ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th April 2017, 06:58 PM   #2281
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wrong again. The reservations and arrangements made for that time and place (including money spent) made it significant.

You're getting desperate it your defense of speech suppression.
What, no refunds?

I take it that calling it my defense of "speech suppression" means no compromise then?

And thus do we recreate the necessary polarity, as reliably as if we were talking physics and magnetism instead of politics.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:02 PM   #2282
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
She lost the opportunity to speak directly to the people who invited her, the people who invited her lost the opportunity to question her, and she lost the opportunity to answer.

All because of some anti free speech fanatics.
www.gotomeeting.com

If Edward Snowden can manage to have a TED talk (and reportedly makes $25,000 for speaking on the circuit) in the US where he is a wanted man, Coulter can figure out how to reach her fans, including a question and answer session.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:03 PM   #2283
MrFliop
Scholar
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 105
deleted

Last edited by MrFliop; 29th April 2017 at 07:24 PM.
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:07 PM   #2284
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
What's So special about the front of the bus, does she really need to sit in that exact seat? I'm sure a lot of drama could be avoided if she just sat somewhere else.

But no, this logic is okay to use if you don't like the person in question.

Unless all are free none are free. I'm sad you don't feel this way.
I love this one. Every single time it's repeated.

Ann Coulter is Rosa Parks? Really?

That's as bad as the opposite opinion, that Ann Coulter is Hitler. Maybe she's just Ann Coulter.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:11 PM   #2285
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
If those who wish to deny her her First Amendment rights purely for the crime of thinking differently to them really cared about free speech they would
let her speak. She was formally invited to speak there. They have no right to disrespect that decision. She cancels or speaks somewhere else then they
have won. In a democracy this type of behaviour is simply unacceptable
Actually, if they were clever, they'd flood the membership of the sponsoring organization with their own team and then vote not to have any controversial speakers at all.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:18 PM   #2286
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,307
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I love this one. Every single time it's repeated.

Ann Coulter is Rosa Parks? Really?

That's as bad as the opposite opinion, that Ann Coulter is Hitler. Maybe she's just Ann Coulter.
This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation. Being told to compromise her rights because others are upset with them.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:33 PM   #2287
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation. Being told to compromise her rights because others are upset with them.
Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?

It is not uncommon for rights to butt up against each other, which is why compromise is such a handy tool.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:34 PM   #2288
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,705
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
Everyone that is other than those who do think they have something intellectual to say. But even if no one did that would still not be justification
for denying them their right to free speech. The First Amendment applies to everyone equally regardless of intellectual ability. Free speech is less
concerned with what someone has to say and more concerned with them actually having the freedom to say it. This is why it is called free speech
Because it applies to everyone to be free to say whatever they want to
Eh, no, there are plenty of conservatives that actually have something intelligent to say. They're *wrong*, in my opinion, but they're doing something other than spewing insults like Coulter, or trying to silence other people like Milo (ironically, the only thing he's famous for). If the campus conservative/republican groups wanted an intellectual, they'd have invited one.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 07:40 PM   #2289
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,705
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation. Being told to compromise her rights because others are upset with them.
No, she really isn't in anything close to a similar situation. She's not some massive victim, she still has plenty of platforms and is not about to be arrested, and she is not living in anything close to Jim Crow.

(Also, Rosa Parks was sitting towards the back of the bus, but was supposed to give her seat up for a white man because the white section was full. The seat next to her was actually open, but it would be oh so horrible for a noble white man to sit next to some negro. So let's drop this crappy analogy.)
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:04 PM   #2290
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I love this one. Every single time it's repeated.

Ann Coulter is Rosa Parks? Really?

That's as bad as the opposite opinion, that Ann Coulter is Hitler. Maybe she's just Ann Coulter.
Interestingly, Coulter was not even there to give a 'speech'. The group that invited her was subjecting her to a grilling, and they freely admit to not agreeing with her views.

Quote:
We also understand that many see her as an inflammatory figure with destructive beliefs that disqualify her from appearing at an institution of higher learning. But we believe the only productive way to fight views one sees as bad or dangerous is with better views. So we chose to get involved and include Coulter in our speaker series on immigration so students could hear, and actively challenge, her views. We planned for the event to be a debate-style, question-and-answer session with rebuttals to allow for a dialogue.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/04/27...k-at-berkeley/
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:08 PM   #2291
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
What part of "To protect and serve" don't they get? The whole purpose of the PD is to step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur, especially if the place and time is known.
Maybe being outnumbered ten to one and not wanting to shoot people is a factor?
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:23 PM   #2292
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What, no refunds?
For plane tickets? Not usually.

