Yeah sure, Obama's plotting to overthrow Trump and his administration, just like how Trump claims Obama has been wiretapping without evidence to back that claim up, then proceeds to urge Congress into starting a probe into it with the hopes that the commander-in-tweets doesn't come off as a complete loud-mouthed jackass.
Gotta love those conspiracy theories. And speaking of conspiracy theories, Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut who has made a career out of being a sensationalist, and the convenient thing about sensationalist conspiracy theories is that you don't need to make a lot of effort to try to verify them as actual facts. I mean, we're talking about the guy who hilariously called Obama and Hilary "demons who smell of sulfur". The same guy who accused Obama of using classified weather weapons to create tornadoes with the intent of wiping out populations for political gains. The same guy who compared the Obama administration's intent to maintain net neutrality to modern day Nazism, identical to how Hitler in his heyday wanted "telegraphic neutrality" (what the actual ****?).
The guy doesn't "tell what's going on". The guy tells his version of what he thinks is really going on within his own personal headspace, with an obvious bias towards the left.
...but you have to also take into consideration, that your assessment of opposing news sources also can condemn your own with the same case you spoke of. It comes back to what YOU the viewer choose to believe. So shouting me down or anyone else that you are right and they are wrong isnt proof, its just stomping your foot demanding "im right and your wrong" this is why I trust Wayne Levi to filter through the rubbish.
This isnt about me looking down on you nor forcing you to believe this or that, Im sharing my opinion and what I believe so you know where I come from and dont think im just trying to disagree or make stuff up. Politics doesnt really matter to me, we game together and shouldnt let a different opinion cause us to have anger, nor feel rivalry due to said difference of news outlets. My heals, rez and anything else you guys need from me is and has always been at your service to help you in the game. How you feel about me doesnt affect that!
IM not going to respond anymore on this thread since its just making you guys madder. So if you have more to say to me, please be nice and give me your thoughts without beating me up. if its a question Ill PM you.
They weren't beating you up. They were correctly stating that claiming Alex Jones is anything but conspiracy Fake news is silly. There is no equivalence between him and his ilk and CNN.
False equivalency is a thing that needs to die in a fire.
I believe in the freedom from the government restricting your speech. That, of course, doesn't free someone from the consequences of such speech, or from criticism of said speech.
Yes, I often make the observation that Trump is the poster child of SJWs. Thin skinned, prone to lashing out at opinions he doesn't like, and constantly playing the victim.
Gotta love it when people throw around the whole "freedom of speech" thing when they don't realize that it's not some sort of shield of immunity that protects against consequences that come with speaking whatever the hell you want.
Freedom of speech laws protect citizens from being persecuted by political institutions or individuals if those citizens' views are in any way critical of said institutions / individuals.
Freedom of speech laws do not protect the individual from practically everything else, especially when Milo Yiannopoulos chose to speak his mind, insinuating that pedophilia is justified in some manner, nevermind some of the other controversial crap he has said earlier on. Now he's dealing with the backlash that come with saying stupid crap, with how he lost his job at Breitbart and his book publisher cancelling his book, because no sane business wants to be associated with an employee or business partner who openly suggests that pedophilia is okay on some level, and any company has a legal right to dismiss their employee for soiling the reputation of the business in that manner. The dismissed employee has the option to open a civil lawsuit against that company for unfair firing, but good luck if that former employee cites "freedom of speech" as a reason for the lawsuit.
Milo chose to make a career out of being a professional instigator. In doing so he thought he could get away with saying whatever he wants while ignoring any consequences that come with doing so that might affect him professionally. Too bad the opposite turned out to be true. Also bringing up UC Berkeley is pretty ironic, considering that the students who rioted against him were practicing their freedom of speech as much as he was by executing their freedom to protest rights.
Feel free to explain how "little" I know of the law and the situation involving Milo instead of using troll meme pics substituting for anything worthwhile you actually might have to say.
