Page 14 of 16 [ 244 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

18 Mar 2015, 9:50 am

Dox47 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
You seem to be claiming the freedom of speech is some immutable element of natural law. You can quote law professors and non-ancient Supreme Court rulings all you like, but they won't prove that your position is somehow morally superior to mine.


I don't have to claim moral superiority, nor would I want to, as I don't consider morality to be a valid argument one way or the other, I just have to prove that your views always lead to censorship and abuse of power, and that's easy, since it does.

You're a progressive, I'm sure you believe in systemic racism and such, and yet you think that speech laws will be used against the powerful in defense of the powerless? Think real hard about that.


Well, you don't really have to think all that hard... All you need do is LOOK at what happen at OU. Rules, against hate speech were used to smack down a bunch of privileged racist white kids to protect minority students, not to oppress them.

Also, there's no need to take systemic/institutional racism on faith. Plenty of research says it is alive and well in America. Just look at the Justice Department investigation of Ferguson, MO.
And there too, the powers that be have intervened to defend the weak against the strong.

Sure, there's always a chance that power can be abused, that's why we have checks and balances--it give us nonviolent ways to deal with that stuff.

One last thing...

The fact that you, and many other modern libertarians, tend toward amorality, is one of the main things that inspires my contempt.

Originally, the whole point of libertarian philosophy was that freedom was the right of men who could restrain themselves morally. Without that bit, many modern libertarians are just a bunch of narcissistic as*holes and social darwinists.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Mar 2015, 10:16 am

Dox47 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
And yet if some black lunatic appeared before you merely to rant and rave, which is a form of talking, not to harm you physically, but to just hurl obscenities, insults, cuss words and threats, you would be the first to take some kind of action. You wouldn't just let him exercise his first amendment right and even if you did for a while, you would eventually make him stop somehow, when you just got tired hearing him.


Ana, you know less than nothing about me, please don't project your own ignorance onto me. Due to the fact that I've dated a lot of black women over the years, a practice that some black men disapprove of, I actually have been in the described situation a number of times, and every time I've smiled and walked away, or in the case of a man who accosted me in a restaurant and berated me with racial slurs, waited for the staff to escort him out, end of story. You understand me even less than you understand free speech, perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about both.

By what you have typed, you pretty much are saying, Dox, you don't like it when people are rude and won't put up with them saying stuff to you. I ask you in all honesty, who would? No one that I know or can think of. So this is why I believe you must relate to this notion that the first amendment can be abused by people and we should stop them from abusing it. If someone started saying stuff to me I didn't want to hear, I wouldn't put up with it and that is regardless of their gender, race, age, social standing and I would censor them in some way, even if it meant simply removing myself. That is a form of censorship, not listening to them.

That is not saying people should be stopped from critiquing the government by peaceful assembly and public protest but this fraternity was not doing that. If members wanted to, they could have tried to obtain a public permit and held a rally of some kind. What they were doing appeared more like abuse than legitimate freedom of speech. No one is trying to get them to not be bigots they have the right to be but we all seem to agree, whether we say it or not, abuse of the first amendment should be dealt with accordingly.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Mar 2015, 10:50 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Well, you don't really have to think all that hard... All you need do is LOOK at what happen at OU. Rules, against hate speech were used to smack down a bunch of privileged racist white kids to protect minority students, not to oppress them.


OU had no rules. The admins met and arbitarily decided.

They can't have "rules against hate speech" ,because their professors are spewing it all the time. And further, they would look dumb, because the Constituion protects "hate speech".



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Mar 2015, 10:51 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Well, you don't really have to think all that hard... All you need do is LOOK at what happen at OU. Rules, against hate speech were used to smack down a bunch of privileged racist white kids to protect minority students, not to oppress them.


OU had no rules. The admins met and arbitarily decided.

They can't have "rules against hate speech" ,because their professors are spewing it all the time. And further, they would look dumb, because the Constituion protects "hate speech".

Where's the proof the professors are spewing hate speech? When I was there that was never the case. Ever! OU is not a hateful school nor is it a place where bigots rule.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

18 Mar 2015, 11:02 am

GoonSquad wrote:

The fact that you, and many other modern libertarians, tend toward amorality, is one of the main things that inspires my contempt.

Dox doesn't tend towards amorality, he just doesn't think your well-intentioned methods of securing moral outcomes actually work. He consistently expressed outrage over overreach of police power, unjustified military interventions, the War on Drugs, and the prison-industrial complex, including minimum sentencing guidelines and three strikes.

In this specific case, perhaps censoring the hate speech is a good thing, but that's perfectly consistent with it not being a good idea in general. If the government started locking up everyone whose name starts with Z, doubtless murders would be prevented (because some of the people who will murder in the near future have names starting with Z) - but many more innocent people would be unjustly deprived of their liberty.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Mar 2015, 11:06 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Well, you don't really have to think all that hard... All you need do is LOOK at what happen at OU. Rules, against hate speech were used to smack down a bunch of privileged racist white kids to protect minority students, not to oppress them.


OU had no rules. The admins met and arbitarily decided.

They can't have "rules against hate speech" ,because their professors are spewing it all the time. And further, they would look dumb, because the Constituion protects "hate speech".

Where's the proof the professors are spewing hate speech? When I was there that was never the case. Ever! OU is not a hateful school nor is it a place where bigots rule.


Dox already cited examples. For example, philosophy classes that are offensive to religious people, or sociology classes teaching topics e.g. "white priviledge" that is viewed as hate towards white people.

- The mere action of a professor legitimizing Israel for example, could be intepreted as hatred towards Muslims or vice-versa, if the professor ill-legitimizes Israel, then it is hatred towards Jewish people.

- A bible class professor saying he is anti LGBT because he believes in a literal intepretation of the bible could accused of being hateful towards LGBT.

Expressing offensive ideas is what college is about.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Mar 2015, 11:09 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Well, you don't really have to think all that hard... All you need do is LOOK at what happen at OU. Rules, against hate speech were used to smack down a bunch of privileged racist white kids to protect minority students, not to oppress them.


OU had no rules. The admins met and arbitarily decided.

They can't have "rules against hate speech" ,because their professors are spewing it all the time. And further, they would look dumb, because the Constituion protects "hate speech".

Where's the proof the professors are spewing hate speech? When I was there that was never the case. Ever! OU is not a hateful school nor is it a place where bigots rule.


Dox already cited examples. For example, philosophy classes that are offensive to religious people, or sociology classes teaching topics e.g. "white priviledge" that is viewed as hate towards white people.

- The mere action of a professor legitimizing Israel for example, could be intepreted as hatred towards Muslims or vice-versa, if the professor ill-legitimizes Israel, then it is hatred towards Jewish people.

- A bible class professor saying he is anti LGBT because he believes in a literal intepretation of the bible could accused of being hateful towards LGBT.

Expressing offensive ideas is what college is about.

OU professors typically do not resort to personal attacks such as offensive name calling or telling people to get out and go die.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Mar 2015, 6:07 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I think only you and your BFF Raptor are the only ones who think I have no credibility.


Thinking never was your strong suit. Maybe credibility isn't the right word, it's not so much that you're being deceitful as it is that you never know what you're talking about, yet insist on arguing with those who do no matter how much evidence of your wrongness/ignorance is presented. Throw in the blind partisanship and the hypocrisy regarding it, and you're not exactly left with an opinion to be taken seriously.


Well, golly gee, Dox, I'm a horrible person for thinking with my heart. And a worse one for disagreeing with you. And just to let you know, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm stupid, it just means I think your wrong. Kinda think you ought to be made aware of that, otherwise someday you'll piss off the wrong person who's not as nice as me.
And what do I argue that I know nothing about? Guns? I'm only offering my opinion. The notion that civil rights laws must apply to private business? Well, on that point, I'm going by what's morally right. All that proves is that Goonsquad is right: that you modern day libertarians are just a bunch of amoral social Darwinists, and I want nothing to do with any of you.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

18 Mar 2015, 10:54 pm

Ken White wrote:
This Court has also held that the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called "fighting words," those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.


Then, all it should take for someone to personally insult someone else to their heart's content and still enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, their speech not considered "fighting words", is that the speaker be strong enough, well-trained enough in combat, intimidating enough, and—if necessary depending on the circumstances—properly armed so "the ordinary citizen" (presumably an average, which let's not forget includes women, children, the elderly, injured and disabled men, etc.) would never dare to respond with physical violence towards them.


_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Mar 2015, 11:57 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I think only you and your BFF Raptor are the only ones who think I have no credibility.


Thinking never was your strong suit. Maybe credibility isn't the right word, it's not so much that you're being deceitful as it is that you never know what you're talking about, yet insist on arguing with those who do no matter how much evidence of your wrongness/ignorance is presented. Throw in the blind partisanship and the hypocrisy regarding it, and you're not exactly left with an opinion to be taken seriously.


Well, golly gee, Dox, I'm a horrible person for thinking with my heart. And a worse one for disagreeing with you. And just to let you know, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm stupid, it just means I think your wrong. Kinda think you ought to be made aware of that, otherwise someday you'll piss off the wrong person who's not as nice as me.
And what do I argue that I know nothing about? Guns? I'm only offering my opinion. The notion that civil rights laws must apply to private business? Well, on that point, I'm going by what's morally right. All that proves is that Goonsquad is right: that you modern day libertarians are just a bunch of amoral social Darwinists, and I want nothing to do with any of you.


Despite thinking of yourself as taking the moral high ground, the civil rights organization 'ACLU' -- a group that fights in the legal trenches for the civil rights of minorities -- finds your stance naive, because it leads to the supression of minorities.

ACLU wrote:
We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/freedo ... tion-paper



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2015, 12:36 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I think only you and your BFF Raptor are the only ones who think I have no credibility.


Thinking never was your strong suit. Maybe credibility isn't the right word, it's not so much that you're being deceitful as it is that you never know what you're talking about, yet insist on arguing with those who do no matter how much evidence of your wrongness/ignorance is presented. Throw in the blind partisanship and the hypocrisy regarding it, and you're not exactly left with an opinion to be taken seriously.


Well, golly gee, Dox, I'm a horrible person for thinking with my heart. And a worse one for disagreeing with you. And just to let you know, disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm stupid, it just means I think your wrong. Kinda think you ought to be made aware of that, otherwise someday you'll piss off the wrong person who's not as nice as me.
And what do I argue that I know nothing about? Guns? I'm only offering my opinion. The notion that civil rights laws must apply to private business? Well, on that point, I'm going by what's morally right. All that proves is that Goonsquad is right: that you modern day libertarians are just a bunch of amoral social Darwinists, and I want nothing to do with any of you.


Despite thinking of yourself as taking the moral high ground, the civil rights organization 'ACLU' -- a group that fights in the legal trenches for the civil rights of minorities -- finds your stance naive, because it leads to the suppression of minorities.

ACLU wrote:
We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/freedo ... tion-paper


Who says I'm going to hang on every word of the ACLU? Civil rights organizations such as CORE, the NAACP, a plethora of LGBT rights groups, as well as many others look to change enacted by the government at the federal level.
And as far as government power leading to suppression of minorities - at the state and local level, most certainly. But modern American history has proven that federal intervention has been the very best thing that has ever happened to minorities.
So, do I have the moral high ground? I never said I did, but the position that I am championing - that federal power has helped the oppressed in recent American history - certainly has the moral high ground.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

19 Mar 2015, 3:34 am

I think it's funny how debates about free speech always get so heated. It's as if people are trying to push the boundaries just to see how far free speech can go, as if it is a martyr's way of proving a point.

I don't know. These kids were drunken as*holes (liquor excuses nothing, but let's face it, there are a lot of drunken as*holes out there).

But on the other hand I think it is really incredibly tragic that the whole world has to know about it. These stupid kids (let's call them what they are - they aren't evil, they were acting stupid) are now going to have their whole life affected because of this stupid controversy. The media is far worse than any dumb comments these kids made in my opinion. Profiting off of stupidity. Shameful abuse of power.

I think they deserve their day in court if they decide to sue. I still think they are as*holes though. Lol. And I'm sure they feel the same. I mean I knew a lot of as*holes in college. Most people are.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Mar 2015, 12:31 pm

:roll:
I'm not even going to try to go back and read through all this drivel. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech and if we start chiseling away at it because someone might get there little feelings hurt then why not have thought crimes, too.
"Hey, you said this or gestured that so you must have been thinking about something hateful. You're gong to jail, pal".

Why not just toughen up a little?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2015, 12:43 pm

Raptor wrote:
:roll:
I'm not even going to try to go back and read through all this drivel. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech and if we start chiseling away at it because someone might get there little feelings hurt then why not have thought crimes, too.
"Hey, you said this or gestured that so you must have been thinking about something hateful. You're gong to jail, pal".

Why not just toughen up a little?


But it's not just words. SAE - and other frats - are notorious for excluding blacks and other minorities. Sure, SAE have had their two - count 'em, two - token black members (a third black pledge had died during a hazing incident at another school), but that only proves how exclusionary they are for keeping black membership to a bare minimum. In this case, words reflect bigotry in action.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

19 Mar 2015, 6:52 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:

The fact that you, and many other modern libertarians, tend toward amorality, is one of the main things that inspires my contempt.

Dox doesn't tend towards amorality, he just doesn't think your well-intentioned methods of securing moral outcomes actually work. He consistently expressed outrage over overreach of police power, unjustified military interventions, the War on Drugs, and the prison-industrial complex, including minimum sentencing guidelines and three strikes.

In this specific case, perhaps censoring the hate speech is a good thing, but that's perfectly consistent with it not being a good idea in general. If the government started locking up everyone whose name starts with Z, doubtless murders would be prevented (because some of the people who will murder in the near future have names starting with Z) - but many more innocent people would be unjustly deprived of their liberty.


You need to go back and read Dox' post. The one where he said he doesn't consider morality to be a valid argument... He actually makes that claim often.

What he fails to realize is that this whole argument is about morality and values.

Some here value free speech like Ted Haggard loves Jesus and male prostitutes.

Others value freedom from oppression just as much (almost). It all depends on one's morals and values, which are COMPLETELY subjective.

If you disagree, prove me wrong. Show me the formula that proves freedom of speech > freedom from oppression.

As white guys it is YOUR PRIVILEGE to think so, but thinking a thing doesn't make it so.

Also, stop trying to make this an either/or issue. It is not.

Those little guys can go around singing about hanging n****rs as much as they like... What they cannot do, is disrupt the educations of a bunch of other students in the process.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

19 Mar 2015, 7:00 pm

heavenlyabyss wrote:
I think it's funny how debates about free speech always get so heated. It's as if people are trying to push the boundaries just to see how far free speech can go, as if it is a martyr's way of proving a point.

I don't know. These kids were drunken as*holes (liquor excuses nothing, but let's face it, there are a lot of drunken as*holes out there).

But on the other hand I think it is really incredibly tragic that the whole world has to know about it. These stupid kids (let's call them what they are - they aren't evil, they were acting stupid) are now going to have their whole life affected because of this stupid controversy. The media is far worse than any dumb comments these kids made in my opinion. Profiting off of stupidity. Shameful abuse of power.

I think they deserve their day in court if they decide to sue. I still think they are as*holes though. Lol. And I'm sure they feel the same. I mean I knew a lot of as*holes in college. Most people are.


The problem here, that few seem to see, is this.

The drunken frat boys of today are the Judges and Police Chiefs of Ferguson MO tomorrow.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus