Dan Johnson is an associate professor at the School of Health and Applied Human Sciences at University of North Carolina Wilmington with apparently equal interest in politics and polytechnics. He posted a short but clear message on Facebook: “Blow Up Republicans.” The detonation of people seems to be in vogue with professors this year. As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, I do not believe Johnson should face discipline for his violent political ideations. [Update: A university Trustee has now asked for an investigation by the university].
Campus Reform reports objections to the handling of the controversy by the school, which only stated that “[t]he university was made aware of the post and has appropriately addressed it.” Johnson took down the posting.
Haylie Davis, a former student of Johnson’s, is quoted as objecting to the lack of more serious action and notes that the school would not be so circumspect “if the word ‘Republican’ was replaced with any other word. If the post stated ‘Blow up women,’ ‘Blow up homosexuals,’ ‘Blow up Catholics,’ etc.”
That is a good point. We have discussed the sharply different treatment given statements by faculty depending on their political or social perspectives.
I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. These comments were not protested as creating an “unsafe environment” and were largely ignored by universities. However, professors and students are routinely investigated, suspended, and sanctioned for countervailing views. There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There was also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments. There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives. Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.
As we have previously discussed (with an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. A conservative North Carolina professor faced calls for termination over controversial tweets and was pushed to retire. Dr. Mike Adams, a professor of sociology and criminology, had long been a lightning rod of controversy. In 2014, we discussed his prevailing in a lawsuit that alleged discrimination due to his conservative views. He was then targeted again after an inflammatory tweet calling North Carolina a “slave state.” That led to his being pressured to resign with a settlement. He then committed suicide
The efforts to fire professors who voice dissenting views on various issues including an effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as a leading linguistics professor at Harvard and a literature professor at Penn. Sites like Lawyers, Guns, and Money feature writers like Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos who call for the firing of those with opposing views (including myself). Such campaigns have targeted teachers and students who contest the evidence of systemic racism in the use of lethal force by police or offer other opposing views in current debates over the pandemic, reparations, electoral fraud, or other issues.
It is not just universities. Almost on the one-year anniversary of its condemning its own publication of a column by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. (and forcing out its own editor), the New York Times published an academic columnist who previously defended the killing of conservative protesters. Over at the Washington Post this week, the newspaper promoted a columnist, Karen Attiah, who last summer caused an outrage after she tweeted “White women are lucky that we are just calling them Karens. And not calling for revenge.”
Despite the bias and hypocrisy shown by universities, I still would defend Johnson and his right to express such views on social media. Unfortunately, such hyperbolic and violent language is common today. While academics should be examples of greater tolerance and civility, the danger of such regulation is greater than the cost of such speech. Indeed, this week, the free speech community secured a significant victory in the ruling in Mahonoy on out-of-school speech by a high school student.
“The efforts to fire professors who voice dissenting views ”
This is not about a dissenting view, this is about a paid professor PROMOTING VIOLENCE AND MURDER against those whom HE disagrees with.
I live thousands of miles away from this moron, but if I lived close by and he or his one of acolytes decided to act on-his statement I would (and would hope similar others do the same) deal with them before they come to deal with us. Waiting for them to take the first shot is suicide.
How is this creeper not in jail?Is there no psyco discovery team in law enforcement in No Carolina? What is wrong with a university leadership that allows this crap coming out of the mouths of their prof’s. HUGE DISCREDIT TO THE WHOLE GROUP. Alum’s included. Anyone complain about this putz? Crickets…
We lost academia years ago and what did we do about it , we remained silent
It is nice to know academics can sound as stupid as the rest of us. The Professor’s point is a good one about different punishments for what amounts to the same type of speech. While I prefer that no punishment is meted out, I also expect if one side is punished, then the other side gets the same punishment. That would be an interesting turn of events.
Turley’s a front wheeler dealing in pilpul – no more usury / no more jewish math (banking) / no more jewish law (talmudic horsesh-t)
Jewish law came from God, so I can understand why that bothers you.
No more banks? Great idea! Make everyone pay for their homes using cash up front. Don’t have $300,000? Too bad!
Most things wouldn’t cost nearly as much if we eliminated the built-in inflation of fiat currency, ‘money changing, and central banking.
The sky is skipping
the wind is whipping
the water is walking
and we’re all gonna’ die!
We better hope that all this violent rhetoric is only that…and hope it is so.
And Jan6 is America’s Reichstag fire???!!!!
Jan 6. is more like the Boston Massacre. The left can still turn. If not – Lexington and concord are coming.
Of course, he and the other so called professors (who advocate violence) all need to be fired!
In San Francisco Bay Area, there is an ongoing epidemic of Asians being assaulted, murdered by mostly Black criminals.
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/05/07/asian-american-attacks-san-francisco-man-accused-in-brutal-stabbing-charged-with-attempted-murder/
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/05/03/asian-american-attacks-suspect-assaulted-oakland-leader-carl-chan-carl-chan-faces-hate-crime-charge/
…
My elderly parents no longer take exercise walks.
If I, an Asian American, tweeted “Blow up Black people”, I will rightfully expect to be terminated from my employment immediately.
These “professors” clearly demonstrate they lack the proper intellect and self restraint to function in normal society; they certainly don’t belong in classrooms, shaping young minds.
Their words and actions tarnish sound minded liberals, Democrats like me.
Can we accept once and for all that the only incitement to violence that exists in this country today is from the left ?
John Say, No we can’t, because what you are saying is not true. If you were to be more honest in your assessment you would be including the right as well. “The only incitement to violence that exists in this country is from the left” is not a true statement of fact. The proud boys, the boogaloo movement, Trump supporters and trump himself have incited violence.
Turley’s characterization of the decline of free speech is focused solely on conservatives being “censored” or being targets for calls to be fired or being “canceled” as is the word these days is not what he purports it to be. Turley seems to ignore a crucial fact when he claims is the erosion of free speech in this country. That is that every single one of those conservative individuals or academics did indeed get to express their views or opinions. They all did with out being silenced or censored. They stated their views clearly for everyone. The reason we know their free speech rights have always been and always been intact is through result. The criticism that followed and opposition to those views and the demands that those individuals be fired, censored, or “cancelled is NOT an attack on free speech as Turley claims. Turley and many conservatives conflate criticism and opposition to certain views as censorship or silencing. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The 1st amendment gives no one protection from the consequences of exercising their right to state their opinions and views freely. They are all still guaranteed to do so. What they really don’t like is being accountable for the consequences of their own speech. Nobody is protected from the reactions and consequences of what their views incite. But is seems Turley and other conservatives only focus on the easy part of what freedom of speech entails. Not the hard part which is acknowledging the consequences that come with controversial or unpopular views or ideas. Turley defends the expression of such ideas and correctly points out that they are a part of free speech. But he is really complaining about the resulting criticism and opposition that comes with expressing those ideas and views which ARE a natural result of such expressions. That is NOT censorship or an attack on free speech. It’s a consequence of not acknowledging the responsibility that comes with exercising free speech.
If someone stated a view or idea that I found to be repulsive or massively offensive I would exercise my right to criticize it or even oppose it by demanding some sort of punishment or boycott of that person. Is that trampling on that person’s free speech? No, Because that person ALREADY exercised he right to state those views freely. The constitution doesn’t protect an individual from a private persons attempt to censor or stifle someone else’s free speech ironically. The constitution’s prohibitions against censorship or punishment against free speech applies only to government bodies. This is why Facebook, Twitter, etc, have free rein to censor speech on their private platforms. A business owner can tell a customer or employee that he/she cannot make statements supporting or opposing unpopular views or ideas in their establishments.
Turley should be focusing on the real censorship that is happening all over the country. The drive to ban the discussion or teaching of CRT. State legislatures are actively banning the teaching of an idea simply because it is offensive to some. It is the very thing the 1st amendment is meant to protect and Turley is focusing on asinine statements from academics as examples of something that is already happening at state legislatures all around the country.
“John Say, No we can’t, because what you are saying is not true. If you were to be more honest in your assessment you would be including the right as well. “The only incitement to violence that exists in this country is from the left” is not a true statement of fact. The proud boys, the boogaloo movement, Trump supporters and trump himself have incited violence.”
I just love it when you go all in on stupid.
I would welcome you to present examples of incitement to violence by either the proud boys or the Boogaloo movement – especially the latter as Boogalo is primarily like gender – it is fluid and means nothing – many of the purported Boogaloo thus far have been on the left.
Regardless, as is typical of a left wing nut – either you can not read, or you are deliberately mangling language – I asked you for an example of INCITMENT TO VIOLENCE. Not violent acts. I am not aware of any INCITEMENT by those on the right – I would WELCOME REAL examples from you. Given that I can provide examples fromt he president of the united states – that would be Obama, not Trump, of actual incitement to violence – Remarks that had Trump made would have actually resulted in republicans removing him from office.
Rather than using the word HONEST – try actually BEING HONEST.
I would further note that while I am no fan of the proud boys all the real world examples involve left wing nuts stupid enough to start an altercation with proud boys that are twice their size. I do not care whether you are left right or whatever if you are 120lbs and you are so stupid as to throw a punch at some 280lb guy with bicepts larger than your hamstring the outcome is pretty predictable – and YOU asked for it.
Do you have an actual example of the proud boys inciting violence ? And I am not looking for some nonsense from a reporter – I am looking for an actual quote of a proud boy inciting violence – or preferably a video. I have no problem coming up with lots of video of those on the left PROUDLY inciting violence. Do you have video of an instance where the Proud Boys started a fight – as opposed to finished one ?
Remember – you promised to be HONEST.
I would also point out that in this star chamber Tit for Tat – you are offering – without proof – Proud Boys and Boogaloo- and against that i am offering college professors – by the score, Democratic elected politicians all the way to the level of the president.
I do not think 1000 examples of the Proud Boys inciting violence would be equal to Rep. Maxine Waters inciting violence – do you ?
But as of yet – I have not seen ONE from you.
“Turley’s characterization”
While this is a post on Turley’s blog – I am not here to defend Turley – he has done that adequately himself.
I am confronting YOU and the left.
“of the decline of free speech is focused solely on conservatives being “censored” or being targets for calls to be fired or being “canceled” as is the word these days is not what he purports it to be. ”
Nope. You are absolutely correct the left is targeting those on the right – but they are even more vigorously targeting heretics on the left too.
Brett Weinstein – certainly no conservative was recently censored by Youtube.
Maritna Navratilova has been censored by the left. You can go read Glenn Greenwald about that.
I have no problems providing you with examples of people on the left being censored by the even more radical left.
“Turley seems to ignore a crucial fact when he claims is the erosion of free speech in this country. That is that every single one of those conservative individuals or academics did indeed get to express their views or opinions.”
Nope. What you think it is free speech if someone posts on Youtube and an hour later their video is deleted and their account removed – you think that means they had an oportuntiy to speak freely ?
Or what about the recent Loudon County school board meeting – where a 4 hour scheduled comment period was cut short because the school board ended the meeting when the audience clapped after the remarks of one speaker ? And when those scheduled to speak elected to try and continue in an orderly fashion – the board declared the assembly illegal and sent the police in to beat people.
I do not care whether these people were right or left – they were entitled to speak.
And you wonder how Jan. 6th happened ? Those in government are NOT obligated to do as those petitioning government might ask.
But when the government shutsdown actual protest of government actions – that is not merely a violation of the constitution and rights – it is lawless government. When you silence people, you can expect violence to follow. When you sew the wind – you will reap the whirlwind.
This is quite simple. The vast majority of the views you seek to silence are held by a super majority of americans.
A recent poll found 74% of parents do not want CRT taught in their schools.
ASU polling found that 2.4:1 people oppose biological men competing in women’s sports.
A majority 50% supports building the wall – 46% oppose. Not a supermajority – but a growing majority.
Merely 18% of us want to “defund the police”.
Only 28% of blacks and 34% of democrats support it.
2 of the top 3 candidates and the likely winner of NYC’s mayor race ran to restore policing in NYC.
72% of people beleive that social media sites engage in improper political censorship.
Even 59% of democrats polled against it.
Svelaz – you are not merely wrong about most issues – you are also on the wrong side of popular oppinion – by large margins on most of them.
Leave Sevvy alone. He delights in his ignorance.
John Say,
” I asked you for an example of INCITMENT TO VIOLENCE. Not violent acts”
You didn’t ask me for anything. I answered your rhetorical question, the only question you posed. “Can we accept once and for all that the only incitement to violence that exists in this country today is from the left ?”
“I am not aware of any INCITEMENT by those on the right – I would WELCOME REAL examples from you.”
Ok. “Three former US servicemen and self-proclaimed members of the far-right “boogaloo” movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges and accused of carrying unregistered firearms and trying to spark violence during protests against police brutality.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/3-boogaloo-men-terror-charges-george-floyd-protest-riot-conspiracy-2020-6
“The far-right group, born from 4chan’s /k/ board, which is dedicated to gun worship, has no firm central organization, and only has a loose collection of shared values, but seemingly became activated by the anti-police protests, which many of them appeared to largely agree with given their disdain for most forms of policing and oversight”
“In one segment, McInnes boasts about how the group’s members “will kill you. That’s the Proud Boys in a nutshell.” He also directly states that he is calling for violence and adds that “violence solves everything.”
How about the proud boys?
“We need more violence from the Trump people, Trump supporters. Choke a m**********r, choke a b***h, choke a t****y, get your fingers around a windpipe,” McInnes can be heard saying over a clip of the unrest which took place in New York in 2018.”
https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-gavin-mcinnes-trump-video-1535594
“Remember – you promised to be HONEST.”
Where did I say that in my response to you?
“Nope. What you think it is free speech if someone posts on Youtube and an hour later their video is deleted and their account removed – you think that means they had an oportuntiy to speak freely ?”
They DID get to speak freely. Nobody stops them from posting on Youtube or twitter or Facebook. They get to post it. What they are experiencing is the consequences of exercising their freedom of speech. If their speech violates the TOS of any of those platforms which are NOT government entities, they are perfectly within their rights to remove their content. Here’s the part you don’t get. You STILL know about it because others are already talking about what said person posted and what their views were. Nothing changed in terms of their freedom to speak their mind. Someone already had the opportunity to speak freely. It’s the resulting criticism and consequences of ALREADY expressing their view that conservatives are interpreting as censorship or an attack on their free speech. Once posted their views are known hence the ensuing criticism and backlash.
“Or what about the recent Loudon County school board meeting – where a 4 hour scheduled comment period was cut short because the school board ended the meeting when the audience clapped after the remarks of one speaker ? And when those scheduled to speak elected to try and continue in an orderly fashion – the board declared the assembly illegal and sent the police in to beat people.”
Way to dishonestly oversimplify the situation at that meeting. The meeting was cut short because parents were being disorderly throughout the meeting. There ARE rules at these meetings and the majority of the time those parents were being quite disrespectful and at times belligerent about CRT being taught despite the fact that CRT is NOT being taught in school.
“I do not care whether these people were right or left – they were entitled to speak.”
Of course they were entitled to speak, but within the rules set by the board. Not shouting over officials and others. There is such a thing as civil discussion, I’m sure you understand the importance of that.
“This is quite simple. The vast majority of the views you seek to silence are held by a super majority of americans.
A recent poll found 74% of parents do not want CRT taught in their schools.
ASU polling found that 2.4:1 people oppose biological men competing in women’s sports.”
Oh, so you support the idea of tyranny of the majority concept. Interesting. I thought libertarians were against that.
There is actually no “supermajority of Americans” whose views are being silenced. They ALREADY have made their views known. Why is that hard to grasp?
The majority of parents have no idea what CRT is about. They rely on the talking points from right wing think tanks who are deliberately twisting the concepts of CRT because they do not want it discussed. The mere calls to ban it and state legislatures banning it because it is deemed an unpopular idea is exactly what the the 1st amendment prohibition on government infringing on free speech is about. The irony couldn’t be more stark.
“72% of people beleive that social media sites engage in improper political censorship.
Even 59% of democrats polled against it.”
Social media sites are NOT government entities and their right to censor is not unconstitutional or illegal. it may seem improper and sometimes wrong, BUT as turley himself has noted they have every right to do so. Especially when the very same people who disagree with such actions WILLINGLY agree to be censored when they AGREE to their TOS. Conservatives cannot seem to grasp this simple concept that they themselves are part of the problem when they willingly choose to use those platforms and willingly agree to the terms.
“John Say,
” I asked you for an example of INCITMENT TO VIOLENCE. Not violent acts”
You didn’t ask me for anything.”
I did, you didn’t. Reality exists. Please read prior comments.
“I answered your rhetorical question, the only question you posed.”
Not rhetorical.
““Can we accept once and for all that the only incitement to violence that exists in this country today is from the left ?””
You have not answered that.
“”I am not aware of any INCITEMENT by those on the right – I would WELCOME REAL examples from you.””
AGAIN – can you read INCITEMENT – REAL EXAMPLES
Ok. “Three former US servicemen and self-proclaimed members of the far-right “boogaloo” movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges and accused of carrying unregistered firearms and trying to spark violence during protests against police brutality.”
Not OK, NOT incitement.
Boogaloo is also an unclear mess. They have no real cohesive political identity.
As an example there are many libertarians that have identified as Boogaloo – that does not mean they are either on the right or support violence.
Put simply – Boogaloo does not mean anything politically – not right, not left.
So you have no INCITEMENT, and you have no clear political persuasion.
This is your idea of an example ?
“The far-right group, born from 4chan’s /k/ board, which is dedicated to gun worship, has no firm central organization, and only has a loose collection of shared values, but seemingly became activated by the anti-police protests, which many of them appeared to largely agree with given their disdain for most forms of policing and oversight”
So the only thing in your “quote” that makes them “far right” is that the quote says “far right”.
Since when is “anti-police” far right ?
Based on what we have seen this summer – being anti-police – puts you on the FAR LEFT.
You seem to think that you can just lobb words with no thought about their actual meaning.
Can I call AOC “Far Right” ? Just because I want to ?
““In one segment, McInnes boasts about how the group’s members “will kill you. That’s the Proud Boys in a nutshell.” He also directly states that he is calling for violence and adds that “violence solves everything.”
How about the proud boys?”
This is from a rap video and it is unclear that McInnes is making the remarks.
Regardless – are you saying we should treat all rap as “incitement to violence” ?
If I tell you that “I will kill you if you pull a knife on me” – is that incitement to violence ?
Please learn what words mean – you continue to be Dishonest.
““Remember – you promised to be HONEST.”
Where did I say that in my response to you?”
Please review your comments.
““Nope. What you think it is free speech if someone posts on Youtube and an hour later their video is deleted and their account removed – you think that means they had an oportuntiy to speak freely ?”
They DID get to speak freely. Nobody stops them from posting on Youtube or twitter or Facebook. They get to post it.”
You are incorrect – both in your own claim, and in reality.
There are plenty of people who CAN NOT post on Facebook or Youtube.
Regardless, if you delete someone else’s speech – that is SILENCING them.
“What they are experiencing is the consequences of exercising their freedom of speech.”
Nope.
If YOU do not like what someone else says DO NOT LISTEN.
That is A consequence of free speech.
As PROGRESSIVE Justice Brandeis wrote in Whitney V California
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Silencing people is NOT a legitimate consequence of free speech.
Or JS Mill
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
It should be OBVIOUS by now how vile this forced silencing is.
We spent a whole year with Youtube and the rest of social media SILENCING discussion of the possibility that C19 resulted from a lab leak.
