|
Post by jiminix on Apr 30, 2017 15:40:31 GMT -7
Liberals rioting against a speaker because of their political beliefs. Is this going to be the next PC law to include politicism as a hate crime? And conservatives murdering doctors, nurses, and patients at Planned Parenthood, conservatives blowing up govt office buildings in Oklahoma City, conservatives setting off bombs at the Atlanta Olympics, conservatives lynching Emmet Till, conservatives killing gay and transgender people, etc., etc. See how easy it is to play that game? Is that the marketplace of ideas? Why not instead have a discussion on the proper limits of speech? For centuries, suppression of speech was the province of conservatives; it is only recently that a few progressives have dabbled with the tactic. What is a hate crime? Is incitement to hate a hate crime? It hasn't been enacted into law, but it certainly is a crime against the vision of the great American experiment in democracy. There is a lot that could be discussed rationally. But this is not what is done by conservative critics of the disruptions at conservative speaker events. If you want to hear rational, idea-based criticism of the disruption, you have to listen to the liberal side of it, which has been amply expressed, but the conservative party line pretends it doesn't exist. Universities are devoted to the values of truth, tolerance, and growth. It is a legitimate question whether a university's axiomatic commitment to free speech should include the provision of a prestigious platform to those who, like Milo Yianopoulos and Ann Coulter, make a lucrative income as the proven enemies of those fundamental values of truth, tolerance, and growth.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Apr 30, 2017 19:32:58 GMT -7
Those are two interesting attempts to justify liberal policies. Why don't you just tell the truth? Liberals hope to convince folks that they cannot survive or prosper without government help. It's that simple. This is an example of how conservatives lost their intellectual credibility. You compose a strawman, and then claim that the strawman is actually liberalism. That's not competing in the marketplace of ideas. Try a different strategy. Try to listen to what we say, and respond to that. You mean something such as this...."The Republican Party has been reduced to two ideas - cut taxes for the rich and discontinue govt oversight of the corporate world. On all other issues, their position is a knee-jerk opposition to any idea that Democrats have supported. " You see, jiminix, you've provided a good example of why liberals oppose free speech. (Their policies fail when subject to rational debate). Liberal politicians, in an effort to remain in power, have tried to embrace almost every smaller demographic by convincing them that they are victims in need of liberal protection. As those folks realized that they have been used only for votes, liberals are reduced to attacking free speech.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Apr 30, 2017 21:13:02 GMT -7
Really, no.
Republicans refuse to help find solutions to problems that people face today.
Like college costs and debt. Like medical insurance (which I'm sure their plan will be worse and not better). Like money in politics (the rich making legislation to help the rich through dollars). Like medicaid/care which is needed by many people. Like climate change which science backs but they deny. Like poverty that is a real problem.
The list could go on. We could even talk about terrorists and how we create them. But the right does not want to talk about these things at all. Instead they would rather just cut, cut, cut and cut more playing into the Koch brothers playbook. Not to even mention Social Security.
Why is it we are the richest nation on earth and yet other nations have medical for all, free college, family medical leave paid, Italy even has like 20 vacation days a year. Why are we where we are? Answer:
It don't help the rich...
And the establishment Democrats don't get a get of jail free card on this either.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on May 1, 2017 4:55:59 GMT -7
Someone seems to have fallen into a vat of Kool Aid.
