Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[Rajah Manchou]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's disturbing because it illustrates how the threat of violence in the context of Berkeley protests is shutting down political speech in general places. You don't see shutting down a parade because they are fearful of these people as a problem? You don't see how that's a direct threat to political speech? 

Personally I think they should have still held the parade but if you don't see shutting it down as an issue I'm not sure what to say.

Oh, I see them shutting the parade down over one cryptic anonymous email as a huge problem. Now its not even possible to know who is causing the disruption and intimidation. Is it ANTIFA? Or is it Milo Inc. pretending to be ANTIFA? Or maybe an ISIS sympathizer pretending to be alt-right, or a Syrian refugee pretending to be a Russian spy. Or a Russian spy pretending to be Hilary Clinton?

What a mess.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one has ever curtailed Shapiro's freedom of speech. Is this an example of right wing snowflakism? Shapiro is entitled to speak at any college he wants? 

If I am invited to speak, permitted by the property owners to speak and protests stop me from speaking that is by definition curtailing my freedom of speech. Guess what, saying you can speak only where protestors let you is infringing speech. Surely this isn't a hard topic.

In the same way Hollywood writers blacklisted by McCarthy still had free speech by your definition. They could still write screenplays even if no one in Hollywood would use them. However historically that's been considered a pretty big infringement on speech.

Or to give a better example, say stopping Mormon missionaries from speaking by threatening them with violence. By your definition they didn't have any infringement on their free speech because they could always go back to Utah.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

You don't come equipped with fireworks and pepper spray and then say they just turned rowdy as if it was something people got too excited about. This was planned and has been repeated.

I know a lot of college kids who carry pepper spray. Someone with fireworks is obviously looking to create trouble, but you seem to be wanting to paint with a very broad brush here. 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Oh, I see them shutting the parade down over one cryptic anonymous email as a huge problem. Now its not even possible to know who is causing the disruption and intimidation. Is it ANTIFA? Or is it Milo Inc. pretending to be ANTIFA? Or maybe an ISIS sympathizer pretending to be alt-right, or a Syrian refugee pretending to be a Russian spy. Or a Russian spy pretending to be Hilary Clinton?

What a mess.

Again the reason the threat was seen as real was because of the prior actions. So you can't separate the two.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If we've defined down problems as merely being an issue only if they'll overthrow democracy no wonder free speech is under threat.

Just to refresh your memory, I know losing free speech doesn't undermine democracy. We had censorship of television and movies in the 50's and 60's as well as pretty heavy censorship of media that might affect children. So censorship definitely was bigger in the past yet democracy survived. However that doesn't mean it's a good thing. I think many of us think McCarthy like blacklists would be a bad thing if they happened again.

It's not a free speech issue. I've reiterated this many times. The first amendment protects us against government censorship. That's it!

 

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As for Russian interference, honestly the interference was pretty minor. But I definitely think we should be doing something about it and don't like how Republicans haven't taken in seriously. Surely we can worry about multiple problems at the same time though.

Thankfully the French had the good sense to reject the Russian puppet in their election. If only we had done the same. 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I know a lot of college kids who carry pepper spray. Someone with fireworks is obviously looking to create trouble, but you seem to be wanting to paint with a very broad brush here. 

I think my point is that after a few protests where the same thing happens one is justified painting with a broad brush. Trying to portray this as a bunch of kids just getting too excited seems difficult to believe.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not a free speech issue. I've reiterated this many times. The first amendment protects us against government censorship. That's it!

Free speech is not just an issue of the first amendment. Particularly on campuses free speech is seen as an important part of academics. That's why tenure is seen by professors as such an important issue. It has nothing to do with government intervention limiting speech so much as the importance of being able to argue for ideas necessary for academics (especially scientific) progress.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-glaring-evidence-that-free-speech-is-threatened-on-campus/471825/

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If I am invited to speak, permitted by the property owners to speak and protests stop me from speaking that is by definition curtailing my freedom of speech. Guess what, saying you can speak only where protestors let you is infringing speech. Surely this isn't a hard topic.

In the same way Hollywood writers blacklisted by McCarthy still had free speech by your definition. They could still write screenplays even if no one in Hollywood would use them. However historically that's been considered a pretty big infringement on speech.

Or to give a better example, say stopping Mormon missionaries from speaking by threatening them with violence. By your definition they didn't have any infringement on their free speech because they could always go back to Utah.

None of this has remotely anything to do with freedom of speech. The first amendment has pretty clear boundaries. Not to say violence and intimidation aren't serious issues, but they're not free speech issues UNLESS the government is the one doing the intimidating. 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I think my point is that after a few protests where the same thing happens one is justified painting with a broad brush. Trying to portray this as a bunch of kids just getting too excited seems difficult to believe.

I got my undergrad at a pretty rowdy campus. It's very easy for me to believe. I don't think there is some shadowy cabal of college sophomores meeting in smokey rooms and planning all this out. 

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You don't come equipped with fireworks and pepper spray and then say they just turned rowdy as if it was something people got too excited about. This was planned and has been repeated.

The guy that got shot by the Trump supporter was said to be a threat because he had brass knuckles in his pocket. After they shot him, they found out the brass knuckles were those grippy things that guitarists use to strengthen their fingers. But, you know, leftist thug.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Campus protests aren't going to overthrow democracy. They've been around for decades.