Stone is just representing the word "Typical" atm. He can't do anything else, so let's just forgive him for his shortcomings ^_^
Srsly you should have seen the rant he spat out this one time I wouldn't unmute him in Cosmic HQ after he got muted for saying racial slurs in the channel... for some reason he got all political and started spouting out trumpisms. Guys brain is fried o3o he wouldn't know reality if it fell up his butt.
Yeah someone needs to show Trump and Bannon this, cause they need to learn that. They're trying so hard to silence so many people.
I hate to break it to ya, but that doesn't have anything to do with what Spinnytop said, and especially doesn't refute anything. Yes, Milo was 'silenced' in the Berkley incident, violating free speech, but so what? That doesn't mean that Trump or Bannon shouldn't be.
I hate to break it to ya, but that doesn't have anything to do with what Spinnytop said, and especially doesn't refute anything. Yes, Milo was 'silenced' in the Berkley incident, violating free speech, but so what? That doesn't mean that Trump or Bannon shouldn't be.
Yes, and no. While the First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech, when concerning matters of the government, the First Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of whatever you decide to speak, nor does it make it required that private property owned by private businesses or interests don't have a right to protection from such antics. While people like to defend Milo as his stuff is just words, words can be hurtful and words have actually started wars. Saying they are just words when he is being as crass, hateful and ugly as he possibly can is just pathetic.
What happened in Berkely was the result of a peaceful protest being overrun by anti fascist extremists that came in unannounced and turned the situation violent. I don't think any rational person can rightfully say that violence in reaction to free speech is justified. It was not a case of "liberals are anti-free speech" it was a case of violent extremists acting out in anger over an ideology that they are strongly opposed to. Not that any of this matters to the alt-right meme-slingers out there... but there it is. I know you shouldn't feed the trolls but what the heck, it's suppertime.
What happened in Berkely was the result of a peaceful protest being overrun by anti fascist extremists that came in unannounced and turned the situation violent. I don't think any rational person can rightfully say that violence in reaction to free speech is justified. It was not a case of "liberals are anti-free speech" it was a case of violent extremists acting out in anger over an ideology that they are strongly opposed to. Not that any of this matters to the alt-right meme-slingers out there... but there it is. I know you shouldn't feed the trolls but what the heck, it's suppertime.
Pretty much, both sides have extremists, but sometimes the irony of extremes is both humorous and a little scary at times.
I hate to break it to ya, but that doesn't have anything to do with what Spinnytop said, and especially doesn't refute anything. Yes, Milo was 'silenced' in the Berkley incident, violating free speech, but so what? That doesn't mean that Trump or Bannon shouldn't be.
Yes, and no. While the First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech, when concerning matters of the government, the First Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of whatever you decide to speak, nor does it make it required that private property owned by private businesses or interests don't have a right to protection from such antics. While people like to defend Milo as his stuff is just words, words can be hurtful and words have actually started wars. Saying they are just words when he is being as crass, hateful and ugly as he possibly can is just pathetic.
Oh Milo's a hateful D-bag for sure, but Berkley IS at least partially a federally-funded institution, so cancelling his speech because of protests is indeed a first amendment violation.
Also, freedom of speech is important for one simple reason: while not all words are created equally, and the way you communicate can effect people very, very negatively (and has as you pointed out, has been known to start wars), it is important to retain everyone's rights to say those hurtful things. Why? Simply because if speech rights were strictly dictated by the government, we can't guarantee that the people that DO attempt to justify for hate speech wouldn't be able to hold power where they would be able to decide what we can or can't say. So, unfortunately, we have to take the good with the bad, or it could get far worse than just starting wars with words.
Personally, I wouldn't want anyone like Milo(or, y'know, Donald Trump) running things without freedom of speech, as without it, our voice for reason actually COULD be silenced. So it's VERY important, and dare I say MORE important to fight for the freedom or speech rights of people you disagree with because of that very reason. That's why freedom of speech is so important.
Oh Milo's a hateful D-bag for sure, but Berkley IS at least partially a federally-funded institution, so cancelling his speech because of protests is indeed a first amendment violation.
