# I'm over #BLM **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 14, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824 "2017-10-14T15:43:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/81 "2017-10-16T18:29:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > We the people get to decide. We decide the level that rises to being a problem. Fortunately, there is broad agreement at the large strokes among both major parties in the U.S. The only obstacle is our fanatical devotion to freedom of speech as implemented in the 18th century. I’m not at all convinced of that. Would the party of Trump agree to make it illegal to say you wanted less illegal immigrants in America? Or less Mexicans or less Muslims? Would your religious right agree to ban holding up a placard saying “Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism”? They’re more likely to be the ones holding it. > [@BigT](#): > > For your links: all but the last of your latter links are perfectly fine. All of them were across the line where people on either side would agree they were bigoted. The one with burning the royals being an incitement to violence is absolutely bullshit, and using hate speech laws to protect the royals is bullshit. I’d like to know if any of those people would have been convicted under US law. I agree they were bigoted, but I disagree that should be the standard for making speech illegal. Why do you object to the burning royals? You believe it wasn’t an incitement to violence or you think only groups should be protected and not individuals? > [@BigT](#): > > Fortunately, there is no chance that any hate speech laws in the U.S. would abridge religious freedoms. Religion is a protected class, and thus will be protected like everything else. The basic agreement between both parties does not extend to restricting religion from bigoted statements. That’s nice for you. We still had blasphemy laws until 10 years ago. What about other freedoms that aren’t in a protected class? And if you want to limit freedom of speech, what makes you so sure that freedom of religion would never be challenged? > [@BigT](#): > > You may be offended by what I’ve said. That’s fine. But I’ve included no hate speech. I have engaged in no form of blatant bigotry. I am not advocating for laws that say “you have a right to not be offended.” I’m advocating for laws to treat the most blatant bigotry as an exception for freedom of speech, based on the harm that bigotry causes. > > I’m advocating for doing what is right, rather than treating a principle as sacrosanct. What is right is that which does the least harm. Not at all, why would I be? But I don’t agree with the principle that it’s okay to ban the expression of ideas because they might cause harm to someone, or even many people. Firstly harmful ideas are not necessarily wrong. What if a scientific study gives a result that could harm people? Should it be illegal to publish the results? Secondly, while I might agree with you that some idea is wrong and harmful, so much so that it contributes nothing to the public discourse, I’m not so confident I’m right that I want to stop other people from even hearing about it. I can imagine other governments in the past who might have banned ideas I do agree with, on those exact same grounds, and without being able to hear them, why would I ever have changed my mind? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/82 "2017-10-16T18:53:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Fortunately, there is no chance that any hate speech laws in the U.S. would abridge religious freedoms. Religion is a protected class, and thus will be protected like everything else. The basic agreement between both parties does not extend to restricting religion from bigoted statements. He says, based on our massive amount of experience with hate speech laws that tread the line on religion carefully and reasonably. _Oh wait exactly the opposite has happened_. Existing hate speech laws have been notoriously _terrible_ at bridging that gap, being too protective towards religion by a mile and a half. I’m reminded of [this case](https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9525/europe-illegal-criticize-islam): In the Netherlands, a state-funded hotline, run by the anti-discrimination bureau MiND, said that it could not act on a complaint about death threats against homosexuals posted to an online forum, in which the Muslim poster called for homosexuals to be “burned, decapitated and slaughtered.” The reason why this anti-discrimination watchdog group could not act on the complaint was that, “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character.” MiND concluded that the remarks were made in [INDENT] “the context of a public debate about how to interpret the Quran… some Muslims understand from the Quran that gays should be killed… In the context of religious expression that exists in the Netherlands there is a large degree of freedom of expression. In addition, the expressions are used in the context of the public debate (how to interpret the Koran), which also removes the offending character.” So, while Geert Wilders was prosecuted in the Netherlands for talking about “fewer Moroccans” during an election campaign, a state-funded watchdog group says that threatening homosexuals with burning, decapitation and slaughter is just fine, so long as it is Muslims who are making those threats, as the Quran tells them that such behavior is mandated. This might be one of the most astounding examples of voluntary submission to sharia law in the West thus far.