Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

We have three examples of white supremacists having their speaking engagements disrupted by violent protests. In our small sample size, the white supremacists are dominating with at least 75% of the examples. 

Again, though that's not what is in question. It's like saying that because the majority of murderers are really guilty we can't talk about those who are innocent and have been railroaded by the system.

Anyways, it seems like we're going around in circles. What I'm hearing is that it's OK to ban people who are agitators and if a few people who aren't get silenced, well they're a minority so it doesn't matter, plus this isn't a first amendment issue so how on earth does it matter? The fact no one has given an argument for why people like Murray or Shapiro should face silencing by protestors says a lot.

I'll probably drop out of the conversation until new arguments pop up.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So if violence started following Sarkeesian would you feel that would justify keeping her from speaking in public places?

Nope, but that might justify campuses from not hosting her (in the case of specific threats). Campuses have to ensure student safety. 

To be clear, I'm not bothered by any of these people speaking their mind in any venue. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why some controversial figures get this reaction. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Russians did the same thing to both Clinton and Macron - they hacked their emails  in order to try to turn public opinion against them and towards their own candidates. Thankfully it didn't work in France. 

 

Your answer is non-responsive. This was the question:

Quote

What evidence do you have that any votes were affected by alleged Russian interference in the election?

If you don't have any evidence, just say so.

 

 

Quote

 

A recent poll shows that, were the election held today, Trump still wins -- and this time he wins the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.

Did Russians hack that poll as well?

 

 

Quote

Possibly, depending on your source. Some far right political sources are under investigation for working with the Russians as well. Part of their tactic is spreading disinformation. I'd have to see the source. It seems unlikely, given trump's historically low approval ratings. 

It was a Washington Post poll as reported here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/washington-post-poll-shows-if-the-election-were-held-today-trump-would-still-beat-clinton/

<sacrcasm mode on>Of course, you can't trust that right-wing rag, the Washington Post.<sarcasm mode off>

[Rajah Manchou]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We can easily condemn all examples of this from both sides.  So I'm not sure what the point of this is.

The point is Milo himself was the figurehead of a group of Internet trolls that restricted free speech through threats of rape, death and mass murder. So we can put aside this idea that intimidation through threats of violence is something we'd only find on the liberal left.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your answer is non-responsive. This was the question:

If you don't have any evidence, just say so.

I already provided the conclusion of James Clapper. Did you follow the hearings today?

 

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

It was a Washington Post poll as reported here:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/washington-post-poll-shows-if-the-election-were-held-today-trump-would-still-beat-clinton/

<sacrcasm mode on>Of course, you can't trust that right-wing rag, the Washington Post.<sarcasm mode off>

Thanks for the detail. You have be careful about sources:

 

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/23/report-breitbart-infowars-under-fbi-investigation-for-potentia/22008883/ 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, though that's not what is in question. It's like saying that because the majority of murderers are really guilty we can't talk about those who are innocent and have been railroaded by the system.

Anyways, it seems like we're going around in circles. What I'm hearing is that it's OK to ban people who are agitators and if a few people who aren't get silenced, well they're a minority so it doesn't matter, plus this isn't a first amendment issue so how on earth does it matter? The fact no one has given an argument for why people like Murray or Shapiro should face silencing by protestors says a lot.

I'll probably drop out of the conversation until new arguments pop up.

I'm saying it's understandable and predictable that violence tends to follow white supremacists, without condoning the violence. Do you disagree? I'm sure NAMBLA speakers face similar issues.

I'm also saying that no one has a first amendment right to give a public speech in any university they choose. Do you disagree?

I'd further say that universities are well served by hosting reasonable speakers with a diverse array of political viewpoints.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Now that you have the context, you can stop complaining about "cherry picking" (a nonsensical complaint) and insinuating duplicity. 

 

Dredging up business investments from the past and using them to imply Russian collusion in the campaign strikes me as a witch hunt. Especially when you pull a quote out of context.