Now that is far more probable that that it came from animals without any deliberate alteration by humans.
The decision to SILENCE discussion – cased substantial harm.
“If their speech violates the TOS of any of those platforms which are NOT government entities, they are perfectly within their rights to remove their content.”
I am fine with that – IF and ONLY IF –
the DMCA is struck as unconstitutional
There is no corrodination of censorship between government actors and Social Media.
Private entities are bound by the TOS that the subscriber agreed to when they opened the account.
right now none of these are true.
The DMCA was a government grant of special priviledges to a private entity – if that grant is not conditional – it is a violation of equal protection of the law.
Regardless, the grant makes the private party a government agent in the excercise of that priviledge.
We now have clear evidence that both Faucci and government officials in CA coordinated censorship with social media companies.
We also have the social media companies chosing to use government positions as the basis for censorship.
Government can not accomplish from the back door – what it is prohibited from doing through the front door.
You really have a shallow understanding of the limits on the powers of govenrment.
Finally – and not unique to the internet – Contract law does not allow unilateral changes of a contract by one party.
The original contract is binding until changed by both parties.
Nor is mere agreement sufficient to form a new binding contract.
Some of the elements of a binding contract are – offer, acceptance, an exchange of something of value.
No exchange of value exists with click to accept changes in TOS’s.
The user and SM company agreed to the original TOS – both are bound to it.
It is NOT an exahange of value, to allow a user to continue what they already contracted for – but at REDUCED value to them.
Actually THINK.
If you buy a car from a car company, and they give you a 100,000 mile warrantee.
And you come in for service and come back to pick up your car and they hand you a new contract – that terminates the warrantee and refuse to give you your car back unless you sign – do you think that is legal ?
Of course not.
“Here’s the part you don’t get. You STILL know about it because others are already talking about what said person posted and what their views were. Nothing changed in terms of their freedom to speak their mind. Someone already had the opportunity to speak freely. It’s the resulting criticism and consequences of ALREADY expressing their view that conservatives are interpreting as censorship or an attack on their free speech. Once posted their views are known hence the ensuing criticism and backlash.”
This is just about one of the stupidest remarks I have every heard. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Can the government specify that you can not speak about right wing politics except on alternate sunday’s between the hours of 2 and 3am in the shower ?
Of COURSE NOT. It would be a violation of your right to free speech.
Absolutely Something has “changed in terms” of YOUR freedom to speak.
Substituting a private actor for government does NOT change whether your right to speech was inflringed on.
It only changes whether the FORCE of government was used.
YOU are free to choose what YOU listen to.
YOU are free to choose what YOU criticise.
YOU are free to choose what YOU backlash against.
NO ONE is free to do that FOR others.
Absolutely the “terms” have changed.
“”Or what about the recent Loudon County school board meeting – where a 4 hour scheduled comment period was cut short because the school board ended the meeting when the audience clapped after the remarks of one speaker ? And when those scheduled to speak elected to try and continue in an orderly fashion – the board declared the assembly illegal and sent the police in to beat people.”
Way to dishonestly oversimplify the situation at that meeting.”
Nope.
“The meeting was cut short because parents were being disorderly throughout the meeting.”
Nope – the meeting was stopped explicitly because speakers against CRT applauded another speaker.
No one was “disorderly” until the School Board order the police to remove people after the board left and the members of the public CONTINUED to speak ORDERLY.
“There ARE rules at these meetings”
There ARE – and at the top of the list is the FIRST AMENDMENT – in case you did not realize it, The First amendment is THE FIRST rule regarding speach in a govenrment provided public forum.
It should be OBVIOUS – why your arguments are stupid.
They would allow any group that wished to silence another in a public forum to do so merely by acting in a fashion that offended government.
When government creates a public forum to speak, it CAN remove those specific people who are actually DISORDERLY – that is physically violent, or refusing to allow others to speak.
Government CAN NOT shut down the forum.
“and the majority of the time those parents were being quite disrespectful and at times belligerent about CRT being taught despite the fact that CRT is NOT being taught in school.”
Not True and Not relevant.
Neither you nor anyone else is entitled to RESPECT.
Any speaker who violate the LAW – can be removed.
Anyone who disrupted other speakers – can be removed.
Anyone who engaged in violence – can be removed.
But government can not shutdown the public forum just because they do not like what is said.
Nor can they shut it down because they are not respected.
Nor can they shut it down because they do not beleive it is true.
I would note that the parents were reading excepts from the Loudon County School District teaching materials provided to their kids, that they deemed offensive.
I could care less whether you want to call what is being read CRT – or “bismush” – what was being read was ACTUAL curriculum content.
And parents were clearly offended by it.
Are you saying that LCSD can teach kids to rape other kids – so long as they do not call it CRT ?
You keep playing this stupid work game.
What was being read was from a curiculum based on CRT.
What was being read was OFFENSIVE and should not be taught in schools no matter what name you give it.
CRT is OFFENSIVE – racist, WRONG – and should not be taught anywhere – but CAN NOT be taught in schools.
That would be a violation of the 14th amendment.
Brown Vs. Board of education hinged NOT on the fact that blacks were educated separately – but that government did not treat blacks and whites EQUALLY in education. Separate but equal was NOT rejected – because it was separate – but because it was NOT equal.
Teaching racism violates the 14th amendment – regardless of which race you pretend is superior or which one you think is inferior.
There are myriads of other legal issues – CRT is also politics and it is little different from teachers telling students that republicans are superior to democrats or indoctrinating them in facism or marxism.
FINALLY – even if the facts were different – and you were right – parents went to school to protest the teaching of “the new math” in the 60’s.
Parents are ALWAYS free to voice their concerns about how their kids are taught.
Further they SHOULD ALWAYS be free to remove those kids because of what is being taught.
“I do not care whether these people were right or left – they were entitled to speak.”
“Of course they were entitled to speak, but within the rules set by the board. ”
Nope. That is not how it works.
That is precisely why we have limits on government and a constitution.
Because school boards CAN NOT have whatever rules they please.
“Not shouting over officials and others.”
If a person ACTUALLY shouts down others who are legitimately speaking – the board can remove THAT PERSON.
The LCSD is not free to manufacture rules on the fly to shut down the public forum rather that specific disruptive individuals.
“There is such a thing as civil discussion”
There is. I strongly suspect we completely disagree on what those are.
That is WHY – that is NOT the criteria.
Please become aquainted with first amendment law.
We have spent more than two centuries working out the domain of free speech in public forums.
You are completely clueless on this.
“I’m sure you understand the importance of that.”
Nope.
I understand the importance of the rule of law. That is something different.
I have no interest in imposing ill though out, unclear subjective frameworks free speech rights.
I do not care whether these parents were engaged in a civil discussion – though they obiously were – there is video of the entire event.
There are a FEW specific obligations of those in the meeting – and those obligations are INDIVIDUAL.
You can remove someone who violates the law.
You can remove someone who violates the rights of others.
You can remove those who use force.
You can not end the public forum – because you do not like what is said
You can not end the public forum – because speakers you do not like receive applause.
Once Government has opened a public forum you can not censor it – except within the very narrow confines that SCOTUS has allowed.
Trump as an example – was NOT allowed to block others from his official twitter account. That would be a violation of the first amendment – just like shutting down a meeting where 4 hours of public comment were specified – because you did not like what people said.
“Oh, so you support the idea of tyranny of the majority concept. Interesting. I thought libertarians were against that.”
Nope. I never said that an idea can be forced on the rest of us – just because it is popular.
That is YOUR position – I am pointing out YOUR hypocracy – we are not a democracy – we can not force CRT down kids throats – even if it is popular. That would be YOUR position.
But as YOU beleive in democracy – aren’t you obligated to follow the voice of the people – even when 80% of them disagree with you ?
“There is actually no “supermajority of Americans” whose views are being silenced.”
Of course their is.
“They ALREADY have made their views known. Why is that hard to grasp?”
Ah – so you think the First amendment has a ONCE ONLY clause ?
That you are free to say whatever you want – so long as you only do so ONCE ?
“The majority of parents have no idea what CRT is about.”
Nor do you.
Nor is that relevant.
“They rely on the talking points from right wing think tanks who are deliberately twisting the concepts of CRT because they do not want it discussed. ”
Wrong in so many ways.
1). These parents are protesting their kids CURICULUM – whether you call it CRT or not is irrelevant. Whether THEY call it CRT or not is irrelevant. This is a COMMON left wing nut fallacy – you can not end a debate by redefining the words.
These parents are upset about a REAL curriculum – that they were reading from that was taught to their kids.
It is irrelevant whether they called it CRT.
It is irrelevant whether YOU call it CRT.
It is irrelevant whether talking heads call it CRT.
It is irrelevant whether it is CRT.
All that is relevant was that they were opposed – and had the right to:
Speak out against it.
To Assemble in opposition
To Petition Government to end what offended them.
And they were denied ALL those rights.
The SOLE duty of government is to SECURE rights – not violate them.
When government violates peoples rights and redress is not possible – VIOLENCE is justified – read the declaration of independence.
“The mere calls to ban it and state legislatures banning it because it is deemed an unpopular idea is exactly what the the 1st amendment prohibition on government infringing on free speech is about. The irony couldn’t be more stark.”
Again you do not understand the first amendment at all.
Can schools teach that the earth is flat – that is an unpopular idea ?
There is no GOVERNMENT right to free speech. SCHOOLS are not free to speak as they please – Government is not free to speak as it pleases. The right to free speech belongs to INDIVIDUALS. Not government.
People are actually free to censor government.
We bar political speech inside the civil service as an example.
We bar OUR government from having a voice in elections – YOU are free to say “Vote for Biden” – but your mailman while acting as an agent of government can not.
“72% of people beleive that social media sites engage in improper political censorship.
Even 59% of democrats polled against it.”
“Social media sites are NOT government entities and their right to censor is not unconstitutional or illegal.”
It is if they are govenrment agents.
It is if they are violating their contract with users.
And it is always immoral.
“it may seem improper and sometimes wrong,”
No it is improper and wrong – there is no “seems”.
I would suggest reading JS. Mill “On Liberty” – it is not a first amendment exigis. It speaks little of the law and not much of government,
But it makes the unrefuted in unequivocal argument that restricting speech is IMMORAL and will leave us WORSE OFF.
Think about that a second.
I have not asked that Social media be prohibited from Censoring.
I am only interested in their relationship to GOVERNMENT.
They are FREE to censor if they wish – so long as they – receive no special protection from government and do not act at the direction of government.
If those conditions were met – and they are NOT. SM could censor without offending the first amendment.
BUT that censorship would remain IMMORAL.
AND that censorship would remain DESTRUCTIVE.
As should be obvious to you with the myriads of censorship errors that have been made in the past few years – censorship is HARMFUL – as Brandeis noted – more harmful that lies. We are LESS because of censorship.
“BUT as turley himself has noted they have every right to do so.”
Under the conditions I listed above.
But merely meeting those conditions would not change the fact that Social Media censorship is IMMORAL.
This is a common problem with the left – they constantly presume that everything that is legal is moral, and that everything they think is immoral should be illegal.
This is a flaw inherent in those who are prepared to impose their will on others by force.
“Especially when the very same people who disagree with such actions WILLINGLY agree to be censored when they AGREE to their TOS.”
No one Willingly agrees to be censored.
Had SM companies incorporated the current censorship from the start – they would not exist today.
“Conservatives cannot seem to grasp this simple concept that they themselves are part of the problem when they willingly choose to use those platforms and willingly agree to the terms.”
Yes, the people who were a part of making those plaforms popular – are now miffed because they were lied to by the creators of those platforms.
You are correct that – Conservatives can leave – and they WILL ultimately.
And that is the most likely reason that the SM giants WILL change.
If 10% of conservatives left the social media platforms that are censoring – their stock values would drop and their shareholders would revolt.
We already have seen versions of this with the various “woke” efforts of other corporations.
Woke advertising has been a failure. And Woke business models even worse.
Coke as an example not only had to back down on a stupid CRT driven choice regarding outside legal counsel – but even after reversing is facing shareholder lawsuits.
There is an actual form of private censorship that is MORAL – that is the shareholders in public corporations demanding that those corporations protect shareholder value ABOVE ALL ELSE.
John say,
“ “John Say,
” I asked you for an example of INCITMENT TO VIOLENCE. Not violent acts”
You didn’t ask me for anything.”
I did, you didn’t. Reality exists. Please read prior comments.”
You didn’t ask at all. The only time you asked was AFTER you posted your rhetorical question. There was nothing you posted before asking for examples. POST the question you’re referring to prior to your rhetorical question as proof. Your long winded emotionally charged ranting is making you see things that were not posted prior to your rhetorical question?
You did post a rhetorical question John,
“ Can we accept once and for all that the only incitement to violence that exists in this country today is from the left ?””
You have not answered that.”
Yes I did. The following post was an answer to your rhetorical question.
I also included the examples you demanded. Trying to spark violence IS a form of incitement. The proud boys example included verbatim calls for violence. You couldn’t be that dense John.
The rest if your long rambling post is just plethora of mental gymnastics trying to square your flawed arguments. You’re letting your emotions cloud your attempts at being rational.
The question was not rhetorical.
I am not interested in a debate with you over the specific timing and order of posts.
You were asked for something specific – over a very broad scope.
And you not only failed to provide it
But you keep shucking and jiving.
You are litterally denying that I asked something – while quoting me asking.
You do not live in reality.
John Say,
“I am not interested in a debate with you over the specific timing and order of posts.”
Well John when your questions don’t come up on your first posts and then you ask why I didn’t answer your initial non-existent question It means you are not paying attention to what you are posting. You claimed I promised to be honest but you cannot produce the post making such a claim.
You have been so emotionally compromised by my posting that you are literally making up claims that i did not make. or questions that you did not pose until you answered my post on another issue. You’re not keeping track of the posts and I am. You just admitted that you don’t. That’s why you are so confused about why I am not answering questions that you didn’t initially pose. You’re just going off on rants in long winded posts that prevent you from keeping track of the discussion. I’m not shucking and jiving. You’re just not paying attentions to the order of your own posts. That much is clear.
“Well John when your questions don’t come up on your first posts”
So what ? I have been posting here for years.
I have been posting on this article for days. there is no “first posts”.
I asked a question – you STILL have not provided an answer.
With two political poles there MUST be some examples of any form of misconduct by each side.
I have zero doubt that somewhere sometime someone on the right must have incited violence.
That was never in doubt or the point of my question.
The point is that incitment to violence is rare to nearly non existant from the right.
BTW that is even true well into the past.
Even if I ceded you all your examples – despite the fact that they are all errors, they still would not equal a few days in Portland.
“you ask why I didn’t answer”
Because you STILL have not answered.
“your initial non-existent question”
A question can not be both non-existant, and initial.
Presumably we both agree that the question was asked.
Inarguably you have not answered.
What are you even arguing about ?
No i did not ask that question a year ago in some post about Karen’s.
The recent thread is NOT the first time I have asked.
It is NOT the first time you have failed to answer.
“It means you are not paying attention to what you are posting.”
Svelaz – your claim here does not even make sense.
“You claimed I promised to be honest but you cannot produce the post making such a claim.”
Are you saying that you are NOT honest ?
What kind of idiot would actually take the negative side of a commitment to honesty ?
“You have been so emotionally compromised by my posting”
Svelaz – you flatter yourself. You are an intellectual tadpole.
No one is challenged by your posts.
Your back making idiotic claims that you are some kind of mind reader or empath.
“that you are literally making up claims that i did not make.”
Which would those be ?
“questions that you did not pose until you answered my post on another issue.”
Does this response actually make sense to you ?
I asked you a question – sometime ago, and not for the first time.
You have never answered it.
There is no order issue. Not that that would make sense anway.
The timeline is simple A question followed by silence.
“You’re not keeping track of the posts”
False, and irrelevant. There is no order issue, just more deflection on your part to avoid answering.
It is called logical fallacy. Pretty much anytime you avoid the actual argument and rants about something else.
“and I am.”
You can not follow your own posts.
“You just admitted that you don’t.”
Still fixated on irrelevant.
“That’s why you are so confused about why I am not answering questions that you didn’t initially pose.”
My initial post on Turley was years ago – it is correct that I did not ask you this particular question then.
But I have asked it of you and others in one form for more than a year, probably more than 4 years.
I have not received an answer. Not before not now.
“You’re just going off on rants in long winded posts”
If you would not respond with so much fallacy and nonsense it would take less to shred it.
You have wasted significant time and effort in a tangential debate that is irrelevant and where you are wrong.
“that prevent you from keeping track of the discussion.”
Nothing is preventing me from keeping track of anything.
But in this instance – I do not need to.
You have refused to answer. just shucking and jiving.
Your free to do so. The rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusions from that.
“I’m not shucking and jiving.” of course you are.
“You’re just not paying attentions to the order of your own posts. That much is clear.”
Wrong and irrelevant.
You continue to rant about why you have not answered.
Because that is easier than providing an answer.
You have been asked MANY times.
Still no answer.
A rhetorical question is one in which an answer is not expected.
My question was not rhetorical.
You did not answer. You still have not answered.
Inciting violence is something specific – distinct from actual violence.
Nor is this MY argument – it is YOURS – Trump was impeached on that basis.
The least you can do is stick to your own definitions.
John say,
“A rhetorical question is one in which an answer is not expected.
My question was not rhetorical.”
Yes it was. You just defined the very question you posed.
This was your question, “Can we accept once and for all that the only incitement to violence that exists in this country today is from the left ?” Your question was not directed at anyone in particular. A rhetorical question is a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
“You did not answer. You still have not answered”
Yes I did. What you are doing is engaging in willful denial of the facts I presented to you. You wish to eliminate it by narrowing the definition as much as possible until it becomes ridiculous. The right incites violence all the time. It is not solely the providence of the left.
“Inciting violence is something specific – distinct from actual violence”
Inciting violence is something that comes in many forms. Not just one as you want it to be for the sake of making your argument. You’re just being intellectually dishonest.
““A rhetorical question is one in which an answer is not expected.
My question was not rhetorical.”
Yes it was. You just defined the very question you posed.”
Nope – a question you are unable to answer is NOT the same as a question in which no answer is expected.
I asked for examples – what little you provided was not a response to the question asked.
Your lack of answer was not because no answer was expected.
It was because no (or incredibly few) examples exist.
“This was your question, “Can we accept once and for all that the only incitement to violence that exists in this country today is from the left ?” Your question was not directed at anyone in particular.”
“A rhetorical question is a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.”
You still do not understand what a rhetorical question is. A question you can not answer without exposing weaknesses in your own question is NOT a rhetorical question.
Your definition of Thetorical question is OBVIOUSLY stupid.
By your definition – no one has to answer difficult questions. No one ever has to explain why they can not answer a question.
ALL questions are asked to make or get to a point. Nearly all questions are asked for dramatic effect.
I absolutely expected that you would answer my question – or admit that there are few or no examples.
Facing reality is a critical part of learning.
If you would make valid arguments, using real facts – your would not have to deal with long rebuttles noting that you are divorced from reality.
I have told you over and over – it is triviall to be right all the time on the internet – just check what you post BEFORE hitting POST.
John Say,
“ So the only thing in your “quote” that makes them “far right” is that the quote says “far right”.
Since when is “anti-police” far right ?
Based on what we have seen this summer – being anti-police – puts you on the FAR LEFT.”
