First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Why does the left want to kill free speech?
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/6/17

octorockandroll wrote:

2017 is a year of highly anticipated, legendary battles:

Okada vs. Kenny Omega

Goku vs. Hit

Rey vs. Kylo

Deku vs. Kacchan

Scarlett Johansen vs. GitS fans

Eren vs. More titans

Rousey vs. Someone else who'll kick her ass easily

Heavily Partisan CR users vs. Sense
71 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Wales
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17

uncletim wrote:

Unless those protesters where government officials his freedom speech was not infringed upon

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction." From Wikipedia. The riot would be considered a Societal Sanction.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if it's a violation of the legal right 'Freedom of speech' or the moral right to Free Speech.
22264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

eviscery wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


eviscery wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

First of all, most of those protesters probably weren't Berkeley students, but outside agitators.

Second of all, you're categorizing the left as a monolithic homogeneous group consumed by group thing. What are they, Klingons? Oh wait, they must be Orcs!

I do agree that while Milo is by far the most psychopathic pundit in terms of his actual ideology "Fuck your feelings" (No, you cannot just say to everyone fuck your feelings and say whatever thing you want when you want it, you cunt.), he does deserve free speech.



On what basis do you believe that most of the rioters (note: not protesters) were probably not Berkeley students? It seems to me it's very hard to know who exactly the rioters were. They could very well have been Berkeley students or maybe they were in fact just outside agitators.

The thing is though, it doesn't really matter who it was that was involved in the riots. What we should have seen was outright condemnation from the Left, from the students, from the police and from the media. Instead we mostly heard justification, excuses, scapegoating and sometimes outright support for the rioters. There was a very noteworthy lack of police action for a long time, the cause of this is unknown.

You can comment on the Left as a whole without suggesting they all think the exact same thing. It's a generalisation, of course. There were a few Leftist mediums that spoke out against the riots. But the point still stands that the majority of the Left were silent, making excuses or even supporting the rioters.

Also- Fuck your feelings.


I do agree outright condemnation is needed, I do.

I also do not believe those rioters were right wingers in conspiracy to deface the left, but honestly? This isn't some 3rd rate liberal arts community college. This is a school that has long been considered one of the most prestigious in the US as a research institution university. You don't traditionally hear rioting by Harvard students or Stanford, because those students have too much riding on the line to risk an expulsion from such an institution, that they probably already were well into their studies. In any case, there was rioting at the campus just for that day because he was scheduled to be there, despite it being planned months well into advance, and I wouldn't chalk it up to ignorance that most students weren't aware till the day before. In any case, rioting is most definitely efficient not beforehand, but during, or at least that is what I am assuming.

I do not know about lack of police action, it seems to me they were doing a great deal to corral the crowd (I imagine it wouldn't be a smooth 1,2,3 unless you are using lethal force, which seriously look down upon, and you need quite a number of policemen for such a crowd.)

I also want to know your majority statistic. Do you search for condemnations on twitter or something? I think it seems very shady, but I agree that there is a lot of silence on the left for such a silence.

I still do not approve of the OPs opening statement.


Also- Fuck your feelings.


Well I am triggered. :(



While I can see your logic in determining the likelihood that the rioters were Berkeley students I can't say I'm convinced. While it may be the case that students from prestigious institutions are less likely to be involved in protests it may very well not be. It may make sense but I don't think it's fair to conclude that it is the case. Regardless, I don't think who the protesters actually were matters as much as the mainstream reaction. A hundred or so agitators aren't a huge social issue.

From watching footage of the riots it seems that the police initially didn't do anything. They did later do a good job at breaking up the protests but initially it seemed like very little was done. I may not have been able to get the full picture just from footage and it's also possible that the police were simply unable to do anything initially due to the scale of the riot.

While I probably should have been clearer on this, It's only my personal impression that most of the Left responded in that way. It would be very hard to statistical prove such a thing but I saw very little condemnation and even when I did it was accompanied by an excuse or scapegoat. Like The Young Turks claiming they were probably right-wingers trying to deface the Left.

The opening statement lacks any nuance but it does make a point. We don't know the rioters were students but the statement does show the social shift on views on freedom of speech.

I'm sorry for triggering you I wanted to seem edgy and cool


I see. I guess you do pose a valid point.


karatecowboy wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:



Actually, it was a reference to the Trope "Planet of Hats" hence the inclusion of Orc. Where an entire species has been for the most part been so uniformed in thought and ideology mirroring that of an "inherently evil" race like the Orcs (Understandable, due to them being more primal and animalistic, especially given their creation, but I digress.) that they are the designated antagonists. I suppose I should have used Daleks, especially concerning that one episode where a Dalek can barely live with himself that honestly, made me pity him.

In any case, we live in a world where Tupac was gunned down because someone did not like his music, and to celebrate Super Bowl 51, a world where you can literally be killed for going to a football game in the wrong Jersey.