Quote

If you've been paying attention Scott, you'll understand that the details of the ongoing investigation are still classified. The house and senate investigations of course have been derailed multiple times by Republicans seeking  to obstruct justice, but the FBI investigation is serious and ongoing. 

And so far has yielded zip that we know about. I'm old enough to remember Watergate and how quickly that unraveled. The contrast with this is striking.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm saying it's understandable and predictable that violence tends to follow white supremacists, without condoning the violence. Do you disagree? I'm sure NAMBLA speakers face similar issues.

I'm also saying that no one has a first amendment right to give a public speech in any university they choose. Do you disagree?

I'd further say that universities are well served by hosting reasonable speakers with a diverse array of political viewpoints.

 

I think he said he would be waiting for new arguments, ones that haven't already been dealt with.

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm saying it's understandable and predictable that violence tends to follow white supremacists, without condoning the violence. Do you disagree? I'm sure NAMBLA speakers face similar issues.

I'm also saying that no one has a first amendment right to give a public speech in any university they choose. Do you disagree?

I'd further say that universities are well served by hosting reasonable speakers with a diverse array of political viewpoints.

I don't disagree with any of those things. As I said my qualms were with the non-white supremacists like Shapiro, Murray or others. Or even inflammatory figures like Coulter who I don't take as a white supremacist. Further I think there are some very disturbing trends on campus regarding speech even if I think the media is exaggerating its prevalence.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you don't have any evidence, just say so.

There is no way to know if Russian hacking influenced the election. That they tried seems pretty well proven.

So are we okay with Russian interference in US elections as long as we are reasonably sure it is not working?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And so far has yielded zip that we know about. I'm old enough to remember Watergate and how quickly that unraveled. The contrast with this is striking.

It took over a year from the first arrests tied to Watergate before. It has only been a few months. I am not 100 percent sure there is anything behind it but the way bumbling Trump associates keep denying what could very well be innocent interactions with Russians and then being caught out suggests they are either trying to hide something or they are just really dumb.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The point is Milo himself was the figurehead of a group of Internet trolls that restricted free speech through threats of rape, death and mass murder. So we can put aside this idea that intimidation through threats of violence is something we'd only find on the liberal left.

Who was arguing this was only the liberal left? I think everyone acknowledges it's part of the alt-right. The question is whether there's an alt-left that does similar things.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

For the same reason they're not The Avengers. There's no such thing.

Do you have an argument or evidence there's no alt left? Because I confess to seeing a lot of people on Twitter who don't seem much different from the alt-right other than being marxist or anarchist and not putting up annoying frog memes. Heck, a lot of them are even anti-semitic to boot.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Who was arguing this was only the liberal left? I think everyone acknowledges it's part of the alt-right. The question is whether there's an alt-left that does similar things.

I was mostly basing that on the Scott's request to "cite any instances where thugs were smashing up colleges campuses, committing assaults and coercing university administrations into canceling lectures from visiting speakers because they were pissed off at the things Moor, Wright, Ayers, Churchill or other liberal speakers were saying? If not, then don't act like this is business as usual."

Of course Milo and the GamerGate trolls didn't smash up a college campus, but they did threaten to shoot one up, and sexually assault several liberal feminists all with the intention of limiting their speech through intimidation. I don't see GamerGate's intimidation and threats of violence at USU and the Game Developers Choice Awards as being any different than what happened at Berkeley and Middlebury.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There's some irony in Gray's pointing a finger at Shapiro as one who deserves to have his freedom of speech curtailed; Shapiro has written a book called Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476710007/?tag=slatmaga-20

Bullying. That's what's at issue here. Bullying and mobs.

