“Stealing the spotlight”
Well, I guess that Antifa just participates in a friendly wrestling match.
Antifa and the left exercised their rights. Riots are terrifying.
Antifa is a terrorist organization by definition even if not by law. They are not peaceful protesters. Their rights end when they start to promote and act in violent ways.
I strongly support protest. Neither of you seem to.
You support protests without any ground rules. You support them up until they physically harm someone. I just believe that those standards are poor and that as intelligent individuals we can demand more than this.
I’m not debating semantics: words mean things. And the fact that Medium has created a platform that users can use with little interference is nice, but that still doesn’t meet the criteria for public use that speech rights usually define.
That’s the definition of debating semantics. Otherwise, you would mention that I am using the wrong definition, might give a better one, but most importantly, actually discuss the content of what I wrote rather than what the wrong definition I’ve used.
If you want to debate semantics, then you must accept Wikipedia definition:
In computing, an open platform describes a software system which is based on open standards, such as published and fully documented external application programming interfaces (API) that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code.
Seeing as context is of no value in this discussion.
No, I think trying to conflate online spaces with real world spaces is really dangerous. They are not the same. And most of our laws are struggling with that.
I was conflating it on purpose, as I was trying to put things is perspective. Agreeing to the terms of service does not make a platform a closed one. Most open source softwares still have copyrights being reserved that you must respect, such as MIT and GPL. I have no idea why we’re still debating this. For the sake of clarity let’s assume I’ve made a booboo and used the wrong term.
For example, I helped organize a rally.
I’m impressed. Really. I hope it was constructive.
That’s a responsibility I would hope you would recognize, since you have made so many statements about protest stifling speech.
I’m all for free expression of ideas and opposing bad ones. Yes, even the ideas I support. Nothing should be above reproach.
Try to think of those protest from different perspectives, not only from the protesters side. It might give you more context as to why I oppose specific types of protests. #NotAll, as they say.
Or the person with the most money. Milo definitely has more power to exercise his rights than the average Antifa member. He has a group behind him that helps student activists around the country schedule his appearances.
I agree. He has both money and influence that we don’t. I just fail to see how that modify my argument or his right to say nonsensical things.
And that means that individual protests against him are not capable of shouting him down.
Well, he was intimidated and was accosted by a few BLM members that felt they had the right to do so during one of his talks. They did shut him down — for a time, at least.
BlackLivesMatter Mob Shuts Down Milo Yannopoulos Speech at DePaul University Police and security sat back as the mob…www.thegatewaypundit.com
And I think that is why it matters so much that you and John are both allying yourselves with the GOP against the First Amendment.
I’m not part of the GOP or associate myself as a supporter. How have I allied myself against the First Amendment, when it’s not really applicable to anything we discuss?
Stop telling me what words to use. I’m using it because it is apt.
“of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people”
So you’re saying that Medium is authoritarian? The people running the site are the leaders that are not constitutionally responsible to us (the people). You see, everything is authoritarian. Or, alternatively, throwing that word because it kinda fit something just waters down its meaning.
Milo is a shitdisturber. It is genuinely pointless to try to pin down his real beliefs.
I agree completely.
Ben Shapiro also gives speeches in audiences where he is protected from being challenged.
Do you want me to find all the instances where he is challenged when speaking at colleges? Where he has back-and-forth with a liberal or a progressive about various topics? Unlike Milo, he even does this respectfully.
And it is interesting that you want me to stop talking about Milo and talk about Shapiro instead.
How is it interesting? I don’t support Milo, his talking points, or the overall demeanor when he gives interviews and talks. He also doesn’t have any substance other than erecting a shrine in his own image.
Breitbart is a pro-Trump paper. It has now shed both Shapiro and Milo.
Yet you won’t ever challenge that decision, will you?
I never read Breitbart, apart from the random article I’ve encountered. Apart from Milo and Ben, I don’t know any of the writers or commentators there. All I know of Shapiro’s departure from there is what he says about it.
Shapiro, by his own accounts, left Breitbart due to personal ethical conflicts. Milo either quit or was pushed to that decision by the publication.
