You know what the nice thing about Drunky Smurf literally never posting anything of value is?
You can put him on ignore without the typical problem that half the conversation turns into people quoting his stupid ass.
You are really telling me you are smarter than this guy? You may be able to baffle me with talk of “modern epistemological tendencies” but you have a long way to go before you can convince me that he wouldn’t eviscerate you in a debate.
…well fucking duh.
But depending on where you are in the media, thousands, maybe millions of people read/watch/listen to what you say. You have a platform. You decide what is and what isn’t on that platform. Thats the fucking difference.
And here is the point. People fighting for social justice often can’t even get past the “lowest rung in the fence.” You wouldn’t have run this story. How many other stories about social justice would you or have you rejected? People get out on the streets to protest because when “push comes to shove” there aren’t many options left. You have the luxury of picking and choosing what is broadcast on your platform. You shut down stories. You can’t complain about protesters yelling in the streets when you deny them a voice through your media outlet.
And for someone in the media you certainly don’t know how to read a story. The story isn’t about “20 people talking on facebook.” The ANU Bar is an important venue.
[QUOTE=From their website]
The ANU Bar is renowned for its rich live music history, having hosted some of the biggest names in music for over 30 years including Cypress Hill, Black Eyed Peas, Public Enemy, Bliss n Eso, Hilltop Hoods, Bertie Blackman, Lisa Mitchell, Little Red, Jebediah, The Living End, The Panics, Boy and Bear, The Jezabels, RUFUS, and grunge legends Nirvana, just to name a few.
[/QUOTE]
This historic venue is closing down. The headline act and a number of other acts pulled out. Why did they pull out?
[QUOTE=Regurgitator]
“Based on the subsequent responses from the organisers to criticism about the heavy gender bias of the lineup and how this has aggravated rather than managed to accommodate the concerns posed online by people in Canberra, we have had to cancel our upcoming involvement in this ANU BAR finale lineup,” they wrote.
“Not excusing ourselves, but not knowing the majority of the bands selected we had no idea of the heavy gender bias of the lineup,” they continued. "We have friends who identify as non-binary or non-gender specific along with many from the LGBTQI+ community.
“We very much support mixed demographic scenarios where possible covering diversity in gender, sexuality, race etc. Like most we are not without our own flaws in managing such concerns but we are aware of how important this is, so this matter very much concerns us as a group.”
[/QUOTE]
The headline act pulling out of the closure of a historic landmark venue due to the actions and the comments of the promoter is a news story whether you “approve of the story” or not. And hey, guess what? We have a resolution.
https://www.facebook.com/anu.bar/
Victory for social justice.
You are a member of the media. You’ve shrugged your shoulders at this issue. Can I suggest you get off your arse and get out and talk to people. Read some research. Look at the numbers. Because diversity in the music industry is just a big a problem as it is in the film industry and the television industry. Talk to the bands. Heck: talk to Regurgitator. Don’t just shrug your shoulders. You bought this issue up. Find out for yourself.
You think this was a “non-story.” But Regurgitator thought it was so important they pulled out of the gig. And they didn’t pull out because of pressure from SJW’s: they pulled out because they believe they thought the promoter was wrong, and that the issues raised by the students were valid and important. The ANU thought it was important. They thought it was so important they not only stated the concerns of the students were “legitimate”, they also moved to disassociate themselves from the promoter.
What do you consider a leftist issue?
What the fuck kind of story is that? Fund raising? To get married? What the hell is wrong with Australia that the couple can’t get married there?
Yes: this is a “leftist issue.” But the way you’ve framed it is all kind of fucked up. Same sex marriage is officially banned in Australia. Some parts of Australia don’t even recognize over-seas same sex marriages. Its fucked up that this theoretical gay couple have to beg for thousands of dollars to go fly to another country to do something that is completely legal for a male/female couple. And it is even more fucked up that when they fly back that that marriage may not even be recognized in the place that they live.
I’m seeing a pattern. You write feel good human interest stories. Well whoop-de-shit. Do you want a fucking medal?
So how many social justice stories have you denied a platform to in the last year?
Oh grow up you big fucking baby. I know its easy to passive aggressively accuse me of “painting you as this awful right-wing Imperialist who hates everything even slightly lefty and wishes it was 1912”: but I haven’t fucking done that.
I follow people who actually fight for social justice. And every time you post a link to something you find outrageous I roll my eyes. Either you don’t understand what is happening (like with the ANU), or you post some obscure nonsense that nobody has actually heard of. You get triggered by the stupidest things. You get offended when someone calls you names in the fucking pit. And you think social justice warriors are the snowflakes?