John, the far right are anti authority, you know small government advocates. They can be anti-police too. The fact that you can’t accept the concept only shows us that you’re too invested in your preconceptions to realize it. Yes they did incite violence by trying to spark it. Not everything is literal John.
Remember – you promised to be HONEST.”
Where did I say that in my response to you?”
Please review your comments.“
No John YOU made the claim. It is your responsibility to provide the proof. Cant read a comment that you claim I made when I didn’t. None of the comments I posted claim I promised to be honest. POST THE COMMENT YOU ARE CLAIMING I SAID THAT. Otherwise you’re just lying.
“John, the far right are anti authority”
Nope – and in fact quite the opposite. Antifa is far left. Anarchists are far left.
“you know small government advocates.”
Limited government is not anti-authority – any more than having only one toothbrush is anti dentistry.
“They can be anti-police too.”
In Svelaz world the “right” is anyone you do not like.
Can the right be socialist too ? Can they be marxist ?
I am libertarian – I am not conservative. I support alot of police reform – I am NOT “anti-police” – the opposition to police reform is exclusively on the RIGHT. Everyone who is “pro-police” is to the right of me. Everyone who is “anti-police” is to the left of me.
While there have in the past been SOME on the left who were pro-police – Biden as an example. even Kamala Harris has a nasty reputation for abusive law enforcement. I am hard pressed to think of a single counter example on the right.
The entire right is to varying extents “pro-police”.
YOU are constantly accusing Trump and republicans of being authoritarian.
Now you want to claim – no – the anti-authoritarian group is on the right ?
There has been a major and confusing flip – BY THOSE ON THE LEFT – who have more recently become MORE authoritarian, MORE intolerant, MORE anti-rights, MORE corporatist.
But there is no similar shift on the right.
Within the 21st century the right has move significantly to the left on most issues.
While the left has just gone bat $hit crazy.
John Say,
“ Regardless, the grant makes the private party a government agent in the excercise of that priviledge.”
No John it doesn’t make them a government agent. Clearly you WANT it to be because it’s the only way to justify your asinine argument. You can’t even cite any law or regulation that states what you are claiming. You’re just assuming based on your ignorance.
If government expands the rights and priviledges of a narrow group in return for nothing – they violate equal protection.
You are just arguing nonsense.
Can government give all trans white men over 65 $1M without any reason ?
John Say,
“If government expands the rights and priviledges of a narrow group in return for nothing – they violate equal protection.”
But they government is NOT expanding the rights and privilages of a narrow group. It is INCLUDING the narrow group to the rights and privileges of the everyone else. The right wants to exclude them.
You’re just making an assumption out of ignorance John.
Providing legal protection from defamation is an expansion of rights and/or priviledges.
It is also for a narrow group. Social Media publishers received defamation protection in the DMCA.
Ordinary people are NOT protected against claims of defamation.
Other publishers are NOT protected for publishing defamation.
Have you absolutely no connection to reality ?
Do you check anything you say before posting ?
When you post something that is false – you are wrong.
When you do so either knowingly or recklessly failing to check a fact where you have already been informed otherwise
That is LYING.
No one – EXCEPT Social media is protected from defamation claims for publishing defamation.
That is one of the explicit purposes of the DMCA.
If you doubt this – personally publish something written by a third party that seriously defames someone and see how quickly you get sued.
The “right” or much of the country – wants SM held to the same standards as other publishers – like Fox, or WaPo or NYT,
OR they want SM held to the same standards as government.
It is that simple.
Currently SM enjoys both the right to censor as they please, and protection from defamation lawsuits when they publish the defamation of others.
No other person or entity enjoys all those priviledges.
All other Private actors can censor as they please, but they are subject to defamation claims for what they publish.
The DMCA explicitly protects Social Media from liability for the defamation of others that they publish in return for providing a Neutral Public Platform.
NPP is a meaningful legal term of art – it is a direct reference to the type of speach platform that the government must provide when it provides a platform for speech.
You are really completely clueless – both about the realities of free speech and about the law and constitution.
You make nearly the same errors with SM as you do with the SB debate.
Government can punish INDIVIDUALS for violating rules that do not tun afoul of the constitution.
But it can not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Nor can it restrict the rights of all because of alleged misconduct of a few.
Nor can government accomplish by proxy what it is prohibited from doing directly.
Government can not ask others to censor. It can not provide the tools for others to censor.
It can not extent further priviledges to one group – without a quid pro quo – in this case without conforming to the censorship limits of government.
Which you have made abundantly clear you do not understand.
No assumptions SV – just the facts.
Another “rhetorical” question for you – except of course it is rhetorical only in the sense that you will not answer – because the answer would expose your error.
Who is entitled to publish content from a third party that is defamatory without any liability for defamation ?
There are only two hypothetical answers that do not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.
All, or None.
The actual answer is NO ONE can be constitutionally protected for publishing defamatory remarks by another.
But the DMCA gives protection no one else has to social media.
John Say,
“ Finally – and not unique to the internet – Contract law does not allow unilateral changes of a contract by one party.
The original contract is binding until changed by both parties.
Nor is mere agreement sufficient to form a new binding contract.”
Nope, TOS is an agreement, not a contract. It’s a legally binding agreement. The company offering the agreement in EXCHANGE for access has the right to change the agreement. What you keep missing is that every time the agreement is changed it is offered to the person with the previous agreement and ASKED to agree to the.changes. Guess what? The majority of people STILL just click on “I agree”. That’s your “both parties agree to the changes”.
The second anyone clicks on “ I agree” they are legally signing that agreement they stated they have read AND understand about the changes.
Svelaz– I think you said you were a lawyer. I took that at face value until now. I don’t believe it with this statement:
“Nope, TOS is an agreement, not a contract. It’s a legally binding agreement.”
Contracts is a quick and easy first year course. You should know that a legally binding agreement IS a contract. Offer and Acceptance – a contract doesn’t even have to be in writing unless within the statute of frauds.
Young,
“Svelaz– I think you said you were a lawyer. I took that at face value until now. I don’t believe it with this statement:”
I never said I was a lawyer. Never claimed to be one.
“You should know that a legally binding agreement IS a contract.”
I stand corrected. However John Say’s claims about how they work in relation to Social media are severely flawed. People willingly and ignorantly agree to the terms the second they check the box that states ” I have read and understand the TOS” before clicking on “I agree”. It is guaranteed that 99% of people DON”T read it at all. But still agree to the terms and that can include being censored.
Svelaz – As I noted – YOUR claim as to the application of existing law to Social media
DOES NOT WORK.
That should be trivial to understand. Try using YOUR approach outside of Social media – througout the REAL WORLD – we do not allow your infinitely maleable approach to contracts.
You do not need to be a lawyer to grasp that you can not allow one party to unilaterally change a contract after it is formed.
Nor can you allow one party to fail force consent to a change in a contract in return for continuing to fulfill the contract.
The 2nd area in which you can not grasp legal reality is that government can not bless select groups with rights or priviledges that others do not have – without getting something explicit in return.
It should be obvious that is illegal, improper and unworkable. Any concept of equality ceases to exist if government can create new rights and privileges and bestow them as it pleases.
Government has granted SM companies protection from liability for published defamation.
You can not defame people without risking being sued for Defamation.
You can not publish the defamatory speech of others without risking being sued for defamation.
Traditional media can not publish defamatory speech without risking being sued for defamation.
Only Social media can do so.
Absent a quid pro quo – that is unequal treatment under the law.
John Say,
“You do not need to be a lawyer to grasp that you can not allow one party to unilaterally change a contract after it is formed.”
Social media doesn’t do that John. What you are still not grasping is that Social media changes it’s contract all the time. They indeed can change the terms of the contract whenever they want. Apple does this all the time every time an itune prompt pops up on your screen and clearly states “terms and conditions may have changed” review them before proceeding”.
The new terms are not enforceable UNTIL the person who is supposed to read them AGREES to the terms. That involves checking a box stating that the person HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CHANGES TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Upon clicking “I AGREE” the person has effectively agreed to the changes to the new contract.
People mindlessly click “I AGREE” every time the terms and conditions are changed. They are not forced or coerced into agreeing. They are still free not to agree to the changes and stop using the service they are using. But the vast majority of people willfully or ignorantly agree to the new “contract”.
“The 2nd area in which you can not grasp legal reality is that government can not bless select groups with rights or priviledges that others do not have – without getting something explicit in return.
It should be obvious that is illegal, improper and unworkable. Any concept of equality ceases to exist if government can create new rights and privileges and bestow them as it pleases.
Government has granted SM companies protection from liability for published defamation.”
Granting SM protection from liability doesn’t negate their free speech rights. Even of that liability were to be repealed SM companies would still have the right to censor or remove posts that still violate their TOS. Having the protection doesn’t negate their 1st amendment rights either. Just because they have liability protection doesn’t mean they are required to abide by the same restrictions the constitution places on government. That’s the concept you are not getting. SM Companies have 1st amendment rights too. Forcing them to carry someone else’s speech is unconstitutional regardless of whether they have protections or not.
SM is not publishing the speech. The poster is. SM such as facebook and twitter is more like a bulletin board. just being a bulletin board is not being a publisher. A publisher disseminates ONE particular speech for mass consumption. Books. newspapers, magazines. Facebook and twitter are not publishers. They are just bulletin boards with certain rules that need to be followed if one wants to post on their VERY LARGE bulletin board.
“”You do not need to be a lawyer to grasp that you can not allow one party to unilaterally change a contract after it is formed.”
Social media doesn’t do that John.”
Of course they do – as you agree to below.
“What you are still not grasping is that Social media changes it’s contract all the time.”
The law (as well as logic and morality) does not allow unilateral changes to a contract.
Bilateral changes can only come in ONE form – you can agree or remain subject to the original terms.
There is no legal (or logical or moral) way to void a contract if you do not agree to modify it.
“They indeed can change the terms of the contract whenever they want.”
Not with any legal effect.
“Apple does this all the time every time an itune prompt pops up on your screen and clearly states “terms and conditions may have changed” review them before proceeding”.”
You are under the delusion that just because someone says something it is true.
Apple or anyone else can say whatever they please, they can not make what they say into an actual legally binding contract just by saying it is.
BTW this was recently littigated with Patreaon – if you want a Clue – Patreon LOST.
The courts bound them to the origianal contract terms not the revised ones.
“The new terms are not enforceable UNTIL the person who is supposed to read them AGREES to the terms. That involves checking a box stating that the person HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CHANGES TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Upon clicking “I AGREE” the person has effectively agreed to the changes to the new contract.”
Not legally binding. As noted above a contract modification is only legally binding when your choice is:
Agree to the new contract – or do not agree and be subject to the original
You can not void an existing contract because you fail to agree to a revised one.
We have been through this before.
If you have a warantee on your car. And you take it in for warrantee service, can the car dealer require you to agree to waive the warrantee before they return your car to you ?
Of course not.
They can ask for whatever they want. But YOUR choice is ONLY between the new contract and the old contract.
If you take away the choice to remain with the old contract – the new one is not binding, even if you agree to it. ‘
“People mindlessly click “I AGREE” every time the terms and conditions are changed. They are not forced or coerced into agreeing. They are still free not to agree to the changes and stop using the service they are using. But the vast majority of people willfully or ignorantly agree to the new “contract”.”
They are not “mindlessly” agreeing – they are doing so quite mindfully.
You completely ignore the FACT that a binding contract existed prior to being presented with the new one.
You can not make a contract go away by wishing it away.
The only legal choice that anyone – including social media can offer is between continuing the old contract and accepting a new one.
You can NOT threaten to renige on the old contract to coerce agreement to the new one.
“The 2nd area in which you can not grasp legal reality is that government can not bless select groups with rights or priviledges that others do not have – without getting something explicit in return.
It should be obvious that is illegal, improper and unworkable. Any concept of equality ceases to exist if government can create new rights and privileges and bestow them as it pleases.
Government has granted SM companies protection from liability for published defamation.”
“Granting SM protection from liability doesn’t negate their free speech rights.”
So NOW you are accepting that SM has received liability protections they rest of us do not have.
Free speech is NOT a right to censor. You still do not seem to grasp that.
SM agreeing to limit their censorship in return for protection for liability for publishing the defamatory content of others is NOT a restriction on their free speech rights.
“Even of that liability were to be repealed SM companies would still have the right to censor or remove posts that still violate their TOS.”
True and false.
There is no right to censor.
SM companies can not renige on their original TOS.
Nor can they renige on promises they made to get people to subscribe in the first place.
This is all pretty standard law that has been arround for centuries.
“Having the protection doesn’t negate their 1st amendment rights either.”
You keep conflating censorship with the first amendment.
There is no first amendment right to censor.
“Just because they have liability protection doesn’t mean they are required to abide by the same restrictions the constitution places on government.”
Actually it does by numerous arguments.
First because that is what the DMCA says – they are required to provide a neutral public platform in exchange for reduced liability.
Next because they accepted a priviledge that others do not have they become an agent of govenrment and are bound by the standards that apply to government.
This again is pretty standard law. Universities that receive funding from government are bound to the same restrictions regarding restricting speech as the government is. This is not something new. It has been that way my whole life.
” That’s the concept you are not getting.”
What I am not getting is your fallacious nonsense that the first amendment provides a right to censor – it does not.
“SM Companies have 1st amendment rights too.”
They do – they can speak all they want.
“Forcing them to carry someone else’s speech is unconstitutional regardless of whether they have protections or not.”
Nope.
Government is REQUIRED to allow the speech of others ALL THE TIME. Public colleges and universities are also, as are many private entities that receive public funding.
Compelled speech is unconstitutional – compelled speach IS not when you are obligated to publish the speech of others.
It is when you are obligated to say as YOURSELF something you do not wish to.
The government requires warnign lables on cigarettes – as well as a variety of labels on products.
That is actual compelled speech – and it is constitutional.
“SM is not publishing the speech.”
What nonsense.
Do you know what a publisher is ?
SM is the publisher.
“The poster is.”
No the poster is the author, the speaker.
SM is the publisher.
Now you are just getting bat$hit crazy.
There is centuries old law covering all of this.
“SM such as facebook and twitter is more like a bulletin board.”
Not really.
When you post on a bulletin board YOU post.
When you post on SM – SM posts.
You have absolutely no direct access to the FB or Twitter bulliten board – without going through FB or twitter.
“just being a bulletin board is not being a publisher.”
That is a more complex question – and bulliten board providers do have some liability for the content on their boards.
I would further note tha you “censorship” argument thoroughly undermines your argument that SM is not a publisher.
Your bulliten board analogy MIGHT work is SM did not censor.
But a bulliten board owner that removes content from their board is liable for what they do not remove.
When they make a choice to leave something up or remove it – they are a publisher – they MIGHT have been before.
But once they take on the role of censor – they are a publisher.
The entire reason publishers have defamation liability is because they excercise choice – censorship of what they will and will not publish.
“A publisher disseminates ONE particular speech for mass consumption.”
False.
Defamation law makes 3 (actually 4) distinctions.
Author, publisher, and distributor (there is a 4th secondary distributor, but that is not relevant here).
Distributors have no editorial control over what they distribute and are not subject to defamation claims.
Publishers make choices over what they provide – and are subject to defamation claims.
Censorship automatically makes you a publisher.
“Books. newspapers, magazines.”
These are things not people.
Book publishers, magazine publishers, newspaper publishers are subject to defamation liabilty
“Facebook and twitter are not publishers.”
Of course they are – this is an idiotic argument.
And even if they were not publishers – they become publishers when they censor.
“They are just bulletin boards with certain rules that need to be followed if one wants to post on their VERY LARGE bulletin board.”
If there are rules – they are a publisher.
It is litterally that simple.
When you make choices – you have liability for those choices.
If you choose what you will and will not post – you are a publisher, you take on liability for what you publish.
You are unfamiliar with centuries of defamation and first amendment law.
This is typical of leftists – who do not grasp that the law we have today is the product of centuries of thought and polishing.
it was not created overnight from some left wing nut college professor.
While there are still imperfections – and you are free to argue the law as it is, is wrong.
It is still the product of centuries of refinement.
All the nonsense ideas you keep pushing – have been debated over centuries – and resolved
Webster
Definition of contract
a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties
You have already accepted that the TOS is an agreement.
Are you saying that the TOS is not binding ?
That neither FB nor users need follow it ?
Then what are we arguing about – I will post whatever I want, and FB will not censor it.
Whether you or I like it or not – the TOS is a legally binding contract.
You really are clueless.
All agreements are not contracts – but many are.
Nearly every agreement we are likely to debate is a contract.
You can look up the law on what constitutes a binding contract.
John Say,
“Definition of contract
a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties
You have already accepted that the TOS is an agreement.
Are you saying that the TOS is not binding ?
That neither FB nor users need follow it ?”
It is binding UNTIL Facebook or twitter adds changes to it. Then it is a new contract. The previous contract is still binding until you agree to the new one. However you can’t use their services until you either accept or reject the changes. You are not being forced to agree to the changes, BUT not accepting the changes does not allow you to continue using their platform. The crazy thing it is guaranteed that 99% of users never read the TOS, it could include the RIGHT to make changes and alterations AT ANY TIME. Even credit card companies have that stipulation in the small print of the contract. They reserve the right to make changes ANY TIME.
“Then what are we arguing about – I will post whatever I want, and FB will not censor it.
Whether you or I like it or not – the TOS is a legally binding contract.”
I wasn’t arguing that the TOS wasn’t a legally binding contract. What I am saying is that their contracts HAVE provisions that allow them to change it at any time for any reason. It’s standard in nearly all contracts. Here’s the kicker. The majority of people AGREE to these terms without ever reading them and willingly signing “I AGREE” and as you said the TOS is a legally binding contract.
You can post whatever you want, but if you violate the TOS that YOU agreed to they can definitely censor you regardless of whether they have immunity protections or not.
Here’s what is in FB’s actual TOS, last updated in October of last year under the “other”, It clearly states, “We reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.”
If you clicked on “I AGREE” you have effectively, legally, agreed to that statement.
“It is binding UNTIL Facebook or twitter adds changes to it. Then it is a new contract. ”
Nope.
“The previous contract is still binding until you agree to the new one.”
Correct
“However you can’t use their services until you either accept or reject the changes. ”
Nope – that would be breach of contract.
The original TOS/Contract remains in force until you freely accept the new one.
And freely requires that the choice is between the old and the new, not the new and no contract at all.
“You are not being forced to agree to the changes, BUT not accepting the changes does not allow you to continue using their platform.”
That is the defintion of FORCED. You are required to accept the new TOS or lose all the rights you had under the old one.
“The crazy thing it is guaranteed that 99% of users never read the TOS, it could include the RIGHT to make changes and alterations AT ANY TIME. Even credit card companies have that stipulation in the small print of the contract. They reserve the right to make changes ANY TIME.”
And you will find lots of case law that deals unfavorably with that.
“I wasn’t arguing that the TOS wasn’t a legally binding contract. ”
But you are.
“What I am saying is that their contracts HAVE provisions that allow them to change it at any time for any reason.”
Not legally binding.
This is pretty standard contract law.
“It’s standard in nearly all contracts.”
Nope.
It is neither standard nor enforceable.
“Here’s the kicker. The majority of people AGREE to these terms without ever reading them and willingly signing “I AGREE” and as you said the TOS is a legally binding contract.”
And they do the same with those other “contracts” you discuss, and there is caselaw to deal with it.
