Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 10:33 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 12:18 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 11:40 AM

Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 26, 2025, 08:55 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ban Hussein Ye

 (Read 15863 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #30 - June 09, 2009, 02:11 PM

    When dancehall acts like this perform it is not uncommon for a mob to form and for people to be attacked for not looking heterosexual enough. You don't even have to be gay, if these mobs think you look at one of them inappropriately you could be kicked to death on the spot.


    Then you have clear evidence it is immediate and direct incitement to violence and can have the artist banned or arrested on that basis.

    Quote
    You have right wing teabaggers and Fox News accusing Obama of being a Commie and you have shrill over privileged leftists on campuses across America screaming "racist" at pro Israeli scholars like Daniel Pipes.


    Daniel Pipes is a scumbag

    Quote
    It's the anti free speech act of forming a group and descending on a lecture and shouting the speaker down with childish accusations or the university administrators who decide that Ward Churchill or George Galloway are suitable but ban or fail to approve the likes of Douglas Murray or Ward Connerly.


    I just had a similar disagreement with Zaephon-- maybe it's my Yank perspective, but as far as I'm concerned you only get to claim a violation of "free speech" if the state or an equivalent coercive entity is forcibly imposing censorship. Organizing a bunch of like-minded people to shout down, or even beat the shit out of, someone you disagree with, is not violating free-speech. If it were, then I guess I'm been guilty of it, as, many years ago I participated in anti-Nazi actions with express aim of beating the shit out of them before they had an opportunity to speak (of course we only got to do a bit of that before a platoon of state troopers decided it was enogh then beat the shit out of us Smiley). A group of people forcibly shutting down discussion may be many unsavory things, but, in my opinion, it is not a violation of free speech.

    And, if the university is private, administrators are well within their rights to ban who they please-- if students disagree with the decision they can organize and protest.

    Quote
    This happens on both sides of the pond as the left nearly has an intellectual monopoly on our educations systems.


    Perhaps, but I don't see this as a bad thing for a couple of reasons:

    1. It is not a case of state or corporate indoctrination, rather that most of the professors and many of the students trend to the left-- they may enforce a kind of mild "tyranny of the majority", but it's not like David Horowitz and others want to make it to be-- you can still be a right-winger and teach at a college, you can still be right-winger openly as a student (for proof, there are tons of "Young Republican" groups at campuses across America full of obnoxious, loud, nasty and downright bigoted people-- but they've been around for decades and aren't going anywhere, even at the most left-leaning campuses). Sure if you have these opinions on many campuses you will be exposing yourself to scorn from the majority viewpoint, but hey, that's life-- tough titties.

    2. Higher education is the ONLY major component of American life where socialist ideas are acceptable, even encouraged. Believe me, the right-wing and the pro-capitalists, free-marketeers, and pro-imperialists have PLENTY of other forums for them to get their message across, particularly the corporate media. So you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss the whining of Horowitz and his ilk about the "leftist stranglehold over academia". Cry me a fuckin river.

    Quote
    Have a look at these video's and discuss.


    Don't have time right now, but I will later. However I do notice "Berkeley" mentioned in the title of the first one. It's easy enough to pick out some leading left-leaning campuses like Berkeley, but in the US we have close to 3000 accredited 4-year colleges and universities (not to mention all the unaccredited Bible colleges and two-year schools), plenty of them are not even close to having the kind of political environment of the universities that critics routinely discuss when lamenting the "left-wing domination of American campuses"

    Quote
    Sheesh I go in for it myself sometimes Q-Man you "anti imperialist goon" you


    No problem. We're good.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #31 - June 09, 2009, 02:15 PM

    I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion. I'm a liberal in the classical sence of the word.


    You don't actually have to be a neocon to be branded one you neoconservative beast you Wink
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #32 - June 09, 2009, 02:45 PM

    So let me get this right, you don't arrest people for inciting violence?

    You only arrest them when there is solid evidence that their speech directly led to violence. Is that the idea? Wait for the blood of innocents to be spilled then get busy arresting!

    Daniel Pipes is a scumbag because you disagree with him. Typical, this is a text book example of the "discredit your opponent by branding them as something unthinkable" game.