Large groups like leftists have a huge variety, not unlike the Right wingers, and I think to say that the Left wants to destroy free speech is a nonsensical look at just the most vocal opponents of the right. This doesn't make anymore sense than saying Milo is the voice of right wingers (More of the Right Wing Millenial trolls prowling the internet, but I hardly think that such people leave the house, much less vote, and are not entirely indicative of the right wingers and their attitudes.



If there were no similarities among "right" and "left" then we would not be using the terms. While there may be a myriad of differences in opinion about practical implementation, we may still say that, in general, the left is more for collectivism and authoritarianism. The classical definition is that as we go more to the left we approach collectivism and authoritarism, and as we go to the right on the scale we become more individualist and libertarian. Hence, it is intrinsic to the spectrum that the left will oppose individual liberties such as freedom of speech more than the right.

You are right, we wouldn't use those terms if we couldn't generalize, but they're broad terms, and to mess it up with others like "communist" does a disservice to discussion as well as the terms being used, and to categorize by such large margins does seem a bit overbearing in my view.

I am not entirely sure of the validity of your claim that leftist are more for freedom of speech, but I always abide the xy axis of freedom vs ideology reasoning. I always consider authoritarianism to be a separate axis populated by groups and figures like Marx, the Bolsheviks, or Margaret Thatcher.

I do not have a real good understanding of the classification, which I believe is in dispute as one could triumph a host of historically conservative actions for liberal reasons or vice versa (Believing in gay marriage for individual liberty, although you'll just be pegged as libertarian from my experience)

You also have groups like the ACLU, which are extremely liberal, but also quite freedom oriented as well to my knowledge.


8811 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 2/5/17

eviscery wrote:

Being punished by the government is not the only thing that constitutes a violation of Free Speech. This is why I told you to look it up.



The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are government acting on behalf of the government.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
10456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

uncletim wrote:

Unless those protesters where government officials his freedom speech was not infringed upon

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


That's a very simplistic assessment of rights. I have the right to be safe in my own person. So, unless it's the government shooting at me, then my right has not been infringed? The heart of the American understanding of rights and the role of government can be elucidated by reading the Declaration of Independence: "We hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights by their creator... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men". Where do these rights come from? Our Creator. Why does government exist? To secure these rights. By definition, the government exists to protect these rights. Hence, there can exist, intrinsically, a threat to your freedom of expression outside the government where the government may intervene to secure that right.
10456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/6/17

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


eviscery wrote:

Being punished by the government is not the only thing that constitutes a violation of Free Speech. This is why I told you to look it up.



The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are government acting on behalf of the government.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States


Well, wikipedia is wrong. If Peter threatens to kill Paul for saying certain things then Paul's right to freedom of expression has been abridged.
71 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Wales
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


eviscery wrote:

Being punished by the government is not the only thing that constitutes a violation of Free Speech. This is why I told you to look it up.



The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are government acting on behalf of the government.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States


I'm not making a legal argument using the US constitution. I think that's not really relevant and I don't understand US law well enough to make or counter arguments relating to that. What is more important is that this is a violation of Free Speech as a notion, as a human right.
4944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Online
Posted 2/5/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


official-shinsengumi wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


official-shinsengumi wrote:

He was going to have a speech there, right?

They just didn't want him to have a speech there..


With violence and fire. I mean, Milo is pretty bad, but again, fire. Violence. Bats.


well, yea...



I am pretty stupid. I thought you were attempting to justify it. Not that I have a problem with reasoning out why a mob might have done something like this, at least where I am from. I think such an attempt at empathy like looking at reasons could potentially be beneficial. Then again, perhaps I am misusing the word justify.


no, no, I'm not justifying the violence.

10456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

Mishio1 wrote:


lolwhut? Which group favors rights of the individual vs authoritarianism typically depends on the issue. The left, for example, would like to see law enforcement be put under more scrutiny, and give women more control in regards to abortion, and support LGBT rights, all of which of these would be considering supporting individual freedoms. Wheras they also want more regulation when it comes to environmental issues, want more restrictions placed on big businesses, and are at times willing to support "big government" in order to secure those freedoms, all of which could be considered authoritarian.


While there may be some variety, in general the spectrum runs from authoritarian/collectivist on the left to libertarian/individualist on the right. Also, pre-natal murder, euphemised as "abortion" is not a civil liberty or right. It is a violation of the human right to live. Your example actually works in support of what I am saying. It's an inarguable biological fact that a human zygote is an individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens. If you believe in human rights then you believe in the right of the individual to live and not be murdered. The bigoted support by the left of the power to murder others actually is supporting the infringement of the right to live.