They are called contracts of adhesion – while they are not automatically null and void, they are generally extremely weak and are read entirely in favor of the party who was coerced.
“You can post whatever you want, but if you violate the TOS that YOU agreed to they can definitely censor you regardless of whether they have immunity protections or not.”
Again – so when you pick up your car for service – and you sign to pick up the car – if the dealer includes a provision terminating your warrantee is that binding ?
“”Here’s what is in FB’s actual TOS, last updated in October of last year under the “other”, It clearly states, “We reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.”
If you clicked on “I AGREE” you have effectively, legally, agreed to that statement.”
Again you seem to think that because something is written it is true.
All contracts (and all agreements) involve an exchange.
When there is no exchange – it is merely a promise.
Promises are morally, but not legally binding.
Debating with you is like debating a child.
Your lack of fundimental knowledge is disturbing.
Whoever educated you – failed you.
We have spent thousands of years working out all the issues that you are ignorant of and wish to revisit.
We arrived where we did – as a result of a process of discovery – discovering what worked and what did not.
Absolutely – you can government the world as you please – you can have whatever law you wish.
But you can not expect that it will WORK – just because you have demanded it.
We have established what constitutes a binding contract based on past experience.
You claim that a TOS is an agreement – not a contract.
So FB can not remove me because I violate the TOS ?
The TOS is BINDING – idiot. I agree to it and there are consequences for failing to abide by that agreement – that is what BINDING means.
If I agree to build a building – and fail to do so – there are CONSQUENCES for failure to do so.
So you are clear on terms.
All contracts are agreements – all agreements are not contracts.
All agreements are promises – all promises are not agreements.
A contract is a specific type of agreement or promise.
If as you claim a TOS is an agreement but not a contract – then it is also unnecescary.
John say,
“All contracts (and all agreements) involve an exchange.
When there is no exchange – it is merely a promise.”
The contract you made with facebook was an exchange. In exchange for access you agree to the terms.
John, I conceded to Young that an agreement is a contract. You don’t need to bloviate and insult.
“John, I conceded to Young that an agreement is a contract. You don’t need to bloviate and insult.”
All agrements are NOT contracts – Contracts are a subset of agrements.
A promise is unilateral.
An agreement is bilateral.
A contract is a binding agreement – all agreements are not binding.
But all agrements we are discussing are.
“The contract you made with facebook was an exchange. In exchange for access you agree to the terms.”
Nope, exchange is bidirectional – you get something of value – I get something of value.
I would strongly suggest some reading on contracts.
The issues in our discussion are covered in just about every text on contracts.
BTW there is an actual exchange with FB – though you can not manage to find the actual exchange.
If there was no exchange – there would be no binding agreement.
But because there is an actual exchange the ORIGINAL agreement is binding and can not be modified unilaterally. and can not be modified by threatening to renige on the original contract.
John Say,
“ Any speaker who violate the LAW – can be removed.
Anyone who disrupted other speakers – can be removed.
Anyone who engaged in violence – can be removed.”
Any speaker who violates the rules can be removed. If the rules required everyone to refrain from applause for whatever reason they can be removed. Each school board has its own rules. Violating them is justification for removal. Parents WERE being disorderly and ignoring please to observe decorum.
“ The school board unanimously voted to shut down the public comment portion of the meeting after repeatedly issuing warnings about decorum and disruptions.”
“ Parents fired up about a proposed policy on the treatment of transgender students — as well as how schools should teach about race — held up signs, chanted and sang the national anthem at the Loudoun County School Board meeting. ”
“ School board bylaws adopted in 1979 and last reviewed in 2016 say the board “welcomes comments from the public and believes strong community engagement is important to a successful school system.” But “the civility, decorum and respect for the functioning and dignity of the School Board shall be maintained at all times,” the bylaws say. “When reasonable,” the chair can warn a speaker of a breach of the rules, end speaking privileges or “take other action.”
Scott T. Smith, 48, of Leesburg, was charged with disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice. The sheriff’s office says he physically threatened someone and then “continued to be disorderly with the deputy” and resisted arrest. He was released. It wasn’t immediately clear if he had a lawyer.
Another man received a summons for trespassing after school officials asked those in attendance to clear the room, the sheriff’s office said.
A third person received a minor injury, officials said, without releasing details”
Clearly parents were not following the rules and therefore the meeting was shut down. According to you that is what is supposed to happen. They weren’t silenced because of what they wanted to say. It was because parents were being disruptive.
You do not seem to grasp law.
Court do not try people en masse – there is no group law, no everyone law.
Violations of the law are individual.
If there are people at a meeting actually violating the law – they can be removed – INDIVIDUALLY,
And where appropriate arrested INDIVIDUALLY.
You can not punish the public collectively for the acts of individuals.
I would further note that the overwhelming majority at the LCSB meeting came to oppose the LCSD curriculum.
The SB is NOT free to suppress opposition by declaring that disagreement – even rowdy disagreement is intolerable.
We have had this debate regarding BLM – it is irrelevant whether they are loud and rowdy.
They are entitled to ASSEMBLE, Petition Government, and speak freely – especially in a public forum.
They are NOT free to loot or commit arson. They are not free to petition govenrment at Nieman Marcus.
These people were excercising 3 different aspects of their first amendment rights – speech, assembly, and petitioning government.
They were far more orderly in doing so than BLM has been,
The LCSB meeting is precisely the place at which you would petition government.
The LCSB violated these parents constitutional rights.
I would also suggest that you THINK about this.
We did not arrive at Lexington and Concord overnight – but we DID arrive there.
soon enough – parents may come to School board meetings with AR-15’s.
Soon enough they may come to meetings of the legislature armed.
There are about 3M rifles in the National Guard, and Military. Maybe another million held by police.
There are 15M Ar-15’s alone in private ownership in the US and 350M privately owned guns.
What exactly do you expect the LC Sheriffs to do when 500 armed parents show up at a school board meeting ?
If you keep this nonsense up – you are eventually going to have to face ARMED opposition.
I would note that ARMED – is not inherently violent.
All ARMED opposition means is – “we will not be thwarted by YOUR men with guns – aka – sherrifs.
YOU will not thwart our expression of our will through your control of law enforcement.
This is precisely what happened at Lexington and Concord.
That is where YOU are heading the country.
You really do not seem to get that governent is FORCE – and you are not entitled to impose your will on others through FORCE,
That eventually you will face FORCE in return.
John Say,
“ I do not care whether these parents were engaged in a civil discussion – though they obiously were – there is video of the entire event.”
You may not care, but the school board does. You did not see the video. Here’s one part of it.
https://twitter.com/DrewWilderTV/status/1407484334408355842?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1407484627577671680%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-31004098082841394717.ampproject.net%2F2106182132000%2Fframe.html
Clearly the whole meeting devolved into a shouting and chanting mob. The school board’s rules clearly were being violated by everyone. Not just a few speakers.
The board didn’t shut down the forum because they didn’t like what they were hearing. It WAS shut down because the crowd was not adhering to the rules of decorum.
Your video is from AFTER the SB prematurely terminated the meeting.
Nor is your video particularly problematic.
It certainly was far more peaceful than a BLM protest.
What is it in your video that you think I should be bothered by ?
No the meeting did not devolve to mob chanting and shouting – but what if it did ?
Leftist do exactly that all the time.
The overwhelming majority of people at this meeting were their to oppose the school boards idiotic curriculum.
You seem to think that the SB is entitled to teach students whatever nonsense they please.
You seem to think that the SB can silence dissent.
Mostly I do not care much about the meeting – it is YOU that should be concerned. IT should be self evident there is substantrial opposition to your imposition of your will on others in this case parents by force.
That opposition is not going away. It could errupt in violence, or it could result in a recall fo the entire school board.
Or any of myriads of other possibilities.
What is increasingly certain – is that you will NOT be able to continue to impose your will by force.
We are seeing ever more federal court decisions limiting the power of schools – limiting their ability to control events outside of the school itself, And limiting their monopoly on students.
Either these idiotic schools will change – or they will be changed – or parents will vote with their feet.
As I have said repeatedly – leftism FAILS.
Loudon parents will either succeed in persuading the SB or they will succeed in recalling the SB or they will move their kids to other school districts, charter schools or cyber charters.
Yopu just do not get it you can not FORCE your will on others.
You want to teach CRT – setup your own schools that teach whatever curricula you want – see how many parents bring their kids.
I personally do not want any public schools at all.
But if we have public schools – either they MUST teach what parents want or Parents must and will go elsewhere,
One of the reasons I do not want public schools – is because people are not equal – we do not have the same values.
Free markets provide what we want and need to all of us regardless of our differences. If you want fair trade, organic non-GMO Kashi for breakfast – the free market provides. If you want – there are several brands of plain corn flakes. And myriads of choices in between.
The same would be true of education health care, pretty much everything – if government got out of those.
You constantly fail to grasp that when you act through government you are using FORCE.
There are few circumstances in which force is justified.
Certainly you should not be free to use FORCE to dictate the curicula a school follows.
John say,
“Around 260 people signed up to speak about the policy proposal for transgender students and to protest against CRT on Tuesday. Some parents shouted “shame on you” and held signs that said: “we the parents stand up” and “education not indoctrination.”
Many parents became disruptive after several spoke in favor of the policy, causing the LCS School Board to call for a 5-minute recess to allow them to calm down.
After the recess was over, the LCS School Board Chair Brenda Sheridan said that the group had voted unanimously to shut down the meeting again if the room became too disruptive. After they witnessed more disruptions from the parents, the board shut down the meeting and ordered people to leave, with a school district spokesperson saying that the “meeting has degenerated.”
The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office said told Newsweek that the event was then declared an “unlawful assembly” by the Superintendent of Loudoun County Public Schools, meaning that the attendees legally had to leave or be charged with trespassing.”
https://www.newsweek.com/loudoun-school-board-transgender-policy-meeting-1603351
Clearly it was parents violating the rules that ended up shutting down the meeting.
“After the recess was over, the LCS School Board Chair Brenda Sheridan said that the group had voted unanimously to shut down the meeting again if the room became too disruptive.”
Not within their power to do.
You really do not get this.
Government can not shutdown a forum for free speech because SOME people are “disruptive”.
They can ask law enforcement to punish INDIVIDUALS for disruptions – that are actual violations of the law.
That is it.
“After they witnessed more disruptions from the parents, the board shut down the meeting and ordered people to leave, with a school district spokesperson saying that the “meeting has degenerated.””
Again – outside of their power to do.
“The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office said told Newsweek that the event was then declared an “unlawful assembly” by the Superintendent of Loudoun County Public Schools, meaning that the attendees legally had to leave or be charged with trespassing.””
Not within the superintendant of schools power.
“Clearly it was parents violating the rules that ended up shutting down the meeting.”
Why do you say that ?
I have watched video of the meeting. There were very limited actions by a few individuals that were subject to legal sanctions.
This is why we use the actual law – not undefined broad terms like disruptive.
What you call disruptive – I call free speech.
the LCSB found themselves holding a tiger by the tail and shut the SB meeting down as their means of escaping.
They were not free to do so.
This is now becoming a common left wing nut tactic.
You did the same nonsense on Jan 6.
The SB can not create a lawful assembly and then declare the assembly not lawful.
The decision regarding a lawful assembly rests with police. Further improperly excercising that choice is a constitutional violation.
School board do no know nor have the power to decide if an assembly is lawful or not.
And an assembly is not unlawful because of the illegal actions of a small number of people.
Nor is it unlawfull because you do not like the position of those assembled.
Congress was NOT free to close the capital while congress was in session.
The laws of this country must be made publicly.
Even school boards are forbidden from acting in private and from many discussions in private.
I do not know virginia law – but in my state if the LCSB declared a recess, and during the meeting held discussions on the subject of the meeting that would be illegal – especially if they made decisions.
There is extremely little that a public governing body in my state can do outside of public scrutiny.
Even committee meetings in congress are public. There are only a few rare exceptions such as national security which allow congress to convene privately – and even then – they can not ACT.
On Jan 6 the capital was locked down – that was unconstitutional and lawless.
The FIRST acts of lawlessness were those of congress.
Next – you quote the word “disruptive”.
We are dealing with law – not broad nonsense.
The government can not shutdown a public forum for “disruptive” behaviour – government is not our parent and citizens are not disruptive toddlers.
There are extremely limited circumstances in which it can shutdown a public forum which it opened. An actual riot would be one of those
Short of an actual riot – Law enforcement – which is not directed by the school board, would be responsible for arresting and removing those whose conduct was actually a crime.
Conduct that was merely disfavored – live clapping and cheering might be disruptive – in the view of the School Board.
But it is not justification for supressing free speech, petitioning government or the right to assemble.
I would further suggest some colonial history – it is precisely this conduct on the part of the british government that provoked the revolution and resulted in the declaration of idependence and our constitution.
Just as “disruptive” is broad and meaningless – so is “violating the rules”.
If actual LAWS were violated – arrest those who violated them.
otherwise government is not our parents.
Government can not make arbitrary rules and then manufacture sanctions because they are violated.
We have laws and a process for creating them for reason.
First you have your timeline wrong.
But equally important – why aren’t the opponents of the SB free to Chant, Clap, Shout ?
Violate idiotic SB rules ?
Those things TOO are Free speech.
The left pioneered shutting down discussion by chanting and shouting and ignoring “the rules”.
Why are you suprised that others are learning from you ?
We got chanting and shouting and bullhorns and ranting (and looting and arson and actual violence) all summer from the left.
Are you really saying that the only people allowed to chant and clapp and shout are those on the left ?
I will further note – these parents will prevail – one way or the other. Their rights are being violated. These are Their Kids.
They are not the property of LCSD.
If you impose stupid curricula – you will get chanting and shouting at school board meetings.
If you thwart that – you will get recalls and lose elections.
If that is thwarted – you will get violence. Ir people will move, or set up cyber charters, or charters.
No matter what – so long as sufficient numbers vigorously oppose what you seek – you will be thwarted.
Accross the board – you fail to consider the 2nd order effects of your stupid actions.
You constantly think you can impose your will be force – without response
John Say,
“But equally important – why aren’t the opponents of the SB free to Chant, Clap, Shout ?
Violate idiotic SB rules ?
Those things TOO are Free speech.”
For a person who claims to know about law and order you sure don’t seem to grasp the irony of what you just stated. The school board has had these rules since 1967. They are there specifically to ensure meetings don’t devolve into shouting matches or break decorum. People have the right to speak, according to the rules set by the board. They have not been prevented from speaking their minds. What they cannot do is break the rules in doing so and many did. You say their rules are idiotic, does that mean people have the right to be disruptive and engage in unruly behavior because they have the right to free speech? I doubt you would agree.
“The left pioneered shutting down discussion by chanting and shouting and ignoring “the rules”.
Yes they did and they also got shut down or arrested for disorderly conduct. You seem to be implying that these parent’s shouldn’t be held to the same standard.
“We got chanting and shouting and bullhorns and ranting (and looting and arson and actual violence) all summer from the left.”
Those instances were not being done at school board meetings where there ARE rules. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand the difference. Your attempt an equivalency fails.
“I will further note – these parents will prevail – one way or the other. Their rights are being violated. These are Their Kids.
They are not the property of LCSD.
If you impose stupid curricula – you will get chanting and shouting at school board meetings.”
The school board is NOT imposing the curricula that many parents are wrongly believing it is being done. They are protesting about something that is not even taught in school. They are being fed misleading claims that schools are doing that. Claims being perpetrated by right wing think tanks. Chanting and shouting at a school board meeting even after some speakers have been removed because they violated the rules is still violating the rules and the board is well within it’s authority to shut down the meeting. You have admitted multiple times that if said people did violate the rules they do get to e removed and they did. But the crowd erupting in disruptive behavior and preventing the meeting to continue is justification for ending the meeting.
“Accross the board – you fail to consider the 2nd order effects of your stupid actions.
You constantly think you can impose your will be force – without response”
Ironically this is what happened to these parents. They didn’t consider the second order of their actions which resulted in the shutting down of the meeting. Parents were still free to shout and chant all they wanted. They effectively shut down meeting themselves by breaking the rules. Now they have the audacity to claim they were shut down because the school board didn’t like what they were hearing. The parents were the problem. Not the school board.
“For a person who claims to know about law and order you sure don’t seem to grasp the irony of what you just stated.”
The rule of law INCLUDES government following the requirements of the constitution.
That includes respecting the rights to assembly, free speech, and petitioning government.
SCOTUS lon g before 1967 ruled that government can not use rules to preclude speech it does not like.
“The school board has had these rules since 1967.”
And that matters why ? There are myriads of laws and rules on the books that are idiotic wrong, unconstitutional and old.
“They are there specifically to …”
Every tyrant claims to act with good intentions.
You left wing nuts constantly fixate on the subjective and unsubstantiated claims of good or bad intentions.
I do not give a schiff what the intentions were.
For a law to be justified it must
ACTUALLY accomplish what it purportedly intended.
NOT infringe unnecescarily on RIGHTS.
Have a purpose that is more important than the rights infringed on.
These criteria ARE NOT MET in this case.
“ensure meetings don’t devolve into shouting matches or break decorum.”
And again – you enforce the “rules” against the individuals who violate them.
You may not infringe on EVERYONE’s ability to speak because of claims regarding a few.
This is actually extremely important.
The SB claims in this instance were mostly FALSE and certainly did not rise to the level of imposing individual sanctions.
LAWS are about the conduct of INDIVIDUALS – we can test in INDIVIDUAL instances whether the law was violated and whether the rights of that individual are superior to the law.
Had the SB started having people who clapped removed and arrested – the courts would have laughed in their faces.
Or more clearly for you – found rules against clapping and cheering unconstitutional.
The SB does NOT get carte blanche control of a public forum – you do not seem to grasp that.
Nor is limited unruliness a justification for government actions.
“People have the right to speak”
Yes.
“according to the rules set by the board.”
Nope, not how free speech works.
The SB is permitted to have rules regarding the conduct of meetings – so long as those meetings do not infringe on anyone’s rights,
Where those rules do infringe on rights – there is a long list of tests those rules must meet. If they fail – the rule is unconstitutional.
They have not been prevented from speaking their minds. What they cannot do is break the rules in doing so and many did. You say their rules are idiotic, does that mean people have the right to be disruptive and engage in unruly behavior because they have the right to free speech? I doubt you would agree.
““The left pioneered shutting down discussion by chanting and shouting and ignoring “the rules”.
Yes they did and they also got shut down or arrested for disorderly conduct. ”
Correct – They were INDIVIDUALLY arrested – and PROSECUTED, and quite often charges were dropped, and in many instances sanctions imposed against those arresting them.
“You seem to be implying that these parent’s shouldn’t be held to the same standard.”
Absolutely – to the SAME standard
They were NOT trying to shut down disccusion – they were being shutdown – not the same thing.
Next, they were clapping and cheering remarks they supported – again not conduct that government can prohibit.
““We got chanting and shouting and bullhorns and ranting (and looting and arson and actual violence) all summer from the left.”
Those instances were not being done at school board meetings where there ARE rules. I’m sure you are smart enough to understand the difference. Your attempt an equivalency fails.”
Yes, there are differences – the SB meeting was an actual declered government sponsored public forum – that is where the highest level of government scrutiny applies.
While the “protests” were mostly NOT in public forums – they were NOT in public parks or courthouses, or statehouses.
They were on streets in commercial and residential areas – NOT formal public forums for free speech.
““I will further note – these parents will prevail – one way or the other. Their rights are being violated. These are Their Kids.