And, from the same source:
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 1, 2017 5:24:09 GMT -7
I see it a bit of a different way. If a college student attends a college, they are paying for that college. They are keeping the lights on, paying for the place where the event will be held, paying for the chairs for people to sit in and so forth. Unfairly looking at someone and telling them to pay for something they don't support is wrong. They are trying to slam the door. The bad thing is the only way to get things done anymore is to be loud about it. I don't agree with riots and destroying property and such, but such actions did earn the desired outcome. There needs to be more direct communication in this country and if there was, things like riots would happen much less. These closed avenues of resolution do little to solve any problem. If this was the standard, then no speech would be allowed anywhere. As a non parasite taxpayer (i.e., not a liberal), my taxes go to pay for the colleges in the state where I live; any grants from the federal government are also dipping into the money that I paid in. Would I therefore have a say in these decisions as well if I was a California taxpayer? As a payer of federal taxes, wouldn't I have a say in California no matter what state is my home? The PARENTS of these left wing collegiate thugs are the ones who pay the bills as do the taxpayers in most states and even the poor souls buying lottery tickets help out. Do they have a say? If any one of them says that they don't like liberal professors poisoning these young minds, should those professors be fired? How about if a liberal says the same thing about conservative professors? Unlike the event in question, the students actually are forced to listen to these despicably biased leftist professors every day. The point is that that Constitution does not stipulate that free speech is restricted only to venues where all of the funding comes from agreeable folk. No one was forcing anyone to go listen to Ann Coulter, nor were there any restrictions on liberals if they want to bring in their own speakers. THAT'S free speech...I thought the free flow of ideas was what colleges were paid to encourage. Evidently, only liberal ideas are allowed. The last, undeniable point is that it is primarily liberals trying to stifle ideas that they agree with, not conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on May 1, 2017 6:14:54 GMT -7
I see it a bit of a different way. If a college student attends a college, they are paying for that college. They are keeping the lights on, paying for the place where the event will be held, paying for the chairs for people to sit in and so forth. Unfairly looking at someone and telling them to pay for something they don't support is wrong. They are trying to slam the door. The bad thing is the only way to get things done anymore is to be loud about it. I don't agree with riots and destroying property and such, but such actions did earn the desired outcome. There needs to be more direct communication in this country and if there was, things like riots would happen much less. These closed avenues of resolution do little to solve any problem. If this was the standard, then no speech would be allowed anywhere. As a non parasite taxpayer (i.e., not a liberal), my taxes go to pay for the colleges in the state where I live; any grants from the federal government are also dipping into the money that I paid in. Would I therefore have a say in these decisions as well if I was a California taxpayer? As a payer of federal taxes, wouldn't I have a say in California no matter what state is my home? The PARENTS of these left wing collegiate thugs are the ones who pay the bills as do the taxpayers in most states and even the poor souls buying lottery tickets help out. Do they have a say? If any one of them says that they don't like liberal professors poisoning these young minds, should those professors be fired? How about if a liberal says the same thing about conservative professors? Unlike the event in question, the students actually are forced to listen to these despicably biased leftist professors every day. The point is that that Constitution does not stipulate that free speech is restricted only to venues where all of the funding comes from agreeable folk. No one was forcing anyone to go listen to Ann Coulter, nor were there any restrictions on liberals if they want to bring in their own speakers. THAT'S free speech...I thought the free flow of ideas was what colleges were paid to encourage. Evidently, only liberal ideas are allowed. The last, undeniable point is that it is primarily liberals trying to stifle ideas that they agree with, not conservatives. Let me just add that it was a conservative based group of students that organized this event. I'm sure their parents paid for their attendance as well.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on May 1, 2017 6:42:26 GMT -7
You compose a strawman, and then claim that the strawman is actually liberalism. That's not competing in the marketplace of ideas. Try a different strategy. Try to listen to what we say, and respond to that. You mean something such as this...."The Republican Party has been reduced to two ideas - cut taxes for the rich and discontinue govt oversight of the corporate world. On all other issues, their position is a knee-jerk opposition to any idea that Democrats have supported." You see, jiminix, you've provided a good example of why liberals oppose free speech. (Their policies fail when subject to rational debate). Liberal politicians, in an effort to remain in power, have tried to embrace almost every smaller demographic by convincing them that they are victims in need of liberal protection. As those folks realized that they have been used only for votes, liberals are reduced to attacking free speech. You don't seem