Canceled over concerns for his safety. I believe they even invited him back... well back before he lost his job and his book deal anyway, I haven't read or heard anything about it since. What was the collage supposed to do? Have more security in place most likely...but its not their fault things turned violent and the event had to be canceled. Blame the violent protesters, not the school... the school was willing to let him speak before outside forces made the situation dangerous.
Oh Milo's a hateful D-bag for sure, but Berkley IS at least partially a federally-funded institution, so cancelling his speech because of protests is indeed a first amendment violation.
Receiving federal funding is not the same as being a government institution. So, again, no it really isn't. And again while there were a few extremists in that protest, let's not be mistaken, at what point do you draw the line? If people protesting his hate filled speech are not allowed to protest and told them to vacate would you not being in violation at that point to? There is a fine line to draw. Again, I put it at a point value that this is a clear cut case of people who think words have no meaning thinking they have a right to say whatever passed their lips without consequence are just clearly mistaken. Anyone who believes words hold no power just have not bothered to read history, or even read in general.
Oh Milo's a hateful D-bag for sure, but Berkley IS at least partially a federally-funded institution, so cancelling his speech because of protests is indeed a first amendment violation.
Receiving federal funding is not the same as being a government institution. So, again, no it really isn't. And again while there were a few extremists in that protest, let's not be mistaken, at what point do you draw the line? If people protesting his hate filled speech are not allowed to protest and told them to vacate would you not being in violation at that point to? There is a fine line to draw. Again, I put it at a point value that this is a clear cut case of people who think words have no meaning thinking they have a right to say whatever passed their lips without consequence.
There's a fine line between a protest and a riot. The people who were protesting before the extremists were okay. It's when the violence broke out that the real problem started.
But good point about the federal funding vs government institution bit.
Protesters are allowed to protest, they can hold up as many signs and shout as loudly as they want, they have every right to do so, just as people giving speeches can say whatever they want to say, it is their right. The line is drawn when protestors become rioters and start setting fires, beating up random people, and causing property damage. The line is when hate speech incites violence and discrimination against others. The people comminting violence and destruction are responsible for their own actions. Words and ideas are not the problem here.
Protesters are allowed to protest, they can hold up as many signs and shout as loudly as they want, they have every right to do so, just as people giving speeches can say whatever they want to say, it is their right. The line is drawn when protestors become rioters and start setting fires, beating up random people, and causing property damage. The line is when hate speech incites violence and discrimination against others. The people comminting violence and destruction are responsible for their own actions. Words and ideas are not the problem here.
I would say there is a correlation then when many have found Milo's words inciting of very negative ideas and such. Again, words have power and it's just silly to make believe they do not. Wars have been started with words.
I mean yeah if the speaker's intent was to cause harm to others by inciting hatred than they are at least somewhat responsible...but that sort of thing is sort of hard to prove though.
I mean yeah if the speaker's intent was to cause harm to others by inciting hatred than they are at least somewhat responsible...but that sort of thing is sort of hard to prove though.
Not hard to prove, just usually involves a lot of wheeling and dealing and legal stuff. And Milo, of course, is one of those people who think he doesn't have to have concern for what he says, or how he says it, or even what he knows he is trying to incite. He tries to hide it behind some shtick, but there are always consequences of what you say. And that is part of Freedom of Speech some people can't come to terms with. If you say something hateful or rage inducing, there is very likely to be someone that is going to pop you in the mouth for saying it. And if you don't want to take that responsibility, well tough, that's not the world you live in. It's the reason people on the internet always feel emboldened and can get away with saying a lot more than they say publicly, because there is not much chance someone is going to walk up to do you and straight punch you in the face since anonymity and all.
I mean yeah if the speaker's intent was to cause harm to others by inciting hatred than they are at least somewhat responsible...but that sort of thing is sort of hard to prove though.