They are not the property of LCSD.
If you impose stupid curricula – you will get chanting and shouting at school board meetings.”
The school board is NOT imposing the curricula ”
Of course they are – that is actually the legitimate role of a school board – to determine the curicula for the school.
They do so consulting administrators, teachers and parents. It is one of their DUTIES.
But ultimately they are answerable for that choice to VOTERS.
“that many parents are wrongly believing it is being done.”
You are off arguing nonsense.
Schools ALWAYS have curricula. This debate is not over whether the school can have a curricula – of course they can.
There are two facets to this conflict.
The first is parents opposition to the curricula the SB has chosen.
Why CRT is abominably stupid – and I note that though you constantly falsely claim the rest of us do not know anything about CRT,
you NEVER bother to descibe CRT yourself – because it is nonsense.
But this is not really about CRT. It is about Parents upset with what their children are being taught.
And you are clueless if you think that parents will not ultimately prevail.
The SB ultimately has the authority and responsibility to select and impose the curricula.
BUT the FINAL decision rests with parents and voters.
Parents can remove their children from these schools. Charters and cyber charters are increasingly an option – and those subject parents to no additional cost – they are paid for by local school districts – usually at discounted costs – as an example in PA a cyber charter receives 75% of what the public school collects in taxes per student. We should eliminate traditional public schools and shift completely to private charters – much of europe does that.
Parents can also MOVE to districts that educate their kids as they wish. That is one of the primary factor that drives most people who move
Alternatively or omm addition they can recall the SB or vote them out in the next election.
The rule of law applies to government as well as people.
You do not seem to grasp that.
School Boards are not exempt from complying with the constitution – and that includes the requirements of the 1st amendment.
It was not those seeking to assemble, petition government and speak that were lawless – it was the school board that thwarted that right.
You are correct – the riots over the summer were NOT the same – they were not people gatthered by government at a government created forum for free speech assembled to petition government engaged in the most protected form of first amendment expression that there is – speaking directly to government in a government forum.
The Rioters this summer – gatthered in rfesidential and commercial areas, they rioted, looted and burned.
Though their complaints were about government they were not directed TO Government – they did not go to courthouses.
They broke the windows at macy’s and looted. They did not speak in a government created forum to government at a government selected place and time – they spoke by rioting looting and burning.
Your absolutely right – these were NOT the same – the burden on government to respect the rights of those at the school board meeting was far HIGHER.
Once again – the left – in this case the school board, behaved lawlessly. Just as various democratic governors during the election.
“Ironically this is what happened to these parents. They didn’t consider the second order of their actions which resulted in the shutting down of the meeting.”
Of course they did not – the actions of the SB were lawless.
I would further note they did not need to.
The SB had two choices – listen NOW, or listen LATER.
The SB and you seem to wish to pretend this is blowing over.
It is not. When 80% of people oppose the nonsense you are imposing – it does not blow over.
LATER – could mean a recall.
It could mean voting the SB out.
But if all else fails – it could mean “insurection”.
Please read the declaration of independence.
The american revolution is the HOWTO guide for addressing lawless government.
The declaration of independence is the legal and moral justification for that “insurection”.
“Parents were still free to shout and chant all they wanted.”
Nope – the SB sought to have them arrested. That is not freedom.
“They effectively shut down meeting themselves by breaking the rules.”
Actually the SB broke the “rules” – i.e. the constitutiion and the first amendment,
You seem to beleive that government can make whatever rules it wishes – regardless of the infringement on or rights.
Rights are not something you have ONLY if you follow the rules.
They are something you have EVEN IF YOU DONT.
“Now they have the audacity to claim they were shut down because the school board didn’t like what they were hearing.”
The SB does not get to shutdown a meeting because they do not like what they are hearing.
That claim is complete idiocy.
“The parents were the problem. Not the school board.”
Proof that you have no clue.
John Say,
““Conservatives cannot seem to grasp this simple concept that they themselves are part of the problem when they willingly choose to use those platforms and willingly agree to the terms.”
Yes, the people who were a part of making those plaforms popular – are now miffed because they were lied to by the creators of those platforms.”
They are miffed not because they were lied to. They are miffed because THEY didn’t take the due diligence to READ their TOS. It’s practically guaranteed that 99% of people subscribing to SM don’t read the TOS and just stupidly agree to the terms AND the new terms when they are presented.
““Especially when the very same people who disagree with such actions WILLINGLY agree to be censored when they AGREE to their TOS.”
No one Willingly agrees to be censored. ”
Apparently many of those complaining actually do. SM doesn’t force anyone to sign these agreements. They are all strictly voluntary and these people have willingly agreed to be censored the moment they clicked on ” I agree”. Why? because none take the time to read the entirety of the TOS. and upon agreeing willingly they assert they HAVE read and understood the TOS. When they check that little box stating ” I have read and understand the TOS. BEFORE agreeing they are willingly and ignorantly allowing SM to censor them or revoke their privilege of posting video or content. Its their fault. Not social media’s.
Svelaz,
Now you are making several different arguments.
First you are arguing that the TOS trump’s publily made representations used to induce agreement.
There is rafts of Law contrary to that.
Your OWN Trump U case would be an example.
You claim Trump (or Trump U) publicly promised that teachers would be vetted by Trump.
And you claim there was fraud because you claim they were not.
Was any of this in some contract signed by Trump U and Students ?
I highly doubt it.
In Svelaz world – the public inducements of Trump and Trump U can not have any meaning – because they were not part of the formal agreement between students and Trump U.
In Svelaz world – Trump U could obliterate the lawsuit – simply by changing their agreement with Students and requiring them to sign a new one to continue.
Not only is this wierd view of law OBVIOUS unworkable nonsense.
But I have PERSONALLY prevailed in litigation over this.
Several decades ago I sent out an RFP for a contract for Business Copying services. I was explicit as to what I wanted.
Several companies responded with proposals that met my requirements.
I agreed to go forward with one.
They brought in their equipment and we used the service under the terms of the RFP.
2 months later the rep brought a formal contract to sign.
I stupidly failed to read the contract fully as the rep assured me – via email that it was consistent with my RFP.
Turns out it was not. It was not even close – My bad.
We cancelled the whole thing when we discovered that the vendor had changed the terms – but because they delayed the first bills past the cancelation period – I did not discover MY mistake until after I was no longer able to cancel.
We canceled anyway.
2 years later they sued for breach of contract – and we counter sued based reliance on their public and written misrepresentations of the services.
It is pretty much black letter law – that you CAN NOT induce people to rely on your service and then change the terms of that service unilaterally.
There is a long record of social media publicly PROMISING free speech on their platforms.
You say that people stupidly agreed to changes in TOS.
That is not entirely true. People CHOSE the SM companies they used – for many reasons – including promises of free speech.
The REJECTED other SM companies – for many reasons – including promises of Free speech.
FB, Twitter, etc. can not gain market dominance by making promises and offering services that distinguish it from competitors and then after becoming a monopoly – renege on those promises.
You say that consumers were stupid. The reality is that when the changes occurred – they had been deprived by SM companies of the choice they originally had.
People got onto FB because of their promises – and once they did, they formed new means of connecting that they now rely on.
When FB changes their TOS – FB is coercing its customers based on their reliance on past promises and the new value they have found that they now rely on.
I would note that while alot of this is standard law – some of it is progressively created standard antitrust law.
Svelaz
If you are going to apply this pretend version of law – then do so everywhere.
If the law is as you claim –
Trump U obviously did nothing wrong – not only did they deliver what they promised – my argument.
But they were not required to – your argument, they could just change their TOS at anytime.
Car dealers can terminate warranties whenever they want.
Builders can change their contracts in the middle of construction.
Bussinesses can offer you whatever it takes to get you to buy their services – and later renege on those promises.
As is typical of those on the left – your thinking is shallow. You do not EVER consider the 2nd and third order effects of your ideas and arguments.
One of the fundamental differences between libertarians and the left – is that as utopian as we are accused of being – libertarianism is fundamentally about discovering what works. While the left is constantly seeking to create utopia by force.
You keep making over and over this same argument – regarding Social Media Censorship – that if you applied broadly OBVIOUSLY would not work.
My concerns about ALL your leftist nonsense are for the short term harm that you will cause.
Your approaches FAIL – it does not matter whether you think I am wrong – REAL history teaches that – if we are prepared to learn from it.
I argue against your failed ideas – because of the harm they will cause in the meantime.
I have noted over and over and over – that the DATA – FACTS are damning – standard of living declines as government power and size increases. That is both an obvious logical tautology. And it is a historical fact.
We do not as of yet know how badly the Biden administration will go. But we do know that it has already fallen far behind predictions of even leftist economists. Post Pandemic recovery should have been Swift and dramatic. Now we are getting excuses.
Expectations are constantly being revised downward.
We have yet to see whether we will have a weak Obamaesq recovery or whether Biden is so bad that we will have serious stagnation, inflation, and possibly recession.
But we already know we will not get the recovery that we easily could have.
Why – because LEFTISM – not libertarianism is utopian. It beleives that you can command and everything will work as you dictate.
That no one will seek to leverage what power you weild for personal gain.
That there will be no 2nd or third order effects of your idiocy.
The core of libertarianism is to Trust people to run their own lives as much as possible.
That when individuals make mistakes – they learn from them.
That we should not impose solutions by force – but find them through discovery.
As you get to impose your will on all – we will learn AGAIN from your mistakes. Your long term failure is inevitable.
But had you learned from the past – we would not all have to experience the harms as you RELEARN in the present.
My you are clueless.
Parents demanding that their kids are not taught to be racists – as CRT does is not “censorship”.
Schools are a place where we provide our kids the fundimentals for a productive life.
CRT has nothing to do with that.
They Are NOT public debate forums. Schools do not teach that fascism is good.
We do not require schools to provide equal time to teach that the earth is flat.
We do not require schools to provide time to teach that 1 + 1 != 2.
We do not send our kids to school to expose them to all the stupid ideas of the world.
If you want to have CRT club – go for it.
But in a classroom – that is not a public debate forum, no teacher should be indoctrinating children to become racists.
You are free to advocagte shill for CRT or Facism, or socialism in the public square. You should be free to do so on social media.
You are free to march to congress and spew nonsense about CRT or anything else.
You are not free to inflict it by force on others – and especially not by teachers on students.
Get a clue.
And as you said “Be Honest”
John say,
“Parents demanding that their kids are not taught to be racists – as CRT does is not “censorship”.”
CRT does NOT teach kids or anyone that they are racist. The only people perpetrating such nonsense have not actually read the tenets of the theory at all. It’s being used as a crudgel to avoid discussion of it because it involves an uncomfortable reality about our history. Parents ARE demanding censorship of the idea because they don’t understand and don’t WANT to understand what CRT really is, and they are being told by others who have an interest in stopping the discussion of the idea falsehoods about it in order to scare parents into opposing it.
“Schools do not teach that fascism is good.”
No we don’t, but apparently we do. “Civics education will be expanded in Florida, including instruction about communist and totalitarian governments, and state universities will be prevented from quashing conservative ideology under bills Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Tuesday.
DeSantis signed three bills at a Lee County middle school, two of which dealt with civics education, the other guaranteeing the freedom of expression at state universities.
DeSantis said students need to be taught that communist and totalitarian governments are evil.”
https://www.edweek.org/education/florida-governor-students-will-be-taught-communism-is-evil/2021/06
So it seems it IS indeed ok to FORCE students to learn about certain ideologies according to a republican governor. “You are not free to inflict it by force on others – and especially not by teachers on students. ” Should Turley pen a column criticizing the governor for indoctrinating students on this as well?
“Schools are a place where we provide our kids the fundimentals for a productive life.
CRT has nothing to do with that.”
The basic fundamentals are no longer adequate in this day and age of ever increasing complexity. History is always changing when something new is discovered or learned. CRT is just another addition to our history and kids are better off knowing about it just as we already teach them about slavery and why it was bad. You show your own ignorance about CRT when you proclaim that “teachers should not be indoctrinating children to be racist” when that is not what CRT does. I can guarantee you have not read CRT’s tenets, just as those who are constantly criticizing it.
What many legislators in states that are seeking or have banned the teaching of CRT ARE teaching kids is that bad ideas are not to be heard. How confused will they be when they are taught that the 1sr amendment protects such ideas from being banned in the first place.
Even Turley, the champion of free speech should be really concerned about legislatures actually violating the 1st amendment.
“John say,
“Parents demanding that their kids are not taught to be racists – as CRT does is not “censorship”.”
CRT does NOT”
Still playing the label game –
AGAIN the parents were reading from the CURRICULUM – from their kids text books or required reading.
I am not interested in YOUR nonsense about CRT – something you know nothing about.
“because it involves an uncomfortable reality about our history. ”
Obviously FALSE.
We have been teaching the FACTS about the uncomfortable reality of our history for longer than my lifetime.
It has already been self evident that with a 60’s and 70’s public education – I was better educated on those FACTS than you are.
As those facts have been taught for decades and the LEFT is seeking to change that oit is self evident they are after more than merely teaching the FACTS.
No one is opposed to teaching the ACTUAL facts.
Get rid of the political nonsense and the factual errors – and no one objects to the 1619 project.
Of course if you get rid of the factual errors and the political nonsense – all you have left is the standard public education on slavery for the past 70 years/
“Parents ARE demanding censorship”
Nope. You keep getting confused about rights.
Individuals have RIGHTS – Governments have power.
Silencing government on a subject is NOT censorship – as there is OBVIOUSLY no government right to speak.
YOU are free to teach CRT on the street corners outside LCSD schools.
You are not free to teach it in the schools.
“of the idea because they don’t understand and don’t WANT to understand what CRT really is, and they are being told by others who have an interest in stopping the discussion of the idea falsehoods about it in order to scare parents into opposing it.”
Both false and irrelevant.
None of us are obligated to understand the political ideologies of others.
Each of us is free to beleive false things about the beleifs of others.
You constantly miss the fact it is the use of FORCE that matters.
And all acts of government are force.
““Schools do not teach that fascism is good.”
No we don’t,”
Yup.
“but apparently we do.”
Nope.
Are you really this stupid ?
Your arguments are incredibly self contradictory.
“DeSantis said students need to be taught that communist and totalitarian governments are evil.”
The opposite of what you claimed, as well as factually correct.
The historical evidence against communism and totalitarianism is damning.
Are you saying we can not teach FACTS.
“So it seems it IS indeed ok to FORCE students to learn about certain ideologies according to a republican governor.”
You really are clueless.
You seem to think this is a debate about teaching everything or nothing.
First – there is no RIGHT for govenrment to speak – what government can speak – which would include TEACH is up to the people.
Most of us would prefer that government teach the FACTS – Was there a parent at the board meeting arguing that we should teach that slavery was good ?
Was there a parent arguing that students could NOT be taught the ACTUAL FACTS of our past ?
I would have no problem with REQUIRING teaching that CRT is EVIL – because it is, just as facism is and marxism is.
And we do – or SHOULD teach that.
What schools teach or do not teach is NOT censorship – I would greatly prefer that schools stick to the FACTS.
It is a FACT that communism and socialism and totalitarianism have always failed – usually bloodily.
It is a FACT that CRT is immoral, and FACTUALLY wrong.,
One of its premises is that ALL western thought was by DESIGN racist – particularly against blacks.
Do you really think that the Magna Carte was about Racism ? How many blacks do you think there were in england in the 14th century ?
“The basic fundamentals are no longer adequate”
Absolute BUNK.
Not only are the fundimentals adequate – they are CRITICAL – we are suffering because “John can’t read” – or multiply.
“in this day and age of ever increasing complexity.”
That is why we need LESS of this nonsense and MORE of the fundimentals.
The Florida Condo did not collapse because the designers were insufficiently indoctrinated against racism.
It collapsed because they did not get the MATH and PHYSICS right.
“History is always changing”
Nope. more leftist nonsense.
History does not change at all – what happened happened. The facts are the facts.
Rarely we LEARN new facts (or falsehoods). Those do not change history.
“CRT is just”
Unescescary, evil, and immoral and hos no place in school.
We most certainly should NOT be teaching kids historical nonsense.
Just to be clear – CRT is OPENLY and attack on ALL western thought. It goes beyond FACTS.
It is absolute idiocy. It posits that the very first system of thought to come to grasp with race and to actually value diversity is the one that is inherently wrong. CRT does not go after Islam or any other modern or past system of thought that was and often still is inextricably racist.
It goes after the western enlightenment as inherently racist.
The very system that eliminated slavery FIRST is in CRT terms the most racist.
The only system of thought – even today that actually values racial and other forms of diversity – is according to CRT inherently racist.
Not only that but it was BORN of racism.
Leftists idiots want to start western history in 1619 – and still can not get their facts straight.
Modern western thought has roots that go to the Talmud or Hamurabi, but certainly the western legal traditions rest on the Magna Carte.
Slavery was never legal in England. It only existed in british colonies – mostly a reflection of pre-existing conditions.
In the late 19th century there were only 15,000 blacks in all of england.
How many do you think there were in the 14th century ? The 16th ?
How many slaves do you think Adam Smith owned ?
Robert Burns,
David Hume
James Watt
Critical race Theory views Everything throught the lens of race – even the vast majority of life which NEVER had anything to do with race.
Most of western enlightenment thought did not arise in the midst of slavery. It arrose in the absence of blacks – just as much of the thought of the world throughout history.
“another addition to our history and kids are better off knowing about it ”
No actually are kids are NOT better off being taught nonsense.
They are not even better off being taught everything that is true.
We do not teach wave particle duality to 3rd graders.
“You show your own ignorance about CRT when you proclaim that “teachers should not be indoctrinating children to be racist” when that is not what CRT does. I can guarantee you have not read CRT’s tenets, just as those who are constantly criticizing it.”
I strongly suspect I am more familiar with it than you are – you clearly are clueless.
But that is irrelevant – you constantly presume there is some RIGHT to FORCE the teaching of CRT.
There is not.
“What many legislators in states that are seeking or have banned the teaching of CRT”
Good for them – we should not be teaching children that pedophilia is good either.
“How confused will they be when they are taught that the 1sr amendment protects such ideas from being banned in the first place.”
Again you conflate individual rights and government.
Government has no rights. It has powers. Restrictions on govenrment are NOT violations of the first amendment.
Banning government from speaking on anything – is not censorship or a violation of the first amendment.
In fact government can not speak on many things
“Even Turley the champion of free speech”
Actually I do not think Turley is a champion of free speech. He certainly not as strong a proponent as I am.
Turley is merely a liberal – not a progressive.
Regardless, Turely can speak for himself – he does not need you to badly explain him.
Restrictions on speech by government CAN NOT offend the first amendment.
You keep spouting nonsense about what “Turley” should do.
You replied to me – not Turley.
Though again we have a left wing nut trying to order others arround.
Turley is doing fine – and frankly YOU provide us all a great service.
It is left wingnuts like you that are effectively red pilling the Turley’s the Derschowitz’s the Weinstein’s the Rubin’s.
Keep selling nonsense – YOU are far more effective than I am at convicing the world of the stupidity of your own views.
JT.org is a forum for free speech – unlike our public schools.
And I am happy to allow you all the speech rope that you want – to hang yourself.
John say, clearly you have been so emotionally compromised by what I have posted that you are left with pithy comments.
“You keep spouting nonsense about what “Turley” should do.
You replied to me – not Turley.
Though again we have a left wing nut trying to order others arround.”
