from the when-the-First-Amendment-isn't-clear-enough dept.
On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent.
It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.
In other cases — as with conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley last week — the event is called off.
Now, a handful of states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona, have passed or introduced legislation designed to prevent these incidents from happening. The bills differ from state to state, but they're generally based on a model written by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona.
The model bill would require public universities to remain neutral on political issues, prevent them from disinviting speakers, and impose penalties for students and others who interfere with these speakers.
The author of the model bill argues that the neutrality stipulation is necessary for public institutions funded by tax dollars, "who shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with." In response to the legislation, a Democratic North Carolina legislator criticized the bill as an unnecessary "regulation of a constitutional right." The story also mentions that "Critics say this kind of legislation could hinder a university's ability to regulate hate speech on campus," but the bill author responds that hate speech is "not well-defined in the law."
Although the proposed legislation varies by state, the model bill linked above recommends a number of initiatives, from clear campus policies on protecting free speech to severe disciplinary actions for students who interfere with that right. Perhaps the strongest section of the model bill would require that "Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled" (Section 1.9).
In other free speech news, USA Today reports that the FCC is launching an investigation into an "obscene" joke by Stephen Colbert concerning Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which caused a Twitter firestorm and led to a trending #FireColbert hashtag. While the joke was sexually explicit, the offensive word was bleeped in broadcast. CNN has argued that the FCC is merely doing its job in investigating "a number" of complaints, but Slate notes the high legal threshold that would be necessary for a fine in this case, given the late hour of the broadcast and the three-pronged test for obscenity.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Sunday May 07 2017, @07:42PM (6 children)
That is to say so long as there's a way to use it as a stage prop they'll happily pretend they care about it. Then you'll later hear your county government employees refer to it in slurs.
The fact that Arizona has anything to do with it [phoenixnewtimes.com] immediately makes me suspicious it's an attempt to stop people from rejecting the idea of religion in their studies. Though the point is valid that you can't suppress free speech no matter how toxic it is, it frustrates me so much that they pretend that it's anything besides an attempt to push their cult's dogma into academia. I never had to deal with the protest cunts - since the people who were at a community college can't afford privileged shit like that. We just went to classes. But I can quite certainly say that the ugliest "conservative" opinions imaginable were at the very least tolerated by the campus.
Arizona is also one of the states that likes to blame the opioid and meth issue on people who are fundamentally living life wrong. You know. By having the gall to fall into poverty /or have varying pigmentation. Since it's one of the states that is good at keeping people ignorant [phoenixnewtimes.com]. Probably because southern. And inbreds. And rednecks. (that's our word)
If the Arizona state government is participating in something. Look at it close. Especially if it seems like a progressive cause. Because I guarantee you after years of first hand experience there is something fucky in it.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday May 07 2017, @07:47PM
I meant to link to this article [azcentral.com] for link #2. With this video of total fabrication [youtube.com] to show how far they'll go. Yeah this is another one of my fucking weed posts. But AZ has made me suffer for years due to lies about healthcare and social services. It's the only material I've got that isn't just downright depressing. They engage pretty deeply into the political manipulation.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:02PM (3 children)
From your first link:
So you believe that Russian Hackers and Globalist Meddlers should be able to finance and organize violent protests on our home soil? I have nothing wrong with protesting, but there's a big difference between organic movements and the kind of paid organized thuggery of the kind our own government uses to undermine other governments -- Organically, a bunch of likeminded protesters would get together with a few chants and a leader or two would rise to the top -- but what we're seeing are movements who have handlers rather than leaders, with their rabid attack-dogs commanded from the shadows.
All these Antifa thugs and this BLM shit literally came out of nowhere. Anti-fascist organizations have existed since at least early last century, but something smells funny about this current domestic iteration. I'd take it a few steps further than what Arizona's bill offered -- My bill would charge Color Revolution-style protest organizers with racketeering and sedition, and also RICO statutes if any protesters or protest staff were paid. The penalties, if convicted, would be stiff and would include prison time (Joe Arpaio-style, making them all wear pink pannies and puttin' them in the hole) as well as forfeiture of all assets and outlawing of NGOs or other groups associated with the protests. Arsonists and organizers would both be placed on the arson registry, if applicable to the state. Colleges and police departments who do not provide a safe learning experience and free speech will have their funding pulled and the decision-makers gutted from their organizations.
There's a lot of things wrong with Arizona, but the proposition of that bill is not one of them. Hell, if I could escape California's idiocy and go live in a cabin in the White Mountains, you bet your ass I'd do just that.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:09PM (1 child)
My opinion is normally more or less this: If it allows the government to silence dissent easily under a false pretense. I don't want it.
I didn't want the intimidating legal profiling for the same reason. Your idealism is far from reality I'm sorry to say. The reality is that it's another excuse to staple people's mouths shut by a horrible state with long running corruption [wikipedia.org] problems at all levels.
In other words yes, per my Russian handler's orders I am fine with russian hackers and BLM thugs. Which sound like a new subway sammich promoted by DMX. Badass.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:28PM
You have my full agreement on that principle. The solution to horrible people saying horrible things is good people pointing out how awful they are, and then everyone laughing at them and ignoring them. Not using force against them, not invoking the state.
When, however, they do initiate force, it's legitimate to retaliate with the state force as one option. This can already be done using existing laws against assault, battery, deprivation of civil rights, etc. for the most part. (I'm also of the opinion we have quite enough laws on the books already and any new laws should be required to simplify the existing law rather than simply adding onto the incomprehensible bulk of it.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 08 2017, @05:51PM
So you believe that Russian Hackers and Globalist Meddlers should be able to finance and organize violent protests on our home soil?
Your double-standard is showing, Eth.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday May 08 2017, @03:31PM
Do laws in Arizona apply to rich and poor equally alike?
Does Arizona selectively enforce its law [phoenixnewtimes.com] that allows only two dildos per household [dumblaws.com]? Does this law only apply to poor or non white people? Are rich, white, 'heterosexual', 'christian', males the only ones allowed to have more than two dildos per household?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @07:48PM (42 children)
Any stats on the number of applications to unis pulling this shit yet?
Hopefully the market will weed out such practices, but it'll be damned slow.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @08:30PM (41 children)
The worst thing on a college campus is a bunch of off-campus ideologues stirring shit. I remember when it was the truly deranged Christians that used to show up with some one book (I mean, dude, we got a library with millions of those things!) shouting about how we were all sinners, and especially that female students were all prostitutes, or something.
And then there were the skinheads. How you can make a movement out of a hairstyle beats me, especially since it is a hairstyle (no hair) meant to prevent head lice among men living in close quarters, like slaves, soldiers, monks, Argives, deplorables and expendables, you get the idea. My college was very diverse, as they say these days, so the skinheads made a big thing out of the fact that they were "non-racist" skinheads. Never quite make sense to me. . .
Finally, Freaking College Republicans. I understand that it must be rough when you have decided to drive your father's Oldsmobile instead of rebelling like all the normal kids. I understand that it must be demoralizing to have very intelligent people as your professors while you are still a Republican. I also understand the social isolation of being part of such a small and despised minority, where you are afraid to tell people who you really are out of a fear of rejection and being ostracised. So you join a club. Of course, "young" Republicans is very like "non-racist" skinheads.