I fail to see what comment you expect from me regarding this.
Why aren’t Milo and Shapiro entitled to the platform on Breitbart? Oh that’s right: it’s a private business! They are allowed to fire gay writers who have videos where they talk about being gay. And that’s not bigoted, it’s just business.
I’m surprised you don’t know the reason for Milo’s dismissal. He gave an interview in which he seemed to advocate for sexual relations with underage teens. I don’t remember all the specifics and I’m not sure he actually advocated for it or just tried to be his usual shit stirrer but it wasn’t because he talked about being gay.
Why don’t you fight for Milo’s right to use Breitbart’s platform?
I mean, if you care about speech, why don’t you care about the fact that both Ben and Milo have lost access to a conservative platform, but you only think they have a right to invade liberal platforms.
Even if they were fired, rather than resigned, and even if the reason was for being too gay or too Jewish, the fact remains the same, they were fired by a private organization that isn’t bound by the First Amendment. I can criticize and mock them, but I cannot force them to rehire any pundit.
The same, of course, applicable to universities administrators that can choose to ban whomever they want for whatever reason but I can still mock and criticize them for it.
I find it odd you think universities are “liberal platforms.” Also, they were invited. They didn’t just started talking in a lecture hall and waited for people to find what they say appealing or disgusting.
Why? Because you don’t think the students have the right to object to being used as props.
What ‘props?’ I don’t quite follow your logic.
No. The speakers are free to yell with them. They don’t all have to yell the same things or together. But fundamentally, free speech rights are not the same as paid appearances to pimp your book.
So, you want to suppress the speaker freedom of speech, unless he can yell louder than the people protesting him? Seems like a weird interpretation of freedom of speech.
If the government goes around with a megaphone and shout with the protestors, making it impossible for anyone to be heard, are they following the First Amendment? Your assertion is that they do.
But here’s the problem: you and John have both presented that speaking engagement as if it was meant to educate people. And Milo and Ben have already shared that content. It’s why they get invited. So this is circular: the conservative students read Milo’s work and liked it and wanted to invite him to speak at the university. It wasn’t because they didn’t already know what he was going to say. Watching a movie you have already seen because you love it isn’t challenging: it’s comforting.
Thank you for admitting it.
Yes. We all live inside echo chambers. I never denied that. I fail to see your ‘Gotcha!’ moment. The bulk of Shapiro’s talk is actually addressing questions from the crowd, something that isn’t scripted. It’s about understanding his position, rather than listening to the same talking points over and over.
What is your evidence that all conservative viewpoints are shouted down?
You have none. The administration protected a professor who harassed female students for years. Welcome to the reality of progressive politics, where you can say all the right things without ever meaning them. That’s not a secret.
Your logic is the same as; “How do you know that water is wet? You don’t. Someone somewhere dies of thirst.”
Needless to say, that those two aren’t comparable. You brought up an anecdote as a way to negate a point I haven’t made and it’s not really about silencing conservatives, it’s about everyone with an unorthodox opinion on a myriad of political topics such as feminism, racism, and actual politics.
Hey there, time traveller! This article was published 5/8/2016 (340 days ago), so information in it may no longer be…www.brandonsun.com
Kirsten Powers' new book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech provides a thorough account of the…www.americanthinker.com
Meghan Murphy is a Vancouver writer and journalist and founder of the website Feminist Current . Talk about "safe…www.theglobeandmail.com
See, I even added an example where the left is being silenced. Of course, that doesn’t go into Micro-aggression and labeling any controversial opinion as hate speech.
Noooo… anyone can discriminate. You have to have authority to wield to be an authoritarian. So a gay student who is harassed by his peers suffers from discrimination. A gay student who is harassed by his peers while his teacher, his principal and his president supports his harassers? That’s discrimination with authoritarianism.
Schools don’t have authority. They are not the government and can’t force anyone to abide by rules not set by the government or restrict freedoms set by it. We’re just in a political climate where insulting the opposition and making their position immoral is the only tactic people use.