[/INDENT] Granted, that’s a particularly egregious case, and the decision was later determined to be wrong after MiND’s funding was threatened, but in most cases, hate speech laws have been extremely kind to religious opinions. > [@](#): > > Finally, I will say that all those arguments about how people are so easily offended these days are not remotely persuasive to me. They are just ways of trying to reframe bigotry as being “offensive” rather than objectively morally wrong. Something that is offensive is harmless. Bigotry isn’t. Oh? So is it bigotry to point out that Islam is an incredibly dangerous, harmful religion, [responsible for most of the terrorism across the world](http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of-452-suicide-attacks-in-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/), and whose holy book contains disturbing calls to violence as well as numerous things that are simply utterly incompatible with modern western civilization (let alone liberalism), and that we therefore should probably think twice before inviting massive numbers of Muslims from a region known for internecine Muslim violence into our country? _Absolutely none of this is wrong_. Other than the conclusion, these are all facts, albeit cherry-picked and selective facts. Is this bigotry? Is this hate speech? Should I be banned or sanctioned for this? Because I guaran-fucking-tee you that facts like these are harmful to Syrian refugees. These are the kind of facts that are leading to an increasing wave of far-right anti-immigrant candidates winning in European elections. How about this: “African-Americans have an average IQ of about one standard deviation below white Americans.” Ooh, yeah. There’s a touchy one. Or “More than one in five American blacks have an IQ below 75; whereas around one in twenty whites have an IQ below 75. An IQ of 70-75 is considered borderline retarded by psychologists.” [This is (probably) true](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#United_States_test_scores). Again: harmful, _offensive_, and also true. Is truth a defense? Sure didn’t matter to the people who shouted down Charles Murray. What universal principle will you use to determine what is and is not bannable hate speech? If we’re presented with a case where we aren’t sure if it’s hate speech, how will we be able to tell? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/83 "2017-10-16T20:18:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Indeed, but let’s not be naive about this. There already is a “shift of power” in this country. It boggles the mind that these young lefties want Trump and Sessions to be the arbiters of which speech is allowed. > [@akwally1](#): > > Very true **John Mace** , perhaps I should have said \*continuing \*shift of power. I pointed out already that BLM deserved to be kicked out and to continue to notice that the meet was not canceled because of them. (IMHO this incident would not had made any waves if only BLM was removed, this only got attention because right wing sources need to tell others that BLM ‘did stop the meet’) Having said that, I do think that it is good to keep reminding the moderate conservative leaning ones that\*\* do know\*\* that Trump and the current enabling republicans are poison; and they are **indeed not the ones** that should be there being arbiters. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/84 "2017-10-16T20:31:03Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Sounds like a principle to me. A nonsensical one with likely fuzzy definitions, but a principle nonetheless. A nonsensical principle is exactly what it is. BigT has delusions about the nature of power and those who seek it. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/85 "2017-10-16T20:33:03Z")
> [@akwally1](#): > > I work on a college campus, so I am hearing a lot of this lately. And maybe it’s because of the lense I’m viewing all this through (I’m older, white, cis-gendered, etc., etc.), but I’m really seeing a split in the left over this. > > It seems that a lot of the younger members of the left are very okay with banning hate speech and shouting down people who’s views they consider “alt-right” or hateful. And many of the older left want to treat freedom of speech as sacrosanct (with obvious limits of course, such as inciting to violence). I’m generalizing of course, but those are the groups with which I have the most discussion about these topics and that’s the impression I’ve formed from talking to those groups. > > Do the pro-banning folks understand that once we start labeling speech “hate speech” and banning it, that all it takes is a shift of power and now _your_ speech is hate speech and it’s banned? > > I feel like this is going to be a real reason why the left will continue to lose elections, even with the current fucktard in the White House. If the left wants to push moderates and independents away, this is a great way to do it. > Mark No they don’t. They lack historical knowledge and they lack insight into human nature. And that’s a generous assessment of their motivations. Otherwise they do know and yet participate in advocating an evil policy in hopes to be the beneficiaries. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/86 "2017-10-16T20:39:02Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > _Absolutely none of this is wrong_. Other than the conclusion, these are all facts, albeit cherry-picked and selective facts. Is this bigotry? Is this hate speech? Should I be banned or sanctioned for this? Because I guaran-fucking-tee you that facts like these are harmful to Syrian refugees. These are the kind of facts that are leading to an increasing wave of far-right anti-immigrant candidates winning in European elections. Oh, and another thing: if you try to silence facts like these with hate speech laws or taboos on politically incorrect speech, people tend to get _mad_. Like, really, really, _really_ mad. It doesn’t work. All it does it push the discussions out of public view, and allows them to _fester_. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/87 "2017-10-16T21:18:41Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Oh, and another thing: if you try to silence facts like these with hate speech laws or taboos on politically incorrect speech, people tend to get _mad_. Like, really, really, _really_ mad. It doesn’t work. All it does it push the discussions out of public view, and allows them to _fester_. Well, I can agree with that, but we should notice that in this case right wingers have stretched what took place on the matter at hand; point being that, at least in my case, I’m getting mad when right wing groups are not giving the whole story to their readers, or that they give their readers a very twisted version of what took place. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/88 "2017-10-17T00:55:17Z")
I was over BLM pretty much from the beginning, when they decided to make their poster child the one “victim” of a high profile police shooting in recent years who was not a victim at all but a maniac who attacked a cop (shortly after doing the same, [in plain view of surveillance cameras](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE), to a store proprietor just to get some cigarillos) and tried to take his gun. BLM could have focused on Eric Garner, or held off until they had cases like Tamir Rice to build a movement around. By picking Mike Brown, they fatally compromised their credibility from the jump. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/89 "2017-10-17T01:04:42Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Those who advocate for freedom of speech absolutism very much need to sit down and have a discussion about the harms that freedom of speech can cause, and work to mitigate them. That is why hate speech laws exist in other countries. Freedom of speech exist to make sure those in power can’t silence their opposition. But silencing the worst bigotry has no downside. I’d like to know wgat you mean by “harms”. Not just, “what you say offends me”. I mean real, actual harm. (And keep in mind, incitement or calls to commit violence are already illegal) > [@](#): > > The ACLU needs to show a moral backbone, instead of worshiping the law. If the people you are defending make the world a worse place, don’t defend them. They still have the right to freedom of speech, and can argue it in court, but you are NOT morally obligated to help them. (Nor are you legally obligated.) And yet again, you refuse to acknowledge that the ACLU does not support your idea of freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with a “moral backbone” – it’s that their morals are different than your’s. > [@](#): > > Every human being on the planet has a responsibility to do what is right. The law is a decent approximation of what is right, but it is often wrong, and the only way to change it is exactly what is going on now. The problem is agreeing on what is right. People have been fighting over that since time began. > [@](#): > > I honestly even understand their point of freedom of speech being a white-man’s law that was created without input from minorities. Because, if minorities were involved, then bigotry would have to be considered, and not just leaving all those minorities as a casualty of freedom of speech. Because all minorities think alike. You honestly think outlawing hate speech is going to stop people from being bigots? > [@](#): > > I fight for freedom of speech. I fight against bigotry. And that means the freedom of speech I support is different from the ACLU version, and is the kind that supports anti-hate speech laws. BLM seems to be saying the same sort of thing right now, and so I support that. No, you’re not for freedom of speech. And who gets to decide what “hate-speech” is, **BigT**? Be careful what you wish for. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/90 "2017-10-17T06:25:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, I can agree with that, but we should notice that in this case right wingers have stretched what took place on the matter at hand; point being that, at least in my case, I’m getting mad when right wing groups are not giving the whole story to their readers, or that they give their readers a very twisted version of what took place. Oh, that’s definitely a factor, don’t get me wrong. At least a solid half of all “point and get outraged at this PC nonsense” reporting is pure unmitigated horseshit. It’s the other half that lends it credibility to people who are… let’s say “less careful” with their news consumption. Attempts to silence legitimate critiques of Islam, for example. Cases where anti-hate-speech groups side with the Muslims advocating death to homosexuals rather than homosexuals. These are good arguments against hate speech legislation, but they provide (admittedly bad) reasons for people to turn against anyone supporting moderation of tone or caution in reporting on instances like this. It kind of sucks. ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/91 "2017-10-17T06:34:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d have more respect for that claim if it hadn’t passed through a bull’s intestinal system first. > > A lot more different ways of protesting than two have been tried. And right wingers keep pointing to whatever form non-right wingers are using and screaming “That’s unacceptable! You shouldn’t protest _that way_. You should be protesting _this way_.” > > And if the protesters listen to the right wingers (which is always a bad idea) and switch to protesting the way the right wingers claim is acceptable, what happens? The right wingers point to the non-right wingers and scream "That’s unacceptable! You shouldn’t protest _that way_. > > It’s clear the problem isn’t how the protests are being conducted. The problem is right wingers don’t want to allow any form of protest except right wing protest. They’re all snowflakes who can’t handle hearing anything they don’t agree with. I think they should take a page from _Steal this Book_ and get a bunch of people who have eaten a lot of beans to show up and have a fart-in. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/92 "2017-10-17T07:08:59Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Oh, that’s definitely a factor, don’t get me wrong. At least a solid half of all “point and get outraged at this PC nonsense” reporting is pure unmitigated horseshit. It’s the other half that lends it credibility to people who are… let’s say “less careful” with their news consumption. Attempts to silence legitimate critiques of Islam, for example. Cases where anti-hate-speech groups side with the Muslims advocating death to homosexuals rather than homosexuals. These are good arguments against hate speech legislation, but they provide (admittedly bad) reasons for people to turn against anyone supporting moderation of tone or caution in reporting on instances like this. It kind of sucks. Yes, this is exactly what happened to my cousin. He saw that liberals and the mainstream media tended to be politically correct about Islam and Muslims, and not skeptical enough about BLM, so that drove him right into the arms of Breitbart et al. Pretty soon he was spouting all kinds of insane alt-right nonsense and voting for Trump. I have reeled him back in to a much more tenable place by sharing with him Sam Harris’s podcasts, along with stuff from Bill Maher’s show on occasion. But beyond those two, unfortunately, it’s slim pickings on those issues. So my cousin has a hard time letting go of the idea that almost everyone left of center is basically Melissa Click. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/93 "2017-10-17T07:49:12Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yes, this is exactly what happened to my cousin. He saw that liberals and the mainstream media tended to be politically correct about Islam and Muslims, and not skeptical enough about BLM, so that drove him right into the arms of Breitbart et al. Pretty soon he was spouting all kinds of insane alt-right nonsense and voting for Trump. I have reeled him back in to a much more tenable place by sharing with him Sam Harris’s podcasts, along with stuff from Bill Maher’s show on occasion. But beyond those two, unfortunately, it’s slim pickings on those issues. So my cousin has a hard time letting go of the idea that almost everyone left of center is basically Melissa Click. Show him Slatestarcodex; they run along a similar vein. He’ll probably appreciate “You Are Still Crying Wolf”. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/94 "2017-10-17T08:12:40Z")
From the “Volokh Conspiracy” at the _Washington Post_: [Hecklers shout down California attorney general and Assembly majority leader at Whittier College](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/16/hecklers-shout-down-california-attorney-general-and-assembly-majority-leader-at-whittier-college/). Xavier Becerra, the California attorney general, and Ian Calderon, the Majority Leader of the California State Assembly, are both Democrats (and I’d bet they’re both pretty liberal, even for Democrats). They were scheduled to have a Q&A session with members of the public at Whittier College, but the event had to be ended early after pro-Trump hecklers shut down discussion with “a continuous and persistent chorus of boos, slogans, and insults”. It is, of course, wrong when pro-Trump right-wingers pull this bullshit, just