But why oh why do the Young Republicans insist on trying to invite the very enemies of academe into the heart of the campus? I think it has nothing to do with free speech, it is all about revenge. And it seems there is beginning to be an entire industry dedicated to provide right-wing nut-job provocateurs for these poor oppressed baby Republicans. Ann Coulter is one, Milo Cockostuffalus is another. Too bad Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and Durterte are all dead!
And of course, what the infantile Republicans want is for there to be a scene, for "Libtards" to protest, and even for violence (or a reasonable facsimile for the news cameras) to break out and the speech be cancelled. Then they can claim that they are being suppressed, instead of having to admit that they are rude, drunk, and stupid, and intend to go through life that way. Now they want to bring in the State, to regulate speech at a University? Is this not as much an attack on freedom of thought and the autonomy of universities as the King of England's appointment of a Chancellor to Oxford? Freedom that only uses freedom to oppress freedom and stir up shit needs to be rejected. This is just like that whole "politically correct" whine, and the "religious freedom" to hate gays and refuse them service, keep women in marital bondage, and own slaves, right? Right?
(Previous poster absolutely right about Arizona, BTW. I no longer patronize any business located in that state, have put off visiting the Grand Canyon until Arizona is repealed and replaced.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday May 07 2017, @09:07PM (31 children)
But why oh why do the Young Republicans insist on trying to invite the very enemies of academe into the heart of the campus? I think it has nothing to do with free speech, it is all about revenge.
I suggest it has something to do with the tint of the glasses you insist on wearing.
The liberal crap that has held sway for the last 30 years is just as offensive as any young republican speakers. Probably more so, since much of the liberal rhetoric is designed to undercut the constitution.
Eventually the pendulum swings the other way - usually once in everyone's lifetime. But every time it does so it its a clear sign that things were pushed way too far in one direction, and some balance must be restored. Clue: you do't always get to have it your way forever.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday May 07 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)
Say it ain't so, frojack! You were a Collage Reptilican? My condolences.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 07 2017, @09:34PM
Back in the day, I was barely aware of politics. I had to pay my own way through college, which left little time for that sort of thing. Mill work every summer. Part time work every quarter.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Troll) by Whoever on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:05PM (26 children)
You are so fucking naive.
The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years. Reagan was probably close to where many of the Democrats are now.
The USA has been sold down the river by Robert Mercer, in concert with Steve Bannon and others. To whom? I'm not sure, but the influence of Russia looks very suspicious.
The emphasis on fossil fuels at the expense of renewables is runs 100% counter to real American interests. Russia needs fossil fuels to have a higher prices.
The sad fact is that ignorant fucks like you can't see how wrong you are. The suggestion that the USA has been moving left for the last 30 years shows how out of contact with reality you are.
So, I am looking forward for the pendulum to swing, and soon, but not in the direction that you think.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:21PM (22 children)
Et tu.
"The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years. Reagan was probably close to where many of the Democrats are now."
Oh pshaw. The motion is consistently in the opposite direction. It takes about 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative *without changing a single position.*
I remember Reagan. I don't remember any legal dope or transexual bathrooms, in fact simply acknowledging that gay men existed was still somewhat socially unacceptable. The country has in no way become more conservative. Quite the opposite, not just the country but the Republican party itself has become drastically more liberal in many very obvious and visible ways.
Now 'left' and 'right,' 'liberal' and 'conservative' are probably not the best ways to analyze this, but just on your own terms you're making no sense, what you're saying has no resemblance to reality. Given that, it's no surprise you finish off with an unironic appeal to Russophobia. When you go too far in one direction or another reality warps and cranial rectosis often occurs as a result.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:57PM (6 children)
Perhaps on some matters the country has become more liberal.
But on fiscal matters?
Look at all the states that are restricting access to abortions: is that a move to the left?
Let's face it, we have had 30 years of trickle-down economics and the disparity between the wealthy and poor has only increased.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:16PM (5 children)
"Let's face it, we have had 30 years of trickle-down economics and the disparity between the wealthy and poor has only increased."
We've had (quite a bit more than 30 years of) increasing centralized control of the economy, and no surprise, the people that wield that control have benefited greatly from the arrangement, at the expense of the rest of us. It has mattered little if at all whether the blue team or the red team was in power at any given point, the problem is bipartisan.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Whoever on Monday May 08 2017, @01:09AM (4 children)
No, it isn't. That's just another falsehood promulgated by the religious right.
But you still push an agenda that the country needs a correction to the right? Please try to keep on message. It's like trying to argue with an anti-vaxxer: one argument is knocked down and they just invent another line.
If there is a bi-partisan issue, it's because the center of politics has moved so far to the right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @01:20AM (2 children)
Yeah, actually, it is. In much of Europe it's only unrestricted in the first trimester.
"That's just another falsehood promulgated by the religious right."
Is that what's called an 'alternative fact?' So all the normal sources of info are wrong on this, because some nebulous religous right conspiracy managed to infiltrate each and every one and publish lies under their stamp? Is that really your argument?
"But you still push an agenda that the country needs a correction to the right? "
Where did I say that? We haven't been talking about what I think the country needs, we've been talking about what I see the country doing.
It's swinging hard to the right, as a reaction against the absolutely awful state of the left. And rather than take some criticism on board and clean up its act and become what the country needs, I see the left (for the most part) sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting the same obnoxious BS even louder.
If I thought this country *needs* a hard swing to the right I'd be pleased as punch about that. I'm not, not at all. Are you capable of comprehending such subtleties?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:56AM
Yeah, actually, it is. In much of Europe it's only unrestricted in the first trimester.
That is exactly how it should be. Arguing about anything after the 1st trimester is ignorant, abortions should only happen before then and are generally only performed when the mother's life is in danger from carrying to term. You should be cheering on Europe if they really do make late term abortions harder.
clean up its act and become what the country needs
Please list the things that need cleaning up. If you do have such a subtle view on US politics then enlighten us so we can see if we agree on any of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @07:43AM
Yeah, actually, it is. In much of Europe it's only unrestricted in the first trimester.
Maybe that's true. I don't know.
What I do know is that at best that's a lie by omission.
It doesn't matter if abortion is technically legal if there are no places a woman can go to get an abortion.
For example, In Missouri there is 1 abortion clinic left. [theguardian.com]
That's because the religious right has been going after abortion indirectly, with ridiculous laws like requiring abortion clinics to have doctors with attending privileges at a hospital and then discouraging hospitals from giving those privileges to any doctors who work at abortion clinics.
Other abusive laws are things like waiting periods which require the woman to get counseling and then wait 24-48 hours before having the procedure. If you have to travel 200 miles to get to a clinic and then have to wait another day for treatment that is a significant burden, it means time off from work, money for a motel, etc.
Missouri isn't unique either:
Abortions down in Alabama: Tough laws close clinics, cut numbers [al.com]
Louisiana down to 2 abortion clinics [nola.com]
The number of abortion clinics in Texas had halved to 19. [texastribune.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @03:14PM
No, it isn't. That's just another falsehood promulgated by the religious right.
