Sure. So which right wing institutions do you think are the most egregious examples of this sort of censorship? Or are you basically talking about the KKK and white identity movement churches?
I think you missed the second and third words of that sentence.
I don’t know if you are talking about me but I don’t really have strong opinions about who is the more egregious suppressor of free speech. I think that people on all three sides of the aisle should condemn suppression of free speech and I think that people from the two partisan sides of the aisle should realize that their side does it too and they should be especially good about policing suppression of free speech from their own side of the aisle. Unfortunately the partisans don’t usually call out the bullshit on their own side, sure it happens from time to time in the most egregious cases but generally, they overlook it.
Partisans have this habit of overlooking (maybe even being a little blind to) bad behaviour on their own side but being really really aware of bad behaviour on the other side. So I was just calling out the fact that liberals also suppress free speech, if you want to debate who suppresses it more, I think we will get into a debate over what constitutes speech.
In related news, ESPN is getting sued for wrongful termination after firing an announcer for using the term “guerilla” to describe Venus Williams’ style of tennis play - it was misheard as “gorilla.”
Texas school boards, nationally influencing textbooks to eliminate teaching about Jim Crow.
North Carolina’s general assembly, prohibiting mention of climate change in certain scientific documents.
Donald Trump, encouraging violence against protestors.
Pat Roberston, calling for a violent solution to the infection of Islam.
Donald Trump again, calling for the assassination of politicians who pick judges that he doesn’t like.
I know, I know: none of these people are undergrads in college, and it’s undergrads who are the true threat to free speech.
NOPE. Just because one thinks one has made a calm, reasoned argument doesn’t mean the argument isn’t too shitty for a dignified response.
So, a “you too!” argument? Well, these folks are wrong also.
And at least they aren’t assaulting people, stuffing nasty feminine hygiene products in someone’s face, or burning stuff down.
Do you really need links to various conservative assholes assaulting or killing people? I assume you already recognize that such links could be very easily produced.
In what reality does an advocate of free speech feel the need to point out they don’t support whatever oppression totalitarians advocate? Use some common sense yourself; if it’s pointless to point out and obvious that you would be against those things, why would you say it? What’s the purpose of that “I’d prefer this over that” statement, if your free speech credentials are already proved?
Oh, and you’ve moved the goalposts; you’ve gone from “racists, nazis, communists, sexists, and even internet trolls” to “totalitarians”. I would say that a free speech advocate could support many kinds of oppression that those groups advocate.
Again, you’re accusing me of lying. Why?
Very easily. The right wing is responsible for the vast majority of political violence in this country. Right wing extremists are in fact a bigger danger to this country than violent Islamic extremists. Not that Trumple or his ilk will ever admit it.
If you think your position has been mischaracterized, it’s reasonable to clarify. Please do not imply that other posters are mischaracterizing your position intentionally in this fashion.
[/moderating]
What? What are you even talking about? Yes, it’s a “you too” argument, you and DA have been heavily implying or outright saying this is only a problem on the left. You can’t make that claim and then get mad at a tu quoque. I’m not saying it to say it’s fine on the left.
And yes, they’re not burning stuff down: they’re underminig the civic education of our nation, intimidating the press into silence, and desroying North Carolina’s chance to respond intelligently to global warming (so that, for example, poor towns like Elizabeth City are likely to become uninhabitable in a few decades due to their sewer systems being below sea level).
Given the choice between terrible alternatives, I’d rather get a punch in the face than any of these.
Sure. If you have links of conservatives attacking liberals on the streets merely for voicing an opinion I’d expect to see at least 10 threads with 5000 responses each.
Are you saying you aren’t for free speech?
This is possibly the most ridiculous attempt at refutation ever.
There have been tons of threads about Anders Breivik (who killed people because of the views they expressed), Dylan Roof (who killed people because of their identity), the Quebec mosque shooter, and many more.
But this is just a sideline issue, and we only bring it up because you keep trying to insist that this is only, or chiefly, a problem with liberals. It’s a problem with extremists, not with liberals in general, nor with conservatives in general.
And the police and courts acted accordingly. I’d like to start seeing the radical left locked up for their violence.
Sure–black bloc anarchists do get arrested, by the hundreds sometimes. I have no sympathy for them, and nor do many of the anarchists I know (who feel a special hatred for them, since my peaceful anarchist friends often get tarred with the same brush).
Your suggestion that the police are somehow soft on violence from the left is ludicrous.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that ONLY liberals suppress free speech but there was a claim that liberals don’t do these things.
I agree that rewriting history is a bad thing. I’m not sure that this is suppressing free speech so much as sponsoring ignorance.
Denying objective scientific evidence is a bad thing. But from reading the article it seems like the only people whose freedom of expression are being suppressed are government employees in their official capacity.
AFAICT, North Carolina prohibits their employees from basing their policy on the effects of global warming. Some of these may be government produced scientific documents
Inciting violence is a bad thing regardless of the circumstances. I would suppress this sort of speech. I agree, violence againsgt protesters for their speech is suppression of free speech.
Not sure what speech is being suppressed. Just because some speech is loathesome doesn’t make it a suppression of free speech.
Once again, I think this is loathesome and is not a proper exercise of free speech but threatening someone for picking liberal judges is not a suppression of free speech.
Where did I say that? Do you have a cite or did you just throw that gratuitous statement in there because you thought it would advance the debate rather than turn it into a shit flinging contest? I’m happy to fling shit anyone that flings shit at me but I’d rather debate the OP.
Don’t fight the hypothetical. If you can’t show that the argument is NOT a reasonable argument then it is incumbent on YOU to show that this is the case. And maybe you can make that case by hurling insults when you’re in the pit but its harder to do here. Here you have to actually come up with arguments that don’t boil down to “if you don’t agree with me, then you are a poopyhead”
I assume by DA, you mean me.
Can you point to the post where I say or “heavily” imply that suppression of free speech is only a problem on the left? Because I can point to a post in this thread where I say both sides do it.
I was merely responding to a post that said: “All of the liberals in this thread, and almost all of the liberals I have ever known, unambiguously support free speech and the 1st Amendment.”
Then you ask me to explain why I think suppression of free speech is a problem mainly on the left. A claim that I never made.
I DID make the claim that college campuses are more hostile to conservative speech than it is to liberal speech. I don’t think that surprises anyone. You then responded with several examples of conservative assholery and idiocy, only one of which seemed to be a suppression of free speech.
And those are all fine examples of conservative idiocy. But this is a debate about political correctness (and frankly, some of those examples show the conservative brand of political correctness) not a debate about conservative idiocy.
The thing is we can vote out the idiots that promote ignorance. We can’t vote out the assholes that burn shit down.
Ayup.
When you find yourself constantly in this game, where you’re challenging people to point out where you said the things they believe you said, maybe just maybe the problem isn’t everybody else on the board.
I refuse to play that game.
Yes, it’s a debate about “political correctness,” and yes, inasmuch as “political correctness” exists, these are examples.
If only society could come up with something to do to arsonists. Hmm. Hmm. That would be great! We can’t vote them out. What can we do? Hmm. Hmm.
I feel the need to point out how distantly unrelated what we’re talking about is to the colloquial concept, or at least what many right-wingers tend to complain about.