Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

end of the road

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think that no action should be taken against those people singing we hate blacks in the dorm room?

they were rightly suspended. they were rightly condemned and ridiculed. they were wrong, there was no excuse or justification for their actions toards that girl. but i struggle with the idea that they should be prosecuted for having a disgusting view.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I think we agree here.

The right to not be offended should supersede the right to of free speech, which is the point of this thread. However, free speech is the best bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism we humans have. It should not be given up.

I am sure it is not lost on some here, that we discuss this on the same week that China has installed a 'president' (dictator?) for life, where there has been no dissenting voices aired nor allowed in China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276
Only two delegates voted against the change while 2964 delegates approved the amendment.

The video is interesting as the word democracy was mentioned a few times. I am not sure how installing a president for life which the people had no say in, is either democratic or good for 'democracy'. Yet, we live in a world where words can change to suit the paradigm.

Much like how stripping away rights to freedom of speech somehow 'protects' human rights.

Do you think that no action should be taken against those people singing we hate blacks in the dorm room? That jihadists should be also given a platform in universities?

"" That jihadists should be also given a platform in universities? ""

In actual fact jihadists have spoken in colleges/universities in the past & have spoken at Trinity,, Anjem Choudary spoke at Trinity.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171

+ [font=arial, sans-serif]Abu Izzadeen also known as Omar Brooks also spoke at Trinity & said the following.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]"" [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]DUBLIN, Ireland[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=arial, sans-serif](CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad.""[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/[/font]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMtlzG2V_4

[font=arial, sans-serif]I don,t recall any left wing campaign to have the two jihadists no platformed back then how odd-  but unlike you I don,t want them silenced or no platformed as Id rather know who the extremists are by letting them openly speak & shoot themselves in the foot.[/font]

Chris_Heilong

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I think we agree here.

The right to not be offended should supersede the right to of free speech, which is the point of this thread. However, free speech is the best bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism we humans have. It should not be given up.

I am sure it is not lost on some here, that we discuss this on the same week that China has installed a 'president' (dictator?) for life, where there has been no dissenting voices aired nor allowed in China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276
Only two delegates voted against the change while 2964 delegates approved the amendment.

The video is interesting as the word democracy was mentioned a few times. I am not sure how installing a president for life which the people had no say in, is either democratic or good for 'democracy'. Yet, we live in a world where words can change to suit the paradigm.

Much like how stripping away rights to freedom of speech somehow 'protects' human rights.

Xi Jinping is actually a fairly good president, China did not have elections in the past for a new president outside of the CCP so even if it was not Xi Jinping it would just be another member of the same party, I have been to China many times and speak Chinese and besides going out and criticising the Government it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas. The average person on the street certainly does not feel opressed.

20Cent

end of the road wrote: »

they were rightly suspended. they were rightly condemned and ridiculed. they were wrong, there was no excuse or justification for their actions toards that girl. but i struggle with the idea that they should be prosecuted for having a disgusting view.

They have been arrested. Bit more than having a disgusting view they were deliberately intimidating and scaring someone.
Their freedom of speech clashed with someone elses freedom not to be intimidated in their own home.

The Legend Of Kira

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I think we agree here.

The right to not be offended should supersede the right to of free speech, which is the point of this thread. However, free speech is the best bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism we humans have. It should not be given up.

I am sure it is not lost on some here, that we discuss this on the same week that China has installed a 'president' (dictator?) for life, where there has been no dissenting voices aired nor allowed in China.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276
Only two delegates voted against the change while 2964 delegates approved the amendment.

The video is interesting as the word democracy was mentioned a few times. I am not sure how installing a president for life which the people had no say in, is either democratic or good for 'democracy'. Yet, we live in a world where words can change to suit the paradigm.

Much like how stripping away rights to freedom of speech somehow 'protects' human rights.

Xi Jinping is actually a fairly good president, China did not have elections in the past for a new president outside of the CCP so even if it was not Xi Jinping it would just be another member of the same party, I have been to China many times and speak Chinese and besides going out and criticising the Government it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas. The average person on the street certainly does not feel opressed.

"" it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas ""

For the moment there is no great firewall in Europe blocking both Internal & external websites,, for example I can look up Cnn/ Russia today/ Press tv & many other external news websites to get news from a different perspective & form my own opinions on things- whereas in China many websites are blocked + information about what happened in 1989 in reference to Tiananmen square is highly censored online- doesn,t sound free to me .