Europe is a big fucking place buddy. Think beyond the usual Cuckistan countries of the West/North Europe. In many, there are few exceptions, (like Poland). In some states there are no exceptions for abortions at ALL (See Ireland)!
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:02PM (14 children)
And perhaps, before you accuse me of naivete, you should read this interesting article [theguardian.com] about how democracy in the USA and UK has been hacked by powerful wealthy interests.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:25PM (13 children)
Their apparent collective inability to understand that simple message, as seen by so many elaborate attempts to invent some sort of alternative meaning, appears to guarantee they'll lose the next one too.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @04:31AM (12 children)
You do realize Trump lost the popular vote right? The electorate actually disagrees with the minority of cowardly nationalists who also happen to have pretty much the entire population of neo-nazis as well. You should really think long and hard about who your compatriots are and what they stand for. Maybe research the issues from an objective standpoint and review actual facts instead of letting your emotions get triggered by click-bait stories.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @04:51AM (11 children)
You mean more people nationwide voted for Clinton, I presume, and that may be true, by a fairly slim margin. She won the big cities where she was always going to win, but the large majority of the country repudiated her, and our system specifically requires the sort of diversity in support that Trump got and Clinton did not in order to win.
My read of the electorate is that they are so sick of the established political authorities and orthodoxies that they intentionally chose a clown for the top post rather than rubberstamp the supposedly inevitable Clinton succession. If you disagree please, feel free to post an explanation that fits the facts and makes sense and isn't some sort of intricate psychothriller plotline that only happens in paperback.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @06:15AM
You realize there is no such thing as 'the popular vote' in that race, right?
Arik, calm down. Of course there is such a thing, and Trump lost it. Burns him to no end, just as the diminutive size of his Johnson, but that is neither here nor there. Loss of the popular vote means the President does not have a "mandate", yes, he is president, but the majority of people do not support him, nor his policies, nor his executive orders, so even though the might have rejected the alternative, and voted for the "joke" candidate, that does not mean that he has the authority to rule. And given how much Congress has paid attention to his budget, no such authority exists. Trump is my president, he is my joke president. Not really a president. A New York Real Estate scammer, who accidentally became president. An old man too old to grab women who thinks that being president will help with that. A man with daddy issues, who thinks, that finally, now that he is president, he will be good enough for the old man, and his Dad might give him back his switchblade. Pathetic. Looserer.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @03:20PM (8 children)
You realize there is no such thing as 'the popular vote' in that race, right?
Really don't see what point you're trying to make here.
but the large majority of the country repudiated her
If you count everybody who didn't vote for her as "repudiating" her, sort of, but that's clearly crazy. An abstention is an abstention; you can't accurately read anything more into it without talking to specific voters. And 51.8% of voters is not a "large majority."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @06:48PM (7 children)
There is no popular vote. That's not how Presidents are elected in the US. This is really basic grade-school civics stuff it shouldn't be hard to understand. The vote tally was 304-227 in favor of Trump. This 'popular vote' is a fiction that our establishment media decided some years ago they preferred to pay attention to instead, but it's just that, a fiction, it doesn't mean anything.
"If you count everybody who didn't vote for her as "repudiating" her, sort of, but that's clearly crazy."
Is it? The media and all the establishment political figures came out for months putting this guy down at every opportunity, ridiculing him, and every time they did it his support increased. Don't pretend that the Bernie voters (rightly!) incensed at the corrupt DNC machine didn't choose to stay home or vote Green knowing full well this could put Trump in there and deciding it was worth the risk because Clinton really is that awful.
Trump's pretty awful but as we've seen with both parties united against him he can't get much done. Clinton would have been able to ram her agenda through Congress on the fast track instead.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @07:05PM (6 children)
There is no popular vote. That's not how Presidents are elected in the US. This is really basic grade-school civics stuff it shouldn't be hard to understand. The vote tally was 304-227 in favor of Trump. This 'popular vote' is a fiction that our establishment media decided some years ago they preferred to pay attention to instead, but it's just that, a fiction, it doesn't mean anything.
The popular vote isn't what (directly) elects the president, no, but it still takes place. They tally the popular vote by district then run it through the electoral college layer.
Technically there's no rule in place that electors *have* to vote according to the state popular vote, but in practice that's what everybody does. So the "fiction" is really a direct correlation. In a somewhat similar fashion, technically the British Monarch has the power to refuse to sign any bill Parliament passes. Of course, this hasn't happened since the 1600s and there would be a huge panic if she actually did. So do you consider Britain a monarchy or a representative government?
Is it? The media and all the establishment political figures came out for months putting this guy down...
Oh, so you switched from hard vote totals to general public feelings mid-paragraph. That's why I was confused.
Trump's pretty awful but as we've seen with both parties united against him he can't get much done. Clinton would have been able to ram her agenda through Congress on the fast track instead.
Yeah, that's what I was hoping really hard would happen before the election.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @08:01PM (4 children)
What you're calling the popular vote is not a vote for President, but a vote for electors. It seems you do understand how it works, why do you speak as if it was an entirely different thing?
"Oh, so you switched from hard vote totals to general public feelings mid-paragraph. That's why I was confused."
Sorry if I confused you, but both are important.
"Yeah, that's what I was hoping really hard would happen before the election."
That Clintons agenda would go through smoothly?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @08:16PM (3 children)
What you're calling the popular vote is not a vote for President, but a vote for electors.
Well then they should put the electors on the ballot instead of the president's name :P
It seems you do understand how it works, why do you speak as if it was an entirely different thing?
I'm not; you're the one who said the popular vote doesn't exist. I'm saying the popular vote is more or less another way of looking at the electoral vote. The electoral college is basically a less-accurate way of doing a popular vote anyway... (yes I know there's other reasons for it but still)
That Clintons agenda would go through smoothly?
That Trump would be fought by everyone on all the crazy stuff he tries to do.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @09:34PM (2 children)
They do. That makes me wonder if you didn't vote or just didn't read your ballot.
"That Trump would be fought by everyone on all the crazy stuff he tries to do."
Unfortunately even the relatively sensible things he wants to do generate the same opposition - even moreso, actually. But yes, it's heartening to see all these folks that have worshipped at the altar of unlimited presidential power for more than a decade suddenly discover the idea of limited powers, at least in some context.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)
Well then they should put the electors on the ballot instead of the president's name :P
They do. That makes me wonder if you didn't vote or just didn't read your ballot.