There's irony in pointing fingers at all. If bullying is the issue then we only need to go back to 2014 to find how the right used fear and intimidation to silence Americans, in Utah no less:

"The director of Utah State University’s Center for Women and Gender received an e-mail proposing “the deadliest school shooting in American history” if Sarkeesian’s upcoming speaking engagement at the school was not cancelled. The e-mail, which was published online by the Standard-Examiner, read, “I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs…. Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with the feminist woman, and she is going to die screaming like the craven little w**** that she is if you let her come to USU.” (source)

And another case:

“A bomb will be detonated at the Game Developers Choice award ceremony tonight unless Anita Sarkeesian’s Ambassador Award is revoked. We estimate the bomb will kill at least a dozen people and injure dozens more. It would be in your best interest to accept our simple request. This is not a joke. You have been warned.” The message was just one example of the many threats that Sarkeesian had received since launching her video series. In 2012, the Times reported that Sarkeesian had been sent images showing video-game characters raping her. Her Wikipedia entry was repeatedly vandalized. One man created a Web game called Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian, in which players could punch Sarkeesian’s image and watch her face become bruised. The violent threats have continued unabated; Sarkeesian fled her home in August after a Twitter user posted her address and threatened to kill her." (source)

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no way to know if Russian hacking influenced the election. That they tried seems pretty well proven.

So are we okay with Russian interference in US elections as long as we are reasonably sure it is not working?

Of course I'm not OK with it. That's a straw man. 

At issue here is using Russian interference as an excuse to de-legitimize the election. And that seems to be the goal of those who keep harping on it. 

So it's fair to ask what if any influence the interference had on the election results. Apparently none, according to the Washington Post poll showing Trump still wins if the election were held today. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It took over a year from the first arrests tied to Watergate before. It has only been a few months. I am not 100 percent sure there is anything behind it but the way bumbling Trump associates keep denying what could very well be innocent interactions with Russians and then being caught out suggests they are either trying to hide something or they are just really dumb.

There's was a lot happening from the time the first arrests were made and Nixon's resignation. As I said, it began to unravel quickly. 

By contrast, the Trump accusers in the Russian hacking episode seem more and more like witch hunters. 

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There's was a lot happening from the time the first arrests were made and Nixon's resignation. As I said, it began to unravel quickly. 

By contrast, the Trump accusers in the Russian hacking episode seem more and more like witch hunters. 

No, witch hunters would be screaming loudly. What we have is a relatively quiet investigation.

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course I'm not OK with it. That's a straw man. 

At issue here is using Russian interference as an excuse to de-legitimize the election. And that seems to be the goal of those who keep harping on it. 

So it's fair to ask what if any influence the interference had on the election results. Apparently none, according to the Washington Post poll showing Trump still wins if the election were held today. 

That is true if you assume their interference was very short term and that that poll is an accurate reflection of what the result would be if we re held the election. Of course the polls were all saying Clinton would win so if we can trust polls the way you seem to want to the election is illegitimate.  

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Dredging up business investments from the past and using them to imply Russian collusion in the campaign strikes me as a witch hunt. Especially when you pull a quote out of context.

And so far has yielded zip that we know about. I'm old enough to remember Watergate and how quickly that unraveled. The contrast with this is striking.

Watergate took two years. Trump has been under FBI investigation for less than a year, and the FBI still is releasing very few details.

The Russians not only hacked DNC emails, but also were spreading disinformation for months in an attempt to benefit candidate Trump. Trump of course has continued to spread disinformation almost daily.

The ongoing investigation is into whether Trump and his team colluded with the Russians on this process. Trump seems to have surrounded himself with quite a number of defacto Russian agents (Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Page), so it doesn't look good for Trump.

Speaking of Watergate:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/325350-watergate-reporter-ive-been-saying-for-a-while-now-this-is-a-coverup

 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't disagree with any of those things. As I said my qualms were with the non-white supremacists like Shapiro, Murray or others. Or even inflammatory figures like Coulter who I don't take as a white supremacist. Further I think there are some very disturbing trends on campus regarding speech even if I think the media is exaggerating its prevalence.