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/great-firewall-of-china

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

I'm against Nazi's being given platforms by universities.

Yes, we know. That is your opinion but as has been detailed to you numerous times now in painstakingly detail, public Universities have a constitutional obligation to give Nazi's a platform.

In essence what you are for is the curtailment of the 1st amendment, which has given more power and energy to things like the civil rights movement or homosexual liberation than anything else.

I see a group like that giving a talk as the same as the people singing we hate blacks outside a dorm room.

Clearly nuance is lost on you.

The person the hatred was aimed at has a human right not to have to live in fear just because of their skin colour.

There are plenty of laws already on the statue books that protect people from thugs. We do not need to curtail freedom of speech in order to protect people.

No one believes in absolute freedom of speach even if they pretend to be absolutist about it they have a line. There has always been restrictions and laws about it. Libel, criminal etc. They aren't seen as controversial.

Just because you cannot knowingly defame someone in public, without the risk of being sued does not mean then we should scuttle the biggest provision that protects human rights, that is free speech and the ability to air political views that may be unpalatable to some

Just because you cannot shout fire in a theatre without repercussions does not mean then we have a right not to be offended, because if tis the latter you are basically living in a society based upon tyranny

The whole idea that because Nazi's have freedom of speech, and that Nazi's are bad, then we should also get rid freedom of speech.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think that no action should be taken against those people singing we hate blacks in the dorm room? That jihadists should be also given a platform in universities?

As been noted, Jihadists have been given this platform. Is it not ironic of you that Jihadists are quite open to state that they do not want Freedom of Speech, like yourself?

http://trinitynews.ie/we-dont-share-your-ideas-for-freedom-of-speech/

I took the opportunity to raise the matter of free speech, picking up where we had left off in our last conversation, as I was curious to see how he perceived the west’s reaction to this form of violent censorship. However, if there were any double standard, it cut very little ice as he justified the actions of the gunmen, stating, “as Muslims, we live our lives by the law of God, not the law of man. In Islam, punishment for insulting the prophet of god is death. This cannot be changed.”

“We don’t share your ideas for freedom of speech, i.e. the freedom to insult whoever you like”, he continued. “There is no concept of one law for us and another for you. No, it is the same law for everyone.”

I for one would rather he aired those views so a light could be shone on this tyrannical Islamofascist point of view.

markodaly

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Xi Jinping is actually a fairly good president, China did not have elections in the past for a new president outside of the CCP so even if it was not Xi Jinping it would just be another member of the same party, I have been to China many times and speak Chinese and besides going out and criticising the Government it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas. The average person on the street certainly does not feel opressed.

It is freer than Europe, so long as you don't have an opinion about politics or criticise the ruling Communist Party.....

Yeap, some freedom alright.

I have been to China too and you know very quick that the average citizen has no basic human rights, like we understand in the West.

It does not matter on iota that Xi Jinping may be the second incarnation of Buddha or Jesus, he is still a man, who will pass away and someone else, perhaps with a more tyrannical despotic nature will assume the role, where there lies little avenue to remove them.

I cannot believe someone is actually defending what China has done.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

The alternative being what exactly?

A society with no human rights or incitement to hatred laws.

Given that you are the one who mentioned " human rights " Id be interested to know if you agree that the following are human rights that should be upheld by law ?

Freedom of thought/opinion ?

Freedom to express an opinion ?

Freedom of expression/freedom of speech ?

Freedom of conscience ?

Freedom of association ?

Freedom of assembly ?

Freedom to express an unpopular opinion ?

Freedom to receive information ?

Freedom to organise ?

Freedom to criticise Religion ?

Freedom to criticise other cultures/cultural practices ?

If you answer & not dodge what I asked you- Id be interested in your answers as Im sure others might be too .

Chris_Heilong

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas ""

For the moment there is no great firewall in Europe blocking both Internal & external websites,, for example I can look up Cnn/ Russia today/ Press tv & many other external news websites to get news from a different perspective & form my own opinions on things- whereas in China many websites are blocked + information about what happened in 1989 in reference in Tiananmen square is highly censored online- doesn,t sound free to me .