This [guim.co.uk] is what the ballots look like in my state. From an image search [google.com] it looks like we're a bit atypical (but hardly unique) in that regard. But that's no surprise; we're stupid about a lot of stuff politically here.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @10:19PM
I'm not from SD but I'm used to ballots that look very much like this one: https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2016-Presidential-Ballot-Access_clip_image001.jpg
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @09:31PM
I actually agree that the situations are similar. There is a divergence between legal fact and popular understanding and it's strengthened by custom that's contrary to law. It's made even muddier in the UK by the lack of a written Constitution, but it does seem that, in fact, the UK is still a Monarchy, albeit one where the Monarch is unlikely to exercise power out of fear that if she did it might suddenly cease to be a Monarchy. That's not such a long ways off from the philosophy of the USA founders, limited government, checks and balances, it's all coming out of the same common traditions.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:34PM
supposing that the electoral college voted in a loose cannon for the purpose of shaking up the current political structure is an intricate psychothriller.
look at it differently, climate science doesn't tell us exactly what a radical shift in temp will do to the planet, some folks argue that Los Angeles will be underwater in 6 months, some argue that plants will be happier with more heat and co2. the scientists aargue specifically that we can't know the result of such a large system shifting radically in such a short time, and that small, incremental changes are more predictable just by virtue of smaller and fewer factors.
if 400-odd people really did think they could predict the result of an orthoganal change in direction of our political infrastructure, they are incredibly irresponsible, at best, and thrilling psychos at worst
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08 2017, @11:37AM (1 child)
"The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years"
I have no idea from what point in time you have made your post. I am posting from May of 2017, and the US has most definitely NOT been moving right. The momentum is actually toward the left - witness the fact that a half-white man got elected to the White House in the past decade. In times past, only a real-white man could have been elected. Witness the number of shrill women in congress - in times past, you would only have seen males, and slim chance that any of them would be non-white, half-white, off-white, or whatever.
This is what makes the left so very obviously crazy - they are changing things in this country, but they pretend that they are not. "The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years" Preposterous. That statement has no connection with reality at all.
You've forgotten gay rights, women's rights, black rights, and so much more. What period of time are you comparing today to? Give me a precise point in time, when this country was further left than it is today. Something about "The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years", right? Well let me just look at May 8, 1987 - pull up my trusty search engine, and enter that date in search . . .
All I'm finding on the first go-around is triva - Gary Hart and Donna Rice affair - the Loughgall ambush in Ireland - that stupid assed Dallas TV series killed off one of it's characters - Doris Stokes died. Nothing about a leftist utopia on that day. Houston Astros at Montreal? Maybe that was leftist, I don't know. Oh - the NYT news summary here: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/08/nyregion/news-summary-friday-may-8-1987.html [nytimes.com] Iran-contra hearings. Yeah, now THAT sounds like a leftist utopia - pushing drugs to get guns.
I wonder how old you are. If you're still a young person, your PERCEPTION of the political climate in the US has probably changed some. If you happened to grow up in a liberal area, and then grew up to find that the entire nation isn't populated by leftist crazies, then your perception of the nation would have changed drastically.
1987 - I lived through it. Believe me, from about 1960-something up through today, this nation has moved further and further left, without much, if any, backpedaling. Start with the first Catholic president, then move on from there. Two or three steps left, with an occasional half-step right.
It is only in the past couple of years that the right has begun to re-assert itself. The Trumpster, who is hated by all the left, embodies that assertion. Trump, the populist choice.
Get used to the idea that the US is not a socialist or a leftist country. It never has been, and I hope it never becomes one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @03:14PM
The momentum is actually toward the left - witness the fact that a half-white man got elected to the White House in the past decade. In times past, only a real-white man could have been elected.
I'll see your "white dude" and raise you a "white Protestant dude"--note the only Catholic president we've had so far got assassinated in rather suspicious circumstances.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @01:18PM
The USA has been sold down the river by Robert Mercer, in concert with Steve Bannon and others. To whom? I'm not sure, but the influence of Russia looks very suspicious.
Why are Russian cooties supposedly so peculiarly effective? They're not the only ones who've heard of propaganda.
The emphasis on fossil fuels at the expense of renewables is runs 100% counter to real American interests. Russia needs fossil fuels to have a higher prices.
The obvious rebuttal here is the huge investment and industry in fossil fuels in the US which completely undermines your "100%" claim. It will be a huge cost one way or another when the US moves away from fossil fuels for good. This includes not just the cost of retooling electricity and transportation infrastructure, but also the competitive disadvantage with countries that don't take the plunge.
The later that gets put off, the better a position the US will be in when they do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:34AM (1 child)
You should really take a long hard look at what you are opposing. The only part of the pendulum that has swung too far is PC culture which has taught generations of kids to be too sensitive and censor a boat load of words. But all things considered that is far from the worst excess and hasn't been formalized in any actual legislation. I'll take that swing of the pendulum any day over what nationalist fear-mongering conservatives do when they have power. Their choices directly ruin lives, imprison people, and generally make the world a worse place.
Maybe there is a reason humanity has gotten more liberal over time? Oh right, cause liberalism (AKA freedom lovers) are the ones who strive for humanity's more noble traits. I'm sure there are some counter examples, but don't kid yourself frojack. You are on the side of ignorance and fear, you just want everyone to bend over for your snowflake feelings because transgender people make you uncomfortable, other cultures make you uncomfortable, and you think the US should just be a normal white picket fence country.
Tell me, what exactly is the pendulum doing now? How is it swinging back in your favor? How exactly is Trump's MAGA working? Can you articulate anything coherent beyond angry rebuttals? Can your ideas stand up to critical analysis and the actual facts?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @01:35PM
The only part of the pendulum that has swung too far is PC culture which has taught generations of kids to be too sensitive and censor a boat load of words.
That's like saying the only part of German culture that "swung too far" in the 1930s were the Nazis. Sometimes one dominant part is all that is needed to thoroughly corrupt a culture. PC culture by itself warps everything, including how we think - the basis of any education.
However, I think we'll find that there's a lot more such problems at colleges than just that. For example, I can think of various utopian ideologies that still have root in college campuses (particularly, Marxism), the multi-cultural animal farm where all cultures and ethnicities are equal, but some are more equal than others, the unlawful persecution without due process of people accused of rape, and a general entitlement mentality that demands things without feeling the need to provide anything in exchange.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @12:22AM (4 children)
But why oh why do the Young Republicans insist on trying to invite the very enemies of academe into the heart of the campus?
Where else would they invite them? That's where the lecture hall space is after all. Needless to say, I'm not seeing the problem here. Being an enemy of academe is not that big a deal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @04:35AM (3 children)
Spoken like a truly ignorant fool. History shows your place, and it is in the footnotes where they mention that some close minded fools tried to maintain the status quo because they fear change.
When your kind makes it into the main pages it is overwhelmingly about the persecutions and genocides of those you don't like. Good job graduating the *youth* academy /s
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @06:52AM (2 children)
For the record, this supposed law sounds like a terrible idea. And of a nature that runs counter to libertarianism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @07:54AM (1 child)
There's no genocide going on in the US
What about the White Genocide that is taking place right here in the United States, khallow? White people are dying every day, and no one cares! They are dying in ATV accidents, in Monster Truck Accidents, in drunk accidents, in home wiring accidents, in "I thought it was unloaded" accidents, and in "I didn't know she was married" accidents! It is a veritable genocide of white trash, I am telling you! And you think we don't need to do something about it? I myself just ran over two white Meth addicts on my way home! And I had to shoot an opiod addict that was trying to steal my laundry soap! White dude! So tell us, khallow, who is the enemy of academe, in the face of a white genocide? At this rate, pretty soon there will be no stupid white people left!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @12:51PM
(Score: 1) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Monday May 08 2017, @03:31AM (2 children)
Duterte is old, but he's not dead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte [wikipedia.org]
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @07:44AM (1 child)
Duterte is old, but he's not dead
Oh, and you think I did not know that? Was not the misspelling of the name enough to tip you off? Are you so fucking stupid that you think that Ann Coulter has anything to say to a University audience? Seriously, these people can read! And think for their selves! And they would know that Duterte is not dead (although, if his policies were generalized, he would be), that Jefferson Davis is dead, that Andrew Jackson would not have had "lunch" with Milo Youcominmeandiinyou. Still out on the great abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, who missed the Trump's In-auguration:: augur: a large drill, a helix, a way to screw the American people: No wonder Frederick missed it, as did so many other Americans. So many. In fact, it was the so many-est missed inauguration of all history! Tiny hands. Tiny minds. Inability to detect sarcasm. a-z, you are an imbecile.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @12:58PM
Oh, and you think I did not know that?