Not hard to prove, just usually involves a lot of wheeling and dealing and legal stuff. And Milo, of course, is one of those people who think he doesn't have to have concern for what he says, or how he says it, or even what he knows he is trying to incite. He tries to hide it behind some shtick, but there are always consequences of what you say. And that is part of Freedom of Speech some people can't come to terms with. If you say something hateful or rage inducing, there is very likely to be someone that is going to pop you in the mouth for saying it. And if you don't want to take that responsibility, well tough, that's not the world you live in. It's the reason people on the internet always feel emboldened and can get away with saying a lot more than they say publicly, because there is not much chance someone is going to walk up to do you and straight punch you in the face since anonymity and all.
I get what you're saying here. But is reaction from what someone else is saying a good justification for that someone not saying something? I don't think so. It should be up to reason and reason alone to stand against ignorant speech. Fear of consequences for standing up for facts is how terrorism or any radical movement wins. They threaten you, you 'learn' to shut your mouth, and they get their way. But with facts and logic that is grounded in reality, you don't need terrorism to defeat foolish speech. You merely need speech of your own.
I get what you're saying here. But is reaction from what someone else is saying a good justification for that someone not saying something? I don't think so. It should be up to reason and reason alone to stand against ignorant speech. Fear of consequences for standing up for facts is how terrorism or any radical movement wins. They threaten you, you 'learn' to shut your mouth, and they get their way. But with facts and logic that is grounded in reality, you don't need terrorism to defeat foolish speech. You merely need speech of your own.
Not a good analogy and a very Reagan-esque ideology if I were to be blunt about it. There is a difference between standing up for what you believe in and standing up just to be someone that spreads hate and misinformation. If what Milo says is enough to anger a lot of people, then yes, he bears the brunt and responsibility for his words. Trying to pass the buck when he is at the epicenter of it all is just silly.
It would be like claiming that Trump rallies did not inspire some of the most hateful sects in America, or that Hitler didn't inspire a nation to war. It's a sad state of affairs that people do not take responsibility for things they do or say anymore these days, and instead try to either re-write events to their suit or well just hand wave it off.
I get what you're saying here. But is reaction from what someone else is saying a good justification for that someone not saying something? I don't think so. It should be up to reason and reason alone to stand against ignorant speech. Fear of consequences for standing up for facts is how terrorism or any radical movement wins. They threaten you, you 'learn' to shut your mouth, and they get their way. But with facts and logic that is grounded in reality, you don't need terrorism to defeat foolish speech. You merely need speech of your own.
Not a good analogy and a very Reagan-esque ideology if I were to be blunt about it. There is a difference between standing up for what you believe in and standing up just to be someone that spreads hate and misinformation. If what Milo says is enough to anger a lot of people, then yes, he bears the brunt and responsibility for his words. Trying to pass the buck when he is at the epicenter of it all is just silly.
It would be like claiming that Trump rallies did not inspire some of the most hateful sects in America, or that Hitler didn't inspire a nation to war. It's a sad state of affairs that people do not take responsibility for things they do or say anymore these days, and instead try to either re-write events to their suit or well just hand wave it off.
You misunderstand what I meant. That "standing up for what you believe in" I mentioned refers to the protesters/rioters, not Milo. Milo's hate, as well as the hate of others like him can be defeated by logic and reason, so why would there be a need to resort to violence at all? That's what I'm saying.
You misunderstand what I meant. That "standing up for what you believe in" I mentioned refers to the protesters/rioters, not Milo. Milo's hate, as well as the hate of others like him can be defeated by logic and reason, so why would there be a need to resort to violence at all? That's what I'm saying.
I would agree with that, if the people with logic and reason held the reigns in these times. But they don't.
You misunderstand what I meant. That "standing up for what you believe in" I mentioned refers to the protesters/rioters, not Milo. Milo's hate, as well as the hate of others like him can be defeated by logic and reason, so why would there be a need to resort to violence at all? That's what I'm saying.
I would agree with that, if the people with logic and reason held the reigns in these times. But they don't.