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/great-firewall-of-china

lol, good old Tiananmen again and the internet, you will see I said "free...in lots of areas" I did not say over all.
China are trying to be somewhat self sufficient when it come to technology and the internet and the average Chinese person has little interest in politics and like the USA they are so big the outside world not really on their minds.
Here is a video on the subject:

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, we know. That is your opinion but as has been detailed to you numerous times now in painstakingly detail, public Universities have a constitutional obligation to give Nazi's a platform.

In essence what you are for is the curtailment of the 1st amendment, which has given more power and energy to things like the civil rights movement or homosexual liberation than anything else.




Clearly nuance is lost on you.



There are plenty of laws already on the statue books that protect people from thugs. We do not need to curtail freedom of speech in order to protect people.




Just because you cannot knowingly defame someone in public, without the risk of being sued does not mean then we should scuttle the biggest provision that protects human rights, that is free speech and the ability to air political views that may be unpalatable to some

Just because you cannot shout fire in a theatre without repercussions does not mean then we have a right not to be offended, because if tis the latter you are basically living in a society based upon tyranny

The whole idea that because Nazi's have freedom of speech, and that Nazi's are bad, then we should also get rid freedom of speech.

Interesting point the first and second amendments didn't help the black slaves much. What did help them was new laws and regulations. Like having freedom of speech alone will help minorities achieve freedom is not shown to be true.

Not saying anyone should "get rid" of freedom of speech just that there does need to be limits and universities should be allowed protect their students from Nazi's on campus.

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Given that you are the one who mentioned " human rights " Id be interested to know if you agree that the following are human rights that should be upheld by law ?

Freedom of thought/opinion ?

Freedom to express an opinion ?

Freedom of expression/freedom of speech ?

Freedom of conscience ?

Freedom of association ?

Freedom of assembly ?

Freedom to express an unpopular opinion ?

Freedom to receive information ?

Freedom to organise ?

Freedom to criticise Religion ?

Freedom to criticise other cultures/cultural practices ?

If you answer & not dodge what I asked you- Id be interested in your answers as Im sure others might be too .

Jaysus I'm just saying that maybe a university should be allowed to ban a speaker that is there to threaten the students not for north Korea style government. All those things are great.

The Legend Of Kira

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" it is actually far more free over there than here in Europe in lots of areas ""

For the moment there is no great firewall in Europe blocking both Internal & external websites,, for example I can look up Cnn/ Russia today/ Press tv & many other external news websites to get news from a different perspective & form my own opinions on things- whereas in China many websites are blocked + information about what happened in 1989 in reference in Tiananmen square is highly censored online- doesn,t sound free to me .

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/great-firewall-of-china

lol, good old Tiananmen again and the internet, you will see I said "free...in lots of areas" I did not say over all.
China are trying to be somewhat self sufficient when it come to technology and the internet and the average Chinese person has little interest in politics and like the USA they are so big the outside world not really on their minds.
Here is a video on the subject:

"" lol, good old Tiananmen again ""

Why are you saying " Lol " in relation to what happened in Tiananmen ?

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Interesting point the first and second amendments didn't help the black slaves much. What did help them was new laws and regulations. Like having freedom of speech alone will help minorities achieve freedom is not shown to be true.

God, you actually do not have a clue.

Abolitionists worked for a long time giving Townhall types speeches and setting up newspapers in an effort to earn support for the emancipation of the southern slaves. Have you heard of Rev. Lovejoy?

Elijah Parish Lovejoy was a Presbyterian clergyman who was well known for his opposition to slavery. He founded the St. Louis Observer which he often used to rail against the evils of slavery. Beseiged by pro-slavery protests, he moved across the Mississippi River to Alton, Illinois and founded the Alton Observer. After his equipment was destroyed a few times by angry rioters, he was murdered in 1837 while attempting (unsuccessfully) to stop a mob from, once again, destroying his printing press. This incident reverberated across the country and helped galvanize anti-slavery sentiment at the time.

Why did the mob go after the printing press? Once you realise, you will hopefully realise how important freedom of speech is.

Not saying anyone should "get rid" of freedom of speech just that there does need to be limits and universities should be allowed protect their students from Nazi's on campus.

Again, for the Nth time Public Universities have to give a platform to people.