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.

Quote

Being against things doesn't make liberals "snowflakes".

 

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.

Quote

What's more likely to overthrow our democracy is Russian interference in elections. 

?? 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.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Free speech is not just an issue of the first amendment. 

It really is. When people get banned from forums like this and start talking about free speech, I always chuckle. Free speech doesn't mean you can speak in any venue you please. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

?? 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.

I'm pretty sure treason is a bigger issue than background level political corruption. Not to mention Trump's ties to the Russian mafia. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

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.

 

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that criticism (mostly based on the irritating language of "microagressions"), but in reality everyone from every political walk of life has their safe spaces. 

For some people, the free market place of ideas is really just about slinging around hate speech. That's not what college is about, but of course open academic discourse is important. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're talking about campus protests that turn rowdy or violent.  But they're still campus protests. 

That you fail to see much of a qualitative difference, and that you refuse to acknowledge the obviously deliberate nature in the riots and vandalism is telling.

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one has ever curtailed Shapiro's freedom of speech. Is this an example of right wing snowflakism? Shapiro is entitled to speak at any college he wants? 

There are videos of people getting up on stage and yelling in order to prevent him from speaking. He requested their removal, but nothing was done so the protesters got their way. I'll try to dig one up. 

The guy is regularly opposed by the left because he believes there is no institutional discrimination, and thus no basis for reverse discrimination policies like affirmative action. This type of thinking gets a rise out of many college audiences. But if you are going to challenge him you better come armed with some facts because he seems to have a photographic memory.

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes 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.

Of course nobody will defend the violence. I think the issue is that many here are trying to make it appear as if violence somehow spontaneously erupted after Trump was elected and that Americans, especially conservatives, were on their very best behavior before that. 

But let's not forget that the only person to be shot and almost killed while exercising freedom of speech was a guy who was shot by a Trump supporter in broad daylight in the middle of the street for no other reason than he might have been a leftist thug. There is no shortage of idiots on either side.

New Alt-Right “Fight Club” Ready for Street Violence

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As for Russian interference, honestly the interference was pretty minor. But I definitely think we should be doing something about it and don't like how Republicans haven't taken in seriously. Surely we can worry about multiple problems at the same time though.

 

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, just said: "[Russia] must be congratulating themselves for having exceeded their wildest expectations"

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one has ever curtailed Shapiro's freedom of speech. Is this an example of right wing snowflakism? Shapiro is entitled to speak at any college he wants? 

Of course not. Like anyone else he must be invited.

But once invited by the university or by a recognized campus group such as College Republicans, he is entitled to have the event happen free of assaults and intimidation by mobs, bullies and thugs. Otherwise, yes, he has had his freedom of speech curtailed.

But I understand UC Berkeley has been sued by the College Republicans over their refusal to equal protection and access in the Coulter issue. We'll see how this shakes out in the courts.

 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There are videos of people getting up on stage and yelling in order to prevent him from speaking. He requested their removal, but nothing was done so the protesters got their way. I'll try to dig one up. 

The guy is regularly opposed by the left because he believes there is no institutional discrimination, and thus no basis for reverse discrimination policies like affirmative action. This type of thinking gets a rise out of many college audiences. But if you are going to challenge him you better come armed with some facts because he seems to have a photographic memory.

Yes, they used their speech to interfere with the audibility of his. But is he ENTITLED to speak in any venue he likes without interruption? 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course not. Like anyone else he must be invited.

But once invited by the university or by a recognized campus group such as College Republicans, he is entitled to have the event happen free of assaults and intimidation by mobs, bullies and thugs. Otherwise, yes, he has had his freedom of speech curtailed.

That's not what freedom of speech is. 

 

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I understand UC Berkeley has been sued by the College Republicans over their refusal to equal protection and access in the Coulter issue. We'll see how this shakes out in the courts.

 

It will be interesting to see. There are a lot of legitimate ways to couch the issue you're talking about, but free speech isn't one of them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Yes, they used their speech to interfere with the audibility of his. But is he ENTITLED to speak in any venue he likes without interruption? 

Yes, as an invited speaker, he is entitled to deliver his speech without disruption. It's a matter of common courtesy and civility. The disrupters should be removed.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That you fail to see much of a qualitative difference, and that you refuse to acknowledge the obviously deliberate nature in the riots and vandalism is telling.

I'm saying that it's still a campus protest. Sometimes they turn violent, which is unfortunate. Similar things have happened to David Duke.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/02/violence-erupts-at-protest-against-former-kkk-leader-david-duke-at-la-historic-black-college-turns-violent/

Violence seems to follow people like that. Maybe it's possible to understand why that is, without condoning violence? 

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm pretty sure treason is a bigger issue than background level political corruption. Not to mention Trump's ties to the Russian mafia. 

Oh c'mon Gray. Everyone knows they were listening to everything between Trump and the Russians, and have already concluded there is no connection. Trump's own allegations failed to bring up anything illegal - but certainly did highlight that the Russian's were being watched very closely. Nothing has come to the front. It is just smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking by the dems. Trump has no real business interests in Russia - pulleassse. 

[Gray]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, as an invited speaker, he is entitled to deliver his speech without disruption. It's a matter of common courtesy and civility. The disrupters should be removed.

Are you sure you're not confusing privilege with entitlement?