If you look for outrage you are going to find outrage. If you follow twitter accounts like @TheSafestSpace then don’t be fucking surprised when you are fed a constant diet of “outrageous stories.”
Holy shit you’re a cultist.
I mean, yeah, inasmuch as I actually know what the fuck I’m talking about and this fuckhead doesn’t, I’m fairly confident I’m smarter than him. He may be better at bamboozling the ignorant, but that doesn’t actually make him right–it just makes him a better snake-oil salesman.
And you’ve bought it hook, line, and sinker. You don’t actually address the issue of him completely failing to understand what post-modernism and Marxism actually are, you just rant on and on about GENE RAY^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HJORDAN PETERSON DOCTOR OF CUBISM AND WISEST HUMAN.
But at least Gene Ray is probably mentally ill. What’s Jordan Peterson’s excuse?
So you’re against these laws, all put forward by Republicans?
I’m for some of those and against some of those.
Vandalizing equipment and blocking highways are not free speech. Wearing a mask to a riot is not free speech either. So I have no idea why they are on your list.
Vandalizing equipment is already illegal, the point is that they want to increase the penalty, and make vandalism a felony.
Blocking highways is at most civil disobedience. This is not a crime which is typically considered to have the death penalty associated with it.
Wearing a mask to a protest absolutely is free speech, but I do notice that you made you usual error of calling any protest a riot. I would agree that you shouldn’t wear a mask to a riot, but then you shouldn’t be at a riot in the first place.
But, in any case, I take it that you are for the laws that touched on the points that you made in this post, and that for the rest, you can now see that it is the republicans who are passing laws to ban speech?
Or are you still going to deny it, and still try to claim that it is liberals, and liberals alone, who want to suppress speech?
I might be inclined to agree with 3 or 4 of those proposals concerning tampering with oil and gas equipment and blocking roadways. The rest I wouldn’t.
I would agree with making those things illegal, if they were not already illegal.
The point of the bills is to increase the penalties for them, making vandalism a felony, and making jaywalking a capital crime.
So? If the current laws aren’t strong enough to stop the bad behavior, they strengthen them. Make sense. What problem do you have with that logic?
And no one is trying to impose the death penalty. A bunch of activists do not have the right to block roadways. Allowing cars to pass and putting the onus on idiots to get the fuck out of the way is a good idea.
States differ on this. Many do not allow covering of the face if in conjunction with a crime or intruder to evade police. I think that makes sense. Now they just need to enforce it. Seems like every antifa asshole could be arrested for that.
These laws are not banning speech, they are trying to lessen bad behavior.
Sure they do, and if you think your convenience is more important than civil rights you’re part of the problem.
Seems like your deep profound ignorance is a bigger part of the problem. But, okay, then show me where that right exists. And then explain why cops arrest people who block roadways.
I’ll wait.
Oh, don’t bother looking to the 1st Amendment, because unfortunately (for you) it uses the phrase “peaceably assemble”.
In the spirit of slaying ignorance, for your reading pleasure:
Don’t miss this part:
And do read the part about permits while you’re at it.
If your point is is that as long as people are breaking a law, then the penalties for that law should be increased, I don’t think I am the only one who will disagree with you on that.
There are laws against speeding, and those laws are not strong enough to keep people from speeding, so you think we should make it a felony to speed?
Making it legal to run someone down becuase they are on the highway is imposing the death penalty. Giving officers a “by any means necessary” order to clear the highways is is imposing the death penalty. Granted, the last state on the list just wanted to make it a felony and massive fines for being a part of a protest that interfered with a road, but it is still not a proportional response.
A protest is a crime? Sounds like you and octopus need to get together and realize that there is a difference between a peaceful protest and a riot.
These are laws that are designed specifically to produce a chilling effect on protesters, and do an end run around the first amendment.
I note that you do not bother to defend the rest of the laws suppressing speech that were proposed by republicans. I assume that is because you suddenly realized that it is in fact the republicans who are passing laws to suppress speech?
So our rights are limited to what’s written on a piece of paper and what the state recognizes?
That’s some bootlicking bullshit.
My point is that the purpose of of laws is to punish and curtail behavior we don’t want. If speeding was out of hand, then they can raise the fines. If that doesn’t work, they can take other measures, including increasing the severity of the offense. This is how our laws work. What part of that do you object to?
No one is talking about making it legal to run someone down. Try presenting a less contorted view of reality. A quick search reveals what’s going on here:
My God, are you able to debate honestly? I never said a protest was a crime. But some proper do commit crimes at protests. Is this really news to you?