    Well done splosher chops piggy

    Other than that you seem to be saying two very foolish things.

    One that American conservatives are tyrannical and intolerant so it's ok for the left to behave the same way and two that bias, intolerance and harassment are cool as long as it is biased to the left and intolerant of right wing views.

    Also you are overlooking the nature of educational establishments as places of free inquiry. As soon as they become places of political orthodoxy they become moribund.

    What is the point of having a department of women's studies that refuses to teach the opposing argument to radical feminism, what is the point of having a sociology department that only teaches multiculturalism and gives good grades to students for churning out politically correct bunk. What is the point of having political science courses that are almost exclusively taught by Trotskyites who teach that capitalism is evil as if it was a fact?

    Universities should be places where ideas are challenged not reinforced. If professors are using their privileged positions to promote their anti imperialist politics then they should be sacked.

    Horowitz is right. They are there to teach not indoctrinate.   
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #33 - June 09, 2009, 04:16 PM

    Quote from: Q-Man
    Daniel Pipes is a scumbag

    Sheesh. You went ballistics because I disagreed with your perception of Tutu once. Why is Daniel Pipes a scumbag, apart from the fact that you disagree with him, of course? At least provide some reason.

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #34 - June 09, 2009, 05:23 PM

    So let me get this right, you don't arrest people for inciting violence?

    You only arrest them when there is solid evidence that their speech directly led to violence. Is that the idea? Wait for the blood of innocents to be spilled then get busy arresting!


    Um, no...I said no such thing. You reading shit into my posts that isn't there is very fucking tiresome. Are you capable of not doing that? It's enough work just replying to actual points of contention, without having to correct you on something I never said on top of that.

    You mentioned that there are incidents of violence arising from these concerts that demonstrate the lyrics are immediate incitement to violence-- I agreed. Geez, I fucking agree with you and you still end up putting words in my mouth, or keystrokes on my computer as it were.

    Quote
    Daniel Pipes is a scumbag because you disagree with him. Typical, this is a text book example of the "discredit your opponent by branding them as something unthinkable" game.


     Roll Eyes No, it's a textbook example of posting your personal opinion on an internet discussion forum. You are welcome to post your opinion that Daniel Pipes is a great guy and it's always sunshine, puppies, rainbows and blowjobs when he's around, or you can post a more nuanced opinion of him. Tell me, brucepig, how exactly would me simply calling him a "scumbag" on this thread in any way discredit him? Yeah, I might as well be a Stalinist information commissar. Got news for you-- this internet discussion is just an internet discussion-- no broader impact. No different than us debating in a bar over beers except I'm not drunk and leering at pretty women.

    Quote
    Other than that you seem to be saying two very foolish things.


     Cheesy Go on, Aristotle...

    Quote
    One that American conservatives are tyrannical and intolerant so it's ok for the left to behave the same way and two that bias, intolerance and harassment are cool as long as it is biased to the left and intolerant of right wing views.


    No, what I'm saying is that conservatives attacking socialist political orthodoxy at universities is hyperbolic, hypocritical and downright silly:

    1. There have been Marxist professors at American universities since the 1960s-- is this country any closer to socialism than it was in the 60s as a result? No. In fact, arguably, we're more free-market than we were then. And, as an interesting and important factual addendum almost all the economics postgraduate programs in this country are what I call "free-market purist" oriented, and most of the international relations departments are quite centrist-- and the folks getting degrees from those programs are much, much more influential than some kid majoring in liberal arts who will likely end up a teacher themselves or a lowly civil servant. In other words, whatever left-wing political orthodoxy that exists in higher education has limited impact on American society as a whole so it's stupid to complain about it like it's some big fuckin deal, which it isn't.

    2. As I noted above, there are plenty of educational institutions in this country where there is very little left-wing political activity or indoctrination.

    3. It's also fucked-up for conservatives, pro-imperialists and free-marketeers (and I include many big "L" Liberal Democrats in this bunch) to complain about left-wing political orthodoxy in higher education when they have the upper hand with institutions that are MUCH more influential over American society and government policy, like the media.

