Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[Gray]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

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. 

No, they haven't concluded anything of the sort. The investigation is ongoing. Did you miss the Yates testimony today? Or Comey's testimony last week?

Trump is deeply tied with the Russions, has been for decades.

[Rajah Manchou]

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.

"USU officials and Sarkeesian on Wednesday revealed new details about the threats. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate. Initially purported to be a dispute over the ethics of a female game designer's relationship with a gaming journalist, GamerGate exploded into a flurry of rape and death threats against feminists in the games industry. The hashtag #GamerGate evolved to identify not a controversy, but a loose group of gamers claiming a variety of objectives, from improving the image of gamers to policing games journalism to killing feminists who call for less abusive representations of women in video games. Escalating threats over the past two months have driven multiple female game developers and critics from their homes."

"It's unacceptable that the school is unable or unwilling to screen for firearms at a lecture on their campus, especially when a specific terrorist threat had been made against the speaker," she said.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

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

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

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?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, they haven't concluded anything of the sort. The investigation is ongoing. Did you miss the Yates testimony today? Or Comey's testimony last week?

Trump is deeply tied with the Russions, has been for decades.

Is Bigfoot involved somehow?

 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

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. 

 

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?

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. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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

Just so you know I did not vote for Trump, and do not like nor defend his inflammatory speech. I find it extremely unpresidential. I don't care for Trump nor Clinton, although at the moment I am finding Trump to be the lesser of the two "evils." Mainly because I am deeply disturbed by what Clinton was doing in Libya, and apparently in Syria too - selling out peace, Christians, foreign sovereign governments and the American people to Arab interests and collecting millions for it. I find it deeply disturbing and troubling that the American people are largely oblivious to it, and supported such a candidate.

But I have seen a lot of violence by protesters of conservative speakers which I find very disturbing. I don't believe I would have seen this type of thing before the Obama admin.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is Bigfoot involved somehow?

 

Stick your head in the sand if it makes you feel better. 

 

"We have all the funding we need out of Russia" - Eric Trump, 2014

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

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? 

 

Do you understand what you're saying?

That's like saying a rape victim is to blame for her attack because she provoked it.

Or the Mormons deserved to be persecuted, oppressed, driven from their homes and killed because their theological ideas were unpopular.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Do you understand what you're saying?

That's like saying a rape victim is to blame for her attack because she provoked it.

Or the Mormons deserved to be persecuted, oppressed, driven from their homes and killed because their theological ideas were unpopular.

Or maybe it's understandable that KKK members and other white supremacists are so controversial that violence seems to follow them when they try to make public appearances. Is that hard to understand, without comparing them to rape victims? Surely you've seen the Blues Brothers. Everyone cheers when they force the Illinois Nazis off the bridge.

Are you really saying you don't get why violence follows people like that around?  

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Stick your head in the sand if it makes you feel better. 

 

"We have all the funding we need out of Russia" - Eric Trump, 2014

Care to provide some context for that cherry-picked quote?

 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Care to provide some context for that cherry-picked quote?

 

All quotes are cherry picked, Scott. That's what makes them quotes.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-golf-courses-russia-funding-2017-5 

 

Bonus article:

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/ 

 

Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Or maybe it's understandable that KKK members and other white supremacists are so controversial that violence seems to follow them when they try to make public appearances. Is that hard to understand, without comparing them to rape victims? Surely you've seen the Blues Brothers. Everyone cheers when they force the Illinois Nazis off the bridge. 

Comparing conservatives like Ben Shapiro to the KKK surely should be a corollary to Godwin's Law, which, I'm sure you know, holds that " if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds." Only in this case, it's the KKK, not Hitler.

 

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, 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.

Yep, there really is no free speech if he is prevented from speaking. Free speech is not about preventing the free speech of others. It just shows how organized the leftist opposition is. If conservatives were to do that at democratic-sponsored events does anyone believe the media would be silent about it? Especially if conservatives were to throw riots, and use baseball bats, etc to promote their conservative agenda? The conservatives would get crucified in the media, and get sued. Liberal protesters - nope - just another protest - at tax-payer expense I might add.

