Jump to content

Freedom of Speech, Freedom from Consequences of Speech... not the same thing.


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No question.  It is part of the reason I have that incident among the articles I list in the OP.

Sure, but you're doing the same thing Milo did when he said as a criticism that 'trans people are more likely to be involved in sexual assault than anyone'. His implication was that the trans people were doing the assaulting, instead of being overwhelmingly more likely to be assaulted. 

The worst violence in these rallies so far has been from the supporters of the far-right speech givers. The next worse has been from random people and anarchists whose goal is to simply forment chaos. Your argument seems to be basically that protests should not be allowed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, but you're doing the same thing Milo did when he said as a criticism that 'trans people are more likely to be involved in sexual assault than anyone'. His implication was that the trans people were doing the assaulting, instead of being overwhelmingly more likely to be assaulted. 

The worst violence in these rallies so far has been from the supporters of the far-right speech givers. The next worse has been from random people and anarchists whose goal is to simply forment chaos. Your argument seems to be basically that protests should not be allowed. 

Protests should absolutely be allowed.  Violent protests... that's another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Protests should absolutely be allowed.  Violent protests... that's another issue.

The protests wouldn't be violent if not for the others coming in. That's sort of the point. So basically you're saying that because the supporters of Milo and anarchists turn protests violent, you shouldn't have protests.

Really, if the protesters didn't want to be attacked they shouldn't have worn such slutty signs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's my question.  When the Antifa protesters show up for Ted Cruz, when Conservative Christian protesters show up for Bill Maher, what does that say?  This fuzzy "we don't have to allow you a platform to speak" thing from the Left and the Right is for the birds.  Free Expression means people say controversial things.

And consequences to that free expression is that some of the platforms you'd like to use to promote those ideas are removed from you.  You said so in your title, you aren't free from consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aceluby said:

And consequences to that free expression is that some of the platforms you'd like to use to promote those ideas are removed from you.  You said so in your title, you aren't free from consequences.

Wait... are you saying you are okay with Christian protesters shutting down a Bill Maher appearance at a Christian University?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The protests wouldn't be violent if not for the others coming in. That's sort of the point. So basically you're saying that because the supporters of Milo and anarchists turn protests violent, you shouldn't have protests.

Really, if the protesters didn't want to be attacked they shouldn't have worn such slutty signs

I think there is an attempt to spark violence on both sides.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think there is an attempt to spark violence on both sides.  

And your only solution is to apparently kill all protesting. Nice work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And your only solution is to apparently kill all protesting. Nice work!

No.  The solution is for people to keep their heads and let people speak even if they don't like what the people speaking are saying.  Protests are fine.  Protests are speech.  Violence... is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  The solution is for people to keep their heads and let people speak even if they don't like what the people speaking are saying.  Protests are fine.  Protests are speech.  Violence... is not.

But you're complaining about the people who are going to things that they know are going to be protested so that they can stir things up.

How else do you solve that? How can I, a peaceful protester, prevent someone who wants to show up specifically to get into a fight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But you're complaining about the people who are going to things that they know are going to be protested so that they can stir things up.

How else do you solve that? How can I, a peaceful protester, prevent someone who wants to show up specifically to get into a fight?

I don't think you, as a peaceful protestor, can solve that.  The authorities need to go after the provacatures, on both sides, hard.  I do recognize that the masks and head gear are designed to make that more difficult to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't think you, as a peaceful protestor, can solve that.  The authorities need to go after the provacatures, on both sides, hard.  I do recognize that the masks and head gear are designed to make that more difficult to do.

But you're not blaming the authorities. You're not blaming the anarchists and alt-right assholes. You're blaming the protesters. That's how you started all this - by saying how protesting free speech is a Bad Thing. (I'm ignoring the obvious problems with that argument for the time being). 

The obvious conclusion is that if you object to violence at protests, and the protesters aren't the ones being violent, the solution is to not have protests. And this is hardly the first time you've complained about how protests are actually hurting the movement, making people more sympathetic, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

There definately are.

That Gavin Mcinnis guy, who I normally think is a pretty funny guy. Encourages his viewers to go out and fight antifa protesters just for fun.

Of course you like that piece of shit. Of course you do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

Of course, I even like that piece of shit way more than I like you. Of course.

I consider being disliked by bigoted wingnuts a positive thing, so that's for the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wait... are you saying you are okay with Christian protesters shutting down a Bill Maher appearance at a Christian University?

Of course.  Why shouldn't I be?  It's not really a freedom of speech issue, IMO.  It's an issue of groups of people who have a platform and who they choose to allow on that platform.

I'm not expecting Obama to give a speech at CPAC, but I'm also not crying about how because they won't give him that platform that they're denying his 1st amendment.  Not everyone is entitled to every platform just because of free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The worst violence in these rallies so far has been from the supporters of the far-right speech givers. The next worse has been from random people and anarchists whose goal is to simply forment chaos. Your argument seems to be basically that protests should not be allowed. 

Not sure how you can make that determination objectively unless you were at all of these incidents. And even then, these things are typically chaotic enough that it is hard to make a clear determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...