    Quote
    Also you are overlooking the nature of educational establishments as places of free inquiry. As soon as they become places of political orthodoxy they become moribund.

    What is the point of having a department of women's studies that refuses to teach the opposing argument to radical feminism, what is the point of having a sociology department that only teaches multiculturalism and gives good grades to students for churning out politically correct bunk. What is the point of having political science courses that are almost exclusively taught by Trotskyites who teach that capitalism is evil as if it was a fact?

    Universities should be places where ideas are challenged not reinforced. If professors are using their privileged positions to promote their anti imperialist politics then they should be sacked.


    What do you think universities are? Some Socratic symposium (and we all know what happened to Socrates for challenging the dominant ideas)? Universities have always had professors pushing their personal ideologies, and the majority has always tried to limit the influence of minority ideas. Don't you think in the 19th century at Oxford and Cambridge most professors were teaching about how fuckin awesome British imperialism was? And, as I noted above, in economics departments in this country the leftists are in a distinct minority. That's the real world-- educators will tend to push their own ideas and values and dismiss competing ones.

    Quote
    Horowitz is right. They are there to teach not indoctrinate.  


    Horowitz is a cunt too and full of shit. If you really think he would still object if it were his ideas students were being indoctrinated with, I've got some nice oceanfront property in Arizona to sell ya.

    Finally, on a personal note-- when I went to college I had a lot of Marxist and other lefty professors. When I started college I was a right-winger who thought Ayn Rand was awesome, and the US Army was footing the bill-- I planned on accepting a commission from the Army and becoming airborne infantry, eager for combat. Within a couple of years, due mostly to class resentment of the rich kids at school, I started shedding these ideas-- but at no point throughout college was I leftist in any sense except that I've always been pro-union. It wasn't until after college, after a few more years in the workforce full-time and through union activism that I acquired socialist ideas (though it should be obvious I'm still heavily influenced by the Libertarian ideals of my youth). I thought lefty student protesters were spoiled brats who didn't have to work and once attended a counter-demo just to spite them. The only protest I ever participated in (besides the counter-demo) at that time was walking a picket line for adjunct professors trying to win health insurance in their union contract.

    Yes, I do actually have a point to this long-winded story, and that is-- I frequently challenged my professors in class with unorthodox ideas and not once did I ever feel discriminated against or intellectually intimidated. I think this whole "leftist orthodoxy in education" is incredibly overblown by Horowitz and his crew and that the stories of students being intimidated by their professors mostly come from students who are either too big of pussies to stand up to their professors ideas or too fuckin dumb to make an opposing point in a manner that earns them respect from the professor they are disagreeing with.

    Again, this isn't nearly as big of a deal as the critics want to make it seem.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #35 - June 09, 2009, 05:30 PM

    Sheesh. You went ballistics because I disagreed with your perception of Tutu once. Why is Daniel Pipes a scumbag, apart from the fact that you disagree with him, of course? At least provide some reason.


    If I get around to this at all it's gonna take a while-- I already owe you plenty on that Saudi Arabia Blood Money thread and that'll take a bit.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #36 - June 09, 2009, 08:59 PM

    I just had a similar disagreement with Zaephon-- maybe it's my Yank perspective, but as far as I'm concerned you only get to claim a violation of "free speech" if the state or an equivalent coercive entity is forcibly imposing censorship. Organizing a bunch of like-minded people to shout down, or even beat the shit out of, someone you disagree with, is not violating free-speech. If it were, then I guess I'm been guilty of it, as, many years ago I participated in anti-Nazi actions with express aim of beating the shit out of them before they had an opportunity to speak (of course we only got to do a bit of that before a platoon of state troopers decided it was enogh then beat the shit out of us Smiley). A group of people forcibly shutting down discussion may be many unsavory things, but, in my opinion, it is not a violation of free speech.

    Question: why is the state the big issue? If I want to say something and you and a bunch of your mates beat the crap out of me before I can say it how the fuck is this not a violation of free speech simply because you aren't employed by the state to beat the crap out of me?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #37 - June 09, 2009, 09:02 PM

    Question: why is the state the big issue? If I want to say something and you and a bunch of your mates beat the crap out of me before I can say it how the fuck is this not a violation of free speech simply because you aren't employed by the state to beat the crap out of me?


    but as far as I'm concerned you only get to claim a violation of "free speech" if the state or an equivalent coercive entity is forcibly imposing censorship.