Sounds more like that now than before your reply. At least any ignorance of yours on that particular matter has now been dissipated. And is this free associating whining a stand up comedy thing these days? Starting to wonder if there's a fad and where it might have come from.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:43PM
I remember when it was the truly deranged Christians that used to show up with some one book (I mean, dude, we got a library with millions of those things!) shouting about how we were all sinners, and especially that female students were all prostitutes, or something.
I see I'm not the only one one who has had a run in with Brother Jed [wikipedia.org]. He was fun to troll, we had one of my buddies who looked a lot like the standard picture of white Jesus (sandy blond hair, short beard, tall) dress up in in a robe and sandals and carry a whip around asking people to let him pay for Brother Jed's sins. Brother Jed blew a gasket and almost landed a punch.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday May 07 2017, @08:31PM (15 children)
The discussion in the summary uses a lot of wishy washy talking about controversy as though every campus discussion about GPL v BSD or linux v BSD or vi v emacs or point nine repeating equals one (or not) is resulting in bloodshed.
The reality is violent leftists are using violence against right wingers plus some caught-in-crossfire middle of road along with sudden outbursts of tactical nihilism.
Its a long standing cycle in a system with left wing academia and journalism, see Germany in the 20s / 30s or any number of 3rd world-ish dictatorships. Sure as sunset follows sunrise, left wing agitation only increases with academia and journalist support until the right and the general population have had enough, then out come the ovens and helicopter rides and camps. Then just as sure as sunrise follows sunset the retcon will be that the right "always wanted to do that" which in some cases is true but most vanilla normies go along with the camps, helo rides, and ovens because they're sick of school and media supported violence. Asking the question as a normie, why should my kid die for some meaningless political signalling, when the people causing the innocent deaths would fit perfectly well in that oven over there...
Leftists seem to have a suicide complex because there's only two historical outcomes. If the revolution comes, the soviet model shows the abrasive intelligentsia will be liquidated faster than even the capitalist pigs, and if the revolution doesn't come the ovens are now in pre-heat, the helicopters are getting their pre-flight, the FEMA camps are getting built... Its like the only thing more cowardly than meaningless suicide is doing the antifa thing for awhile because too scared to actually do it, maybe a nice camp guard will pull the trigger...
Something that always bothers me about leftists is they ruin stuff and abandon it while demanding other places become ruined. I mean, if Rhodesia, Detroit, and Haiti had to be destroyed, why not move there instead of trying to bully the rest of the world into similar self destruction? I can see why people refer to it as the "progressive death cult". I can respect people who ruin things and live in it or fix it themselves. But not leftists. "I pooped my pants and its a really awful way to live; you better do the same in your pants or else you're a racist so you'll have to be liquidated on the altar of multiculturalism, so start squeezing you deplorable"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @08:59PM (1 child)
"I pooped my pants and its a really awful way to live;
Ted? Ted Nugent? Is that you? My Gawd, man, the draft and the Vietnam war have been over for years, you can stop doing that now! http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday May 08 2017, @12:24AM
He told me one would fail the test for opiates if one ate a poppyseed bagel the morning of the exam. He also said that eating Jerusalem artichokes would make you fail the blood test.
I have no clue if he's correct but that's what he said.
He later grew Jerusalem Artichokes in our garden. They're a close relative of sunflowers, but you eat the root. Once you get those things growing in a garden you can't get rid of them - they're as bad as blackberries
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @09:27PM (6 children)
Pro tip: using the pejorative "leftist" means your argument will get ignored. The adults in the room will just move right on by after seeing that you're unable to string a sentence together without name-calling.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 07 2017, @09:39PM (3 children)
Spoken like a true leftist.
Maybe you can cry to mommy, or your professors, or make a real difference -- a change.org petition to hack into the SN database and remove all instances of the word "leftist" so that your widdwle feewings won't be hurt.
And if all that doesn't work out, you can gather up a bunch of Soros-funded prescription-drug-and-iPhone-lobotomized tantrumites and go burn down Linode's data centers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:13PM (2 children)
Eth, you're out of your league, man. Adults are talking here. Talking about extreme juvenile behavior on the part of Republican legislators, but still, adults talking. Now that you have had your outburst, please just go back to your lego blocks, so the adults can have an actual discussion.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 08 2017, @02:35AM
Eth isn't allowed Lego since that time he swallowed an entire miniature set of them and started shitting Lego-man heads. It's Duplo only now. No Tinkertoys either; apparently he got "ideas" about where some of the longer pieces go...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:39AM
He doesn't play with Legos, they are an ideological tool of socialist Denmark!
This is more to his liking: Little White Dragon toys [smosh.com]
Now you know why he drinks ethanol, he needs it to pose like a real fire breathing dragon but it is just a cheap trick from a damaged individual.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @03:07PM
How is "leftist" a pejorative? It literally means "one who identifies with the left." Or are we not allowed to use "left" and "right" now?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday May 08 2017, @03:41PM
Strongly Disagree.
That is not true when one becomes president. People will have to pay attention to the president. Even if he is illiterate and unable to form complete sentences without name calling. The incomprehensible sentences with infantile name calling will be recorded as part of history. After all this is the product of his education at a prestigious school for rich people. The words should be required to be part of the presidential library.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by https on Monday May 08 2017, @01:11AM (3 children)
Pfft. You hear that? That's me stifling a derisive insult. Your understanding of "leftists" is sad, a poorly drawn caricature.
When your position obviously results in people consistently murdered for no other reason than the colour of their skin (or the shape of their nose, mutatis mutandis), you fucking well deserve violence done upon you if you start espousing it to other people. Having a platform and megaphone denied you? Count yourself lucky.
There are some ideas that have no place in civil discussion. You know what they are, or it takes a small amount of thinking to figure out what they are. Some of them are well documented in history. Debating why they are not up for discussion is a trap - if someone takes the bait, those extremely non-civil ideas infect the discussion.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @01:04PM (2 children)
When your position obviously results in people consistently murdered for no other reason than the colour of their skin (or the shape of their nose, mutatis mutandis), you fucking well deserve violence done upon you if you start espousing it to other people.
I'm glad we stand arm in arm together in defense of the white people of Europe, South Africa, USA inner cities, and Zimbabwe...
(Score: 2) by https on Monday May 08 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)
Ethanol-fueled? Is that you?
