“good faith”…nice phrase.
Anyone not speaking in good faith (in our determination) should not be allowed free speech in a public institution. Who determines if they are speaking in good faith…well.
That’s pretty rich, considering you’ve said repeatedly that NFL protesters have to take their lumps and accept being fired, but right-wing speakers must be given venues to speak at universities or their free speech is being violated.
So you think (for example) Alex Jones of Infowars is speaking in good faith when he talks about (and i’m literally just looking at Infowars site now)
HOLLYWOOD IS A SATANIC CESSPOOL
or TRUMP PROVEN RIGHT ON PUERTO RICO
or POWERFUL VIDEO: ‘ENABLERS LIKE HILLARY CLINTON ALLOWED WEINSTEIN TO GET AWAY WITH SEXUAL ABUSE’
… at what point can we use common sense? Who defines common sense? Maybe that guy on the corner of the street saying the End of the World is neigh should headline a lecture?
Given how incentive-laden a lot of contracts are, there is zero chance this will happen. Also, I don’t see all players from both sides agreeing to this. If a team just wanted to mail it in against the Pats, Belichick would happily run up the score 300-0. He would then complain during his presser that his team didn’t compete well on all three phases of the game, and they are on to Cincinnati.
Full on authoritarianism is the greatest threat to America, so your solution is to support it?
Bullshit. Find where I said that.
And besides, what do the two have to do with each other anyway. Nice attempt to conflate something you obviously don’t understand. Or do you want to remove my ability to freely speak?
(Removing post because it’s not constructive and too emotional)
But if you don’t like what I say you think it should be taken away. That correct speech is more important than free speech.
Yes he would. :)
No, people here are generally arguing that we don’t need to give you a platform for your shitty speech. Save a few jokes, no one is saying you don’t have the right to say what you want. Big difference you’ve been constantly ignoring
And you get to decide who they are and who has the right of free speech. And you say I don’t understand.
It’s absurd to suggest the Breitbart Nazis don’t have free speech.
Here: Breitbart.com
Coulter has how many books?
Speakers at a university out to expand the intellectual horizons of the students and above all be rooted in reality. These speakers you are defending are anything but that, they offer nothing of any substance and no, that’s not an arbitary decision for who gets to determine what is or isn’t fascism. They admit it:
Aside from all that do you know who the president is? Have you heard him speak about the media?
One is verging on an existential threat to the Nation’s democracy, and the other are college students. But yes, let’s get all torn into pretzels because “safe spaces.”
Also:
This I can’t even. You do understand I’m not a moderator here, right?
[edit] sorry, last edit. You can have the last word, if you like. I’m out.
And your above reply relates to my saying “bullshit” about this how? You conflate two items and then don’t even bother trying to tie them together with anything I have actually said. Nice try.
But yea, it’s 5pm on the left coast and I am out.
They call themselves that and preach those ideals! I’m not calling them anything they aren’t calling themselves!
This is that slippery slope shit that has ruined so many people and arguments. You can claim slippery slope in the abstract, but as soon as something is legit and real it doesn’t apply anymore. A rule that says “no Nazis allowed” is fucking simple and won’t be abused. But we can’t have that because “oh, after we stop the Nazis what then?” Fuck that noise. We’ll have stopped Nazis from peddling their bullshit and made the world a better place for it, then we can all go out and get drinks and celebrate. Worked fine in 1945 and it will work fine now.
The best part about libertarians is that it takes but a single post to get them to stridently insist that (actual, literal) Nazis must be given a platform to speak.
Takes about 3 posts to provoke a sort of inverse triple-lutz derpifaction in which stopping the (again, actual literal) Nazis from burning down your house because of your race or ideology is somehow surrendering to the Nazis for uh reasons.
Give it a few years, you end up with Senator Rand Paul. Nobody wants that.
Except Kentucky, but then again, who’s bright idea was it to let Kentucky have a say in national politics?
It’s a defensible position. It also requires people to not be idiots and that’s where the problems start.
Honestly, being a Nazi in public is something that would have fallen under Fighting Words back in the day. You be a Nazi in public, expect to get your ass kicked for it. But we’ve since decided that Fighting Words isn’t real and that you can say anything. Like literally anything. As long as you don’t look able to back it up at that moment, you’re fine (ie you aren’t holding a gun when you say you’ll kill someone).
It’s funny how many of our rights keep expanding beyond what their origins were, but we are less free when it matters.
1st and 2nd Amendments have vastly expanded beyond their original scope.
4th Amendment barely even exists.
Turns out you need the whole Bill of Rights for things to work properly.
There’s nothing wrong with letting Nazis speak in legal fact. There’s also nothing in any sensible University that has to give them a platform to speak.
Scuzz though isn’t complaining about that. What he thinks is that people are going to label their opponents Nazis to silence them.
And… yes there is a certain strain of identity politics like that. It’s the “if you celebrate Columbus Day you support genocide ie you are a Nazi” or “the author of the Bell Curve Charles Murray said a thing 20 years that we define as oppressive and therefore everything about him is wrong and he’s a Nazi and if you like Charles Murray you’re a Nazi.”
There’s a difference between banning agents provocateurs like Milo and refusing to listen to an academic or professor because their conclusions must be wrong.
My point to him was that it’s possible we can distinguish between shitheels like Milo and wrong headed academics like Murray. He seems to think this is impossible and you have to give both sides a platform and let the “marketplace of ideas” hash it out.
But who determines that?
Milo most would likely say is a Nazi.
What about someone like Ben Shapiro? Because he’s been protested and called a Nazi (nevermind that he’s Jewish).
What about say… Jeff Sessions?
How about Sean Hannity?
Now imagine the government gets to decide these things. Now imagine Gorka, Sessions and Trump deciding who qualifies as not having the right to speak. Because don’t fool yourself, that’s who decides at the end of the day. They’ll say “Communists are as bad as Nazis, they killed more people, we should ban them too.” And then everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh will be labelled as such.
Never give power to the government you aren’t happy to have used against you. Because they will use it against you.
Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but someday it will happen. Look at Trump and all the damage he can do because we let the executive have so much unchecked power. We gave it to Bush, he gave it to Obama, who gave it to Trump. And neither side says shit because they want their guy to be able to abuse that power once they take office.
Remember that being anti-war was once an illegal act (Schenck v. United States).