  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #38 - June 09, 2009, 09:08 PM

    I did read what he posted.  Tongue

    Quote
    Organizing a bunch of like-minded people to shout down, or even beat the shit out of, someone you disagree with, is not violating free-speech.


    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #39 - June 09, 2009, 09:11 PM

    I did read what he posted.  Tongue

    I guess Q made a contradiction then.
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #40 - June 09, 2009, 09:14 PM

    Shock! Horror!  Wink

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #41 - June 09, 2009, 09:52 PM

    A group of thugs is not an equivalent coercive entity to the state. Not even close. The state has much more power.

    That's why the state is the big issue-- power. In the US and most of Europe there is no equivalent aggregation of power to the state. A group of guys don't like what I have to say in a speech so they come to attack me with baseball bats, I pull out a handgun and I've just equalized the situation-- even if the thugs have handguns themselves, I stand a fighting chance. If the state sends its agents to forcibly shut me down it's definitely going to happen, they just have more arms, more resources, more power than anyone else-- I could have a dozen bodyguards with AKs and M-14s, and the state would still be able to shut my speech down by force. The state is very, very fucking dangerous when it comes to liberty and there are few entities in the industrialized world that even come close to matching its power.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #42 - June 09, 2009, 09:53 PM

    I guess Q made a contradiction then.


    Yeah, for me to poop on!

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #43 - June 09, 2009, 09:56 PM

    A group of thugs is not an equivalent coercive entity to the state. Not even close. The state has much more power.

    That's why the state is the big issue-- power. In the US and most of Europe there is no equivalent aggregation of power to the state. A group of guys don't like what I have to say in a speech so they come to attack me with baseball bats, I pull out a handgun and I've just equalized the situation-- even if the thugs have handguns themselves, I stand a fighting chance. If the state sends its agents to forcibly shut me down it's definitely going to happen, they just have more arms, more resources, more power than anyone else-- I could have a dozen bodyguards with AKs and M-14s, and the state would still be able to shut my speech down by force. The state is very, very fucking dangerous when it comes to liberty and there are few entities in the industrialized world that even come close to matching its power.

    Oh sure, the state has more power. That doesn't meant that a bunch of thugs using force to shut down free speech is not a violation of free speech. It may not be a state-sanctioned violation of free speech but it is still a violation of free speech. The whole idea of free speech is that you are free to speak. Being surrounded by baseball bats sorta puts a a damper on things.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #44 - June 09, 2009, 10:07 PM

    Oh sure, the state has more power. That doesn't meant that a bunch of thugs using force to shut down free speech is not a violation of free speech. It may not be a state-sanctioned violation of free speech but it is still a violation of free speech. The whole idea of free speech is that you are free to speak. Being surrounded by baseball bats sorta puts a a damper on things.


    Yes it is a violation of the right to free speech by other individuals, but when I think of "free speech" I tend to think of it in terms of the violation of that right by the state, which is what I was trying to explain in a clumsy and ultimately stupid fashion.

    All the same, I do not think people shouting down others, protesting them, etc. (or not allowing them to speak on campus if it is a private institution) is a violation of free speech, as they are not using physical force, and even when they do use physical force (which is rare) it is not as serious a situation as when the state uses physical force, because, like I said above, the state wields much more power.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #45 - June 09, 2009, 10:27 PM

    Probably best to make the distinction in future because otherwise I can see this conversation repeating all over the internet. Wink

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #46 - June 09, 2009, 10:33 PM

    because otherwise I can see this conversation repeating all over the internet. Wink


    Huh?

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #47 - June 09, 2009, 10:37 PM

    The distinction between state-sanctioned repression of free speech and "private" repression of free speech. Most people will probably think they are both repression of free speech. If you don't it is probably best to make this clear at the outset. 

    Which leads to the next question: why do you only think it is repression of free speech when the state is involved? I mean the whole "state has more power" thing seems like an incomplete answer.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #48 - June 09, 2009, 11:21 PM

    The distinction between state-sanctioned repression of free speech and "private" repression of free speech. Most people will probably think they are both repression of free speech. If you don't it is probably best to make this clear at the outset.  