No. They are laws trying to make sure that people protest LEGALLY. I realize now this may all be new to you, but we have laws on the books. Just operate within them. Easy, really. Unless one’s intent is to protest by being a dick.
I responded to each of your points in the post. If you’d like me to respond to others, ask away. But please, try to be honest about the issue you’re framing.
That excessive level of punishment seems like the kind of thing that the constitution of the United States of America should probably explicitly prohibit. Then these guys, who claim to care so much about law and order, would stop recommending it.
Oops. Sounds like you were on a roll there and ran smack straight into The Constitution. So you want others to grant you rights that you make up? Nice. Me? I want the right to have 1 million votes. in every national election. Whataya say…can we chain ourselves together and go stop people from going to work and taking care of their families? Because fuck them and their rights, we want what we want!!! Fuck the bootlickers who think that thing called the Constitution matters. Are you with me, Super SJW?
The part where you are increasing the punishment for a crime until the crime is no longer committed. That is not only draconian, but also will never work.
The bill, as written, would have absolved any responsibility to the driver for striking and killing a person on the road if they are engaged in a protest.
You can read their justification, but the end result is that if I run down a protester in the road and kill them, then I am not in any sort of legal trouble.
Well, you said “Many do not allow covering of the face if in conjunction with a crime or intruder to evade police. I think that makes sense. Now they just need to enforce it. Seems like every antifa asshole could be arrested for that.” in response to the law that would prohibit masks worn at legal protests.
So, if you support the bill because you shouldn’t wear a mask while committing a crime, then you are accusing protesters of committing a crime. Now, I will grant that occasionally, during a protest, there are assholes who do unfortunate things. I have no problem with these people being arrested for the things that they did. But you are painting the entire protest by the things that a few did.
I certainly can debate honestly, the question is, can you debate coherently?
No, they are laws that both restrict how and when a protest can happen, which makes sure that people protest in a way that is more convenient to those being protested against, but making up laws does not make people behave legally, in fact, the more laws you pass, the more people will behave illegally, as you make past legal behavior illegal.
Now, sometimes, one does need to be a bit of a dick to protest effectively. Civil rights marches were not always done legally. But the point is, is that there is a long tradition of civil disobedience, non-violent, non-destructive, but illegal and inconvenient behavior that the protesters feel is necessary to get their voice heard.
Segregation was not ended because people protested when it was convenient.
You responded to my response to octopus, when I asked him what he thought of the laws that he did not say he agreed with. Your response to my question to him was “These laws are not banning speech, they are trying to lessen bad behavior.”, so I am not sure whether you agree or do not agree with them. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt on that, assuming that you did not agree with those laws, but you are right, I do not know your position on them, whether you agree with the republicans on issues such as “The Arizona State Senate in February voted to expand racketeering laws to allow police to arrest anyone involved in a protest and seize their assets, treating demonstrators like organized criminals.”, or “Lawmakers in North Carolina want to make it a crime to heckle lawmakers.”, or any of the others that was not responding to by octopus.
As it should be if the value or risk is high enough. Stealing a TV is a felony. I don’t see why tampering with gas or oil infrastructure with the purpose of damaging it shouldn’t be.
Unlike the death penalty, the fools in the highway can avoid all consequences by not being in the highway. Duh.
Civil disobedience? Lol. Those two words are not an excuse to infringe on others’ rights. Breaking the law and preventing vital traffic from going to public highways is stupid and dangerous and if I were in a large vehicle and I had to be somewhere like the hospital or something someone’s getting ran over.
No it isn’t and no I didn’t. You are making stuff up. You don’t need to lie.
I never said it was liberals alone. Stop making up stories.
Back to the subject of “civil disobedience” and rioting. I don’t care if people legally and peacefully protest. I do care about violent and illegal protests. At some point, and it’s already starting, there will be violent counter protesters. And if you think the military and police are sympathetic to anarchists and the other radical leftists you’re in for a rude awakening.
Look how the police at Auburn handled the nutty “antifa” folks. They took their masks off and kept them peaceful. http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/04/18/auburn-takes-berkeley-to-school-as-police-unmask-anti-fascists-outside-richard-spencer-speech/ And those funny looking retards must all shop at the same Anarchist Fashion outlet mall.
Look how the Auburn students handled the “antifa” folks they countered their violent rhetoric with their own. Here’s a trigger warning since I’m a kind and sensitive soul.
Warning!!! Explicit language including vile racial slurs!!!
Enumerate these so-called rights.
I’m beginning to think you are a parody of liberalism because even the wacky liberals on this board with the exception of Der Trihs aren’t this out there.