|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 19:42:12 GMT
Freedom of expression has been under attack.... Yes Specifically the content of right wingers. No Spartacus is in a minority. I've spent a lot of time here I don't think so. I'm basing this conclusion on the poll that was put up about freedom of content creation. Definitely more people agreed with me and my ideas in that poll than people who agree with you and Spartacus. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 19:43:57 GMT
Here's an official, comprehensive list of "microaggressions" published by the UCLA. [my highlighting] Jesus coffekanon , you need to get that tinfoil hat off and start reading more carefully. This is not an 'official' document from the UCLA, it's an excerpt from a working paper with a summary of microaggressions as defined in a book Derald Wing Sue, which if you look at the URL was created for a workshop on diversity. The amount of crap created at universities for workshops hath no end. Doesn't sound like a workshop that led to much except handwringing. Now, the concept of microaggressions has been widely criticised as being total baloney by a lot of prominent both right and left wing scholars and activists, including none other than Ralph Nader. It's also a concept scorned by independent non-partisan thinkers and free speech advocates such as Greg Lukianoff and Amitai Etzioni.It's also a concept scorned by me. Doesn't change the fact that the student activists (the majority of the movement) aggree with the concept of microaggressions. And student activists currently have more power on every single campus in the U.S than the faculty members and so called "scholars" that you mention have. Basically if you subject a minority to a "microaggression", then they believe that your speech should be labeled as hate speech and not be protected by freedom of speech. Which is why student activists from the left show up to free speech rallies and stage counter protests to it. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 13, 2018 23:07:41 GMT
Freedom of expression has been under attack.... Yes Specifically the content of right wingers. No Spartacus is in a minority. I've spent a lot of time here I don't think so. I'm basing this conclusion on the poll that was put up about freedom of content creation. Definitely more people agreed with me and my ideas in that poll than people who agree with you and Spartacus. I think you have proved Spartacus's point here that you are not reading. I stated above I do not fully agree with his viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 13, 2018 23:46:56 GMT
Which is why student activists from the left show up to free speech rallies and stage counter protests to it. Well, you’ve all hijacked the free speech debate. Your side is claiming that whatever opinion one holds it’s ok, however harmful to other ethnicities, because expressing those opinions is protected by free speech. Their side is claiming that there is no free speech if it doesn’t meet certain moral values. You’re both wrong. As I’ve told you before free speech is not absolute - it’s restricted in areas where it is judged to be harmful to others and society. However, the restrictions do not and cannot go as far as restricting speech that is uncomfortable, or happens to be obnoxious to the listener. Luckily for us all the young and extreme ones are kept in check by the tendency of the older and more conservative majority that aren’t as eager for disruptive change. So laws don’t just pop out of, or into existence, however much you guys rally and scream at each other. Change takes time and usually the issues have gained more perspective and the yunguns are older and wiser by the time it comes down it. Those of us that don’t develop to be more measured and reasoned tend to end up on the margins of history, sadly out of touch with time. I’ve also been up screaming on the barricades a long time ago, and I’d kindly and fondly laugh at my angry activist self from those days if we met today. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 23:55:59 GMT
Which is why student activists from the left show up to free speech rallies and stage counter protests to it. Well, you’ve all hijacked the free speech debate. Your side is claiming that whatever opinion ones holds it’s ok, however harmful to other ethnicities, because expressing those opinions are protected by free speech. Their side is claiming that there is no free speech if it doesn’t meet certain moral values. You’re both wrong. As I’ve told you before free speech is not absolute - it’s restricted in areas where it is judged to be harmful to others and society. However, the restrictions do not and cannot go as far as restricting speech that is uncomfortable, or happens to be obnoxious to the listener. Luckily for us all the young and extreme ones are kept in check by the tendency of the older and more conservative majority that aren’t as eager for disruptive change. So laws don’t just pop out of, or into existence, however much you guys rally and scream at each other. Change takes time and usually the issues have gained more perspective and the yunguns are older and wiser by the time it comes down it. Those of us that don’t develop to be more measured and reasoned tend to end up on the margins of history, sadly out of touch with time. I’ve also been up screaming on the barricades a long time ago, and I’d kindly and fondly laugh at my angry activist self from those days if we met today. You don't need to repeat what you've said before. I will never agree to it or your fallacious interpretation of what the concept of freedom of speech means. I will never accept "exceptions" to freedom of speech and expression, and if some legislators believe there are exceptions, then that legislation needs to be changed immediately. Also, opinions can never be "harmful" to anyone. They're just opinions. Actual harm begins with physical violence (either to property or people). Never before that point. The "young and extreme" are not kept in check at all at college campuses or on the streets, or even at speakers venues where antifa thugs frequently barge in at conservative speaking events, triggering fire alarms or simply beat people up to disrupt and shut events down. Plenty of instances also show where faculty members have essentially been kept hostage by student protestors. (and I have video evidence of everything so don't bother with your predictable tactic of feigning ignorance) When I start seeing riot police beating the crap out of student protestors and antifa scum, shooting them up with rubber bullets and CS-gas grenades until they disperse. By then I can start believe that they're being "kept in check". As it is now, they're running loose and hurting people. Causing ACTUAL harm. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 14, 2018 0:06:15 GMT
Stop proving my point all the time cofeekanon - it’s sort of silly. I’m not giving you my opinion. I’m tediously repeating the legal definition of free speech. If you don’t like it I have one suggestion only: go into politics, get elected and work on changing that definition as a lawmaker. Otherwise you’re just screaming at a wall. Just because I keep on pointing at that wall, it doesn’t make me the wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 14, 2018 13:29:57 GMT
Stop proving my point all the time cofeekanon - it’s sort of silly. I’m not giving you my opinion. I’m tediously repeating the legal definition of free speech. If you don’t like it I have one suggestion only: go into politics, get elected and work on changing that definition as a lawmaker. Otherwise you’re just screaming at a wall. Just because I keep on pointing at that wall, it doesn’t make me the wall. Stop repeating something that I will consistently ignore. Repetition will not prove your point further.  So far I've proven you wrong about practically every issue. And everyone can see it. I'm not really looking to "convert" you because I realize that you have too much ego invested in your opinions, and so admitting fault openly would be to lose face publicly. I've only debated you for the benefit of other readers, so they can make up their own minds. But in the interest of their enjoyment, I think you should do the respectful thing and stop repeating the same thing over and over and instead choose a more inventive avenue of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 14, 2018 15:11:09 GMT
*sigh* I'm not giving you my opinion.