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @05:56PM
Great minds think alike, observed reality has an inherent right wing bias, left wing has an inherent anti-white bias, etc...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday May 08 2017, @08:21AM (1 child)
A recent example: Professor Allison Stanger ended up in a neck-brace after being assaulted by 'leftist' thugs. [theatlantic.com]
See also this podcast episode [samharris.org] in which Charles Murray (the other target in the incident, but who wasn't injured) discusses what happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @09:44AM
Yeah, tell it to Martin Luther King, Jr. You racist! You misanthrope! You scum and villiany in a hive!
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:00PM (3 children)
How far should free speech go? It's impractical to outlaw lying. Instead, the idea is to educate, to train people to think critically, so that it is impossible to get away with lying, as everyone will know better.
Two big targets of liars and propagandists are education and communication. If they can wreck education, their lies will not be challenged as much. If they can control all communication, they can make sure people hear only them. When known propagandists come calling with "free" speech initiatives, be wary.
But they are right about one thing. Violence is not the answer to lies. But did they put agents provocateurs in the crowd to incite violence, and if not for that, there wouldn't have been any?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @01:09PM (2 children)
But they are right about one thing. Violence is not the answer to lies. But did they put agents provocateurs in the crowd to incite violence, and if not for that, there wouldn't have been any?
Someone did. The question is whose agents provocateurs? Sorry, I don't buy that there's some right-wing conspiracy to frame the loony fringe of college campuses by false flag operations. They aren't needed when all one needs to do is pull in Coulter or Milo to get a predictable, violent response.
How far should free speech go? It's impractical to outlaw lying. Instead, the idea is to educate, to train people to think critically, so that it is impossible to get away with lying, as everyone will know better.
How well have the protests served that purpose? Shouting down unpopular speech doesn't sound like a good approach to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @03:27PM (1 child)
How well have the protests served that purpose? Shouting down unpopular speech doesn't sound like a good approach to me.
The only proper response to speech you don't like is more speech. If these speakers were truly wanted then there would be counter protests to counter the protesters speech. These laws are a direct result in the fact that there is no one really to to come out and counter the protesters. The lawmakers dont like that the speech they like is being shouted down and they are demanding (in direct violation to the first amendment might I say) that their speech gets heard.
How would you like it if the other side took away your ability to counter speech.
This is an illegal silencing of protected political speech. Defending it shows that you are no defender of the constitution, you just want it to be warped in your favor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:36AM
If these speakers were truly wanted then there would be counter protests to counter the protesters speech.
Let us note, there frequently are such counter protests. I googled both Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos to find that counter protests had been organized in such situations.
This is an illegal silencing of protected political speech. Defending it shows that you are no defender of the constitution, you just want it to be warped in your favor.
I'm not defending this law. I think it's a bad idea for the same reasons. But I don't approve of some of the relatively legal games that are used to squelch unpopular speech either. Part of the reason we hear so much about this is because these particular people exploit the protests for publicity and such. Not everyone does that. Googling around, I see conference cancellations due to protests for "workfare" (welfare tied to finding work), presence of Israelis, and animal testing.
The problem here is that it is easy for a small group of protestors, particularly in collusion with bureaucrats in the right places, to suppress or disrupt speech. I don't believe it is a good idea to require someone to come up with a bunch of counter protestors merely to able to speak.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:13PM (19 children)
Here how you fix this problem and turn it around and into a nice educational opportunity. Any time some undesirable gets invited to campus by some idiots, this is what you do:
1. Invite another knowledgeable expert on the topic to represent sane counter viewpoints. Preferably someone of good renown and who is a good debater.
2. Instead of a regular and simple talk, turn it into a real event. Turn it into a formally organised and civilized debate. Inform the original invitee that if they want to be allowed to hold their talk, they must also agree to participate in the debate.
3. Make sure there is an judge/arbiter/referee type person to point our logical fallacies, objectively false facts, and other debating transgressions from either side.
4. With any luck, the sane and well informed debater will verbally crush the idiot, and the audience will have gained some knowledge.
Some religious fundamentalist nutjob coming your way? Invite an agnostic/atheist/anti-theist or a moderate from another/same religion to oppose him.
Climate change denier spreading their crap? Invite a real climate researcher.
Conservative vs Progressive
Capitalist vs Socialist
Anti-vaxxer vs Biologist
Vim vs Emacs
etc.
Two drawbacks:
1. Allowing a nutjob to even participate in a debate does somewhat legitimize their viewpoint. Though it is probably still a better situation than simply allowing them to speak unopposed or have them scared away by threat of violence.
2. Debating only works when both participants are rational individuals. Irrational speakers will simply ignore contrary evidence or arguments and keep spouting bullshit. Not really much to be done about that, other than maybe have a referee/judge keep the debate going in the right direction by forcing the irrational person respond to aforementioned facts or arguments.
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:46PM (14 children)
The problem with this is the false equivalency. And the dog-whistles. And the hate speech. There are not always two sides to everything, and if the two sides are crazy and sane, they are not really two sides. Debating Ken Ham, as Bill Nye found out, really does nothing. Debating Alex Jones makes no sense, unless you are a large bowl of chili. As Oliver pointed out, a one on one debate over climate change is silly, when it should be a 97-to-3 debate. All these are desparate attempts to gain intellectual legitimacy for positions that are unable to claim any on their own. And being shut down is really the best outcome, since they can claim that their views are legitimate, since they have not been heard! (When in reality, they have been, and no one wants to give them legitimacy, except for the fellow batship crazies.)
So this is why Bernie supported Ann "the Witch" Counter speaking at Berzerkly, he said, "What are you afraid of, her ideas?" Hard to be afraid of something that does not exist. But both by giving it a platform to speak from, and denying it a platform we grant legitimacy to what is really just marketing.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @12:52AM (8 children)
Pffft... If you need overwhelming representation to beat your opponent in a debate, you've already lost. Nye just sucks at debating.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:42AM (7 children)
Ok, who was the fool who upmodded TMBs obvious trolling??
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @10:17AM (6 children)
That's not trolling, just the truth. Now if I'd said Nye still wouldn't have won the debate if he were the only one with a mic, that could have been considered trolling. Learn the difference between things you don't want to hear and trolling, please.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @06:46PM (5 children)
That's not trolling, just the truth.
Ah, the old "it's not trolling if it's true" troll! My, my, Lesser than a Condor, you are falling down on your game if hackneyed trolls like this are all you are capable of!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @07:07PM (4 children)
Right, it wasn't a troll. You of all people should recognize trolling.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @07:34PM (3 children)
Followed by the "I'm not trolling" troll? You really know how to double down, Zzub! But really we should be more professional with the trolling on SoylentNews, don't you think?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @10:07PM (2 children)
Okay, just for you then. Hillary didn't just cover up Bill's sexual assaults and intimidate the victims, she was the one doing the assaulting while Bill watched and jerked off.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:53AM (1 child)
No, no no! Buzztard! This is a 14 year-old's idea of what trolling is! Seriously dude, do you even know what it is we do? Now let me clue you in on something not many people know yet, that Donald the Trump knew before he appointed Flynn that Jared and Bannon were both Soviet deep-sleeper agents, and that all three of them were aware that Donald was born in Jamaica, and so not legally able to be president. Of course, they hushed it up, because they wanted to keep their new snazzy jobs! Bzinga! Google it, bro!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:25AM
Now now, there's no need to be intimidated by Cheeto Jesus's trolling skillz. Did you hear about his newest executive order to replace Washington with Trollface on the one dollar bill?