There are plenty of right nut jobs here doing the same thing, yet you don’t seem so triggered by the notion of “being ordering others around”. Spare me the drama queen theatrics. You do yourself no favors by whining.
What is interesting is that you do not provide any credible refutation. Just insults and ad homimems.
I can state what Turley should do anytime I want on this forum. As you said, “JT.org is a forum for free speech – unlike our public schools.” Are you suggesting freedom of speech doesn’t apply to public schools?
“John say, clearly you have been so emotionally compromised ..”
Grow up – you are neither clairvoyant nor emphatic.
You can not read the minds or emotions of others over the internet.
Pretending you can just makes you look stupid.
“There are plenty of right nut jobs here doing the same thing,”
So ? If they do the same thing in a reply to me – I will address it.
You seem to think I give those on the right a free pass.
BS. While most are far less stupid than those on the left, I have taken on those on the right here – when there posts were stupid – especially when they chose to reply to ME.
When personally chosing to reply – I get to chose which posts interest me – and those from the right rarely do.
Further the right today is far less dangerous than the left.
The right is WRONG about trade, it is WRONG about immigration – but then the left is even MORE wrong on immigration, and frankly clueless on Trade. Trump was also WRONG to agree to lockdowns, and WRONG to engage in stimulus.
We KNOW/KNEW these would not work.
But the Rights errors will have minimal negative effect on standard of living and liberty
The lefts will have consequential impacts on both.
I criticise the right here all the time – When they are WRONG.
But the right is not the threat the left is.
“yet you don’t seem so triggered by the notion of “being ordering others around”.”
I have no problem with gramatical errors – but I have no clue what you meant.
Are you saying I have no problem being ordered arround by the right.
That is nonsense. I have a great deal of problems with infringement on actual liberties – by the left or right.
I have frequently said here – if you do not like it – change the law. SOMETIMES – I would be happy to change the law – I would get rid of qualified immunity as an example.
But whether right or left, whether good or bad – we FOLLOW the law construed NARROWLY – until we change it.
OR we actually resort to “insurection” – insurection is JUSTIFIED – when government goes lawless and the courts fail to act.
When I say – if you do not like the law – change it – that presumes that it is possible to change the law. When govenrment and the courts are lawless it is NOT possible and violence is the only solution. But so long as the “rule of law” exists – so long as the government follows the law – and when it does not the courts hold it accountable – violence against government is NOT justified.
But we are teetering on the edge of justifiable violence – insurrection against government.
The left has brought us there – not the right. It is the left that has acted lawlessly – and it is the lawlessness of the left that the courts refuse to redress.
Next – no one is “triggered” – a wise person would remove “triggered” from their vocabulary – it is another stupid left wing nut word designed to hide from reality.
I do not give a $hit about your emotional reaction to my remarks – and mine to yours is not your business, nor within your capability to judge.
Regardless, emotional responses have ZERO moral or legal meaning.
Triggered or NOT – the act or remarks of another are moral or NOT – without much relationship to emotion.
If you use force to infringe on the rights of another – your action is immoral – regardless of anyone’s emotional response.
Facts matter. Emotions are relevant only to purely private conduct. And within the private domain you are free to do as you please – short of using unjustified force against others.
“Spare me the drama queen theatrics. You do yourself no favors by whining.”
I have ZERO interest in your idiotic efforts to read my emotions.
“I can state what Turley should do anytime I want on this forum.”
You can – and if you wish to do so – start a new thread – no not spew unrelated nonsense regarding Turley in a reply to me.
“As you said, “JT.org is a forum for free speech – unlike our public schools.””
Correct – you are absolutely free to speak stupidly – including to refuse to follow the rules of argument, logic, civility, etiquette etc.
And when you do not I am free to point out your errors, shame you and insult you.
“Are you suggesting freedom of speech doesn’t apply to public schools?”
Correct – free speech does not apply in public schools – at least not in the way it does in public forums.
Students have limited free speech rights in school – just as employees have limited free speech rights at work.
Nor do teachers have the same free speech rights in school they do in a public forum.
A school board meeting is a public forum. It is a legitimate place to excercise free speech.
There are still some limits – but those are FEW.
A classroom is NOT a public forum and the rights of school students are substantially less than adults.
The speech rights of teachers – in a classroom – are no different from ANY employee.
Teachers are NOT free to teach whatever they please – they are obligated to teach the curriculum.
School boards set the curriculum – and as we are seeing – Parents get to object.
If the school board refuses to listen – they can be recalled or voted out of office.
I would further note that While teachers are answerable to schoolboards and schoolboards to parents.
There are still legal and constitutional constraints.
Schools can not teach religion – even if the students, teachers schoolboards and parents want that.
CRT is a RELIGION. Most of leftist dogma is religion. Anything that you must accept on faith, that can not be falsified is RELIGION.
John say,
“ You can not read the minds or emotions of others over the internet.
Pretending you can just makes you look stupid.”
Sure you can. It’s actually pretty easy. You talk a lot or more precisely you write a lot on one post. It doesn’t take much to tell what you’re thinking, especially when you’re telling everyone what you are thinking. Your rants betray your thoughts. Plus reading between the lines helps and last, but not least, you revert to insults pretty quickly which is a sign of exasperation. I think the current definition of that is “triggered”. See below,
“ I have ZERO interest in your idiotic efforts to read my emotions.”
You make it effortless.
“ I do not give a $hit about your emotional reaction to my remarks – and mine to yours is not your business, nor within your capability to judge.”
It’s pretty evident that you do since you’re investing quite a lot of real estate to whine about it plus as I have said you make it pretty easy to define your feelings when you write your responses.
“ But whether right or left, whether good or bad – we FOLLOW the law construed NARROWLY – until we change it.
OR we actually resort to “insurection” – insurection is JUSTIFIED – when government goes lawless and the courts fail to act.”
Nothing says any law has to be construed narrowly. That’s a flaw in applying interpretation to all laws. Even those who adhere to that view often resort to a wide interpretation when it becomes inconvenient as Scalia did.
Insurrection is not the solution when the reasoning behind it is based on a lie and deliberate misinterpretation of the law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a good argument on why a narrow interpretation was not only wrong, but unworkable due to the law’s ambiguity.
There’s more to interpretation of law than strict narrow reading of it.
“ A school board meeting is a public forum. It is a legitimate place to excercise free speech.
There are still some limits – but those are FEW.”
I don’t disagree, however a school board meeting is not a free for all in regards to free speech. They can still set the rules and oftentimes it’s parents who are not following the rules and insist on making a scene or a ruckus because they are upset. A school board had the right to shut down the meeting of parents don’t behave themselves. That’s not denying them their free speech rights.
“ Schools can not teach religion – even if the students, teachers schoolboards and parents want that.
CRT is a RELIGION. Most of leftist dogma is religion. Anything that you must accept on faith, that can not be falsified is RELIGION.”
John, now you’re doing it again. Getting all emotional. The issue of CRT has triggered so many irrational reactions from conservatives AND libertarians that it’s become a silly game of how badly you can define it. First it was a socialist plot, then a Marxist one, or it’s about making white people or children racist, etc, etc. Now you’re claiming it a religion. The irrationality of your definition of what CRT is clearly speaks of a willful ignorance. If you’re the intellectual you claim to be you would use that to at least READ it before making such asinine interpretations. I’ve read it and it’s clear it doesn’t do anything of what the majority of its critics claim. Yes there are SOME papers in CRT theory that suggest certain claims as truth, but it’s a theory John. It’s subject to changes if evidence discovered proves a claim wrong. Even the author of the 1619 project openly welcomed such changes and further scrutiny. But those on the right are already being misled either thru ignorance or poor education about what CRT really is.
It’s not indoctrination, it’s not erasing our history, it’s not calling for every white person to admit they are racist and it’s definitely not a religion.
Reading about CRT doesn’t make you a Marxist or communist or indoctrinate you. It’s an opportunity to EXPAND on our current knowledge of history. It’s as simple as that.
“” You can not read the minds or emotions of others over the internet.
Pretending you can just makes you look stupid.”
Sure you can. It’s actually pretty easy.”
You are correct – only in the sense that you can do anything badly and wrongly.
If we were in the same room – you still could not read my mind and though you might have more clues for emotions – I doubt you would get those right.
“You talk a lot or more precisely you write a lot on one post. It doesn’t take much to tell what you’re thinking,”
Stick to what I wrote – you are incapable of going beyond that.
“especially when you’re telling everyone what you are thinking. Your rants betray your thoughts. ”
Svelaz – I would be happy if you actually could read my thoughts – but contra what you have written – you suck at it.
Yes, what I write provides huge clues – which you can not follow.
Whenever you try – you get it wrong.
That is happening constantly – you keep making stupid arguments that are based on a superficial and shollow understanding of what I have written – ignoring significant factors.
“Plus reading between the lines helps”
That is called quessing – and you are bad at it.
“you revert to insults pretty quickly which is a sign of exasperation.”
No Svelaz – I do not resort to insults quickly. i do periodically use insults – after demonstrating your errors.
You really should sue whatever schools that educated you – because you are very bad at most everything you post.
“I think the current definition of that is “triggered””.
I do not care how you define words.
Have I threatened or used violence in response to your posts ?
Have I run of and hid with my emotional support furby ?
Have i demanded that you be silenced ?
I have done none of these things – when you are not defending them – you are defending those who do.
What I do do, is confront your poor words with better words, better arguments.
““ I have ZERO interest in your idiotic efforts to read my emotions.”
You make it effortless.”
Being wrong never requires effort.
““ I do not give a $hit about your emotional reaction to my remarks – and mine to yours is not your business, nor within your capability to judge.”
It’s pretty evident that you do since you’re investing quite a lot of real estate to whine about it plus as I have said you make it pretty easy to define your feelings when you write your responses.”
Non-sequitur.
Learn critical thinking.
If you say “your a tomato, your a tomato, your a tomato” – pointing out to you that I am not, and that it is outside of your ability to know.
Does not change the fact that I am not a tomato.
“Nothing says any law has to be construed narrowly. That’s a flaw in applying interpretation to all laws. Even those who adhere to that view often resort to a wide interpretation when it becomes inconvenient as Scalia did.”
False, logic and reality REQUIRE it. If you do not construe laws narrowly – everything is illegal. Rights do not exist.
As to Scalia:
Someone say I was a fan ?
Is there anyone who would trust YOUR understanding of ANY supreme court justice – much less Scalia ?
“Insurrection is not the solution when the reasoning behind it is based on a lie and deliberate misinterpretation of the law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a good argument on why a narrow interpretation was not only wrong, but unworkable due to the law’s ambiguity.”
Still clueless.
The PA supreme court did make an excellent argument – for lawlessness, for insurection.
They told the legislature and the electorate that the law would be whatever the court decided – regardelss of what the law said.
The court said to the legislature and voters – you can not have the laws you want.
Please read the declaration of independence – that is exactly how you end up with insurection.
Insurection is the only sollution when government is above the law.
The PA election law was NOT ambiguous – it was SPECIFIC. The court merely did not like that specificity.
I would not that it was OBVIOUS that the court went off a cliff – there is no world in which 20 unattended ballot drop boxes is the same as The county office of elections. Regardless, if as you say the law was ambigious – which it was not – we have a legislature to fix that.
Courts routinely declare laws unconstitutionally vague – that is within their power – when it is true.
That does not entitle the courts to rewrite the laws. AGAIN – that is the role of legislature.
We have three branches of government – each with a different purpose. The courts are not there to legislate.
Further – it is NOT the courts job to decide if a law is unworkable. And certainly not to change it.
Laws are written by legislatures. Not courts.
It is especially problematic when the courts take on the role of the legislature – as that forecloses remedies short of violence.
Violence must be justified – lawless courts are a legitimate justification.
You are contradicting yourself.
If a law is actually ambigious – and the courts are free to interpret it broadly – than so is everyone else.
When you say the law was misinterpretted – all you are saying is you do not like that interpretation.
The law applies to all of us. It is extremely rare that there is more than one consistently narrow reading of the law.
But there may be infinite broad ones. You like the way PA Scotus read the law – but someone else could easily read it broadly ij a different way that you do not like. There is no discernable difference – aside from your personal prefernce between multiple broad interpretations.
You claim that others misintepreted the law – how so ? In a world were “The county elections office” – can be dozens of unattended drop boxes – it also can be anything else anyone else wishes to beleive. The only distinction between what you call misinterpretation and and a different one – is your personal preference.
Laws must be narrow so they are NOT the whim of the courts, so that the legislature and people know the law in advance.
“I don’t disagree,”
Then the Board violated the peoples rights.
“however a school board meeting is not a free for all in regards to free speech.”
And it was not. Regardless, You constantly seek proxies to regulate speech – those are unconstitutional – always.
The school board can not:
Prohibit people from assembling at a school board meeting.
Prohibit people from petitioning government.
Prohibit speech outside of very few limitations the courts have recognized.
If can however sanction individuals who violate the LAW.
It can not punish those who did not violate the law.
“They can still set the rules ”
Not as they please.
You really do not think very deeply before posting do you ?
Could the school board make a rule that every speaker must start every sentence with “the N word” ?
Of course they can not.
A school boards ability to make rules is limited by the constitution.
“and oftentimes it’s parents who are not following the rules and insist on making a scene or a ruckus because they are upset.”
No it is specific people. Government may not punish those who did not violate the law just because others did – though they did not.
“A school board had the right to shut down the meeting of parents don’t behave themselves.”
Nope.
“That’s not denying them their free speech rights.”
The board violated free speech, free assembly, and petitioning government.
“John, now you’re doing it again. Getting all emotional.”
No you are back pretending to read emotions.
Technically this is an ad hominem fallacy – even if it is not an insult – ad hominem does not mean argument by insult.
It means an argument to the person.
Whenever you fixate on emotion – you are fallaciously avoiding the argument.
“The issue of CRT has triggered so many irrational reactions from conservatives AND libertarians that it’s become a silly game of how badly you can define it.”
It does not matter how you define it. While you are clearly clueless about CRT.
As I have repeated over and over – Parents objected to what was ACTUALLY being taught to their kids – they cited the ACTUAL curriculum.
You are under the delusion that education is infinite – that anything you like can be taught. That is not so.
“First it was a socialist plot, then a Marxist one, or it’s about making white people or children racist, etc, etc.”
Lets eliminate your word “plot” – that is again mind reading on your part.
You do not know whether parents beleive there is a plot – and you do not know whether there is one, and that would be irrelevant anyway.
I expect that church ministers “plot” to make their parishoners adhere to the teachings of the church.
You are constantly confusing the common connotation of words with actual meaning.
No one cares if school board “plot” to teach kinds math.
Conversely – plot or not they should not be pushing socialism, marxism, racism or CRT.
And skipping the world plot – it is all of those – marxism, socialism and racism.
“Now you’re claiming it a religion. ”
Nope , it is.
You have claimed familiarity with actual CRT – yet you never describe CRT. Man y of us ARE actually familiar with it.
It is unfalsafiable – as any logic system containing intrinsic conflict is.
“The irrationality of your definition of what CRT is clearly speaks of a willful ignorance. If you’re the intellectual you claim to be you would use that to at least READ it before making such asinine interpretations.”
There is not an IT, there is a body of work accross years. But there are many summaries of IT and ITS principles – including by the ABA – not a conservative group.
“I’ve read it”
Given there is no it – that is pretty much false. Regardless todate you have NEVER said anything that suggests you have any familiarity with CRT.
And your argument seems to be that you reserve the right personally to decide what parts of an idiotic ideology are actually part of the ideology.
You are the “Joy Reid” of this blog – Reid accused Sen. Hawley of lying about CRT – he was accurately quoting CRT scholarship.
As to the 1619 Project – if remains rife with actual errors. But more important regardless of the errors it is selling a historically impossible thesis.
As is typical with the left – facts do not matter – reality does not matter.
Regardless, there is no right to politically indoctrinate children – not even with the actual truth – much less antifactual garbage like CRT or the 1619 project.
There is no right for government – federal state or local to politically indoctrinate ANYONE.
And yes – you are fighting to teach a religion in school.
Because you seem to be clueless I am going to try to explain rights and liberty to you.
A right is not a guarantee. You have the right to free speech – in many circumstances.
There is no guarantee that you will be able to speak. The right to free speech does not include the ability to speak.
Rights are negative – i.e. you do not have a right to speak – you have the right not to be subject to FORCE by government or other to thwart your speech – in your domain or in a public forum.
Rights are also constrained to YOUR DOMAIN – your home or public forums.
You do not have a right to free speech in your neighbors home.
You do not have a right to free speech in your workplace.
I constantly attack you with regard to infringing the rights of others – that is not because you say “shutup” to others – but because you would, if you had the power to do so use force to shut others up. AND You would leverage the force of governnent to do so – if you could get government to do as you wish.
Because of that – you are immoral and tyranical and far more of a threat than any on the right.
A perfect example is the election. The election was lawless – yet you and the government and the courts are intent on forcing a lawless election down our throats. That is immoral. It is tryanical. Jan. 6th should not have been any surprise to you. And keep this nonsense up and it WILL get worse. Biden and democrats are busy trying to purge the national guard and military – because it is highly likely they will stand down in a purely political conflict. Just as the military and the police did in east germany and throughout the USSR when it collapsed.
That is how tryanny and lawlessness dies.
Do you really expect the police are going to defend you after you have pissed all over them ?
The real point here is that YOU have advanced political conflict to the point of violence.
It is ultimately legitimate to resist illegitimate force – with force – violence. That is the meaning of the declaration of independence.
Further the critical issue regarding elections is not fraud or lawlessness – it is trust – or lack there of.
A lawless election is not one that is entitled to trust.
A fraudulent election – is not one that is entitled to trust.
Even an election in which people SUSPECT fraud – is NOT entitled to trust.
An election that is not trusted – is not legitimate.
The left constantly pushes this nonsense that there is no such thing as election fraud – more a historical nonsense from the left.
Not only is there ALWAYS election fraud – the scale has varried greatlyu over our history – inversely proportional to the extent to which we conduct election to thwart fraud.
If the mailin election in 2020 did not have large scale fraud – it will come soon enough.
It is trivial to engage in large scale fraud once you do not have secret ballots. Once you do not have a rigid change of custody.
Any election that is not subject to thorough public scrutiny end to end – is not trustworthy.
Any election where allegations are NOT investigated – is not trustworthy.
As I noted before – we investigated unbeleivably thoroughly the bat$hit crazy allegations of the left of Russian collusion.
They were FALSE. Not that it mattered – because there was no allegation that the russians manipulated ballots or the counting equipment.
The core allegation was that the Russians persuaded people.
Persuading real people is legitimate.
You are not free to distrust an election – because people might have been fooled – according to you.
We are free to distrust an election – because the law was not followed. Worse because the courts did not step in and compell that the law was followed. Worse still – because the courts were complicit in the lawlessness.
And again – if the election is not trusted – the government is NOT legitimate. It does not actually have the constitutional powers that lawful and trustworthy elections grant.
Right now Trust in government is at a historic LOW – by everyone – republicans, democrats, moderates.
That is a big deal – that alone means that government should be impotent.
A government – even a legitimate one, without the trust of the people is at best a caretaker with no authority to effect change until a more trusted government is elected.
I would note – you do not have to agree with that – your agreement is not necesary – the more a government that is not trusted does, the less trusted it will be. And the closer we come to REAL insurection. That is if you manage to survive the next election.