It may be the world we live in right now but it is not the sort of world I want for future generations. We know better. All of us should know better. Just because some of us do not does not mean that we should give up on our ideals.
I would agree with that, if the people with logic and reason held the reigns in these times. But they don't.
No reason not to keep using logic and reason! =3
While we can use logic and reason, we can be as logical and reasonable as we like, but when punches start getting thrown well it's only a fool who stands there to get knifed in the gut in the process.
It may be the world we live in right now but it is not the sort of world I want for future generations. We know better. All of us should know better. Just because some of us do not does not mean that we should give up on our ideals.
This sentiment would have value if it was just some. But there is an alarming number of people who do not hold logic and reason above all else, otherwise issues of treating your fellow man like human beings and wanting to help others would not be an issue at all, but constantly have to be brought up because they aren't. After all, in a logical and reasonable society, climate change evidence is just undeniable, especially with world record temperatures being struck every year, but here we still are listening to the same people claim that climate change is a hoax invented by whatever tinfoil conspiracy and that science said yada yada in year X despite no evidence to corroborate it, and science has been claiming since at least the late 1800s that humans would have a huge impact on the environment.
I have to disagree with the idea that people need to take responsibility for what others do in reaction to what they say. I can hear someone prattling on about their nationalist ideals and then not go and attack people, so I hold those other listeners responsible to do the same. If they're the type of people who would attack people in response to hearing that stuff, then that's something they're doing because of who they are, not because of the speaker telling them to do it. That also goes for the "words can hurt" people who claim that me saying something can cause emotional trauma to someone - especially when it goes so far to claim that I'm oppressing someone by saying the wrong pronoun. People need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of using the excuse of "well that person said this so that made me do that". That's an excuse I've often heard framed as "You made me hit you" from people who got violent after getting mad at someone, and it troubles me when people essentially agree with that excuse when they claim that the speaker is responsible for the listener's actions. Free speech is important, as is mindful listening.
Also, if we stop using logic and reason because the "other side" stopped being logical and reasonable... doesn't that just make the problem worse? Now nobody is being reasonable and all we did was prove the unreasonable people right.
I have to disagree with the idea that people need to take responsibility for what others do in reaction to what they say. I can hear someone prattling on about their nationalist ideals and then not go and attack people, so I hold those other listeners responsible to do the same. If they're the type of people who would attack people in response to hearing that stuff, then that's something they're doing because of who they are, not because of the speaker telling them to do it. That also goes for the "words can hurt" people who claim that me saying something can cause emotional trauma to someone - especially when it goes so far to claim that I'm oppressing someone by saying the wrong pronoun. People need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of using the excuse of "well that person said this so that made me do that". That's an excuse I've often heard framed as "You made me hit you" from people who got violent after getting mad at someone, and it troubles me when people essentially agree with that excuse when they claim that the speaker is responsible for the listener's actions. Free speech is important, as is mindful listening.
Also, if we stop using logic and reason because the "other side" stopped being logical and reasonable... doesn't that just make the problem worse? Now nobody is being reasonable and all we did was prove the unreasonable people right.
I would agree if reason would win, but only so many times you can be pushed by unreasonable people or hurt in some cases before you have to push back. Turn the other cheek sounds all nice and dandy, makes for a good post card when it concerns holier than thou types who often are the world's biggest hypocrites, but when it concerns lives, it's kind of hard to keep rationality in focus.
It's not that I don't like what's being said. It's just that it... really... blew up? There's a lot more going on here after the first post beyond what I'd expected.
Then again, it's about Trump. It's understandable people have a lot to say there.
Oh Milo's a hateful D-bag for sure, but Berkley IS at least partially a federally-funded institution, so cancelling his speech because of protests is indeed a first amendment violation.
Not at all. The government can't silence you. It's not required to provide you a venue.
People keep talking about "I did research and they're both bad!"... well I did research too, and it lead to the conclusion that one candidate was incompetent and prone to deception in the name of self benefit, constantly screwing over less wealthy people to keep themselves afloat, and the other candidate was desperately hated by half of the political spectrum and had a lot of nutjob conspiracies circulating about them that have never been confirmed ( while everything about the other one was confirmed ).