    Which leads to the next question: why do you only think it is repression of free speech when the state is involved? I mean the whole "state has more power" thing seems like an incomplete answer.


    Because repression of free speech by individuals or organizations without a great deal of coercive power is meaningless without the use of physical force--without that it's just one group of people out-organizing the other, not an actual violation of anyone's natural rights. Anyone who complains their "free speech" rights were violated because the administrator of private property denies them access, or because they are shouted down, protested, shunned, insulted, etc. is just a whiny little prick who got out organized by his/her enemies, but no rights were violated.

    When the state intervenes to censor something (even through "soft" means), however, the threat of physical force is always there. Always.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #49 - June 10, 2009, 12:15 AM

    Yeah but what about the baseball bats example? It isn't state-sanctioned force but it's force nonetheless, and earlier you were saying you didn't regard that as a violation of free speech. Now you are implying you would regard it as a violation of the right to free speech. So which is it?

    Note that I'm not talking about being shouted at or protested but about having the crap beaten out of you. Different scenario there.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #50 - June 10, 2009, 12:54 AM

    Yeah but what about the baseball bats example? It isn't state-sanctioned force but it's force nonetheless, and earlier you were saying you didn't regard that as a violation of free speech. Now you are implying you would regard it as a violation of the right to free speech. So which is it?

    Note that I'm not talking about being shouted at or protested but about having the crap beaten out of you. Different scenario there.


    I thought I clarified that in my reply to you below:

    Quote from: Q-Man
    Quote from: osmanthus
    Oh sure, the state has more power. That doesn't meant that a bunch of thugs using force to shut down free speech is not a violation of free speech. It may not be a state-sanctioned violation of free speech but it is still a violation of free speech. The whole idea of free speech is that you are free to speak. Being surrounded by baseball bats sorta puts a a damper on things.



    Yes it is a violation of the right to free speech by other individuals, but when I think of "free speech" I tend to think of it in terms of the violation of that right by the state, which is what I was trying to explain in a clumsy and ultimately stupid fashion.


    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #51 - June 10, 2009, 01:11 AM

    I will deal with the rest of the nonsense you spouted to my last post later Q as I have to go to work.

    Just a quick one to say I would rather deal with a professional police force than a baying mob with bricks and baseball bats any day.

    You mentioned that you were involved in the anti fascist campaign. Wasn't the tactic to take away nazis right to free speech by direct action? By attacking and shouting down far right speakers wherever they tried to speak thus taking away the oxygen of publicity and humiliating them in the process.

    Well the same tactic was used in the UK with extraordinary effect. The once popular National Front were driven under ground and could only resurface after they rebranded as the BNP, distenced themselves from the steel toe capped boot boys and football hooligans and moderated their language.

    The once scary fascistic National Front with their gangs of violent skinheads in every neighbourhood has dwindled to a farcical little party with a handful of MP's and only 10,000 members. Many of them elderly or hoodwinked into believing the BNP is a truly reformed party. Sort of UKIP on roids.

    So the tactic of shouting down and harassing those you disagree with has a powerful effect plus you are overlooking the fact that leftists are prone to calling the police on people whos views they disagree with and making accusations of racism, homophobia etc etc

    So far from it being plucky leftists involved in a good old fashioned bit of direct action and some whiny conservative fools moaning. In many casses it is the state backing them up. America might be different but in the UK the media is not predominantly right wing and our police force is working to a strict set of multicultural and politically correct dogmas. London town is a long way from Alabama old bean.

    I know people who tried to shout down and harass the Islamists in the famous "Behead those who insult Islam" march who were arrested on site.

    I also know leftists members of student unions who along with Islamist students on university campuses attack and harass Jewish students and pro Israeli groups and they go unpunished.