John Say,
“ A right is not a guarantee. You have the right to free speech – in many circumstances.
There is no guarantee that you will be able to speak. The right to free speech does not include the ability to speak.”
Interesting, what you just said contradict s what you claim about Shapiro, Milo, and Dershowitz. Turley frames their inability to speak despite already expressing their views elsewhere, as an infringement of their free speech rights. They are not being denied their right. Or violently stopped. You use one example and apply it to all as if they are all being violently stopped or thru the threat of violence. You’re projecting your animosity for the left in your arguments and making broad accusations.
“ Further the critical issue regarding elections is not fraud or lawlessness – it is trust – or lack there of.
A lawless election is not one that is entitled to trust.
A fraudulent election – is not one that is entitled to trust.”
Your trust arguments are deeply flawed for one reason. You’re unwilling to recognize that the reason why there is a lack of trust is because president Trump and his administration has been deliberately lying about the issues regarding the election. That’s the source of mistrust. Trump’s supporters who vehemently believe everything the president has claimed despite evidence to the contrary are the ones being deliberately told not to trust the election process. People tried to overturn the election on the basis of lies. Republican officials themselves were being targeted because they were countering the lying the president was spreading. He was deliberately stoking his supporters into believing his lies.
You insist on investigations on the allegations being made after multiple audits and hand recounts have shown the president’s claims to be false. No amount of investigations will satisfy these supporters as long as the president continues to lie. Michigan just released a long and thorough report on an investigation on their irregularities and found no basis for the claims. Yet the president continues to spout lies about it. It just goes on to become a vicious cycle that creates the trust issues you’re talking about.
There was no lawlessness John. What you’re buying into is the very lies the president and his cohorts have been spreading. Republicans CHANGED voting laws because the previous ones were followed correctly and they didn’t like it. They changed the laws so that the next outcome is more favorable to their party.
You Sir, are a liar, or an idiot, or a lying idiot.
Svelaz, that was a tortured defense of free speech — i.e. “You can say what you want but we can viciously and remorselessly destroy everything and everyone you love because we disagree with what you say.”
The Soviets and the 1930s Germans perfected the process.
I’d love to argue with you but you’re largely right. Keep up the good work.
There it is. The true left sentiment. It’s conservatives fault. Trump is their leader… The Left is peaceful. You are so painfully obvious from the first one or two sentences.
Looks like someone wants to buy a F-15!
Glenn Greewald recently wrote a article about U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley making a comment about “white rage.”
Does this NC professor fit that “white rage,” the General says is a real threat the US?
These vicious maniacs are the kind of people universities preferentially hire. This is why there is emphatic discrimination against conservative students and against conservative applicants in the hiring process. This is why there are regular pronouncements by academics that they would see all white people or all Republicans dead, or similar racist or bigoted remarks.
Conservatives view these statements similar to those of the KKK. They exhibit similar rabid racism and bigotry.
People, vote with your wallets.
As long as parents keep sending their children to universities whose goal has shifted from higher education to brainwashing, then they will stay the course. The only thing that will shift their behavior is if parents decide they did not save up all those years just to send their offspring to universities that will discriminate against them, turn them against their own parents, or brainwash them to be unthinking, intellectually small, brutish people.
Universities are sounding more and more like Nazi Youth Camps. Propaganda mills. Just like the media is rapidly approximating Pravda and Xinhua News Agency, while the internet is rapidly becoming more like CSTNET.
Are we just going to complain but keep buying their services?
Making sure your child will be safe, free from bigotry and harassment, and that he or she will learn how to reason should be of paramount importance when selecting a university. Anyone sending their child to woke schools clearly have failed in their duty.
Karen S,
“People, vote with your wallets.” That’s what cancel culture is about. Are you telling others to “cancel” these schools by going somewhere else?
“As long as parents keep sending their children to universities whose goal has shifted from higher education to brainwashing, then they will stay the course. The only thing that will shift their behavior is if parents decide they did not save up all those years just to send their offspring to universities that will discriminate against them, turn them against their own parents, or brainwash them to be unthinking, intellectually small, brutish people.”
Karen, it is not just parents who send their kids to these schools. It’s the kids who decide where they want to go too. Most of the time it is students themselves who pay for it by way of student loans, savings, scholarships, etc. Higher education is not about brainwashing Listen to what you are saying. You essentially opposing education because there are certain elements of higher education that you don’t understand. This seems more of an anti-education movement than simple complaining about things most don’t understand.
Conservative views in universities are just not that accepted even when they are not being “censored” or “cancelled” by these schools. Just because those views or positions are not being widely accepted doesn’t mean they HAVE to be accepted and that seems to be the complaint. That their views are not being taken seriously or that they are to be acknowledged. The problem is they already ARE being being expressed. What they are not understanding is that their views may not be as acceptable or find them offensive. It’s the reaction to their views that they don’t realize they are NOT protected from. It’s a direct consequence of their right to free speech. Look at white supremacist rallies or marches. They can AND do get to express them freely. They proudly march and make all kinds of offensive racist statements proclaiming their beliefs, to their credit, at the very least, they UNDERSTAND that their views are not popular and EXPECT others to be offended AND they, don’t. care. Conservatives on the other hand are so sensitive to criticism about expressing their views because they don’t acknowledge or realize that their views or ideas ARE going to have consequences after stating them. Many conflate that as censorship, or being called racist or whatever. Even calling someone racist because of a view they stated is NOT an attack on free speech. It is because they don’t want to be held accountable for the responsibility of recognizing that their speech may produce some uncomfortable criticism. Criticism is NOT discrimination.
Svelaz – if you pay for your own education – if you do not require your parents to cosign loans or provide their tax returns – then you are free to choose whatever college you wish.
Are you really stupid enough to think that most kids are completely free to make their own choices regarding college ?
Further we have listened to nonsense that Trump U was education fraud.
How so ? Those attending were taught the secret to success – get off your asses and work hard as hell. Defer pleasures today for even greater ones in the future.
That is about as truthful as you can get.
But if we are going to claim Fraud when Trump U delivers exactly what it promises – and the truth to boot.
Shouldn’t students be suing Woke U for fraud for taking their money and leaving them less fit for the future than they were when they started ?
Whoever is paying – they are being defrauded.
John Say,
“Svelaz – if you pay for your own education – if you do not require your parents to cosign loans or provide their tax returns – then you are free to choose whatever college you wish.
Are you really stupid enough to think that most kids are completely free to make their own choices regarding college ?”
Karen only stated that parent’s should take their money out of these schools if they don’t like what they are teaching. What Karen did was engage in an overly broad claim that has no real basis in fact. Sure some parents pay for their children’s education. But the majority of students rely on student loans in order to go to college or university. They ultimately pay for it regardless of whether their parents co-sign or not. Students are the ones who ultimately choose where they want to go. They are adults by that time and many make that decision as adults. Most kids ARE completely free to make their own choices regarding college. Some are not due to financial considerations. Some may choose to go to community colleges or even technical school. It is still their choice.
“Are you really stupid enough to think that most kids are completely free to make their own choices regarding college ?
Further we have listened to nonsense that Trump U was education fraud.
How so ? Those attending were taught the secret to success – get off your asses and work hard as hell. Defer pleasures today for even greater ones in the future.
That is about as truthful as you can get.”
Sorry, but that is not actually true. The fraud involved the promise that these students would be taught by handpicked experts that trump himself verified. In deposition that turned out to be not true. Further students were basically given just another of those “get rich quick” shams for a lot of money and Trump university did NOT deliver on their promise. Many were not just given “secrets”. they involved high pressure sales tactics promising more success if they paid more for these “retreats”. They did not give out diplomas, certifications, or even any college credits despite being named a “University”. It was a scam and trump ended up settling the case for $25 million. Trump is not a guy who simply gives up. But clearly he couldn’t win this case, especially so close to the election. He took a loss on the settlement and did not admit guilt, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t actually guilty of fraud.
I am not arguing with Karen – and I do not give a $hit what you think she said.
If I wish to reply to Karen – I know how to do so.
My remarks addressed YOUR comment – which was WRONG.
I am not following Karen – but generally she is wrong about education too – just far less so than YOU.
Have you ever actually had a kid that wanted to go to college ?
I doubt it because you are full of schiff.
Most kids are NOT free to do as they please.
I have two kids in college right now.
Without my assistance – they have very few choices available to them.
If they want my assistance – they are obligated to comply with my terms.
Something not unique to children of college.
ALL of us are subject to Financial considerations. Very few of us can buy everything we want.
All you have done is point out another reason that Government should NOT be part of education.
Money is quite important – our ability or inability to make, save, and borrow, defines the scope of what we can do.
We make poor decisions – when there is no cost to those decisions.
When government makes something easy or free – we make bad decisions.
You claim young adults are able to choose colleges on their own – mostly that is a BAD thing.
Especially if someone else – their parents or government is subsidizing their choices or worse still subsidizing without strings.
If you are a yong adult headed to college – you SHOULD be very conscious of the cost – and very conscious of assuring that you get VALUE in return that justifies that cost.
That is NOT what we see in schools today.
Wokism permeates college – it is not some after class activity – it is everywhere, it is a core part to the education and it has TWO negative effects. First is DISPLACES the education that you need to be productive in the future, and next it litterally makes you less capable of being productive in the future.
The entire left intersectional cult of victimhood is DESTRUCTIVE.,
I have written before of some of the horrible things that have happened in my life and that of my family.
Most of these are someone else’s “fault” – I or my family are the “Victims” – all that is good for a couple of days of self pity.
Whatever is wrong with your life. Whoever has F’d you over – only one person can make your life better – YOU.
The left today teaches that everything is someone else’s fault and that you should wallow in that – or go out and make them pay.
Great – teach people the one way to fix their lives that WILL NOT WORK.
Your life is YOUR responsibility.
If you have been robbed – no one can get you past that but you.
If you have been raped, if your spouse, your son, your close friend has been murdered, if you were hit by a truck.
Whatever evil has befallen you – only YOU can fix it.
You may be perfectly entitled to wallow in self pitty for the rest of your life.
You may be entitled to sue someone for beuceux bucks. You may even win.
But fixing your life is solely YOUR responsibility.
No one else can do it.
If you are teaching people otherwise – you are robbing them of their future.
And to a large extent that is what colleges today are doing – and they are making you pay for it.
We make better choices when we KNOW we will have to pay for them.
If you went a nation of over educated incompetents to sponge off the rest of us – make college free.
John say,
“ Have you ever actually had a kid that wanted to go to college ?
I doubt it because you are full of schiff.”
Reading minds John? I thought you made that clear it was not possible, yet here you are mind reading.
“ If they want my assistance – they are obligated to comply with my terms.”
That is true, however your kids still have the option of getting a student loan on their own. A pell grant, scholarship, etc. They are after all adults legally.
“ All you have done is point out another reason that Government should NOT be part of education.”
False. See above. Government gives others flexibility to choose, an opportunity that is entirely voluntary and comes with the responsibility to pay for it after you’re out of school.
“ The left today teaches that everything is someone else’s fault and that you should wallow in that – or go out and make them pay.”
That’s false. That’s not what the left does and certainly not that EVERYTHING is someone else’s fault. There ARE certain injustices that continue because of past issues that were never resolved and that’s what is lefties are pointing out. Some of the more radical ones have irrational demands while the majority understand that’s not practical it is still important to recognize that there is a problem and needs to be dealt with.
“ Your life is YOUR responsibility.
If you have been robbed – no one can get you past that but you.
If you have been raped, if your spouse, your son, your close friend has been murdered, if you were hit by a truck.
Whatever evil has befallen you – only YOU can fix it.”
John, college is not teaching this. This is based on evangelical dogmas about self reliance. There nothing wrong with that at all. But what you’re arguing is on applying those views as absolutes and that’s not always going to work.
Society is not dependent on individuality as you see it. It’s a cooperative endeavor that benefit everyone when it’s clearly understood.
“ We make better choices when we KNOW we will have to pay for them.”
That’s on oversimplification, the reality is much more complicated than the simple absolutes you believe are a better remedy.
“John say,
“ Have you ever actually had a kid that wanted to go to college ?
I doubt it because you are full of schiff.”
Reading minds John? I thought you made that clear it was not possible, yet here you are mind reading.”
What part of the above is ‘mind reading ?
It is self evident that you are critical thinking impaired. I need not see inside you mind to determine that.
Regardless – I asked you a real world question which you did not answer.
and I made a real world observation about your public expressions.
Not even a tiny bit of mind reading involved.
I have no idea what you are thinking – but what you explicitly and openly SAY is full of schiff.
I judge you based on what you write.
Not based on my guesses about what you were thinking of feeling when you wrote it.
But your actual claims and their incongruity with REALITY.
I do not care about you personal spin in your writing.
I do not care that you SAY what you argue works.
I care whether it actually works. It does not.
Dealing with reality as it is – involves no mind reading.
“If you have been robbed – no one can get you past that but you.
If you have been raped, if your spouse, your son, your close friend has been murdered, if you were hit by a truck.
Whatever evil has befallen you – only YOU can fix it.”
John, college is not teaching this.”
Correct.
“This is based on evangelical dogmas about self reliance. ”
Incorrect – it is not “based” on anything – it is quite literally reality.
“There nothing wrong with that at all.”
Of course not – it is just how things are.
“But what you’re arguing is on applying those views as absolutes and that’s not always going to work.”
They are not “views” they are facts.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
“Society is not dependent on individuality as you see it. It’s a cooperative endeavor that benefit everyone when it’s clearly understood.”
False
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
Adam Smith
This debate has taken place here before – Man is not a “social animal” – we do not die outside of society. We are not part of a machine that we can not exist without.
Human society is a creation of man – not the other way arround. We exist as individuals.
We form groups for our own benefit – a free individual choice. Not an immuntable instinct.
Society is absolutely dependent on individuals. Almost no one “cooperates” to their personal disadvantage.
Everyone in society benefits ONLY because individuals seek their own benefit.
You can “understand” whatever you want – YOUR idiotic understanding of society has been tried repeatedly – it FAILS always.
When you elevate society above the individual – nothing works. They tried that in Plymouth and Jamestown and Russia – and nearly starved.
“” We make better choices when we KNOW we will have to pay for them.”
That’s on oversimplification, the reality is much more complicated than the simple absolutes you believe are a better remedy.”
Nope, it is a fundimental of reality.
I would note that this can be easily tested – both in reality and by experiment – and that has been done.
AGAIN We make better choices when we KNOW we will have to pay for them
That is true if we are rich or poor.
If we are black or white.
If we are smart or stupid.
If choices are complex or simple.
It is even true that stupid people make better choices for themselves when they must pay for them generally than smart people make for others when there is no cost.
You constantly seek to argue with reality.
All you have done is confirmed what I said.
Those “get Rich shams” – are not shams.
Yes, that is what Trump delivered – we agree.
What YOU fail to grasp is that they WORK – so long as you are willing to work your ass off.
They absolutely work.
Most people are NOT willing to work that hard.
That is OK – you can choose that.
But the secret to success is working your ass off.
It is not a guarantee – but it is as close as you can get.
There are multipliers – an MBA plus working your ass off – will get you farther than just working your ass off.
But the secret is still working your ass off.
You can compromise – work your ass HALF off – and you will do HALF as well.
There are random elements – no matter how hard you work – if a piano drops on you – your F’d.
Regardless the “shyster” motivational speakers that Trump had teaching – were far more likely to push those at Trump U to the success they aspired to than some professor.
Trump U was not accredited – So What ?
You keep saying these students were promised something different – but they WEREN’T.
Absolutely you can learn everything Trump U pushed in your local barnes and noble or on YouTube.
But you CAN NOT learn it at Harvard or Yale.
Whether you like it or not – it is NOT fraud to sell something that is available elsewhere cheaper of for free.
Frankly these people needed their Buts kicked – otherwise they would have already know the “SECRET”
You can rant that they were not taught “the secret to success” – because what they were taught was no secret.
True – but MOST people do not do what they already know is necesary to succeed.
We all know what we need to do to get our bodies into decent shape – to lose weight to live healthier – and if you do not know – you can trivially find out.
We all want an easier way – a miracle pill – but there isn’t one.
Some of us pay a small fortune for personal trainers – who are nothing more than the motivational speakers Trump used – except functioning in a slightly different domain. Pushing people, kicking their buts – telling them to get off their asses and do what they already know.
Most of the time I go to the doctor – I already know what is wrong and what he will tell me.
Does that mean the doctor should not be paid ? Just because he tells be to watch my weight, eat healthier, or any of the myriads of things that each of us KNOW will make our lives better.
Some of those attending Trump U were pissed – because they expected a magic trick.
Grow up – there isn’t one. A miniscule portion of people win the lottery – and most of those fail – because you can not give people success – they have to work for it.
Look at the Trump family – and Hunter Biden.
Hunter is the guy looking for the easy way – who does not want to work his ass off, but wants to party and snort coke and F’ teenagers.
The Trump family all work their asses off. They are all successful on their own.
Yup they started with a silver spoon – as did Trump himself, as did Hunter Biden.
But they still worked their asses off.
Biden is coasting and selling daddies influence.
Again the SECRET is hard work. That is what Trump U taught.
That is not Fraud.
Harvard today – that is fraud.
I was not addressing Karen – I was addressing you, and subsequently YOUR response to me.
I disagree with some of Karen’s remarks – but yours are a complete disaster.
“Sorry, but that is not actually true. ”
Of course it is.
“The fraud involved the promise that these students would be taught by handpicked experts that trump himself verified.”
That would not be fraud it would be breach of contract.
“In deposition that turned out to be not true.”
You have already stated that Trump was not deposed – therefore by your own admission your claim is false.
“Further students were basically given just another of those “get rich quick” shams for a lot of money”
Again – like a typical leftist – you spew nonsense like “get rich quick” and then call it a sham.
The FACTS are that the vast majority of people are unwilling to do what it takes to get rich.
That is actually OK. But it is a CHOICE. While we do not have a perfect meritocracy, nor are we equal and therefore going to succeed equally – the FACT is that nearly all the “get rich shams” that you deride – actually work – if you work your ass off.
Most people choose not to. Trump was quite literally teaching the ACTUAL secret to success.
I do not care whether conservative views are “accepted” at universities.
I do care when they are met with violence or silenced. And that happens all the time.
It cost 600K to have Ben Shapiro speak at Berkeley – because the threat of left wing nut violence was so high.
A few months early when Milo Yanopolis was invited to speak – left wing nuts caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
When Charles Murray tried to speak not only was he physically assaulted – but so was the teacher who invited him.
I would note that Yanopolis, Shapiro and Murray spoke to full houses – as do most conservatives.
I do not care if a socialist or Nazi wishes to speak at a university – if a student group or department invites them – they are entitled to speak.
If you do not wish to attend – DONT. No one is forcing you. These speakers are NOT course lectures you are obligated to attend.
Contrary to your claims – these are people who some students invited and wish to hear.
It would be good for college students to get some truth mixed in to the rot that their professors are teaching.
Maybe they will pick up enough to be of value when they leave college.
Regardless, you promised honesty – and you are not being honest at all.
John Say,
“I do not care whether conservative views are “accepted” at universities.”
You may not care, but those conservatives complaining do and that’s the problem.
“I do care when they are met with violence or silenced. And that happens all the time.
It cost 600K to have Ben Shapiro speak at Berkeley – because the threat of left wing nut violence was so high.
