Jump to content

Berkeley

Manual Labour

By Manual Labour
in OOC Lounge

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply
hotspring monkey Apprentice

hotspring monkey

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pali said:

I'll take flattery from any source.  It just won't always get them anywhere. ;) 

I'm just interested in one sex. But because of the current shit fashion crap - I look like I'm flaming homosexual timberman. I don't mind the fucking attention as its from both sexes. Sorry Pali. I want to marry someone, and you dont fit my criteria currently. :(

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy Newbie

Izzy

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, hotspring monkey said:

I'm just interested in one sex. But because of the current shit fashion crap - I look like I'm flaming homosexual timberman. I don't mind the fucking attention as its from both sexes. Sorry Pali. I want to marry someone, and you dont fit my criteria currently. :(

 

 

Well when you find him I hope you are happy! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vaerick Newbie

Vaerick

Posted
Posted

It's peaceful in that no people were targeted/hurt/killed, but it was certainly a riot in the sense of property damage.

I guess the real question, on whether or not the actions were legitimate, lie in the speaker themself. 99.9999% of the time, people should be allowed to speak whatever they like, and whoever listens listens. That said, there are and always have been restrictions on that. Examples such as shouting fire in a theater or bomb on an airplane- things that once spoken can cause grave consequences for others.

So then, if you translate that same line of thinking up to the next level- such a statecraft and the public stage , as to whether a speech should be allowed to be made, it would have to follow that litmus test. If the speech is going to incite violence or crime against other people then yes, it should absolutely be stopped and interrupted by -any means necessary-. Our society can only exist if we are willing to talk and discuss, true, but if one of the ones who is talking is trying to oppress other groups, their legitimate claim to freedom of speech is compromised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Vaerick said:

Our society can only exist if we are willing to talk and discuss, true, but if one of the ones who is talking is trying to oppress other groups, their legitimate claim to freedom of speech is compromised.

Define oppress for the purposes of this exception, please, because a LOT hinges upon that definition.

 

I would say that the pro-life position oppresses a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  A pro-lifer would likely respond that abortion on demand is oppressing the unborn's right to life.  Who decides which of us is right?

 

For me, the only point in which speech stops being free is when it is directly inciting violence, or when it directly and intentionally leads to harming another physically.  Standing on the corner saying that blacks should be enslaved again, or that gays are abominations?  Yeah, you get to do that.  Telling people to go kill blacks or gays?  You don't get to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy Newbie

Izzy

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, hotspring monkey said:

I'm not sarcon, sorry Izzy. I DUN GOT BONNER FOR WTF ANIMALS YOU FUCK DOWN THERE UNDER. Smiley. I sent bitch smiley, because bitches love smileys.

 

Smiley.

 

 

 

They do love when you make them SMILEY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vaerick Newbie

Vaerick

Posted
Posted

Bare in mind, I don't say that lightly at all. I am also not suggesting that this particular scenario was a justifiable example of legitimate forceful silencing.

I see it as something incredibly hard to define, in terms of the line. It's like that supreme court justice said- I can't explain the difference between pornography and art, but I know it when I see it.

There is also an important distinction in the method of silence. Riots to prevent a speaker from taking the stage is a far distance different than say, organizing a physical attack on the speakers/leaders  themselves or their supporters.

I think on one hand, in many ways we are past the point in many ways in terms of the wealth gap, our public lands, and many other issues (outside of Trump or partisan politics). On inaguration day, the destruction of corporate symbols spoke to this growing anger. Right wrong or indifferent, seeing BoA or McDonalds smashed up sends a hell of a lot stronger signal than any protest or march could ever hope to (remember in occupy wallstreet how the banksters dropped mcdonalds apps onto the protesters? It's a  lot harder for some oligarch to mock the poor when they're pissing their pants in fear.).