My opinion would be: "I think that free speech should be..."
This is not opinion: "The legal definition of free speech is..."
That's fact! Maybe I got the facts wrong (I didn't), but at no point have you argued fact, only your opinion - which you're entitled to, but when it comes to the legal definition of free speech it isn't relevant except to note that you disagree with the law. I feel for you when it is so and this bothers you for some reason... but screaming "No! No! No! No!" won't change the law and its interpretation (you can always try, but it sure won't help you in a court of law). You need to become a lawmaker, or judge to do that.
Ostrich much?
|
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 14, 2018 17:08:15 GMT
Also, opinions can never be "harmful" to anyone. They're just opinions. Actual harm begins with physical violence (either to property or people). Never before that point. Getting back to opinions vs. facts. You need to read up on your history. The spoken word has harmed many, many, many people and groups of people throughout history. Hate speech leading to violence and mass murder. Libel and slander leading to financial, or social damage to innocent people. Fighting words erupting into physical violence. Falsified facts leading to financial damage, hate speech, libel, slander and fighting words. That's why! After tens of millions of people dead, damaged, or robbed of their rights, income, and property we as a global society decided to define limits on free speech. Quirky thing: those areas is where the limits are in place on the first amendment in the US (while granted, one of them (hate speech) has a somewhat contentious legal status in the US) You are perhaps aware of the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword." Fun fact: deliberately spreading false facts about the US federal government, state and local governments is protected under the first amendment in the US, while deliberately spreading false facts about individuals, ethnic groups, legal entities, products, scientific findings, public events, and so on is not protected as free speech. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 14, 2018 20:29:55 GMT
Also, opinions can never be "harmful" to anyone. They're just opinions. Actual harm begins with physical violence (either to property or people). Never before that point. Getting back to opinions vs. facts. You need to read up on your history. The spoken word has harmed many, many, many people and groups of people throughout history. Hate speech leading to violence and mass murder. Libel and slander leading to financial, or social damage to innocent people. Fighting words erupting into physical violence. Falsified facts leading to financial damage, hate speech, libel, slander and fighting words. That's why! After tens of millions of people dead, damaged, or robbed of their rights, income, and property we as a global society decided to define limits on free speech. Quirky thing: those areas is where the limits are in place on the first amendment in the US (while granted, one of them (hate speech) has a somewhat contentious legal status in the US) You are perhaps aware of the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword." Fun fact: deliberately spreading false facts about the US federal government, state and local governments is protected under the first amendment in the US, while deliberately spreading false facts about individuals, ethnic groups, legal entities, products, scientific findings, public events, and so on is not protected as free speech. No spoken or written word has harmed anyone at any point in human history. Claims to the contrary is factally incorrect. "Fighting words" do not "erupt" into physical violence. Individuals CHOOSE to engage in physical violence when they had every opportunity to choose not to. Words are not some magical spells or enchantments that magically force people to start punching or killing eachother. Such a belief invalidates every single legal system that ever tries to argue that people have personal responsibility over their actions. "The pen is mightier than the sword" is a fallacious statement. Has always been. Will always be. Now regarding your constant repetition and misrepresentation of what you call "facts": I'm done debating your dishonest and disingenous ass on that topic. I've already proven my point to anyone else reading this correspondence, and I know for a fact that I've got more union members agreeing with my perspective than with yours. So there really is no need trying to convert you to anything. I am content leaving you ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 14, 2018 21:16:53 GMT
I'm done debating your dishonest and disingenous ass on that topic. Check your language and your behaviour little man. I'll leave you with these pictures to think about... it starts with words, and then they take your rights away:     |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 15, 2018 12:56:42 GMT
The phrase the pen is mightier than the sword comes from the idea that a coorectly written word can topple a nation either by inspiring people, or decieving someone into attacking a nation. A sword on the other hand can only be used to kill. A Pen can lead to the death of nations, or the death of many people.
It is not supposed to mean you use a pen in a duel against a sword.
Ideas can topple nations. We don't use the pen to share ideas any more but the theory is still sound. That is exactly why the Russians were interfearing the the Us elections. Spreading the right idea can win you an ally or weaken an enemy.
Edit, I'm leaving the typo in, its too funny that I miss-spelled "Correctly written"
|
|