Side note, that's part of why I dislike Republicans somewhat less than Democrats. With Republicans just want you to give them your dollar bills in exchange for shiny beads. Democrats want to take them away and replace them with an EBT card that gets filled based inversely on your Privilege Rating.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:15AM (1 child)
anybody who says "hate speech" is a fucking douche bag who deserves a proper beating.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @02:56AM
Anyone who says that about hate speech is in fact engaging in hate speech, and thus not capable of rational debate, or even civilized conversation, and probably not being out in public. Beating? From such a pathetic specimen as yourself? Please! Just because it is hate speech does not mean I am afraid, it just means that you have authorized the use of violence, legal or in self-defense, against your sorry excuse for an existence. I usually start by subtly increasing the victim's body weight. I then remove hair from the scalp, one at a time. Finally, I increase blood pressure by exposure to right-wing outrage media, and blocking nut-jobs from speaking on College campuses. And then, you will die. May take a while, but once you engage in hate speech, it is certain you will die. Kind of like the famous Martial Arts move, the "Dim Mak", The "Death Touch" from The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009). Sorry, AC, you touched it!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @06:07PM (2 children)
.... false equivalency. ... if the two sides are crazy and sane ...
Generally speaking progressivism is a religious belief and right wing thought tends to be more rational and based on historical observation of what works sustainably vs what doesn't. So its not that one side is crazy and one is sane, its more like one side is rational and the other is based on belief and wishes and what would be holier. There are false equivalency issues such that rational people can't reason true believers into a more sensible worldview because they didn't get all messed up in a rational thinking manner to begin with. They didn't think their way there, so they aren't going to think their way back out. Meanwhile going the other direction the religious true believers can't understand why holiness signalling doesn't convert the rational, ignoring 4000 years of human history that religion can only be spread by the womb or the sword. In fact its considered a documented miracle in holy texts when someone converts for any reason NOT because mommie told him or point of sword. So the religious progressives are at the point now in 2017 of waving swords around in their holy anti-white anti-civilization religious crusade. Historically there's not too many options for permanently dealing with religious extremists... convert them at the point of a bigger sword, genocide, intimidate, that's about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @06:31PM (1 child)
The crazy is strong in this one. VLM, so crazy he thinks he's broke on through to the other side and become all rational with alternative facts!
ignoring 4000 years of human history that religion can only be spread by the womb or the sword.
What a strangely ignorant thing to say! Hey! Do you remember the day the Christians stormed Rome and overthrew the Empire? Of course you don't. Have you ever heard of Buddhism? No? No swords, well, not unit Myanmar, and they are not really aiming at conversion, anyway.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @07:06PM
Do you remember the day the Christians stormed Rome and overthrew the Empire?
Oh the sly humor of Aristarchus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge [wikipedia.org]
or somewhat more artistically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge_(Giulio_Romano) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @12:53AM (2 children)
No, debates are not the answer. They have their place but every time someone remotely controversial wants to speak they should not be forced into a debate format when none of the golden children speakers are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @03:30PM (1 child)
Do the same to the golden children then, as long as you can find someone intelligent to debate them at least. My guess is there wont be enough fringe scientists that like getting embarrassed on the regular to do it for every speaker though.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:41AM
Do the same to the golden children then, as long as you can find someone intelligent to debate them at least. My guess is there wont be enough fringe scientists that like getting embarrassed on the regular to do it for every speaker though.
Then the best debaters don't get to speak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @12:40PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 08 2017, @01:51AM (7 children)
I tried to keep my own perspectives out of my submission here, but I have some real concerns about the language of this "model bill." I'm surprised at some of the language, because at times it's quite vague -- and different readings could make some sections sound so weak as to wonder why they're necessary or so strong as to be concerned about whether the intent is to suppress those who'd like to protest other speech. There's an extended explanation of all the sections of the proposed legal language, but in many cases the actual legal language is not clear enough to ensure that it would actually do what the report's explanation claims it wants to do.
For example, Section 1.5: "That the campuses of the institution are open to any speaker whom students, student groups, or members of the faculty have invited." This seems to have been included to prevent "disinvitations" by administration. Whether or not one agrees with the idea that an administration should have some say on who comes to its campus, the intention of this section and what it literally and legally says are potentially very different things. On its face, this section basically says that any random student can invite a speaker to campus, and then the "campuses" MUST be "open to" that speaker. What does that mean? Since the next section talks about "public areas of campuses" being open to ANY speaker, one must assume that the previous section essentially allows any student to give any speaker free range over the private areas of a campus as well. Is that really a good idea? (A previous section allows administration to intervene to enforce "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions": but read broadly, that basically allows a college administration to do what it already does, so then what does the bill even do?)
Beyond the vagueness...
I've repeatedly said here in other stories that I am strongly against any use of violence against speech, and generally speaking I believe dialogue of various forms is more productive than summarily attempting to "shut down" opposing views. Nevertheless, protesting the presence of a provocative speaker is ALSO "free expression" of a different kind, and that needs to be allowed within reason too. From that perspective, it's difficult to parse some of the proposed legal measures, since a bill requiring the legislature to intervene and make sure colleges "shut down" those who would protest other speech can easily also become censorship if applied in an excessively draconian fashion.
The one section I quoted in the summary is a case in point: "Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled." Exactly what does it mean to be "found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others"? One of the proponents of these bills is on record basically saying simple hecklers are evil, more or less. So, if you heckle a speaker twice (even in a very limited fashion), you MUST be suspended from college for a minimum of a year? Is that what this is saying? I don't generally agree with heckling speakers, but why exactly should state legislatures be stepping in and forcing such penalties? And what constitutes "heckling," by the way? If it's an evening session indoors with an invited speaker, that's quite different from an outdoor casual demonstration where crowds are spontaneously coming and going. If a student gets into a heated argument with someone at the podium during a "speech" there, must they be summarily expelled? If the person at the podium was trying to speak, isn't that "infringing the expressive rights of others" by disrupting their speech? But if that's okay, then why is it unacceptable for a programmed indoor talk?
The answer, to me, is that a lot of these things are not really questions of "free expression" on 1st amendment grounds as much as they are questions of social conventions, decorum, and expectations of polite society. We might expect warring factions shouting at each other in the quad, but we find it less acceptable when a warring faction shows up and shouts down an invited speaker at a formal indoor program. But is that the place of legislators to intervene and require 1-year suspensions or expulsions to keep up communal decorum? Shouldn't there be some room for college administration to determine appropriate punishments, given the expectations of behavior at a particular time or place or event?
To put it more simply, the First Amendment prohibits the government from placing restrictions on free expression. The First Amendment does not require (or even suggest) that the government "police" the public in ensuring all are granted free expression (as any true "libertarian," which is the political source of this proposal, should understand) under the arbitrary terms we make up. If the legislators find that an institution itself is arbitrarily suppressing some speech while promoting other speech, that may be a concern (particularly for public institutions). And some of the bill addresses those issues on an institutional basis. But it's a very different thing to dictate specific punishments for individuals who are expressing themselves against other speech.