What you think on what should happen is im-material and as relevant as a Liverpool supporter watching the Liverpool/Man U match on TV and giving management advice to Jurgen Klopp, self satisfying for the person involved but ultimately a waste of time and a useless past time.

Havockk

It's all a moot debate anyway. For even if the libertarian dream is achieved there is no answer to people like myself. I'll still have no objection to creating teeth to be picked up in the face of racism. Now that I think about it, it's a sweet ass deal for there is no authority to stop me.....

The Legend Of Kira

Havockk wrote: »

It's all a moot debate anyway. For even if the libertarian dream is achieved there is no answer to people like myself. I'll still have no objection to creating teeth to be picked up in the face of racism. Now that I think about it, it's a sweet ass deal for there is no authority to stop me.....

Translation- when you lose the argument your only last resort is to hit people who politically disagree with you .

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

It's all a moot debate anyway. For even if the libertarian dream is achieved there is no answer to people like myself. I'll still have no objection to creating teeth to be picked up in the face of racism. Now that I think about it, it's a sweet ass deal for there is no authority to stop me.....

What is the saying again, your freedom of speech ends a CM from my nose.

The Libertarian Dream, what ever that is would certainly prosecute anyone who assaults another.

No one is stating that people would be free to do physical harm to each other.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

What is the saying again, your freedom of speech ends a CM from my nose.

The Libertarian Dream, what ever that is would certainly prosecute anyone who assaults another.

No one is stating that people would be free to do physical harm to each other.

I see, so there is limits to expression, therefore nothing is absolute.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

I see, so there is limits to expression, therefore nothing is absolute.

If you are equating freedom to air an opinion to violently assaulting someone in response, then perhaps the confusion lies not with me but with you.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

If you are equating freedom to air an opinion to violently assaulting someone in response, then perhaps the confusion lies not with me but with you.

Making a point about absolutism, so thank you for helping.

One other question, is it the state who sets and enforces the rules?

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

God, you actually do not have a clue.

Abolitionists worked for a long time giving Townhall types speeches and setting up newspapers in an effort to earn support for the emancipation of the southern slaves. Have you heard of Rev. Lovejoy?



Why did the mob go after the printing press? Once you realise, you will hopefully realise how important freedom of speech is.



Again, for the Nth time Public Universities have to give a platform to people.

What you think on what should happen is im-material and as relevant as a Liverpool supporter watching the Liverpool/Man U match on TV and giving management advice to Jurgen Klopp, self satisfying for the person involved but ultimately a waste of time and a useless past time.

We are allowed discuss things still, 99% of whats discussed here we can't do anything about.

Chris_Heilong

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" lol, good old Tiananmen again ""

Why are you saying " Lol " in relation to what happened in Tiananmen ?

The 'lol' was at you bringing up something that happened almost 30 years ago as it seems to be the go to example most people lean on. China is a good country with problems like many others but it is not a hell hole and people are generally happy regardless of what the BBC might tell you.

johnp001

Havockk wrote: »

It's all a moot debate anyway. For even if the libertarian dream is achieved there is no answer to people like myself. I'll still have no objection to creating teeth to be picked up in the face of racism. Now that I think about it, it's a sweet ass deal for there is no authority to stop me.....

I am sincerely glad to hear that there would be people to stand up against racism in the absence of authority. Although I object strongly to the use of state power to control what people say civilized society is dependent on people unilaterally taking a stand against behaviour they disapprove of.
When there is no authority to stop you there is also no authority to stop anyone else so it will take people of far greater courage to stand up for their beliefs. The escalation of a conflict could not be undertaken lightly in the absence of an authority with a monopoly on legalised violence which could be ultimately appealed to.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Making a point about absolutism, so thank you for helping.

One other question, is it the state who sets and enforces the rules?

If we are talking about the American context it is the constitution which sets the rules, which the state then enforces.

If you want to argue that we should abolish the state because you disagree with Nazi being allowed the privilege to speak, instead of being beaten up, with no legal consequences, then go right ahead.

markodaly

johnp001 wrote: »

I am sincerely glad to hear that there would be people to stand up against racism in the absence of authority. Although I object strongly to the use of state power to control what people say civilized society is dependent on people unilaterally taking a stand against behaviour they disapprove of.
When there is no authority to stop you there is also no authority to stop anyone else so it will take people of far greater courage to stand up for their beliefs. The escalation of a conflict could not be undertaken lightly in the absence of an authority with a monopoly on legalised violence which could be ultimately appealed to.