Quote:
I take it that calling it my defense of "speech suppression" means no compromise then?
Why should anyone compromise on their fundamental civil rights?

Quote:
And thus do we recreate the necessary polarity, as reliably as if we were talking physics and magnetism instead of politics.
Wrong again (I sense a pattern). Protecting people's rights isn't what leads to polarization. The abandonment of fundamental principles for temporary partisan purposes is far more destructive to civility and compromise that anything Coulter would have said.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:25 PM   #2293
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation.
More to the point, marplots is putting himself in a similar situation. And not on the right side.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:27 PM   #2294
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?
Not violently. And not by trespassing either, even if non-violently.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:36 PM   #2295
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wrong again (I sense a pattern). Protecting people's rights isn't what leads to polarization. The abandonment of fundamental principles for temporary partisan purposes is far more destructive to civility and compromise that anything Coulter would have said.
Lest we drift too far afield and lose focus, what (in your view) would constitute protecting Ann Coulter's rights in this specific situation? Is it just that the event shouldn't be cancelled, or does it include policing the event to ensure she has the platform unmolested?

I ask because Coulter is bowing to the wishes of someone here - the University, the sponsoring organization, threats from protesting groups, policing authority concerns... she doesn't seem to care as much about her right to speak as we do.

How do you reconcile your champion's abandonment of the cause in the face of difficulties? Is it enough that she posed for a selfie before retreating?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:40 PM   #2296
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
More to the point, marplots is putting himself in a similar situation. And not on the right side.
It's at least some progress to recognize there are two sides.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 08:51 PM   #2297
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Lest we drift too far afield and lose focus, what (in your view) would constitute protecting Ann Coulter's rights in this specific situation? Is it just that the event shouldn't be cancelled, or does it include policing the event to ensure she has the platform unmolested?
Both are necessary for the protection of rights.

Quote:
I ask because Coulter is bowing to the wishes of someone here - the University, the sponsoring organization, threats from protesting groups, policing authority concerns... she doesn't seem to care as much about her right to speak as we do.

How do you reconcile your champion's abandonment of the cause in the face of difficulties? Is it enough that she posed for a selfie before retreating?
You cannot reasonably conclude any of that. It simply doesn't follow, given that the policing is inadequate.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 09:58 PM   #2298
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Both are necessary for the protection of rights.

You cannot reasonably conclude any of that. It simply doesn't follow, given that the policing is inadequate.
Allow me to recap.
Coulter agrees to speak. Everyone is happy to let her speak. Except the protestors, who threaten violence if she dares. No one wants to foot the bill to allow her to speak unmolested. (The price of free speech and all that.)

Is that it in a nutshell?

I submit that Coulter gets what she wants - the ability to point to her traditional foes and tell us how they are acting outrageously and hypocritically (because of "tolerance"). Protestors get what they want because Coulter is prevented from speaking. University gets what they want because they don't have to pay for protection.

The sponsoring group doesn't get what they want though. Coulter is a nice "get."
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 11:19 PM   #2299
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?

It is not uncommon for rights to butt up against each other, which is why compromise is such a handy tool.
No. They don't.

Surely you understand this, don't you? Of course they have the right to stand around and yell and carry signs, and if that is what you mean by protest, then they have the right to protest. They can peaceably assemble all they want

They don't have the right to break windows when they are doing it. They don't have the right to use violence or to threaten violence.

They also do not have the right to interfere with an event that was legally scheduled. i.e. if they chose to show up at the venue where Ms. Coulter was speaking, they would not have the right to yell louder than her so that she couldn't actually deliver her speech.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2017, 12:13 AM   #2300
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No. They don't.

Surely you understand this, don't you? Of course they have the right to stand around and yell and carry signs, and if that is what you mean by protest, then they have the right to protest. They can peaceably assemble all they want
Agreed.

Quote:
They don't have the right to break windows when they are doing it. They don't have the right to use violence or to threaten violence.
Agreed.