as it is when left-wingers do it. I would say to the Trump supporters exactly what I say to the BLM supporters: Go inside and ask your political opponents tough questions; or, if you believe that some politician or public figure is simply beyond even talking to, then by all means, congregate outside the venue and wave signs and chant slogans and hoot and holler. Or express your opinions in any of many, many other ways: Congregate and demonstrate somewhere other than where us evil America-hating libtards are speaking; wear hats; wear T-shirts; put bumper stickers on your cars; write letters to the editor; post on the Internet; tweet; re-forward e-mails to all your friends and relatives; put up yard signs; rent a billboard; get on cable access; fly the American flag upside down in front of your house; fly the American flag right-side-up in front of your house; pass out leaflets on the sidewalk. _Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera._ But _no one_ gets to shut down the free speech of people they disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/95 "2017-10-17T08:31:18Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Show him Slatestarcodex; they run along a similar vein. He’ll probably appreciate “You Are Still Crying Wolf”. That’s pretty interesting. I agree with most of the “stop saying” parts, as I do believe most of that stuff is overwrought. However, I think there’s more “there there” in terms of Trump’s racism and especially the racism of his biggest fans than this blogger is allowing for. I’d say the truth as I see it is about halfway in between. But this part was pretty good: > [@](#): > > Trump is just randomly and bizarrely terrible. Sometimes his random and bizarre terribleness is about white people, and then we laugh it off. Sometimes it’s about minorities, and then we interpret it as racism. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/96 "2017-10-17T09:01:41Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > From the “Volokh Conspiracy” at the _Washington Post_: [Hecklers shout down California attorney general and Assembly majority leader at Whittier College](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/16/hecklers-shout-down-california-attorney-general-and-assembly-majority-leader-at-whittier-college/). > > Xavier Becerra, the California attorney general, and Ian Calderon, the Majority Leader of the California State Assembly, are both Democrats (and I’d bet they’re both pretty liberal, even for Democrats). They were scheduled to have a Q&A session with members of the public at Whittier College, but the event had to be ended early after pro-Trump hecklers shut down discussion with “a continuous and persistent chorus of boos, slogans, and insults”. > > It is, of course, wrong when pro-Trump right-wingers pull this bullshit, just as it is when left-wingers do it. I would say to the Trump supporters exactly what I say to the BLM supporters: Go inside and ask your political opponents tough questions; or, if you believe that some politician or public figure is simply beyond even talking to, then by all means, congregate outside the venue and wave signs and chant slogans and hoot and holler. Or express your opinions in any of many, many other ways: Congregate and demonstrate somewhere other than where us evil America-hating libtards are speaking; wear hats; wear T-shirts; put bumper stickers on your cars; write letters to the editor; post on the Internet; tweet; re-forward e-mails to all your friends and relatives; put up yard signs; rent a billboard; get on cable access; fly the American flag upside down in front of your house; fly the American flag right-side-up in front of your house; pass out leaflets on the sidewalk. _Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera._ > > But _no one_ gets to shut down the free speech of people they disagree with. This is pretty much exactly as bad, if not worse, as again we are deplatforming elected officials. This sucks for pretty much all the same reasons that the case in the OP sucks - worse on the object level because, being democrats, these two probably aren’t as awful as the republican who got deplatformed, or at least not in the same ways. To those who support the deplatforming of racists (and who have a hard time distinguishing “republican” from "racist), my response is: what the fuck did you expect was going to happen? That right-wingers were going to see this obnoxious, semi-effective brute force tool being used against them and say, “Yup, I see no reason to reply in kind”? This is where we’re heading - any speaker more partisan than the ACLU (which is just about everybody) getting shouted down by partisan assholes who don’t understand that “free speech” doesn’t mean “shout over people you don’t like at venues that aren’t yours”. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/97 "2017-10-17T18:00:51Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yep, it’s enough. Black Lives Matters, as a movement, needs to get its shit together. > > [Opinion | Texas legislator shouted down at Texas Southern University law school; speech called off by university president for lack of central campus authorization [UPDATED] - The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/10/texas-legislator-shouted-down-at-texas-southern-university-law-school-speech-called-off-by-university-president-for-lack-of-central-campus-authorization/?utm_term=.cac2a33779d7) > > …This is why you need organizations, not just movements. Because with movements, any jackass with a megaphone can call themselves part of the movement, do stupid jackass shit, and there’s nobody who can stand up and say, “Hey, sorry, they don’t represent us or our movement, and we think they’re kind of assholes.” Then again, I can’t help but wonder if I’m being optimistic if the majority of the movement wouldn’t applaud this fuckers. > > Let’s leave aside the currently unclear details about whether or not the legislator technically had all his paperwork in order - I’d give it pretty good odds that these protesters did the same thing. In the last week, Black Lives Matters protesters have disrupted the ACLU, and now an elected state legislator. I don’t _care_ if that legislator is a homophobe, or a misogynist, or a racist. You guys think most of the republican party is homophobic, misogynistic, or racist. That’s an _elected official of your state_ - like it or not, your statesmen elected this guy, and that earns him some respect. > > Or maybe it doesn’t in your mind. Maybe, in your mind, becoming a state legislator doesn’t mean shit, and he shouldn’t be allowed to speak, invited by a campus group or not. Well okay. How 'bout this: this asshole gets to vote on _[whether your school continues to exist in its current form](https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/07/11/the-mass-defunding-of-higher-education-thats-yet-to-come/)_. His constituents, by and large, have decided that higher education is a bad thing. They’re idiots, but they vote. _In what universe do you see this as a good idea_?! > > And yeah, it was doubly boneheaded for the administration of the college to go along with this. Stupid stupid stupid. This doesn’t seem like BLM to me. Seems more like agitated SJW. We have seen a lot of increased activism among SJW in the face of a more brazen alt. right/KKK The recent thread about ACLU staffers who think that the ACLU should only care about free speech for liberals is just another symptom that will pass with the virus. My problem with BLM has largely been their violent tendencies. That seems to have stopped when they realized that violence was counterproductive. Almost like they had the ability to prevent violence all along and just didn’t bother because they thought the violence was bringing them much needed publicity. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/98 "2017-10-17T18:04:24Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Perhaps they were students from the MLK jr. school of ruckus raising?[URL=“[Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)”]Sometimes, being a jackass (who is near universally hated) is a requirement to highlight an issue you feel is important. If your issue is truly imperative in your mind then take the hit, be that jackass/clown. Yes you’ll be hated by everyone (even possible allies) but your issue needs the spotlight. Boycotting the segregated busses makes sense. There is a rational connection between the two. Sitting in at lunch counters makes sense. There is a rational connection between the two. Making your own salt and defying the British salt tax makes sense. I get that. Shouting down people you disagree with? Not really seeing how you’re doing anything more than being a jackass. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/99 "2017-10-17T18:21:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And I’m sure Barack Obama wouldn’t have threatened the NFL over it. > > But we now have a President who says speech he doesn’t agree with should be repressed while speech he agrees with should be protected. > > As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, these two public statements were delivered **on the same day** : > > President Trump: _“The NFL has all sorts of rules and regulations. The only way out for them is to set a rule that you can’t kneel during our National Anthem!”_ > > Attorney General Sessions: \*“Protesters are now routinely shutting down speeches and debates across the country in an effort to silence voices that insufficiently conform with their views.” \* I distinguish the pre-Trump kneelers from the post Trump kneelers. I fully support the post Trump kneelers who kneeled after POTUS tried to chill their speech by trying to get the NFL owners to fire the pre-Trump kneelers. Kaepernick OTOH… I don’t like the protesters shouting down dissenting voices but that’s just asshattery ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/100 "2017-10-17T18:28:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Who is saying you have to do that? If you don’t want to hear what the person is saying, then what the fuck are you doing there listening to him in the first place. Get your ass up and leave!! That’s a time honored indication of protest. That is a lot easier to do when you and the 80% of you that are white are leaving the MLK speech than when you are a minority protesting a speech given by a guy that wants to convert that 80% to his way of thinking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824.md?page=6)