Edited May 8, 2017 by RevTestament

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Gray said:

All quotes are cherry picked, Scott. That's what makes them quotes.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-golf-courses-russia-funding-2017-5 

 

Bonus article:

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/ 

 

Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings

No, not all quotes are cherry picked. Honest writers and speakers provide enough explanatory context so as not to misled.

Duplicitous writers and speakers, on the other hand, ...

By the way, I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I'm just growing tired of waiting for the conspiracy theorists to make a solid case. We're six months removed from the election now, and so far not a shred of reliable or conclusive evidence about Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

And no, investigations do not constitute evidence. If anything they argue against it, as it looks less and less likely with each day that goes by without the investigations having turned up anything.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But I have seen a lot of violence by protesters of conservative speakers which I find very disturbing. I don't believe I would have seen this type of thing before the Obama admin.

This sort of intimidation has been going on for some time. When discussing the Berkeley protests Its important to first track the rise of Milo, and the forces that put him there.

Milo got his start as a supporter of what is called GamerGate, a group of online trolls that harassed women for being too snowflakey about violence in video games. One of these feminists that was targeted by GamerGate was invited to speak at USU. But the GamerGate community was determined to make sure that she did not speak. So there were three different death threats called in, saying there would be one of the largest school shootings in American history if this feminist was allowed to speak in Utah. Long story short, the event was cancelled.

Milo Yiannopoulos defended the GamerGate community and mocked the woman publicly on Twitter. He defended the threats against the feminist as free speech. The controversy surrounding Milo's defense of those who intimidated this woman led to him getting moving up the ladder at Breitbart and eventually landing a speaking gig at Berkeley, which was shut down by protestors. Oh the irony.

So this type of thing was going on right in our own backyard in Utah, and it was being done by the same guy (not even an American) who is now insisting that we protect his free speech on a American college campus.

Hypocrisy much?

Edited May 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This sort of intimidation has been going on for some time. When discussing the Berkeley protests Its important to first track the rise of Milo, and the forces that put him there.

Milo got his start as a supporter of what is called GamerGate, a group of online trolls that harassed women for being too snowflakey about violence in video games. One of these feminists that was targeted by GamerGate was invited to speak at USU. But the GamerGate community was determined to make sure that she did not speak. So there were three different death threats called in, saying there would be one of the largest school shootings in American history if this feminist was allowed to speak in Utah. Long story short, the event was cancelled.

Milo Yiannopoulos defended the GamerGate community and mocked the woman publicly on Twitter. He defended the threats against the feminist as free speech. The controversy surrounding Milo's defense of those who intimidated this woman led to him getting moving up the ladder at Breitbart and eventually landing a speaking gig at Berkeley, which was shut down by protestors. Oh the irony.

So this type of thing was going on right in our own backyard in Utah, and it was being done by the same guy (not even an American) who is now insisting that we protect his free speech on a American college campus.

Hypocrisy much?

I am not defending the alt-right. I am defending Milo's right to speak if he is invited to a college campus even though I don't like the guy, and find him to be very troll-like. And most importantly I don't think any of this was before the Obama admin. Milo is as you note, a foreign immigrant, who is a recent new-comer. Of course Milo doesn't identify himself as alt-right, but they do seem to like him. I don't believe he was behind the death threats tho even though we find him repeatedly defending the alt-right when it forwards his position.

However, I do not believe death threats are protected free speech. Death threats are akin to assault, and are not used for any constructive purpose. If they could identify the threat makers, I would not be against arresting them and giving them a little jail time or obtaining some reparations from them for the injured party.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

First off many of the institutions in question are state schools and thus subject to free speech limits in the first amendment. That's why the courts have weighed in at times on school speech codes. However within academia people talk about free speech in much broader ways. This is doubly ironic since Berkeley was ground zero for the free speech movement in the 60's.

So while the first amendment isn't the prime issue, it is related simply because the majority of controversies are on state owned campuses and thus intrinsically tied to government action.

There are thus several different discussions going on. I'll confess I find the first amendment proper issues to be less interesting. To me the biggest threat is the diversity of ideas on campuses being constrained in ways that are harmful for academics. 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Comparing conservatives like Ben Shapiro to the KKK surely should be a corollary to Godwin's Law, which, I'm sure you know, holds that " if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds." Only in this case, it's the KKK, not Hitler.