Berkely, I can't help but feel, was far more motivated in partisanship than against the inherit injustice of the system itself, which leads it to lose legitimacy in my mind. That said, you can blame Bannon for this guy getting that level of resistance. Prior to him asending to Trumps advisor and now replacing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Head of DHS (WTFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!???????!?!?!?!?!?!?), Breitbart was regarded for exactly what it is- conspiratorial swill mixed with derogatory articles against various groups (much the same as infowars). If Bannon wasn't where he is now this wouldn't have blown up.

In every strategy game I play, such as total war or CKII, there are consequences to abusing the population via unfair treatment. First you get warnned, then you get riots, then you get uprisings, and then they grow in power. Real life is much the same way. When you have politicians who don't give a fuck what their populations are saying, you can expect to have riots and possible revolts. Also it's important to note often the people rioting/protesting/revolting aren't the people who vote. People who vote believe the system works, but if the majority of the people don't vote because they don't believe it matters(different from not voting because of lack of caring), you will see increasing levels of civil unrest.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vaerick Newbie

Vaerick

Posted
Posted

Speaking of Bannon, that guy scares the hell out of me. Trump is like a spoiled child throwing tantrums, but Bannon is a cold calculating monster. I don't think this ban was so much to do with getting Muslims out/preventing them from getting in so much as it was a trial run to see how far they can reach and which agencies are in need of further co-opting. This is a guy who described himself as a Leninist who wants to destroy the state as we know it. And now he pulls the strings of the American government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sarcon Newbie

sarcon

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hotspring monkey said:

I'm not sarcon, sorry Izzy. I DUN GOT BONNER FOR WTF ANIMALS YOU FUCK DOWN THERE UNDER. Smiley. I sent bitch smiley, because bitches love smileys.

 

Smiley.

I already told @izzy he can't put it in until he has a positive pk/kd ratio. So that means never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pali Newbie

Pali

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Vaerick said:

It's like that supreme court justice said- I can't explain the difference between pornography and art, but I know it when I see it.

Yeah, but that case (Jacobellis v Ohio, the quote is from Justice Potter Stuart) was an example of the problem in using vague definitions - the Supreme Court has vacillated greatly regarding obscenity laws (which I personally view as unconstitutional, though I'm aware that SCOTUS has long held otherwise), in no small part because defining what is and is not obscene is almost entirely subjective and so each new SCOTUS is going to judge it differently.  This is a terrible way for law to function - laws and what they apply to should be clearly defined.

 

And the same, I think, is true of principles.  Free speech is a meaningless term unless we apply it to the things we want people to say the least, to the things we least want to hear.  I'm fine with protesting such speech peacefully - that is simply speech in response - but one of the best ways I know how to define oppression is the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to force another to act, believe, or say as you desire.  When protests turn violent or turn into riots, it is the protesters who are being oppressive by that definition.  We should be better than that.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a place for violent action to stave off one's own oppression, or that it can never be justified by other means.  I'm saying that violence against someone invited to speak at a university by a student group is ABSOLUTELY not it unless that speaker is themselves inciting violence.

 

P.S. And yes, I too find Bannon's placement on the NSC disturbing on multiple levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy Newbie

Izzy

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Pali said:

I love the two conversations that are completely ignoring each other in this thread. ;) 

Untrue.  I have just learned not to talk about politics.  Blowjobs are so much better. :)  How about Scientists not being able to communicate with one and other.........How about we talk about that.How about some important women's rights?  We could always discuss that. 

 

PuKE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Manual Labour

Manual Labour

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 hours ago, Vaerick said:

It's peaceful in that no people were targeted/hurt/killed, but it was certainly a riot in the sense of property damage.

People did get hurt. And what do you honestly think would have happened if Milo walked outside and tried to open a dialogue? They would have probably beaten him to death.

Or are you saying the whole thing was orchestrated to look as violent as possible but be contained and to send a message like "your material is not permitted in our town"?
Based on how the police reacted I am inclined to think this might be the case, but I still don't think Milo could have safely walked outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...