Yeah, I hear that a lot from people, and while fighting back the impending eye roll each time, I really want to ask them what their "research" actually consisted of. Breitbart? National Enquirer? Some Facebook troll in Macedonia? The fact that people were willing to vote for the Donald in spite of everything horrible about him that was sitting out in plain sight just really goes to show that people seem to have no problem ignoring anything bad about "their guy" once they've thrown in their lot.
Oh Milo's a hateful D-bag for sure, but Berkley IS at least partially a federally-funded institution, so cancelling his speech because of protests is indeed a first amendment violation.
Acts convey meaning, says Haney-Lopez, and thus constitute a form of free speech.
“When universities invite someone to speak, they communicate that that person’s ideas are within the broad range of important public [discourse],” Haney-Lopez states. “Disinviting someone from speaking likewise communicates something—in this case, that the universities have come to realize that this speaker intentionally degrades people to draw attention, while offering little of any real intellectual substance. His poisonous invective is being drowned out by more and louder speech affirming humane values and inclusion. That’s precisely the ideal of free speech in action.”
(Hopefully) Useful CO Resources: HeroCreator (character planner), Cosmic Timers/Alert Checklist, Blood Moon Map, Anniversary Cat Map, and more (eventually, anyway).
I would agree if reason would win, but only so many times you can be pushed by unreasonable people or hurt in some cases before you have to push back. Turn the other cheek sounds all nice and dandy, makes for a good post card when it concerns holier than thou types who often are the world's biggest hypocrites, but when it concerns lives, it's kind of hard to keep rationality in focus.
By abandoning reason, you become the reason that reason doesn't win.
It would be like claiming that Trump rallies did not inspire some of the most hateful sects in America, or that Hitler didn't inspire a nation to war. It's a sad state of affairs that people do not take responsibility for things they do or say anymore these days, and instead try to either re-write events to their suit or well just hand wave it off.
How does that make him worse than Hillary?
Since Spinny wants logic and reason....
Let's look at Trump's immigration reform policies. Most are actually just enforcing the existing laws. Kicking illegal immigrants out of the country has always been the law. It just wasn't properly enforced before. LEGAL immigrants aren't affected by any of this stuff.
Then you have that idiocy in California with people openly declaring that they plan to ignore the immigration laws(specifically the "safe haven" for illegal immigrants declarations) they swore to uphold when they were elected into office.... really? It takes partisan politics to an absurd extreme.
Then you have that idiocy in California with people openly declaring that they plan to ignore the immigration laws(specifically the "safe haven" for illegal immigrants declarations) they swore to uphold when they were elected into office.... really? It takes partisan politics to an absurd extreme.
That has been policy in many California cities for decades. They simply do not question people about their immigration status nor do they detain people who may be living in the state illegally.
Comments
There is no equivalence between him and his ilk and CNN.
False equivalency is a thing that needs to die in a fire.
Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
That has not been my experience. I've seen it go in cycles with one side or the other having the edge for a while.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
...
Kinda regret having posted.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
PS - Milo is just another professional victim.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Freedom of speech laws protect citizens from being persecuted by political institutions or individuals if those citizens' views are in any way critical of said institutions / individuals.
Freedom of speech laws do not protect the individual from practically everything else, especially when Milo Yiannopoulos chose to speak his mind, insinuating that pedophilia is justified in some manner, nevermind some of the other controversial crap he has said earlier on. Now he's dealing with the backlash that come with saying stupid crap, with how he lost his job at Breitbart and his book publisher cancelling his book, because no sane business wants to be associated with an employee or business partner who openly suggests that pedophilia is okay on some level, and any company has a legal right to dismiss their employee for soiling the reputation of the business in that manner. The dismissed employee has the option to open a civil lawsuit against that company for unfair firing, but good luck if that former employee cites "freedom of speech" as a reason for the lawsuit.