Yes, that is the thing.

It is easy being a keyboard warrior stating that you will collect the teeth of your Nazi victims in the absence of rule of law.

The keyboard warriors forget that if such a system would exist that those Nazi's would be armed with semi-automatic weapons and would kill anyone who be brave enough to confront them.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

The Legend Of Kira

johnp001 wrote: »

Havockk wrote: »

It's all a moot debate anyway. For even if the libertarian dream is achieved there is no answer to people like myself. I'll still have no objection to creating teeth to be picked up in the face of racism. Now that I think about it, it's a sweet ass deal for there is no authority to stop me.....

I am sincerely glad to hear that there would be people to stand up against racism in the absence of authority. Although I object strongly to the use of state power to control what people say civilized society is dependent on people unilaterally taking a stand against behaviour they disapprove of.
When there is no authority to stop you there is also no authority to stop anyone else so it will take people of far greater courage to stand up for their beliefs. The escalation of a conflict could not be undertaken lightly in the absence of an authority with a monopoly on legalised violence which could be ultimately appealed to.

Given that " racism " is a term that gets loosely used & loosely thrown around,, what exactly do you see or consider as " racism " ?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106407206&postcount=612

johnp001

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, that is the thing.

It is easy being a keyboard warrior stating that you will collect the teeth of your Nazi victims in the absence of rule of law.

The keyboard warriors forget that if such a system would exist that those Nazi's would be armed with semi-automatic weapons and would kill anyone who be brave enough to confront them.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

I would hope that a situation where there was no coercive authority with a monopoly on violence would not equate to an absence of the rule of law.
The Nazis could have weapons, those that opposed them could have weapons and in order not to be killed people would be incredibly reluctant to use them. If you are personally responsible for your self defense then you would have a tremendous incentive not to escalate any conflict and only react proportionally.
The enforcement of law in the face of violence would necessarily be that everybody would need to stand behind those that were not aggressors in order not to be next if the aggressor got their way but anyone bringing a gun to a knife fight would of necessity quickly find themselves on their own.
Law has for thousands of years been synonymous with custom and what was acceptable to people in their interactions with each other. People being responsible for ensuring the mutuality and fairness of this themselves rather than placing this power in the hands of an external authority gives much less scope for abuse and corruption.

The Legend Of Kira

The guy who got kicked out of class in college for saying " there is only two genders " has gotten some more news coverage- when someone is kicked out of class for counter arguing political doctrine its obvious that some want colleges to become echo chambers where only certain views are allowed be heard.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/college-student-kicked-out-class-for-telling-professor-there-are-only-two-genders.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492201/Student-kicked-class-saying-two-genders.html

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The guy who got kicked out of class in college for saying " there is only two genders " has gotten some more news coverage- when someone is kicked out of class for counter arguing political doctrine its obvious that some want colleges to become echo chambers where only certain views are allowed be heard.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/college-student-kicked-out-class-for-telling-professor-there-are-only-two-genders.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492201/Student-kicked-class-saying-two-genders.html

There are more than two genders thats biology not politics.

Also refusing to stop talking out of turn, angry outbursts erc. Suppose if Nazi's can be given time to talk then everyine should spend every class shouting.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

If we are talking about the American context it is the constitution which sets the rules, which the state then enforces.

We're not.

If you want to argue that we should abolish the state because you disagree with Nazi being allowed the privilege to speak, instead of being beaten up, with no legal consequences, then go right ahead.

I'm not.

Your argument is all over the place.

Havockk

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Given that " racism " is a term that gets loosely used & loosely thrown around,, what exactly do you see or consider as " racism " ?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106407206&postcount=612

So now we are using semantics. Lets be honest for a second, we are none of us that stupid we don't know what racism is.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

We're not.

So, in what context are we talking then, as the whole punch a Nazi malarky in a University setting was discussed in the American sphere.

I'm not.

Your argument is all over the place.

So what exactly is your argument?

You have no qualms in using violence to stop racists and Nazi's speak, fine we get that.

You have no qualms in stripping humans of basic human rights because they cannot be trusted. We get that too.