    I don't think the American media is in the pockets of the right. Glen Beck is a right wing dipshit and Kieth Olbermann is a lefty. Fox is low rent bullshit full of propaganda but they have a point when they say a lot of media outlets in America are left leaning. Please don't try to tell us that ideologically totalitarian liberals turning the universities into a monoculture is a good thing. As if they where islands of clear thinking in a sea of right wing ignorance.
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #52 - June 10, 2009, 01:44 AM

    you are overlooking the fact that leftists are prone to calling the police on people whos views they disagree with and making accusations of racism, homophobia etc etc


    The fuck I am, more on that below.

    Quote
    So far from it being plucky leftists involved in a good old fashioned bit of direct action and some whiny conservative fools moaning. In many casses it is the state backing them up.


    Okay, you want to point to where I said it was only right-wingers who whined about non-existent violations of free speech or used the state to silence the opposition? Go ahead, find it. Oh shit, it's not there, because, as a matter of fact, I think people from both the right AND left pull this shit. Once again, the great brucepig strikes again, putting keystrokes on my computer I was unaware of and slaying the great Strawman Terror.

    Quote
    I know people who tried to shout down and harass the Islamists in the famous "Behead those who insult Islam" march who were arrested on site.


    And I would oppose this.

    Quote
    I also know leftists members of student unions who along with Islamist students on university campuses attack and harass Jewish students and pro Israeli groups and they go unpunished.


    If you mean "verbally attack" then don't think they should be punished anymore than the people above. They are exercising their rights, not violating anyone elses. If you mean "physically attack" of course that's entirely different.

    Quote
    I don't think the American media is in the pockets of the right. Glen Beck is a right wing dipshit and Kieth Olbermann is a lefty. Fox is low rent bullshit full of propaganda but they have a point when they say a lot of media outlets in America are left leaning.


    Irrelevant. Beck and Olbermann are both obnoxious pundits who disagree mostly on social issues split along partisan lines-- neither one challenges anything fundamental about our economic system, political superstructure or foreign policy. Both are statist, both are imperialist (or interventionist, if the former term gives you nightmares of kaffiya-wearing white bourgeois protestors), and both are capitalist. One votes Republican the other Democrat-- big fuckin whoop.

    Quote
    Please don't try to tell us that ideologically totalitarian liberals turning the universities into a monoculture is a good thing. As if they where islands of clear thinking in a sea of right wing ignorance.


    And yet another thing I didn't fucking say. Ya know, piggie, I can put up with you disagreeing with me, I can even put up with you calling my ideas "nonsense" and "foolish" but what I've grown entirely tired of is you sticking fucking words in my mouth and attacking points I never made. My porn has finished downloading and it's been a long day so I'm done here. I can't debate with someone who won't even bother sticking to addressing the points I made, not points someone else made, points you imagined I made, or points you wished I'd made so you'd have decent responses to pull out of the can. Sorry I'm not a cookie-cutter "leftist" with whom you can just regurgitate the same points you make in other debates with "leftists" on these topics. Find someone else here to school ya, I'm fuckin done.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #53 - June 10, 2009, 05:38 AM

    You come on here and pipe up in support of the liberal bias in education and in support of bully boy tactics then you moan that I'm accusing you of being partisan.

    Well I think anyone who reads this will see it's you who is being whiny.
     Cry

    Just because you didn't say "right wingers" when you referred to people who don't like being shouted down and harassed the fact that this thread has predominantly been about the liberal bias on campuses (and you have been supporting that bias)

    I think it's safe to say you are talking about the Conservatives like Horowitz who oppose the Liberal bias when you refer to people whining.

    You might thinks it fair game if conservatives start forming groups and descending on liberal lectures to scream "COMMIE" through a bull horn but I doubt it.

    If you are going to pick apart every single post I make for any reference that I use that doesn't relate to your previous post then scream strawman we wont get anywhere. Be aware that I started this free speech debate in reaction to something Kope said so some of the things I type might just be my opinion about something and have nothing to do with you or what you have written.

    Please don't try to blame me of beating a straw man again just to discredit me. You are being transparently cynical.

    So all of the mainstream media is run by companies that are to the centre of the political spectrum and there are no Trotskyite, Marxist or anti capitalist owned media outlets. So! there are no KKK or Nazi run media outlets either. That's the way of the world extremists of either stripe rarely rise to a position to be in control of large companies or get to be big name pundits.