to, or don't choose to, grasp what the "marketplace of ideas" means. You quoted me above, and then responded with a bogus claim about what liberals oppose (which, in fact, no liberal actually opposes). If a person were interested in the "marketplace of ideas", he would actually address the quote, and try to explain how it is wrong - he would try to find a substantial list of Republican ideas (other than the two named) which are not merely reactions against positions that some Democrats have favored. If you can produce such a list, I will change my opinion - I'm not attached to this opinion about Republicans, I'm just interested in understanding what's true about Republicans. When I was growing up in the South, everybody seemed to understand that the Republicans were the party of big business and the rich. After Nixon and Goldwater lost, the Republican Party concluded that there aren't enough rich people to elect a Republican govt, so they had to find a way to bring lots of poor people into a party that opposed their interests. Thus the "Southern Strategy" was born, to oppose the Democratic Party's efforts to fight racism. The South, en masse, jumped on board with this new Republican Party. My fundamental view of politics is that the nation is made of its citizens, not its aristocrats and corporations. The primary concern of a government should be the good of all its citizens. Whatever political party is consistent with that view will get my support. We as a nation did not need the abominable institution of slavery, which the rest of the world had rejected, but which the South refused to give up voluntarily. Today, we are a rich nation, with the resources for a decent life for all our citizens. We don't need an economic underclass. A person with a job should not be struggling financially, and after several decades of work, a person should have a dignified and secure retirement. These benefits will accrue to the citizens of a rich nation in the natural course of events, unless a ruling class gains power and substantially diverts the nation's resources to itself. That's what has happened to our nation, and while it must not be mistakenly compared to slavery, it is morally and rationally unacceptable in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on May 1, 2017 7:03:42 GMT -7
Hoofie, thanks for posting those general descriptions of conservatism and liberalism. As I said early in this thread, conservatism in this country used to have a rational basis. Today, it no longer seems to. Until demonstrated otherwise, I will continue to believe that the Republican Party, the current standard bearer of U.S. conservatism, is essentially a party to benefit the wealthy, with a large cohort that supports the party out of their knee-jerk hatred of Democrats and Democratic positions.
Let me also point out that the Wikipedia descriptions focus on conservatism and liberalism as philosophical and historical generalities, and on some points may differ from conservatism and liberalism as currents in today's U.S. politics.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 1, 2017 7:24:14 GMT -7
I see it a bit of a different way. If a college student attends a college, they are paying for that college. They are keeping the lights on, paying for the place where the event will be held, paying for the chairs for people to sit in and so forth. Unfairly looking at someone and telling them to pay for something they don't support is wrong. They are trying to slam the door. The bad thing is the only way to get things done anymore is to be loud about it. I don't agree with riots and destroying property and such, but such actions did earn the desired outcome. There needs to be more direct communication in this country and if there was, things like riots would happen much less. These closed avenues of resolution do little to solve any problem. If this was the standard, then no speech would be allowed anywhere. As a non parasite taxpayer (i.e., not a liberal), my taxes go to pay for the colleges in the state where I live; any grants from the federal government are also dipping into the money that I paid in. Would I therefore have a say in these decisions as well if I was a California taxpayer? As a payer of federal taxes, wouldn't I have a say in California no matter what state is my home? The PARENTS of these left wing collegiate thugs are the ones who pay the bills as do the taxpayers in most states and even the poor souls buying lottery tickets help out. Do they have a say? If any one of them says that they don't like liberal professors poisoning these young minds, should those professors be fired? How about if a liberal says the same thing about conservative professors? Unlike the event in question, the students actually are forced to listen to these despicably biased leftist professors every day. The point is that that Constitution does not stipulate that free speech is restricted only to venues where all of the funding comes from agreeable folk. No one was forcing anyone to go listen to Ann Coulter, nor were there any restrictions on liberals if they want to bring in their own speakers. THAT'S free speech...I thought the free flow of ideas was what colleges were paid to encourage. Evidently, only liberal ideas are allowed. The last, undeniable point is that it is primarily liberals trying to stifle ideas that they agree with, not conservatives. These kids also pay good money for their education. As I said, it's a catch 22 in my book. How many teachers would have forced these kids to listen to these speakers for a test or grade of some sort? That would have happened to some degree. I support free speech but I also support the freedom of choice. And your freedom of speech is not more important then my freedom to choose. If your free speech forced me to endure something I don't enjoy, your infringing on me. It's a catch 22.
|
|
jorj
New Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by jorj on May 1, 2017 9:04:17 GMT -7
Liberals rioting against a speaker because of their political beliefs. Is this going to be the next PC law to include politicism as a hate crime? I am torn on that issue. I support free speech but I should not have to listen to someone in Walmart or have someone forcibly come into my home and speech in a way I don't support. College kids are paying much money for their education. Should they as consumers be forced to listen to someone they don't like? It's a catch 22 in my book. On one hand I support free speech and on the other I support the right to also get what I want from what I pay for. IMHO, politics should not be involved in school anyways.
|
|
jorj
New Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by jorj on May 1, 2017 9:06:42 GMT -7
Liberals rioting against a speaker because of their political beliefs. Is this going to be the next PC law to include politicism as a hate crime? I am torn on that issue. I support free speech but I should not have to listen to someone in Walmart or have someone forcibly come into my home and speech in a way I don't support. College kids are paying much money for their education. Should they as consumers be forced to listen to someone they don't like? It's a catch 22 in my book. On one hand I support free speech and on the other I support the right to also get what I want from what I pay for. IMHO, politics should not be involved in school anyways. How can someone force you to listen to anything in Wallmart? If someone forces themselves into your home, SHOOT THEM. That'll shut em up.
|
|
|
Post by osha on May 1, 2017 9:14:46 GMT -7
I am torn on that issue. I support free speech but I should not have to listen to someone in Walmart or have someone forcibly come into my home and speech in a way I don't support. College kids are paying much money for their education. Should they as consumers be forced to listen to someone they don't like? It's a catch 22 in my book. On one hand I support free speech and on the other I support the right to also get what I want from what I pay for. IMHO, politics should not be involved in school anyways. How can someone force you to listen to anything in Wallmart? If someone forces themselves into your home, SHOOT THEM. That'll shut em up. I have guns and know how to use them. My point is, if I am a paying consumer somewhere, I should not be forced to listen to anything I don't want to. The right makes it seem as if one should be strapped to a chair with a muzzle on because others have free speech. I say that free speech does not trump the freedom of choice.
|
|
|
Post by badman on May 1, 2017 9:17:53 GMT -7
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race, I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place. Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn: But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind, So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace, Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place, But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch, They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch; They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings; So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife) Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Source: Kipling.org
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 1, 2017 9:49:38 GMT -7
Emmet Till? Really? Nothing recent? You have just attempted to smear all conservatives with the actions of less than a dozen people over a SIXTY year period. And it would take some pretzel like contortions to prove that have of that list were actually conservatives. OK...I'll see your handful of examples and raise you one liberal genocide. Liberals will slaughter 2000 unborn children TODAY. Proper limits of speech? Who gets to decide what's "proper"? In 1775, the British found us in rebellion over such totalitarian thinking. If "incitement to hate" is a hate crime then every protester against Coulter would be guilty. "Truth, tolerance and growth" Who gets to decide what is the "truth"? Is that person's idea somehow more valid than Coulter's or yours or mine? And it's certainly not a sign of "tolerance" when the ideas of a conservative are not tolerated Finally, how can one "grow" when opposing ideas and opinions are banned and attacked?
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on May 1, 2017 10:02:11 GMT -7
These kids also pay good money for their education. As I said, it's a catch 22 in my book. How many teachers would have forced these kids to listen to these speakers for a test or grade of some sort? That would have happened to some degree. I support free speech but I also support the freedom of choice. And your freedom of speech is not more important then my freedom to choose. If your free speech forced me to endure something I don't enjoy, your infringing on me. It's a catch 22. Who is forcing these kids? No one. Even if a professor required attendance by some students, no one is required to adhere to or believe in those ideas. On the other hand, the despicable snowflakes that threatened violence have made their ideas mandatory through the threat of violence. The cancellation of the Coulter event took that choice away from those individuals who wanted to hear her ideas; doesn't that "infringe" on them? "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
|
|