Quote:
They also do not have the right to interfere with an event that was legally scheduled. i.e. if they chose to show up at the venue where Ms. Coulter was speaking, they would not have the right to yell louder than her so that she couldn't actually deliver her speech.
Here we may part ways. But setting that aside, have we yet recognized that whatever subset of protestors is threatening violence (which presumably they can deliver on, judging by the last event), that subset is also infringing on the rights of peaceful protestors who simply want to disagree with whomever is speaking?

If a threat of violence is enough to shut down an event, then everyone who wished to speak (both inside and outside the venue) is crushed by the same boot. How then can we claim freedom of speech as sacrosanct while simultaneously cancelling the event?

The answer for me is that, despite the rhetoric, free speech is not sacrosanct (or if it is in the abstract, it isn't in the particular) and in light of that fact there are useful compromises to be had. Haven't they already come up with a compromise by rescheduling?

ETA: I see that Ms. Coulter has rejected the rescheduling.

Last edited by marplots; 30th April 2017 at 12:16 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2017, 08:46 PM   #2301
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Here we may part ways. But setting that aside, have we yet recognized that whatever subset of protestors is threatening violence (which presumably they can deliver on, judging by the last event), that subset is also infringing on the rights of peaceful protestors who simply want to disagree with whomever is speaking?

If a threat of violence is enough to shut down an event, then everyone who wished to speak (both inside and outside the venue) is crushed by the same boot. How then can we claim freedom of speech as sacrosanct while simultaneously cancelling the event?


The answer for me is that, despite the rhetoric, free speech is not sacrosanct (or if it is in the abstract, it isn't in the particular) and in light of that fact there are useful compromises to be had. Haven't they already come up with a compromise by rescheduling?

ETA: I see that Ms. Coulter has rejected the rescheduling.
I think what I, and probably many others, would say is that free speech is in fact sacrosanct, and that cancelling the event was a profane act.


Sometimes, practical considerations force actions that would otherwise be considered profane. Applying that to this situation, we might say that the event had to be cancelled for safety reasons. Ok. Very well. If that's true, it should not be considered a compromise, but a surrender, and those who must reluctantly give in to a threat of violence should at least condemn those who made it necessary by their threats of violence.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2017, 08:50 PM   #2302
surreptitious57
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by marplots
dont the protestors also have the right to protest?
Peaceful protest - yes. But using violence as a means to prevent someone from speaking? No. Absolutely not. Do not like what someone
has to say? Then either engage them or ignore them. Taking the law into your own hands because you think the end justifies the means
is not an option here. And those that routinely engage in such type of behaviour should be made to accept responsibility for their actions
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 04:52 AM   #2303
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,423
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
What's the material difference? Not challenging, just asking. I don't really see that there's a meaningful difference between them other than 'left/right'...
Well, "left" and "right" are pretty different if you look at the definition. But if you want it short: the far-right is afraid of difference; the far-left is afraid of conformity.

Quote:
and the end of the spectrum doesn't really seem meaningful to me in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved.
That is absolutely true.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:17 PM   #2304
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
It's been said before in other contexts and I do agree with it - the meaningful scale isn't left/right, it's authoritarian/libertarian (lower case 'l'). I'm no more comfortable with "<x> shouldn't be allowed to speak because they're transphobic" than I am with "<x> shouldn't be allowed to speak because they mock Christianity". Not to say that it's fine to label both sides as fascist, or whatever, but at the end of the day I think the important focus should be on the behavior, and not the term being used to label it. It'd be a better world if we could get linguistic precision and move on, but all too often it seems the discussion gets mired down in the semantic part, to the exclusion of the actual issues.

It's like that vid of Triglyprof, screaming at cops for not shutting down a talk by Gavin McInnes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AelSaLXyN0) . She repeatedly calls him a Nazi or neo-Nazi, and demands that cops should be 'kicking his ass'. Now from what I've read about him he's not what could remotely be considered a Nazi, but that's not the important thing to fight against. So the choice is : do we debate if McInnes is or is not a Nazi, or do we talk about how utterly repugnant it is that a professor is loudly demanding that LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS use force to keep someone from expressing a point of view?

Would be nice if we could do both with appropriate balance, but I don't think we're there right now as a species.
Agreed on the whole of your post.

With respect to the highlighted portion... As a species? I think we've already been there - it's part of the first amendment, after all. Culturally, however, we seem to have strayed a bit.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:21 PM   #2305
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?
Of course protestors have the right to protest. They do not, however, have the right to threaten violence against the people they're protesting against.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:23 PM   #2306
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Maybe being outnumbered ten to one and not wanting to shoot people is a factor?
That's what we call "mob rule". Not something I find acceptable.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:25 PM   #2307
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I ask because Coulter is bowing to the wishes of someone here - the University, the sponsoring organization, threats from protesting groups, policing authority concerns... she doesn't seem to care as much about her right to speak as we do.
If the threat of violence was only a risk for Coulter, you may have a point. But it's not just her, it's anyone who might support her, anyone who shows up. It's threats of violence against bystanders.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:27 PM   #2308
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Allow me to recap.
Coulter agrees to speak. Everyone is happy to let her speak. Except the protestors, who threaten violence if she dares. No one wants to foot the bill to allow her to speak unmolested. (The price of free speech and all that.)

Is that it in a nutshell?
Not really no. The protesters threaten violence against attendees and the venue. They threaten everyone. They don't just want to silence her (which is repugnant enough), they want to coerce through violence anyone willing to listen to her and anyone willing to provide a platform for her to speak.

How is this NOT appalling to you?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 12:30 PM   #2309
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, "left" and "right" are pretty different if you look at the definition. But if you want it short: the far-right is afraid of difference; the far-left is afraid of conformity.

That is absolutely true.
So if left/right is a meaningless distinction in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved, then shouldn't we be able to ignore that distinction as meaningless, and go ahead and speak to them as being effectively the same in action and impact?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 06:35 PM   #2310
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Not really no. The protesters threaten violence against attendees and the venue. They threaten everyone. They don't just want to silence her (which is repugnant enough), they want to coerce through violence anyone willing to listen to her and anyone willing to provide a platform for her to speak.

How is this NOT appalling to you?
Probably because I am jaded and cynical. The world I inhabit is full of force, threats of force and violence of various flavors. To reach "appalling," something would have to rise above the norm in a rather more dramatic fashion that we have here. Murdering your five kids by drowning them one at a time is appalling. Acting like a soccer hooligan? Not so much.

I'm mostly irritated by the assumption that there aren't options and choices available, all down the line. I dislike it when agency is removed from a participant to simplify the narrative.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 04:42 AM   #2311
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,423
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So if left/right is a meaningless distinction in light of the totalitarian intolerance involved, then shouldn't we be able to ignore that distinction as meaningless, and go ahead and speak to them as being effectively the same in action and impact?
Well, as I said in the post you quoted, they are NOT the same. "authoritarian" is mostly independent of your left-right leaning. Also, dealing with right-wing authoritarians might not require the same sort of intevention as dealing with left-wing ones.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 10:14 AM   #2312
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,981
I see the Black Bloc scum was out "expressing themselves" by destroying property, and bringing masks, rocks, marbles and slingshots to protest violence or something on May Day.

I did enjoy when the cops perp walked the worst of the stooges to the patrol wagon and the citizens were cheering.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 11:37 AM   #2313
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Probably because I am jaded and cynical. The world I inhabit is full of force, threats of force and violence of various flavors. To reach "appalling," something would have to rise above the norm in a rather more dramatic fashion that we have here. Murdering your five kids by drowning them one at a time is appalling. Acting like a soccer hooligan? Not so much.

I'm mostly irritated by the assumption that there aren't options and choices available, all down the line. I dislike it when agency is removed from a participant to simplify the narrative.
I don't think anyone has assumed there are no other options available. I think it's a matter of believing (strongly) that nobody should be forced into a situation where their agency is limited by threat of violence.

I dislike it when agency is removed from a participant by a blatant violation of our fundamental constitutional rights.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 11:40 AM   #2314
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, as I said in the post you quoted, they are NOT the same. "authoritarian" is mostly independent of your left-right leaning. Also, dealing with right-wing authoritarians might not require the same sort of intevention as dealing with left-wing ones.
Yes, you said they are not the same... but you also agreed that within this context, the distinction of right/left is immaterial in light of the behavior exhibited.

I'm inclined to think that dealing with people who employ violence and threats to deprive others of their civil liberties shouldn't depend on what their political beliefs are, nor should it depend on what they claim as their reasons. This the right-wing/left-wing distinction is meaningless in this context.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.