A few months early when Milo Yanopolis was invited to speak – left wing nuts caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
When Charles Murray tried to speak not only was he physically assaulted – but so was the teacher who invited him.”
Shapiro was a victim of Milo’s penchant for being a deliberate provocateur. It is what he is famous for. He wasn’t merely a speaker he was popular with conservative students because he has a knack for riling up liberals despite being gay and a conservative. He was deliberately invited because of that. It was his own highly inflammatory rhetoric and views that eventually ended his “career” when he stated he supported pedophilia. After that he was no longer invited be that “small” group of students or any other group for that matter.
Shapiro CHOSE not to speak due to his refusal to pay for the high security fees. He was not silenced by violence. He just didn’t want to pay for the consequences that Milo’s prior antics created.
“When Charles Murray tried to speak not only was he physically assaulted – but so was the teacher who invited him”
That certainly shouldn’t have happened and I condemn the violence they experienced, but that doesn’t mean every one of them experience these events all the time as you claim.
“I would note that Yanopolis, Shapiro and Murray spoke to full houses – as do most conservatives.”
Here you readily admit they still got to speak. The SPOKE to full houses. They got to exercise their right to free speech. So obviously they are not met with violence or are silenced “all the time” as you claim. Your generalizations are just that overzealous generalizations.
“Regardless, you promised honesty – and you are not being honest at all.”
You keep claiming I promised honesty, but you don’t cite the post where I made such a promise to you. Cite me quoting this promise to you and I will concede that it is correct.
“Shapiro was a victim of Milo’s penchant for being a deliberate provocateur.”
False and irrelevant.
You still for not get free speech.
Milo is entitled to be a “deliberate provocateur”, he is free to “trigger you”, to verbally invade you “safe spaces”, to insult your “emotional support furby” – that is free speech – and there is nothing you can do about it beyond refuse to listen.
You may not silence him in a public forum, and you may not respond to speech with violence.
If you do either – YOU, not he are immoral.
“It is what he is famous for. He wasn’t merely a speaker he was popular with conservative students because he has a knack for riling up liberals despite being gay and a conservative. He was deliberately invited because of that. It was his own highly inflammatory rhetoric and views that eventually ended his “career” when he stated he supported pedophilia. After that he was no longer invited be that “small” group of students or any other group for that matter.”
All true. All irrelevant. The left responded to him with VIOLENCE.
“Shapiro CHOSE not to speak due to his refusal to pay for the high security fees. He was not silenced by violence. He just didn’t want to pay for the consequences that Milo’s prior antics created.”
You are completely clueless.
1). Shapiro SPOKE at UCB. There was no violence.
2). The courts ORDERED UCB to cover the security costs. UCB is a government provided public forum. It CAN NOT restrict speech it does not like not even using security costs.
““When Charles Murray tried to speak not only was he physically assaulted – but so was the teacher who invited him”
That certainly shouldn’t have happened and I condemn the violence they experienced, but that doesn’t mean every one of them experience these events all the time as you claim.”
Violence against not merely right wing. but anyone slightly offensive to the left is so great on college that it is near impossible to get anyone not on the far left to speak at most elite colleges.
Yes, Svelaz – left wing nut violence is THAT common.
Andy Ngo – a reporter – gets beat up everywhere he goes – merely for covering antifa – in fact antifa beats up anyone who tries to do on the scene reporting on them.
“”I would note that Yanopolis, Shapiro and Murray spoke to full houses – as do most conservatives.”
Here you readily admit they still got to speak. The SPOKE to full houses. They got to exercise their right to free speech. So obviously they
are not met with violence or are silenced “all the time” as you claim. Your generalizations are just that overzealous generalizations.”
Again you are clueless. When Yanolopolis spoke at Berkely – the tried to burn the place down.
Shapiro’s speech at Berkley required 600K of security – that the courts forced UCB to pay.
Murray spoke to a full house – though he and the professor that invited him (not a conservative) were assaulted on the way in, and the speech had to be moved off campus to thwart the violence – and yet students that actually wanted to here him attended.
You seem to think it is OK to beat people up and burn things down – if in the end conservatives still get to speak.
Shapiro spoke at UCB – I doubt he (or any other non left wing nut speaker) goes to elite colleges any more – it is too dangerous.
Yet there are people at all these places that want him to come and speak.
And even more importantly – the people who violently attempt to thwart his speech not merely need to lose that fight – they actually need to hear him – more than anyone else.
“”Regardless, you promised honesty – and you are not being honest at all.”
You keep claiming I promised honesty, but you don’t cite the post where I made such a promise to you. Cite me quoting this promise to you and I will concede that it is correct.”
Go back and review the comments – why do I need to cite something that is in front of your face.
Regardless, this is a stupid argument of yours – are you actually admitting you are NOT being honest ?
Clearly you are not. But why challenge the promise if you are actually being truthful.
When your 4 yr old tells you “Daddy, I never promised not to lie” – you know he just lied to you.
You asked me to look at white supremecist rallies.
WHERE ?
Where can I go to see a White Supremecist rally ?
The last public gathering of the KKK I am aware of took place in 2017 before Charlotesville and had less than a dozen Klansman.
I can find left wing nuts rallying and rioting – pretty much anywhere.
Where can I go to see a white supremecist speak ?
Where ?
What world do you live in ?
John Say,
“You asked me to look at white supremecist rallies.
WHERE ?”
I didn’t ask you anything of the sort of you. What I DID do is point out to KAREN as an example that DURING white supremacist rallies they do indeed spout vulgar and racist speech and they KNOW they will be consequences from it and that at the very leas they recognize that they will be criticized and opposed. They are aware of the responsibility that comes from spouting their speech. You clearly have some reading comprehension issues or have not grasped the concept of speaking to someone else besides you.
“The last public gathering of the KKK I am aware of took place in 2017 before Charlotesville and had less than a dozen Klansman.
I can find left wing nuts rallying and rioting – pretty much anywhere.
Where can I go to see a white supremecist speak ?
Where ?
What world do you live in ?”
The question should really be, “Why are you not exercising reading comprehension skills?” You are certainly capable, but strangely you are acting just like S. Meyer and that is certainly not a compliment worthy of you unfortunately.
““You asked me to look at white supremecist rallies.
WHERE ?”
I didn’t ask you anything of the sort of you. What I DID do is point out to KAREN as an example that DURING white supremacist rallies they do indeed spout vulgar and racist speech”
AGAIN – WHAT White Supremecist rallies ?
I have no interest in debates about what happened at events that never took place.
” and they KNOW they will be consequences from it”
You are free to respond to offensive speech with speech.
You are not free to do so with violence.
When you speak of consequences – you mean violence.
“and that at the very leas they recognize that they will be criticized and opposed.”
Without force – fine.
With force – then YOU are the problem.
Force must be justified – speaking things you do not like never justifies force.
“They are aware of the responsibility that comes from spouting their speech.”
What does this even mean ?
Again – if you respond to speech with violence YOU are immoral, and should be headed to jail.
No matter what was said.
“You clearly have some reading comprehension issues or have not grasped the concept of speaking to someone else besides you.”
I pointed out that you are not speaking the truth.
Does it matter who you were lying to ?
““The last public gathering of the KKK I am aware of took place in 2017 before Charlotesville and had less than a dozen Klansman.
I can find left wing nuts rallying and rioting – pretty much anywhere.
Where can I go to see a white supremecist speak ?
Where ?
What world do you live in ?”
The question should really be, “Why are you not exercising reading comprehension skills?” You are certainly capable, but strangely you are acting just like S. Meyer and that is certainly not a compliment worthy of you unfortunately.”
There is no problem with my reading comprehnsion – you went on a long rant about mythical white supremecist rallies and their consequences.
I am not interested in debates about what happens in alternate realities.
We live in ACTUAL reality.
You have a problem comprehending that.
I know – conservatives are so sensitive.
They can help but cry and whine when you burn down the building they were supposed to speak at.
When you assault them and those who invited them.
When they have to pay for security teams to protect them whenever they go to college campuses.
You do not live in the real world Svelaz. What are you smoking ?
John Say,
“They can help but cry and whine when you burn down the building they were supposed to speak at.
When you assault them and those who invited them.
When they have to pay for security teams to protect them whenever they go to college campuses.
You do not live in the real world Svelaz. What are you smoking ?”
John, your whining over generalizations and making them out to be mountains out of mole hills is pitiful. You are taking a few events out of many where those speakers had no trouble speaking to students or audiences who wished to hear their views. This is the problem you have no ability to grasp. They ALREADY got to state their views. They are known and it is because they were heard. The criticism and opposition ARE a result of ALREADY exercising their free speech rights.
Shapiro having to pay for his security did not mean he was denied the ability to speak. He CHOSE not to pay because he didn’t think he should have. He had the ability to pay, and that didn’t infringe on his right to speak. He should have taken the issue to Milo because he set the stage for the issue of security. Milo, whose sole reason for speaking is because he is a deliberate provocateur. It’s his claim to fame. Shapiro is just a victim of another speaker’s indifference of the consequences he leaves behind. You of all people couldn’t be that dense.
“John, your whining over generalizations”
Yes, that is correct – it is NOT true that absolutely every conservative campus speech ends in violence.
Just most of those on elite college campuses.
Logic clearly eludes you – it would be VERY BAD if it was exceptional that conservative speakers were met with violence.
It is WORSE that it is at valid generaliszation.
‘
“and making them out to be mountains out of mole hills is pitiful.”
Violence is not a molehil.
“You are taking a few events out of many where those speakers had no trouble speaking to students or audiences who wished to hear their views. ”
Nope it is incredibly common to the point that it is very rare for conservatives to speak on elite campus’s.
Flying the flag for free speech is one thing. Getting killed is forever.
Very few of these speakers are willing to take these risks.
Nor is it limited to conservatives – comics are avoiding elite colleges – woke audiences have no sense of humor – and even a small progressive cohort at a college can ruin an event for everyone.
“This is the problem you have no ability to grasp. They ALREADY got to state their views. They are known and it is because they were heard. The criticism and opposition ARE a result of ALREADY exercising their free speech rights.”
Ah, yes this silly argument again – that the right to free speech ONLY applies ONCE.
Nope, free speech is the right to say the same thing that offends you over and over and over.
Honestly – do you think before posting ?
“It is because they don’t want to be held accountable for the responsibility of recognizing that their speech may produce some uncomfortable criticism. ”
What does this idiocy mean ?
I am not responsible for YOUR response to my speech.
If you respond to speech with violence – you are a criminal.
As to conservatives not taking criticism – again what world do you live it.
Every single conservative or libertarian college speaker I have ever heard of dedicates a significant portion of their speaking time to answering questions. Every single one prioritizes questions from the LEFT.
They are perfectly happy to respond to criticism – and very well prepared – because frankly left wing nuts are idiots and though each one thinks they have the unanswerable criticism that will bring these speakers down – their questions are dull, predictable – not only easily countered – but countered with answers that are often a couple of hundred years old.
Svelaz – you may FEEL like you have discovered something new in leftism. But it is old and stale and has been rebutted in an infinite variety of ways. Your thinking – that of the left – is shallow, and falls apart under even a little scrutiny.
Please go read Bastiat – the parable of the broken window would be a good start.
Your shallow left wing nut thinking is NOT knew.
No conservative or libertarain or anyone not on the far left is going to crumble under the poor criticism of left wing nuts.
No one is afraid of your intellect.
No one is afraid of your criticism.
Pretty much everyone not on the left is BORED by your predictable and weak criticism.
I would far prefer to debate a conservative – than you. They can actually think, and are challenging.
No one is made uncomfortable by the criticism of the left.
What we are worried about is the FACT that when you can not get your way through your silly boring fallacious arguments – you resort to force – to violence.
And this is nothing new.
There were only a few thousands deaths in the american revolution – and most of those due to disease – like smallpox.
The french revolution was a bloody mess with the left wing nuts murdering people all over the place.
The left has a long bloody murderous history that is unequalled.
You want to teach critical race theory in schools – what about the racist murders of Tutsi by Hutu’s ?
according to EJI 4400 blacks were lynched – in a century.
The Sandinistas murdered 40,000 indians in a few years.
The Hutu’s murdered 800,000 Tutsi in a few months.
2M Cambodians died in the Killing fields.
Mao murdered near 100M of his own people – and the CCP is still killing Uiger’s
The left has a long long long bloody history.
No one is afraid of your criticism. It is your inherently violent nature that is terifying.
John Say,
““It is because they don’t want to be held accountable for the responsibility of recognizing that their speech may produce some uncomfortable criticism. ”
What does this idiocy mean ?
I am not responsible for YOUR response to my speech.
If you respond to speech with violence – you are a criminal.”
Obviously you are not intellectually capable of understanding. That is not a shameful attribute. SOME conservatives certainly don’t recognize the consequences of what it is to exercise free speech. I’m not claiming ALL conservatives have this deficiency. You’re assuming that all on your own.
You are certainly not responsible for my response to your speech, but you ARE not protected from it either and the prevailing argument among most intellectually deficient conservatives and blowhards is that the criticism and opposition to their speech, views, opinions, etc. is censorship or denial of their freedom of speech. Of course many do answer questions or refute criticisms or have no trouble handling it. What IS true is others who are more intellectually deficient are NOT capable of handling the criticism and lash out by playing victim to alleged attacks on their freedom of speech or being silenced AFTER they have made their views known.
“What we are worried about is the FACT that when you can not get your way through your silly boring fallacious arguments – you resort to force – to violence.”
That is certainly false. Here you broadly apply a generalization by stating a fallacy that is not completely true. Clearly you are emotionally compromised by the arguments I’ve made when the rest of your post devolves into an incoherent rant about pointless historical events.
“Obviously you are not intellectually capable of understanding. That is not a shameful attribute. SOME conservatives certainly don’t recognize the consequences of what it is to exercise free speech.”
Violence is NEVER a legitimate consequence for speech.
“You are certainly not responsible for my response to your speech,”
That is correct – nor is Milo, or Shapiro, or ….
If you respond with violence – YOU are a criminal.
“but you ARE not protected from it either”
If you are violent – I may not be protected – though that is a duty of government, but you are still criminal.
“the prevailing argument among most intellectually deficient conservatives and blowhards is that the criticism and opposition to their speech, views, opinions, etc. is censorship or denial of their freedom of speech.”
Nope – As noted before – most of these campus speaker encourage those who disagree to get the first chance to present their criticism.
All of these people are intellectual giants compared to the piss poorly educated woke progressives they encounter on campuses.
Grow up Svelaz – the reason for the left wing nut violence – is because you are incapable of making an argument.
Partly these speakers are intellectually out of the legaue of those like you.
But partly – you failed to read JS Mill – when you have not been tested before by the ideas of others – you are clueless and can not make an argument.
You do not know your own argument well until you have had to deal with the best of those opposed.
“Of course many do answer questions or refute criticisms or have no trouble handling it.”
Svelaz – that is pretty much universal.
“What IS true is others who are more intellectually deficient are NOT capable of handling the criticism and lash out by playing victim to alleged attacks on their freedom of speech or being silenced AFTER they have made their views known.”
Again – who are these mythical people ?
““What we are worried about is the FACT that when you can not get your way through your silly boring fallacious arguments – you resort to force – to violence.”
That is certainly false. Here you broadly apply a generalization by stating a fallacy that is not completely true. Clearly you are emotionally compromised by the arguments I’ve made when the rest of your post devolves into an incoherent rant about pointless historical events.”
So much nonsense to unpack.
First – it is true. There is violence from the left all over. Almost anything provokes the left to violence.
Yes, that is a generalization – a good and damning one.
Do you know what a fallacy is ? clearly not.
There must have been one protest in portland that did not turn into a riot.
There must have been one BLM protest that did not turn into a riot.
Generalizations do not have to be true EVERYTIME. The fact that they are true most of the time damns you.
Back to pretending you are an empath – sorry you are not Counsellor Troy and this is not Start Trek TNG.
You have made very few arguments and they are all abysmal.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Svelaz:
People should not be forced or coerced into buying a product or service they don’t want. That’s freedom. Conservatives should not spend their hard-earned money to send their offspring to universities that will discriminate or threaten them. Obviously. Yet no one is saying that anyone else should be prevented from attending the universities in question. That would be cancel culture.
Cancel culture is the organized attempt to prevent anyone from buying a good or service, typically for political reasons.
An example of cancel culture is the systematic attempts to drive the Christian baker, Jack Phillips, of Masterpiece Cakeshop, out of business through repeated lawsuits. Instead of simply voting with their wallets, and taking their custom elsewhere, activists are trying to prevent anyone else from buying anything from Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips must comply, and artistically create custom cakes to celebrate messages that are against his religion, or he must be closed. The activists refuse to just buy anything ready made on the shelves. They demand custom artistic works, made to their own standards. It’s not a coincidence that they don’t do this to Muslim bakers, who also are on record refusing to custom bake anything that is against their religion or personal beliefs.
This is like demanding that a portrait artist create a custom portrait of Donald Trump, to the Trump supporting client’s satisfaction, or he must be forcibly closed. Even though the Trump supporter could buy any already completed artwork he wishes, he demands a custom portrait of DJT, or else he will drive that person out of business.
That’s the difference between voluntary buying choices, and cancel culture.
Svelaz, you said, “Karen, it is not just parents who send their kids to these schools. It’s the kids who decide where they want to go too.” Parents are free to decide what they spend money on. There is nothing physically stopping an 18 year old from attending any university to which they have been accepted. They can pay for it themselves, or, as you said, take out student loans or apply for scholarships.
My comment was expressly for parents choosing which schools they will pay for.
Parents are not forced to pay for whatever school their offspring decides they want to go to. For example, a parent might decide that they will pay for any university or trade school they approve of, but if their son or daughter wishes to go to clown school, or surf school, then they need to pay for it themselves.
My father nearly went into apoplexy when I told him that UC Berkley was one of the universities that accepted me. Its reputation as a far Left school was firmly established even then. I had applied to a number of schools, and hadn’t even visited Berkley, so it didn’t bother me that it was stricken, burned, salted, and buried as a possibility.
Kids can ask their parents to pay for things they want, but they can’t force them to do so for anything other than food and shelter. That’s the difference between wants and needs.
If you think the objection is to simple criticism, then you have not spent 5 minutes researching the issues. It’s a cringeworthy declaration for you to make. Perhaps spend some more time on the matter in future.
Just a thought:
Let’s opine the success of the genocide: who would,be left alive to manage the daily requirements.
Remember most of the suppliers would no longer available their tender and no ideas where/how to continue.
Soon other factions will take over commence, and these other factors realize that another genocide will split those those who know and those who need.
Et čètera, et čètera …
this all started in 2008
when marxist revolutionaries like this guy came out of the woodwork
and felt emboldened to speak out
to say the quiet part out loud about exactly how they think and feel about us
because one of their own made it to the white house
and so now every time a story like this makes the headlines
even more centerfire rifle caliber semiautomatic weapons and ammo and magazines to feed them find their way into the households of law abiding conservatives in america
were arming up
to the teeth even
because we paid attention in history class
and we see that jan 6th was the reichstag fire
and that it was only 5 years after that the pogroms began
and only 4 years after that the final solution became a thing
so we know full well whats coming
and weve come to realize that 2022 is our last chance to vote our way out of what the left has in store for us
and that after that it gets ugly
and were fully committed to the idea that even though they may eventually get us
when they try to drag us out of our houses and beat us to death in the street
or line us up against the wall
it will not be without a fight
IT WILL NOT COST THEM NOTHING