Of course, a lot of this depends on how exactly you interpret the proposed text. But isn't that the problem? Just like one person's vulgarity is another's reasonable "free expression," the phrase "infringing the expressive rights of others" could mean a lot of different things depending on who is judging it. If I shout down a speaker, am I "infringing" expressive rights, but if I'm part of a the student group that invited the speakers and decide the day before that we actually don't want speaker X on the program anymore because we'd prefer speaker Y, am I not "infringing" expressive rights of speaker X just as effectively by "shutting down" their opportunity to speak? Am I no longer allowed to choose who is on the program once I've "invited" someone?
My example here may seem silly, but legislation proposed here doesn't seem to offer a lot of clarity on whether such silly claims have merit.
I'm all for promoting free speech on campus and allowing controversial speakers to present views and discuss things that some may find objectionable. But I'm really concerned about how such legislation could be used, especially if it's selectively enforced. It seems to raise at least as many issues as it tries to solve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:47AM
Thank you for the adult analysis. I had a feeling we'd see the conservative crowd come out swinging in favor of this, yet another notch on the belt for irony. "Too much regulation!! Government bad!?!" *pssst, it might work in our favor here* "MOAR REGULATION!"
So easily led to think they are defending freedom of speech yet so little ability for critical analysis. Ok, I shouldn't say "so little ability" it is more that their emotions have a death grip on their brain.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @04:58AM
Thanks for the submission, Anthanasius, and there is no shame in commenting in a thread you have submitted. In fact, it seems to be necessary of late, when all the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism come out to have their say. So this is the "Conservatives, since they are the Majority in Government, must be allowed to speak on University campuses" bill? Which could change. President Tom Cruise! Scientology Free Speech Guarantee Law! Rmoney becomes President! The "Mormonism is just as good as any other Religion and/or science- bill" passes both Houses! You are right on point.
Of course, as mentioned before, this is the problem with conservatives. They are conservatives because of a deficit of thought, which causes them to fall back upon the "tried and true" ways of the past. Put it also leads them to short run solutions that bite them in the behind. FDR, four terms in the White House! Hurrah! Republicans? Term limit! Reagan, four more years is now illegal. Did not see that coming. Nuclear option in the Senate to get the bimbo gun-rights nominee on the Supreme Court. You do no think that will come back on them when the Democrats have the majority in the Senate? Which, if the TrumpNoCare bill gets passed, could be sooner rather than later. And now, have state governments determine who can speak on college campuses, only because it is their right-wing nut-jobs who are being "denied"? Just wait till the Socialist Worker's Party starts calling for the same enforcement in the near future.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday May 08 2017, @05:28AM (4 children)
What it is supposed to mean is that the current scenario, i.e., you have to convince a student body which is (1) dependent on approval from the university and (2) vulnerable to political maneuvers by other student bodies, is not needed anymore. If a student can book a hall he or she can invite the speaker and probably post some flyers to attract other students.
It is a step in the right direction.
Now, that is what it is supposed to mean. It may not end up being that. Only future can tell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @08:01AM
Shut up, cubancigar00, you are out of your league. You do not understand what you are talking about. You are a pipsqueak and a numbskull, and very, very cute. So shut up. Go ahead and try to book my hall!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 08 2017, @12:43PM (2 children)
I get your point. But I also disagree somewhat with your implicit assertion that it's somehow wrong to require that an external individual have some sort of "official invitation" to use the private property of the university. Now most of this is talking about state/public universities, but there's public property and then there's "public property." To take an extreme example, a dorm room at a public university may ultimately be owned by the state, but I think we can all recognize that it's NOT a "public space" for use by the public at will.
Similarly, buildings, auditoriums, lecture halls, and other facilities of the university are subject to the control of the administration. A lot of the issues are buried in your qualifier "If a student can book a hall..." Isn't that really the question here? Under what circumstances should a student be allowed to book a university facility and for what purposes? If the university finds out that you've booked the hall for something antithetical to the university's mission, can they not exercise some control over that? And at some point, allowing outsiders a role on college campuses WILL be considered as a tacit endorsement of those outsiders.
Say the University of Northern Podunk adopts your policy. Say there's a handful of Flat-Earthers among the student body. The students start inviting speakers every weekend to promote Flat-Earth theory. Then they start organizing "conferences," inviting various "scholars" of Flat-Earthdom. Those scholars start advertising themselves after their visit: "My research has been presented at a conference at the University of Northern Podunk..." Eventually, the University of Northern Podunk becomes known for Flat-Earth beliefs, even if the administration, faculty, and vast majority of the student body think it's BS.
Now imagine whatever issue you think is complete nonsense on one side (but where there's a set of fringe folks who'd love to speak on it) and have this play out at a prominent public university. And if you think I'm making up such concerns, there have been cases where anti-science groups (or whatever) have booked halls on university campuses and then hosted conferences there or whatever. This is not a theoretical concern. At some point the disinformation that could be spread by providing even facilities to host events can become a concern. And at some point, we may need to actually exercise "viewpoint discrimination," for not all viewpoints are equal. Flat Earth theory simply is NOT a matter that should be put up for constant debate at a university.
It's always a balancing act, and I'll agree that some university administrations have made some poor decisions. But I think state legislatures trying to micromanage college administration decisions may not be the best way to address this.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday May 08 2017, @04:15PM
I don't really disagree with anything you've said specifically. It's true the legal definitions are vague, but it's going to be up to the courts to interpret those. Although, I don't necessarily disagree with the law either as long as there isn't something that unfairly targets one political ideology.
The intent seems pretty reasonable overall. If a student group invites a speaker, they shouldn't be shouldn't shouted down or threatened with violence and differences in the political leanings of the administration should not be cause to bar them from speaking. The question I have is whether it treats private institutions differently from public ones. The same protections should be afforded an atheist speaker invited to talk at a religious school as a conservative one at a liberal leaning college.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:50AM
You are right, though the purpose of college education is debating, questioning and living in an atmosphere of dissent. Otherwise it would be just another school.
This is a legal loophole, something probably a trademark litigation should resolve. It is still not a university's place to pick sides on political spectrum though. Flat-earthers getting traction is just a political reality of our world - a part of bigger problem of 'power' trumping 'knowledge', if you will - a much bigger problem. Keeping universities out of this game is only in interest of humanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @03:58AM (2 children)
Political affiliation doesn't matter.
If they get violent, they've broken the law. They need to be arrested and tried. If convicted, they need to be incarcerated. No excuses.
Congrats cupcake, they're going to love you on the Group W bench.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @04:41AM
Hey, your misogyny is peeking. You just wish you had a cupcake of your own ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @05:03AM
Violence is sometimes justified! Punching a Nazi in the face is, well, just kind of a "hello" to a Nazi. Not nearly so rude as offering them a shower. So I think that a threat of violence, against those who threaten violence, is totally cool! Ann Coulter called for the killing or forced conversion of all Muslims. To me, that is enough to kill or forcibly convert her. Question is, what could you convert her to? I would prefer a "liberal", but that would presuppose an ability to think for herself. Hmmm. Stepford Wife? What? Too soon? Or do you mean, too late?