That is how it works for LGBT communities in Russia.
We’re not talking about Russia.
In what way does “the left” control the media and education?
Is that a serious question? You yourself stated that “but you only think they have a right to invade liberal platforms.” Need I add to that?
As for the media, the majority of the media outlets are left-leaning, none of the conservative media considered impartial.
What words and expressions have been made illegal?
Not strictly illegal, yet, it has more to do with restricting speech through moral arguments and consequences to the speech. Everything under the umbrella of hate speech, Micro-aggression, and general political correctness. Of course, seeing what happens in Canada and some countries in Europe, the day when it becomes illegal in the US is not that far.
I mean, you just argued that it is not a big deal for students to be banned from schools and told who they can date because they are gay. You said that was just discrimination, but it also has the force of law. That’s legal. That’s supported by our current government.
I argued the opposite. You’re just having trouble not asserting your own morality and the morality of the person you are discussing with into the discussion. You try and find why I’m a transphobe, homophone, white-supremacist piece of shit.
It supported by law the same as raping goats on the winter solstice at midnight is supported by law. Again, a moral argument that has nothing to do with the topic, apart from portraying me as immoral.
Why don’t you try explaining that difference?
Already have. You just want to put that label to everything and anything that doesn’t conform to your own worldview. Don’t worry, you’re not alone in this.
Do you not support the right to choose what content you consume?
No one is forcing you to consume anything you don’t want. You just try to force others to consume only the things you support.
This is why I said before, you don’t seem to support the right to challenge speakers:
“Put it simply, understand it or not, the right to free speech ends when you try to take it away from someone else.”
You seem to literally be saying that if you’re not allowed to speak everywhere, then you have no right to speak.
But as you earlier pointed out: if we all speak all the time, in every space, no one can be heard.
Thank you for demonstrating that your definitions of free speech are very very weird.
I have a very clear definition but as it happened throughout this discussion, you only hear what you want to hear and ignore what you don’t want to hear.
The same way I can assert that you are advocating for taking freedoms from others, by force if necessary. This is pretty much what you are arguing now.
Learn what ‘irony’ means. Also look up ‘context’ and ‘perspective.’
This is you, expressing that schools should have rights while students do not. Gay students ought to have rights to go to school, just like straight students do. You seem to really struggle with the idea of equal rights.
No. That is me trying to show you why you hypocritically chose what and who to support or work against based on ideology, rather than a consistent worldview. Stop conflating everything I write.
Students have the right to be conservative, liberal, gay or straight. But you argue that they should have no expectation not to be punished for being gay. I mean, was anyone at Berkeley telling the conservative students who to date? What not to read?
They are telling them that if they give the wrong answer, which is usually a conservative one, they will be graded down. Of course, conservatives are not a protected class so you don’t really care.
I think you must mean libel. And you’re right: I don’t make those decisions. But I always have the right to my opinions. Even when those opinions upset you.
Yes. I made a booboo.
Again, a moral argument that has nothing to do with anything I’ve written. Just to clarify, words don’t upset me. They don’t make me marginalized or oppressed, and they don’t change my mood.
I argue for or against a position. It is you, once again, that try to make me into a snowflake, for some odd reason.
They are interested in stoking this feeling of oppression you like so much. And it works. Every time some conservative speaker is protested by students or yelled at, you watch those videos and read those articles and you get angry at the left.
Because you do not consider protest a right.
Well, I’m repeating myself quite a lot in this discussion. Once again: Moral argument, shaming tactics, trying to portray the opposition as deplorable, etc., etc.
One group just cry and bemoan everything that doesn’t completely conform to their preconceived world view, demand that the person must be chased off of campus for saying the wrong word, and overall being insufferable twits. They have the right to be that way, of course, and people have the right to point that out, laugh, and mock universities for being safe spaces that will ruin the lives of those twits.
The funny thing about that statement is that the videos I watch that talk about this ridiculousness, comes from liberals, not conservatives. Of course, the people making those videos are constantly being labeled conservatives for not conforming to the left notion of wrongspeak.