Isn’t there a ‘freedom to protest’ deal?
Isn’t this violating that?
There is freedom to assembly, which is also part of the first amendment.
No no no, you don't get it.
Freedom of speech means freedom for conservatives to speak without anyone disagreeing with them.
Freedom of religion means freedom of whichever branch of Christianity or Judaism you want.
Freedom of peaceful assembly means freedom to peacefully assemble as god-fearing WASP conservatives.
It isn't the second amendment so it's literally meaningless.
Because Antifa is a peaceful "protest" movement that doesn't cause harm to anyone.
But is there a freedom to assemble with the sole purpose of actively preventing others from assembling?
Whoa whoa whoa, that might be getting a little too progressive liberal-commulist for this.
If people have the freedom to express their ideas other people should have the full right to protest those ideas, no?
can't have those anarcho pinko syndiclists get together after all. only red blooded democracy is allowed to organize
But does protest include preventing other people from sharing their thoughts?
How does someone's protest prevent someone else from sharing thoughts?
If they're protesting to enact censorship on a legal level, the law itself would be unconstitutional, but the act of protesting is still valid.
There are multiple ways. In the most direct sense an event can get shut down and in indirect ways it can make further speeches of that nature less likely.
This is also true of speech itself, if certain views make their way onto the campus (ie dehumanizing trans people) it will reduce the amount of expression that trans people can do from the outset (people won't listen and will not like them) and it will raise the barrier to them speaking up (being scared of reprisals).
The trick is selecting which speech is good and which is bad, and promoting/countering what's relevant, good, and not a worthless conspiracy. That's why we don't have like flat earthers coming over to universities in the first place (it's internalized and understood at all levels that they're worthless) and why people like milo get protested and have walkouts etc. Selecting "all speech deserves the same platform" is simply saying "the status quo is ok" which would mean milo goes on a campus, tells everyone trans people are monsters and then trans people are further marginalized and their voice will be diminished.
If we're determining that you are allowed your freedoms up until they affect the lives of other people, we should probably prevent Richard Spencer and other neo-nazis from ever spreading they're ideas again.
Didn't think I'd have a use for this one.
https://i.redd.it/uedawtfzqbgz.jpg
This makes a claim but it doesn't really back it up with an argument.
It's just stating "TOLERATING INTOLERANCE IS BAD" without giving a compelling reason why.
"Hitler" is not a good reason. Hitler didn't rise to power because people "tolerated" him. Hitler rose to power because he fucking murdered people.
My point was more that you have to tolerate protests of nazis as long as you're willing to tolerate the nazis spreading their ideology. I wasn't trying to call you a nazi sympathizer. And anyway this is the government limiting the first amendment rights of students, which I'm sure is something you don't want.
There is a difference between protesting something and physically preventing people from assembling.
For example, blocking access to a rally or using very loud speakers (or just being that loud yourself) to make it impossible to hear a speaker are both things that aren't speech, they're censoring.
Or they're utilizing their freedom to assemble and their freedom of speech! You don't have to like it, you just have to tolerate it.
Alternatively you could think about it rationally and realize that there is a difference between saying something and muting someone else.
But that wouldn't give you a zing.
Its not really muting when they can still talk. its like when i blast music to avoid the constant slow wet fart noises your posts emit.
I'm sorry that we disagree! I hope you have a great day!
yall how about we kill nazis
Hitler rose to power for a lot of reasons. You might argue that if the nation of Germany had suppressed the voice of a political party then he may not have risen to power, but for some reason it doesn't seem as if that tends to really work so well for the suppressors.
yall how about we kill anyone I deem to be a nazi*
He rose to power because the economy was in a tailspin, europeans across the subcontinent were incredibly, incredibly antisemitic, and the conservatives at the time thought they could control him. The murdering came after all that.
Didn't think that a tweet would come to use the same day it was made but here we are.
https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1007301941540655106
Newspaper clippings!
Reminds me of this:
https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/7/71/Political_Correctness_Agassiz.png
Racialist complaining that political correctness is preventing him from getting a platform, in March of 1850.
In Name of Free Speech, States Crack Down on Campus Protests
Or in other words:
In Name of Free Speech, States Crack Down on Free Speech
Ive seen this kind of thing thrown around by the right a lot recently, and it bugs the fuck out of me.
There's an Feminist rally to protest the prevalence of university campus rape. When Anti-feminists want to bag on it and paint it as "anti-male" they just say "well what even *is* rape to these people? just looking at them!!!?"
There's a neo nazi rally, these neo nazis are literally chanting "blood and soil" and "gas the kikes- race war now". When protesters show up to protest the self professed nazis, Nazi sympathisers will just say "well what is a nazi to these people, anyone they disagree with???"
It's like you can defend anything, even literal Nazism, if you just pretend those that oppose it are overzealous in their definition of the subject matter and their definition "Might even include you!!!!!!!"
Not that I wish to imply this is exactly what Geel is deliberately doing, just that the sentiment is very similar.
Also remember that Nazis and fascists don't talk to logic or reason, they talk to emotion. They'll pick a weakness to exploit, maybe you're unemployed or struggling to find a partner, they'll use that. They'll say immigrants are stealing jobs or "taking your women".
It's not always negative either. It can be positive emotion, like pride or arrogance or offering and identity/culture. (not saying identity/culture are bad, I personally think they're pretty important but not to the detriment to others)
Emotions are stronger and faster than logic. Facts don't really matter.
Democracy (currently) works on feelings rather than facts. Too easy to exploit. Letting bad guys exploit that with emotive fallacies for the naive belief in freedom of speech is dangerous imo.
Ideal scenario is to have that freedom along with people being educated against sophistry, but it's not the case atm; and I value the greater freedom of living in a democracy, where I won't be systematically persecuted for my ethnicity/religion, over the freedom to lie about immigrants stealing my ______ and spreading hate.
The internet magnifies all this. Finding and exploiting those weaknesses can be automated on social media, lies and falsehoods spread faster than truth because it is designed to arouse stronger emotion. New media has this "assumed authenticity", people think it's real because it's coming from, what looks like, a normal person. So some random guys facebook post about muslims stealing 10 year old white girls is, to many, more credible than something they see on BBC.
Cue: reactionary apologist quoting Benjamin Franklin
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