Is there something else we are missing?

markodaly

johnp001 wrote: »

I would hope that a situation where there was no coercive authority with a monopoly on violence would not equate to an absence of the rule of law.
The Nazis could have weapons, those that opposed them could have weapons and in order not to be killed people would be incredibly reluctant to use them. If you are personally responsible for your self defense then you would have a tremendous incentive not to escalate any conflict and only react proportionally.

That is a gross assumption that ignores the reality of how things actually work on the ground. Germany in the early 1930's was a hot bed of street battles between both far left (Communists, Marxists) and far right (Nazi's). Might is right.

Most often when tyrannical regimes come to power, they do so under a wave of violence and brute strength. See the Bolsheviks.

This is why there is a big inherent danger to the idea that its OK to use violence to shut down speech you do not like, as things would naturally escalate from there on in.

johnp001

markodaly wrote: »

That is a gross assumption that ignores the reality of how things actually work on the ground. Germany in the early 1930's was a hot bed of street battles between both far left (Communists, Marxists) and far right (Nazi's). Might is right.

Most often when tyrannical regimes come to power, they do so under a wave of violence and brute strength. See the Bolsheviks.

This is why there is a big inherent danger to the idea that its OK to use violence to shut down speech you do not like, as things would naturally escalate from there on in.

I was making the point that a state with a monopoly on violence is not necessary to prevent the use of violence to shut down speech. When the burden of violence is placed on the perpetrator then without a powerful state to enable or defend them those who escalate to violence where it is not strictly justified as self-defense will themselves be shut down and censured by society.

The example of street fights between Nazis and Communists in 1930s Germany supports my point as this was only possible due to the fact that a state with a monopoly on violence was involved.

The Legend Of Kira

Havockk wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Given that " racism " is a term that gets loosely used & loosely thrown around,, what exactly do you see or consider as " racism " ?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106407206&postcount=612

So now we are using semantics. Lets be honest for a second, we are none of us that stupid we don't know what racism is.

What one may consider " racism " others don,t- those two examples already given, do you agree with the teacher that the pupil was " racist " just because she asked to move groups in class when she couldn,t understand the other pupils due to their lack of english ?  

Or do you agree saying people " express racist sentiments " when they describe their negative past experiences with travellers ?

Other examples I can refer to.

Ellen Degeneres was accused of " racism " over this tweet she posted.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/16/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-usain-bolt-tweet/index.html

What,s your own take would you see her tweet as " racism " ?

Another term that gets thrown around is " Cultural appropiation " 

Here is a video of a student who has dreadlocks getting harassed on campus being accused of " " Cultural appropiation " .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM1SoGQ6lXM

My view on it he hasn,t done anything wrong,, & she over reacted.

So when terms are loosely thrown about these days,, I have to ask people what exactly do they see or consider as " racism " ?

The Legend Of Kira

I have this old screenshot of a tweet from a known loudmouth who,s a member of  a left wing party,, whose name is edited out.



" no platform, no freedom to offend " .

When they argue " no platform " what they usually mean is protecting people from being offended- I of course take a different view that you don,t have a right to be free from being offended by other people,s point of view that differ from yours .

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The guy who got kicked out of class in college for saying " there is only two genders " has gotten some more news coverage- when someone is kicked out of class for counter arguing political doctrine its obvious that some want colleges to become echo chambers where only certain views are allowed be heard.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/college-student-kicked-out-class-for-telling-professor-there-are-only-two-genders.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492201/Student-kicked-class-saying-two-genders.html

There are more than two genders thats biology not politics.

Also refusing to stop talking out of turn, angry outbursts erc. Suppose if Nazi's can be given time to talk then everyine should spend every class shouting.

Well according to the fox news article .

"" [font=Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]When no women in the class said anything, Ingle spoke up, challenging the professor on biology and the gender wage gap.  "" .[/font]

[font=Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Sounds to me like he waited his turn to speak .[/font]

end of the road

20Cent wrote: »

There are more than two genders thats biology not politics.

agreed, but why should someone be kicked out of wherever because they disagree with that. challenge one's views not silence them.

The Legend Of Kira

end of the road wrote: »

20Cent wrote: »

There are more than two genders thats biology not politics.

agreed, but why should someone be kicked out of wherever because they disagree with that. challenge one's views not silence them.

I looked up his name on youtube,, I found this podcast video of him giving an interview explaining his version of events of him being put out of class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5OMbNK9As4

The Legend Of Kira

Seen this recent tweet/post.



For anyone who uses the term " hate speech " , do you think what the guy is reported to of shouted to be " hate speech " ? & if so what do you think should be done about it ?

DEFTLEFTHAND

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, that is the thing.

It is easy being a keyboard warrior stating that you will collect the teeth of your Nazi victims in the absence of rule of law.

The keyboard warriors forget that if such a system would exist that those Nazi's would be armed with semi-automatic weapons and would kill anyone who be brave enough to confront them.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

There's a vid online of a group of far left students burning an American flag in a public park. They're you're typical early 20s pencil neck geek types.

A motorcycle club get wind of this and come down. I should stress that these were not Nazis or skinheads. I believe they were a veterans club.

It was funny to see how quickly the nerds dispersed when confronted with a group of scary looking muscle bound men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbwVSEIpOn8

WinnyThePoo

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Seen this recent tweet/post.



For anyone who uses the term " hate speech " , do you think what the guy is reported to of shouted to be " hate speech " ? & if so what do you think should be done about it ?

The guy is an idiot. That's about it.

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Seen this recent tweet/post.



For anyone who uses the term " hate speech " , do you think what the guy is reported to of shouted to be " hate speech " ? & if so what do you think should be done about it ?

Thats not what hate speech is.

Person is whats called an a**hole.

Professor Moriarty

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's a vid online of a group of far left students burning an American flag in a public park. They're you're typical early 20s pencil neck geek types.

A motorcycle club get wind of this and come down. I should stress that these were not Nazis or skinheads. I believe they were a veterans club.

It was funny to see how quickly the nerds dispersed when confronted with a group of scary looking muscle bound men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbwVSEIpOn8

Yes. It's great to see a gang of thugs enforcing the law. Sorry, it's great to see a gang of thugs enforcing a law that doesn't exist. Apologies, it's great to see a gang of thugs intimidating students. MAGA.

markodaly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. It's great to see a gang of thugs enforcing the law. Sorry, it's great to see a gang of thugs enforcing a law that doesn't exist. Apologies, it's great to see a gang of thugs intimidating students. MAGA.

Isn't this what many on the far left want, some sort of anarchist state where might is right, until of course they are confronted with might, where they run away with the tails between their legs?

As an aside, does any other country in the world burn its own flag as much as some Americans do? We do not do it in Ireland (Loyalists do it but they don't indentify as Irish anyway.)

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

Isn't this what many on the far left want, some sort of anarchist state where might is right, until of course they are confronted with might, where they run away with the tails between their legs?

As an aside, does any other country in the world burn its own flag as much as some Americans do? We do not do it in Ireland (Loyalists do it but they don't indentify as Irish anyway.)

I haven't a clue what those students wanted. Just a bunch of thugs intimidating students as far as I'm concerned.

No, we don't. What we do is write sh1te like 'Mullingar Reds On The Piss' across the flag or hang it upside down so it becomes the Ivory Coast flag.

markodaly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I haven't a clue what those students wanted. Just a bunch of thugs intimidating students as far as I'm concerned.

Young wanna be thugs being intimated by actual thugs. Welcome to adulthood boys.

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

Young wanna be thugs being intimated by actual thugs. Welcome to adulthood boys.

Nope. Law-abiding young men being intimidated by thugs.

The Legend Of Kira

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's a vid online of a group of far left students burning an American flag in a public park. They're you're typical early 20s pencil neck geek types.

A motorcycle club get wind of this and come down. I should stress that these were not Nazis or skinheads. I believe they were a veterans club.

It was funny to see how quickly the nerds dispersed when confronted with a group of scary looking muscle bound men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbwVSEIpOn8

Yes. It's great to see a gang of thugs enforcing the law. Sorry, it's great to see a gang of thugs enforcing a law that doesn't exist. Apologies, it's great to see a gang of thugs intimidating students. MAGA.

I could say the exact same thing about self appointed activists who like to block other people from attending political meetings/political events " a gang of thugs enforcing a law that doesn't exist " as there is no law against attending political meetings/political events.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.