    That's because anti capitalism is foolish and communism and fascism are totally discredited ideologies. How can you expect someone who thinks capitalism is evil to earn enough money to own a mainstream media outlet anyway.
     Cheesy

    Anyway speak for yourself, in the UK we have our fair share of hard left Trots like Ken Livingston and George Galloway who get voted in and regularly get airtime in the mainstream media. Maybe you should emigrate to the UK as we still seem to like our far left goons.
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #54 - June 10, 2009, 12:56 PM

    You come on here and pipe up in support of the liberal bias in education...bunch of other bullshit you wrote


    Oh, yes, indeed...absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

    Quote
    Maybe you should emigrate to the UK as we still seem to like our far left goons.


    I've been to the UK a few times and I did enjoy it but I'll take a pass on moving there. I like my guns, I like going to baseball games, and I like big, greasy American-style pizza slices available on every other corner, and if I moved there I'd effectively have to give up all three. I also like our Bill of Rights and I've recently started switching from smoking to dip as a form of harm reduction, which, correct me if I'm wrong, your country and the EU have banned in their infinite wisdom.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #55 - June 10, 2009, 09:44 PM

    I thought I clarified that in my reply to you below:

    It looks to me that what you originally meant was something along the lines of "Threats to free speech are more of a problem when they are backed by the power of the state". This sounds pretty reasonable, but if that's what you meant it would be better to just say that, rather than redefining "threats to free speech" to not include obvious threats to free speech which aren't backed by the state. 

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #56 - June 11, 2009, 12:10 AM

    It looks to me that what you originally meant was something along the lines of "Threats to free speech are more of a problem when they are backed by the power of the state". This sounds pretty reasonable, but if that's what you meant it would be better to just say that, rather than redefining "threats to free speech" to not include obvious threats to free speech which aren't backed by the state. 


    To do that would be to condemn the bully boy tactics used by leftists and Islamists on university campuses. He doesn't want to do that Os.

     parrot
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #57 - June 11, 2009, 02:20 AM

    It looks to me that what you originally meant was something along the lines of "Threats to free speech are more of a problem when they are backed by the power of the state". This sounds pretty reasonable, but if that's what you meant it would be better to just say that, rather than redefining "threats to free speech" to not include obvious threats to free speech which aren't backed by the state.  


    Let me further clarify-- free speech is a natural right. The only violation of free speech then, occurs when someone prevents someone else from speaking through physical force. When an individual or organization does this, rather than the state, it is still a violation of the right. However, when the government does it, due to its power, it is a much more serious matter. Furthermore, even when the state uses "soft" methods to censor speech, it always does so with the threat of overwhelming physical force behind it.

    But what brucepig seems to be saying is that "free speech" means you get to say whatever you want (barring what the government defines as "hate speech") without any consequences-- no one is allowed to organize against you, protest you, shout you down or try to influence the administrators of private property you want access to. None of these things is a violation of the natural right to free speech-- it's simply being an inferior organizer to your opponents and being a big ole pussy crying "free speech! free speech!" because you don't want any active opposition to or consequences of sharing your ideas. Now this may not exactly be what brucepig was saying, but it seems close and even if it isn't his recent behavior in debates with me, makes me, quite frankly, not give a fuck if I'm misrepresenting his position here. And regardless of Senor Cerlo's ridiculous assumptions, I think people of ALL political perspectives have a tendency to shout "you're violating my free speech!", when no such thing has occurred.

    fuck you
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #58 - June 11, 2009, 02:46 AM

     What's  'dip'?
  • Re: Ban Hussein Ye
     Reply #59 - June 11, 2009, 04:03 AM

    Got news for you-- this internet discussion is just an internet discussion-- no broader impact.

     
    This is a classic case of underestimating the impact of free discourse. There is little validity to making a statement like this and especially close to eight years after 9-11. There are are many more people who have been made aware of the dangers of Islam and it's believers simply due to the fact that they have read internet discussions about this so-called "religion of peace". So much so that nowadays one is more likely to find a street kid being far more knowledgeable about Islam than a pseudo-leftist academic who has spent years pining away about the Zionists and whatnot.
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »