Wow, you couldn’t be more off. I said the principe should apply, not the tool. You’re saying the opposite. The principle you’ve inadvertently put forth in your example is, “It’s best to use the right tool for the job.” You’re example ignores any principle except maybe one has never considered, “Use a hammer all the time”.
But I love the fact that you’re arguing for being short-sighted is something to champion.
If they can, that’s preferable. But what the cops are usually dealing with oil these situation is a mob. That is a difficult organism to control. But I am 100% for using overwhelming force to quash a mob doing bad things.
I am not a lawyer, but I think there is some order cops can give to disperse a crowd. But in your example, I would prefer to arrest the one window-breaker. But what if it’s 25 window breakers in a crowd of 50? And the vandals are trying to hide among the crowd and the crowd is trying to protect them? On one of the spectrum we have your 1 window-breaker, not he other end you have a mob run amok doing damage, even if not every individual is actually doing the damage. I agree with you on the first scenario. Not sure where, or if, we disagree on the other end of the spectrum.
I have zero problems with peaceful protestors. Zero. I have a big problem with people who commit acts of violence or physically intimidate others. Is the two groups each kept to themselves, we might be in agreement on how to best handle each. But that is rarely the case. That’s what the asshole contingent counts on. And the peaceful crowd is complicit—some unwittingly, some wittingly. If the left embraced the principles they’ve been spouting for 65 years, they would disavow the cowardly ironically-named antifa scumbags and demand that any protestor not where a face covering of any type. Until them, we’re stuck with a mob where it’s difficult to separate the act of the mob from the acts of individuals.
I’m missing what this has do to with Harry Reid’s decision.
And what anyone MIGHT have done IF Harry Reid didn’t act so short-sightedly is pure conjecture. I don’t think McConnell would have used the nuclear option, but I don’t know for sure. And guess what? Neither do you.
I’ve heard of it. That’s about it. I think there was a woman gamer/coder involved, or something. That’s about it.
Harry Reid made the right move – for one thing, it allowed tons of held up nominations that otherwise wouldn’t have gone through. For another, it greatly increases the likelihood of the loss of the legislative filibuster, which in the long run will help the Democratic party. And lastly, increasing partisanship meant that even the judicial filibuster was doomed anyway.
Collegiality in the Senate is dead. Maybe it will come back some day, but not in the present political environment. There’s no point tying your hands when your opponents probably won’t be tying theirs.
You might look into it some time. Reactionary right wingers trying to shut down discussion of issues they didn’t like with harassment and threats of violence, largely directed at women in the game industry. Milo was one of the ringleaders. Far, far worse than any of the trivial examples of non-violent campus protesters offered up in this thread.
None of it has anything to do with Harry Reid’s decision. You get pissy about my speculation about what he would have done had Reid decided differently; consider me just as contemptuous of your speculation that he took his actions because of Reid’s. We can both agree that McConnell’s actions weren’t spurred by Reid’s, and move on, right?
I guess that’s why so many Dems have said they regret what Reid did. And no, we don’t agree. I do think McConnell did what he did since Reid had already changed the rules on later court justices. What we hopefully CAN agree on is that neither of us KNOW if McConnell would have done what he did if Reid hadn’t changed the rules earlier.
Whew. Glad we cleared that up.
Threats of violence are never okay, and the authorities should act when they occur. I’ll admit to being a bit suspect of the term “ringleader”. I’d have to know what he’d id specifically, but don’t have time know to immerse myself into the issue. I do know there was a similar charge made about his role talking about Leslie Jones, And I think he was treated unfairly there.
Okay. But from what I can tell, most Dem pols disagree with that and have stated that they regret Reid’s move. If you don’t good for you. And good for McConnell, right? At least some good came of all of this and we now have Gorsuch in a SC robe.
It seems like you are misreading or are dishonestly portraying my position. Not once did I say peaceful and law abiding protesters should be suppressed.
Doesn’t making speech illegal mean suppression?
Some disagree, some agree. And that’s just publicly. As for Gorsuch, he was inevitable once Trump was elected. Yes, good for McConnell. And good for the Democrats when they regain power, get rid of the legislative filibuster, and pass universal health care, increased minimum wage, and many other things that will be very popular with the public and even harder to repeal than the ACA.
Who wants to do this? Maybe I’ve missed it.
BudgetPlayerCadet for one.
That does not compute.
Aside from the joke about burning, which post?
I’m on mobile device so I’m not about to bother with multi quotes from several posts. But check out the mentioning German law with regards to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and how that’s a good model. Those are only a few posts up.
Here is Jordan Peterson’s explanation of the mob that shouted him down:
“I can tell you a little about why these attempts to shut down people are being made. As far as I have been able to determine this kind of protest is an expression of a philosophy that is grounded partly in post-modernism and partly in Marxism. Now the post-modern element is basically this- there is no such thing as genuine individual identity, what there is is group identity. And you, like it or not, only have the interests of your group. And the whole world is nothing but a battleground between groups of different interests. There is no dialogue, there is no possibility of talking between the groups, it’s just a power stage where combat has to take place.
So the reason that speakers with whom the radical post modernists and Marxists don’t agree are denied a platform is because those people do not believe, from a philosophical position, that dialogue can bring consensus. All that is left if you forego that particular principle is this (referring to the angry mob trying to keep him from being heard). And this is only where it starts.”
Taken from this video.
:dubious:
What part of that means “banning speech is a good idea”? It’s about keeping prejudiced dunderheads out of power.