Murray appears to be a white supremacist. Coulter appears to be a white supremacist as well.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you have an argument or evidence there's no alt left? Because I confess to seeing a lot of people on Twitter who don't seem much different from the alt-right other than being marxist or anarchist and not putting up annoying frog memes. Heck, a lot of them are even anti-semitic to boot.

The alt right is a specific and well-defined group of white supremacist right wing agitators, affiliated around Trump and Breitbart who seem to have their own lingo full of dog whistles ("globalists", using triple parentheses to identify Jewish people, "deep state", "cucks" etc). Who is the alt left then? Any left winger who behaves poorly on Twitter?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, witch hunters would be screaming loudly. What we have is a relatively quiet investigation.

 

You need look no further than Twitter to behold a cacophany of shrill, witch-hunting voices.

Quote

That is true if you assume their interference was very short term and that that poll is an accurate reflection of what the result would be if we re held the election. Of course the polls were all saying Clinton would win so if we can trust polls the way you seem to want to the election is illegitimate.  

The difference being, of course, that the prior errant polls were all weighted in favor of Clinton -- and heavily so. This time it's Trump -- and from no less a Democratic shill than the Washington Post.

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Murray appears to be a white supremacist. Coulter appears to be a white supremacist as well.

To you, everybody to the right of Michael Moore is a white supremacist -- or so it seems.

Tip: If everybody is an extremist, then nobody is an extremist. Think about it.

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Watergate took two years. Trump has been under FBI investigation for less than a year, and the FBI still is releasing very few details.

The Russians not only hacked DNC emails, but also were spreading disinformation for months in an attempt to benefit candidate Trump. Trump of course has continued to spread disinformation almost daily.

The ongoing investigation is into whether Trump and his team colluded with the Russians on this process. Trump seems to have surrounded himself with quite a number of defacto Russian agents (Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Page), so it doesn't look good for Trump.

Speaking of Watergate:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/325350-watergate-reporter-ive-been-saying-for-a-while-now-this-is-a-coverup

 

Were you alive in the early '70s? I was. I graduated high school and entered college during that period. From the break-in forward, it was clear Nixon was in a free-fall. He very quickly lost even his own party base in Congress. By the time he announced his resignation, the day before I left on my mission in August 1974, it was pretty much foregone.

By contrast, the only ones who say "it doesn't look good for Trump" are those like you who are still smarting over feeling blind-sided by the election results and whose heart's desire is to see a quick end to his presidency.

Do you want to know what I do when I need a bit of entertainment? I go on YouTube and pull up a video of some left-wing pundit or Democratic congressman desperately trying to explain himself when pressed with the fact that the Trump Administration has very recently undertaken some foreign policy actions that severely antagonized Moscow. Odd behavior for someone who supposedly conspired with Putin to rob the American electorate of their vote.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Not like the ones I saw at Berkeley. They are akin to the protests after Trump was elected when people started showing up to trash property. This type of militantism is very disturbing. Do you defend it? It should have nothing to do with free speech.

No, but complaining about microagressions and violation of safe spaces does make one a snowflake. College is supposed to be a forum for entertaining various ideas. A place where opposing ideas get heard, and their various strengths debated. Snowflakes by definition are people who are too offended by ideas to allow them to be heard or to violate "their space." That's why they are called snowflakes. They are kind of the antithesis of what college is supposed to be about - exploring various ideas - and taking the best out of them.

?? Russians wouldn't have anything to interfere with if certain people weren't trying to hide stuff they shouldn't have done in the first place. How about focusing on the sins of the candidates rather than alleged Russian interference which is just a liberal attempt to draw attention away from how bad Clinton muffed it? Everyone knows what she did anyway without any alleged Russian interference. Even if they did interfere, any impact was nil because everyone already knew Clinton is as much trouble as her husband was. Plus she is a Arab sell out, who is beholden to foreign interests. There should be something illegal about a presidential candidate raising millions and millions from foreign interests they way she could through their foundation.

Proven false.