 

David Duke is a former member of the KKK. I never said Ben Shapiro was. 

Ben Shapiro wasn't met with violence, of course. Pulling the fire alarm is irresponsible and disruptive, but hardly violent. But let's not kid ourselves, he seems to be an extremist, and apparently he's made enemies among Trump supporters as well. 

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, not all quotes are cherry picked. Honest writers and speakers provide enough explanatory context so as not to mislead.

Duplicitous writers and speakers, on the other hand, ...

By the way, I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I'm just growing tired of waiting for the conspiracy theorists to make a solid case. We're six months removed from the election now, and so far not a shred of reliable or conclusive evidence about Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

And no, investigations do not constitute evidence. If anything they argue against it, as it looks less and less likely with each day that goes by without the investigations having turned up anything.

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

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. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So there were three different death threats called in, saying there would be one of the largest school shootings in American history if this feminist was allowed to speak in Utah. Long story short, the event was cancelled.

We can easily condemn all examples of this from both sides.  So I'm not sure what the point of this is. I certainly wouldn't turn to the alt-right hoping for support for free speech. They are inherently about intimidation to prevent free expression of political ideas.

Now it certainly is hypocrisy while Milo runs his mouth on such matters. But those who are most worried about such matters aren't being hypocritical. We should remember once again that Coulter and Milo need protests of their lectures in order to appear the victim but also to get publicized and get new readers. Their whole business plan depends upon people trying to stamp out their free speech.

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

Or maybe it's understandable that KKK members and other white supremacists are so controversial that violence seems to follow them when they try to make public appearances. Is that hard to understand, without comparing them to rape victims? Surely you've seen the Blues Brothers. Everyone cheers when they force the Illinois Nazis off the bridge.

Are you really saying you don't get why violence follows people like that around?  

If it were just KKK members I'd completely understand. It's the fact it's not just such figures that has me extremely worried.

 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

First off many of the institutions in question are state schools and thus subject to free speech limits in the first amendment. That's why the courts have weighed in at times on school speech codes. However within academia people talk about free speech in much broader ways. This is doubly ironic since Berkeley was ground zero for the free speech movement in the 60's.

So while the first amendment isn't the prime issue, it is related simply because the majority of controversies are on state owned campuses and thus intrinsically tied to government action.

There are thus several different discussions going on. I'll confess I find the first amendment proper issues to be less interesting. To me the biggest threat is the diversity of ideas on campuses being constrained in ways that are harmful for academics. 

Free speech issues might be somewhat of an issue if campuses were putting a blanket ban on right wing speakers. They're not of course. But, disruptions can and do threaten the safety of the campus, which can lead to controversial figures not being allowed the privilege to speak. If the campuses being state funded means that everyone gets a voice, I expect I'll start up my campus lecture circuit tomorrow. I'm entitled to speak!  

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Ben Shapiro wasn't met with violence, of course. Pulling the fire alarm is irresponsible and disruptive, but hardly violent. But let's not kid ourselves, he seems to be an extremist, and apparently he's made enemies among Trump supporters as well. 

They shut down his ability to speak. That's not violent in the sense of hurting people but goes well beyond peaceful protests. Again if you don't think so simply ask yourself how you would feel were conservatives to act the way they did to Shapiro to liberal figures like Sarkeesian. You can't have it both ways. If it's wrong to silence Sarkeesian it's wrong to silence Shapiro.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

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

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If it were just KKK members I'd completely understand. It's the fact it's not just such figures that has me extremely worried.

 

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. 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Free speech issues might be somewhat of an issue if campuses were putting a blanket ban on right wing speakers. They're not of course. But, disruptions can and do threaten the safety of the campus, which can lead to controversial figures not being allowed the privilege to speak. If the campuses being state funded means that everyone gets a voice, I expect I'll start up my campus lecture circuit tomorrow. I'm entitled to speak! 

So you would feel fine banning Sarkeesian from speaking on any campus because of how alt-right violence follows her?