quite clearly. If you are still having trouble grasping them, take issue with a specific point I've made, rebut it, and I'll address it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We could learn that they're right. We could learn that Bill O'Reilly has great observations sometimes! If only you'd open your mind. Interesting story - I live in Harlingen TX, a majority Democratic town, where that incident took place. ~73% of the population is Hispanic, and 84% of students in my school are. African-Americans, in contrast, number about a baker's dozen in a student body of 2,200. The only explanation I have as to why my teacher was/is able to be so racist for presumably much of his employment (several decades) is that high school students are afraid to speak out against authority figures, or find it as an easy way to get out of actually being taught anything. edit: I know two (2) African-Americans from my high school personally. One of them was a violist in the orchestra. For a brief period, remarks about watermelons and KFC would be littered over our whiteboard by bored students. I'm not quite sure why they stopped, but my guess leans more toward 'lost interest' than 'was told to stop'. Chelb fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I've explained the principles behind them quite clearly. If you are still having trouble grasping them, take issue with a specific point I've made, rebut it, and I'll address it. Freedom from interference in speech by actors other than the State is not particularly desirable, despite you insisting over and over that it is, and anyways interference in speech by non-state actors isn't a significant problem in the real world in TYOOL 2014. Sorry
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
People are overracting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:What does it mean to you? I did this for a year of ConLaw in law school, but I'm open-minded to hear whatever you think it means. lmao okay this is the best post in the thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Freedom from interference in speech by actors other than the State is not particularly desirable, despite you insisting over and over that it is, What does interference in speech mean to you? Do you think it should not be illegal to hack websites like, say, Stormfront (or Something Awful)? quote:and anyways interference in speech by non-state actors isn't a significant problem in the real world in TYOOL 2014. Agreed, I can think of a lot worse problems in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
The Snark posted:No, they're just a bit foolish. Most human beings are. You, are not infallible and you are casually comfortable with disposing of what- for all you know- was otherwise a perfectly good history teacher. This is dumb as hell. How can he be a "good history teacher" if, instead of teaching history, he is spending his time alienating his black students? Why would you want someone that interrupts his history teaching to engage in behavior that will gently caress up a kid's learning to continue teaching?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:What does interference in speech mean to you? Do you think it should not be illegal to hack websites like, say, Stormfront (or Something Awful)? Well, hacking computers over the internet is trespassing or property damage, so that's not really a relevant situation at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
katlington posted:People are overracting. I think we've moved on from that and are now onto merely attacking each other over views about free speech in general. Though there was the brief glimmer of something interesting in the last couple pages: Should faculty be held responsible for personal beliefs and in what circumstances?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:This is dumb as hell. How can he be a "good history teacher" if, instead of teaching history, he is spending his time alienating his black students? Why would you want someone that interrupts his history teaching to engage in behavior that will gently caress up a kid's learning to continue teaching? Plus there is like a zero chance that their beliefs aren't somehow working their way into the material. I went to a christian school and believe me, personal biases do in fact get weaved into the material all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Though there was the brief glimmer of something interesting in the last couple pages: Should faculty be held responsible for personal beliefs and in what circumstances? During working hours in their area of employment, absolutely. CharlestheHammer posted:Plus there is like a zero chance that their beliefs aren't somehow working their way into the material. Honestly, it was less that he would work racism into his material (though he did do some of that) and more that he would spend so much time on diatribes, we wouldn't actually learn anything from him. I think it was one reason why our tests and quizzes were so word-for-word copied from our textbooks - if we relied on what he lectured on we'd know literally nothing. Chelb fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:During working hours in their area of employment, absolutely. That's my thought, as well. It's interesting to me because one of the recent cases of conservative outrage stemmed from a creationist biologist being fired by a university, presumably due to his beliefs. Though, it was also revealed that he had expressed and discussed his personal young-Earth beliefs with students which to me would constitute a conflict of interest with the university. As someone who studies evo bio, I'd say the firing was justified. But under the terms of free speech being laid out in this thread, it may be seen as a horrible injustice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:creationist biologist This strikes me as a contradiction in terms, like Satanic Catholic priest. If your beliefs mean you are unable to perform your job, the job is a sacrifice you'll have to make for your beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This strikes me as a contradiction in terms, like Satanic Catholic priest. If your beliefs mean you are unable to perform your job, the job is a sacrifice you'll have to make for your beliefs. You'd be surprised how many of them exist. It's a tiny number for sure, but they're out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:That's my thought, as well. It's interesting to me because one of the recent cases of conservative outrage stemmed from a creationist biologist being fired by a university, presumably due to his beliefs. http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/31/professor-claims-california-state-university-fired-him-over-his-creationists-belief/ lmao he published a paper saying he found evidence a triceratops died no more than 4000 years ago. yeah, his termination was pretty just because he's either incompetent or lying in his research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This strikes me as a contradiction in terms, like Satanic Catholic priest. If your beliefs mean you are unable to perform your job, the job is a sacrifice you'll have to make for your beliefs. I can tell you 100% there are science teachers who are proud and open creationists, there are science teachers that are climate change deniers, there are history teachers that teach the civil war wasn't about slavery, there are art teachers who claim no great art was made in Asia and Africa. If the university doesn't have the right to tell these people 'no you can't do that poo poo' how do we ensure students actually get the best education possible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/31/professor-claims-california-state-university-fired-him-over-his-creationists-belief/ The only other article I read had said fired professor claiming he left his beliefs out of the research paper. Which would then make the discussion less about job competency (which is possible that's all it was) and more spreading falsehoods while in an official university capacity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:43
|
|