Milo chose to make a career out of being a professional instigator. In doing so he thought he could get away with saying whatever he wants while ignoring any consequences that come with doing so that might affect him professionally. Too bad the opposite turned out to be true. Also bringing up UC Berkeley is pretty ironic, considering that the students who rioted against him were practicing their freedom of speech as much as he was by executing their freedom to protest rights.
Srsly you should have seen the rant he spat out this one time I wouldn't unmute him in Cosmic HQ after he got muted for saying racial slurs in the channel... for some reason he got all political and started spouting out trumpisms. Guys brain is fried o3o he wouldn't know reality if it fell up his butt.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Also, freedom of speech is important for one simple reason: while not all words are created equally, and the way you communicate can effect people very, very negatively (and has as you pointed out, has been known to start wars), it is important to retain everyone's rights to say those hurtful things. Why? Simply because if speech rights were strictly dictated by the government, we can't guarantee that the people that DO attempt to justify for hate speech wouldn't be able to hold power where they would be able to decide what we can or can't say. So, unfortunately, we have to take the good with the bad, or it could get far worse than just starting wars with words.
Personally, I wouldn't want anyone like Milo(or, y'know, Donald Trump) running things without freedom of speech, as without it, our voice for reason actually COULD be silenced. So it's VERY important, and dare I say MORE important to fight for the freedom or speech rights of people you disagree with because of that very reason. That's why freedom of speech is so important.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But good point about the federal funding vs government institution bit.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
It would be like claiming that Trump rallies did not inspire some of the most hateful sects in America, or that Hitler didn't inspire a nation to war. It's a sad state of affairs that people do not take responsibility for things they do or say anymore these days, and instead try to either re-write events to their suit or well just hand wave it off.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
While we can use logic and reason, we can be as logical and reasonable as we like, but when punches start getting thrown well it's only a fool who stands there to get knifed in the gut in the process. This sentiment would have value if it was just some. But there is an alarming number of people who do not hold logic and reason above all else, otherwise issues of treating your fellow man like human beings and wanting to help others would not be an issue at all, but constantly have to be brought up because they aren't. After all, in a logical and reasonable society, climate change evidence is just undeniable, especially with world record temperatures being struck every year, but here we still are listening to the same people claim that climate change is a hoax invented by whatever tinfoil conspiracy and that science said yada yada in year X despite no evidence to corroborate it, and science has been claiming since at least the late 1800s that humans would have a huge impact on the environment.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Also, if we stop using logic and reason because the "other side" stopped being logical and reasonable... doesn't that just make the problem worse? Now nobody is being reasonable and all we did was prove the unreasonable people right.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Then again, it's about Trump. It's understandable people have a lot to say there.
Yes and no
In particular:
Acts convey meaning, says Haney-Lopez, and thus constitute a form of free speech.
“When universities invite someone to speak, they communicate that that person’s ideas are within the broad range of important public [discourse],” Haney-Lopez states. “Disinviting someone from speaking likewise communicates something—in this case, that the universities have come to realize that this speaker intentionally degrades people to draw attention, while offering little of any real intellectual substance. His poisonous invective is being drowned out by more and louder speech affirming humane values and inclusion. That’s precisely the ideal of free speech in action.”
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I won't even bother reading all this, I bet it's a **** thread
my deviantart: http://zemmax89.deviantart.com/
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
@zemmax89 in game, former @Pallih
Since Spinny wants logic and reason....
Let's look at Trump's immigration reform policies. Most are actually just enforcing the existing laws. Kicking illegal immigrants out of the country has always been the law. It just wasn't properly enforced before. LEGAL immigrants aren't affected by any of this stuff.
Then you have that idiocy in California with people openly declaring that they plan to ignore the immigration laws(specifically the "safe haven" for illegal immigrants declarations) they swore to uphold when they were elected into office.... really? It takes partisan politics to an absurd extreme.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
My super cool CC build and how to use it.