As far as so called "GBLT rights", they don't exist. Every so called "GBLT right" is actually a generic right afforded to all people; eg the right to be secure in your person. Hence, it's a non-sequiter
71 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Wales
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


lolwhut? Which group favors rights of the individual vs authoritarianism typically depends on the issue. The left, for example, would like to see law enforcement be put under more scrutiny, and give women more control in regards to abortion, and support LGBT rights, all of which of these would be considering supporting individual freedoms. Wheras they also want more regulation when it comes to environmental issues, want more restrictions placed on big businesses, and are at times willing to support "big government" in order to secure those freedoms, all of which could be considered authoritarian.


While there may be some variety, in general the spectrum runs from authoritarian/collectivist on the left to libertarian/individualist on the right. Also, pre-natal murder, euphemised as "abortion" is not a civil liberty or right. It is a violation of the human right to live. Your example actually works in support of what I am saying. It's an inarguable biological fact that a human zygote is an individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens. If you believe in human rights then you believe in the right of the individual to live and not be murdered. The bigoted support by the left of the power to murder others actually is supporting the infringement of the right to live.

As far as so called "GBLT rights", they don't exist. Every so called "GBLT right" is actually a generic right afforded to all people; eg the right to be secure in your person. Hence, it's a non-sequiter



I don't think it's fair to speak as if the topic of abortion is a matter of facts. What constitutes alive is entirely arbitrary and whether or not a foetus counts as living is impossible to state factually. It's based entirely on individuals perception of what is and isn't alive.
30098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/5/17
right
22264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


lolwhut? Which group favors rights of the individual vs authoritarianism typically depends on the issue. The left, for example, would like to see law enforcement be put under more scrutiny, and give women more control in regards to abortion, and support LGBT rights, all of which of these would be considering supporting individual freedoms. Wheras they also want more regulation when it comes to environmental issues, want more restrictions placed on big businesses, and are at times willing to support "big government" in order to secure those freedoms, all of which could be considered authoritarian.


While there may be some variety, in general the spectrum runs from authoritarian/collectivist on the left to libertarian/individualist on the right. Also, pre-natal murder, euphemised as "abortion" is not a civil liberty or right. It is a violation of the human right to live. Your example actually works in support of what I am saying. It's an inarguable biological fact that a human zygote is an individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens. If you believe in human rights then you believe in the right of the individual to live and not be murdered. The bigoted support by the left of the power to murder others actually is supporting the infringement of the right to live.

As far as so called "GBLT rights", they don't exist. Every so called "GBLT right" is actually a generic right afforded to all people; eg the right to be secure in your person. Hence, it's a non-sequiter


I would argue that while you do not have a "right" to murder, that such laws restricting it would be inherently authoritarian. I do not find such a measure to be bad. Let's not use such a word as if it is something to be avoided.

In any case, you're just using a basic left-right line that I think is pretty outdated compared to the right-left-authority-freedom axis.

You have the right wingers restricting LGBT rights, especially those of the Mike Pence variety, you have the regulations against abortion, for the drug war and marijuana restrictions.

While the leftists support LGBT rights and Marijuana deregulation.

In any case, I believe the left right line is outdated because you're associating authority with left, and it become a circular black hole in logic. It is left because it is restrictive. If it is restrictive, it is left. Especially considering people Kropotkin and groups like the ACLU existing, I wouldn't consider them right wing in any way, despite Krop's near anarchist view on communism enterprise and the ACLU's defense of nazis to have their damn march.
74 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17
The question "Why does the left want to kill free speech?" Is a "Why do you beat your wife?" type, in that no matter how you answer it's assumed that you are wrong and morally reprehensible. It assumes no one on the left is rational or capable of upholding civil liberties. You may actually feel that's the case, but it's not constructive.

I could just as easily charge that people on the right are easily led and believe anything they're told. That might make me feel better about "my side" but as there are a number of people on the right that have gravitas I would be indulging in my feelings without regard to any merit.

Try this. Start with a fact universally acknowledged as true and build your way up from there. Axioms. Everyone understands the sky is blue. So, we can then start to argue why the sky is blue. etc. Proceed from knowns to explain things that people might not know.
10456 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17

eviscery wrote:


I don't think it's fair to speak as if the topic of abortion is a matter of facts. What constitutes alive is entirely arbitrary and whether or not a foetus counts as living is impossible to state factually. It's based entirely on individuals perception of what is and isn't alive.


Well, no, what constitutes alive is not entirely arbitrary. It's factual and scientific. So factual and scientific, in fact, that there is a whole field of science dedicated to it, the name of which literally means "life study". It's called "biology". It's literally the study of life. It is entirely possible to state that a fetus is living. In fact, it's literally a stage of life that animals go through.
20757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Why does the left want to kill free speech?




Is this really the kind of world you want to live in?


Why does the right want to kill/violate the equal protection act, first amendment, due process habeas corpus, Family Reunification Rights, etc.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.