• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Swordfish

  1. I'm just gonna leave this here without further comment. https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/08/17/watch-cnn-commentator-calls-for-the-removal-of-washington-and-jefferson-statues/
  2. You say that like it's a bad thing........
  3. Though it's a statement in and of itself that something that should be routine now passes as good news. What a world we live in.
  4. As a non sequitur, I have done exactly ONE Karaoke song in my life, and it was a duet of 'Stand by Your Man'.
  5. Ha. I understand completely why you'd prefer to dodge those questions. The date of the article has no bearing on the substance of the arguments being presented.. Time will tell which of us is correct I guess. This isn't the 'confederate statue' thread, so I see no reason why a new thread would be required.
  6. Why not? Unless you disagree with the substance of their argument, I can't think of any reasons why it wouldn't catch on. Rape and racism/slavery are serious hot button issues in this country, and for good reason. So I'll ask again, what is it about the substance of their argument that you disagree with? Or if you agree with the substance of their argument, why should the statues be allowed to stay?
  7. What is the basis by which you find these college students arguments about the Jefferson statue to be invalid?
  8. OK? I don't have any issue with removing confederate statues.
  9. You're probably right. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/23/thomas-jefferson-next-target-students-who-question-honors-figures-who-were-racists
  10. While I agree with you that the comparison doesn't really work, it seems fairly obvious that it's only a matter of time before those monuments also draw the attention of the groups that go after these types of symbols. It's just that they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.
  11. Antifa didn't just sprout out of the ground in Charlottesville. What they may or may not have done down there is not the whole story of that group. Focusing on the fact that they may have saved someone in Charlottesville ignores the other instances of direct violence and destruction they've engaged in in may other instances. If the white supremacists are domestic terrorists, then certainly Antifa qualifies as well, notwithstanding the fact that you may agree with the stated reasons for their acts of violence and destruction, most of which has impacted people who are not, in fact, white supremacists. it's convenient though for the left to be able to both hold them as scapegoat when rallies go sideways, and also hold them up as a righteous counter measure to nazis when it's convenient.
  12. Or both. Lot of book deals to be had among that group in the (hopefully) near future when he's gone.
  13. Or both. Lot of book deals to be had among that group in the (hopefully) near future when he's gone.
  14. Yeah, I think we are mostly in agreement.
  15. Please cite your causal evidence that the reason these cases get exposure is solely (or even primarily for that matter) due to white nationalists. I find that highly dubious. And when you're talking about granting the government the ability to restrict free specch, it is completely appropriate to discuss worst case scenarios. That's still highly subjective. 'This persons mere presence on campus is an explicit form of violence because things they have said in the past are objectionable'. And isn't incitement already a crime in most places? Too global warmingy.
  16. I'm not taking an absolutist stance on free speech. And I think the question is not whether it would be written poorly, but whether it COULD be written in a way that is narrow enough to not be dangerous. I don't believe that it could. And I cite the examples from universities not to ignore the difference between private or 'restricted' environments I agree with you that they are different), but as an example of the current climate, and how such well meaning initiatives can turn dangerous, because in theend it's always going to be open to interpretation. And it's not just about whether or not speech on campuses is restricted, it's about incidents like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html It seems to me that freedom of speech requires more stringent defense today than it has in a very long time, not less. How? What would it look like?
  17. @OldGimletEye Here's an even better example of what I'm talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/26/at-the-university-of-oregon-no-more-free-speech-for-professors-on-subjects-such-as-race-religion-sexual-orientation/?utm_term=.f01e85145e27
  18. yeah, I saw that.... That seems like a pretty good endorsement for the thread title.
  19. Look at college campuses, for example, where we see all kinds of offensive speech being branded as violence. Look at the consequences being leveled on faculty and students for simply engaging in dialogue. Take, for example this: How is this kind of stuff not subject to the very problem you have outlined so well earlier in this thread? Namely, that there is no way to meaningfully quantify what is reasonably considered offensive, demeaning or intimidating. We already have a situation in this country where groups are actively trying to blur the line between speech and action. How would this look though? Without defining specific phrases and words, I just don't see how you can narrow it down, and who gets to arbitrate what is and is not acceptable.
  20. I really don't think it can, and there's a fair amount of evidence for this. There's just too much subjectivity involved. Give me an example of how it would be codified. I can't really imagine a way to narrow those definitions that would be specific enough to prevent the risk of abuse.
  21. Yep. I mean, some of those people were promoting violence. So by the logic of this thread, the DOJ actions seem reasonable here. Nothing scary at all about trusting the government to appropriately attack free speech.
  22. I don't think that solves your problem, because you still have to define what constitutes 'promoting ethnic violence, genocide, or ethnic cleansing' You've just sort of shifted the problem around a bit. On another note, I'm sad this thread isn't titled 'In Godwin we trust.....'
  23. Saw it yesterday. I thought it was just OK, and I really wanted to love it. II'm a little surprised actually to see people characterize it as tense and engaging, because save a few scenes, I think that's my biggest complaint about it. It just didn't ever really grab me.
  24. There's a documentary about Herbalife on Netflix that is pretty eye opening.
  25. And 7 seasons of Trapper John, M.D.