Bolding mine.
[QUOTE=9th Amendment]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[/QUOTE]
Great. Start listing them.
Do the rights include blocking railroads, shipping lanes, and airports?
Do the rights include damaging vehicles that are stopped on the road by a mob?
Do the rights include beating people who speak in a manner that you disapprove?
Do the rights include raping the first lady?
Stealing a TV is a felony? It can be, if it’s value is high enough, at least $500 in most states, more in others. This bill would not put a financial test for the vandalism, but instead, any vandalism at all would be treated as a felony, even a scratch in the paint that takes 5 seconds to buff out, or spray paint that causes no functional issue, and is easy to cover.
There are already laws on the books about destruction of property. If they made the equipment inoperable, or damaged in a way that requires actual repair, those laws would already apply.
You can avoid lots of things by not committing a crime. In this case, something that went from civil disobedience, which I will grant is inconvenient for some, to now something that you can be killed for, legally. (well, by the proposed and so far defeated bill, anyway)
Actually those two words are exactly what you do when you infringe on other’s rights to make your voice heard. It used to be a vital part of the civil rights movement, but then people complained about the inconvenience of the protesters then too.
In response to this"
Missouri lawmakers want to make it illegal to wear a robe, mask or disguise (remarkably, a hoodie would count) to a protest."
you say this"Wearing a mask to a riot is not free speech either. "
How is that not equating a protest to a riot?
I may have misread your intent, but those are your words, no lie on my part.
You have gone on and on about how the leftist are suppressing and banning speech. If you are aware of how the conservatives are a much greater danger to free speech than liberals are, then why do you continue to argue that liberals are the ones who want to suppress free speech?
First, peaceful does not always mean legal, and illegal does not always mean wrong.
Second, I don’t know that I believe you about not caring about peaceful and legal protests, as you have conflated them constantly with riots in this and other threads.
Finally, there will be counter protests any time there are protests. I will agree that it is best for either side to keep things peaceful, but your threat against peaceful protests with violent counter protesters, and I would disagree that the military and police would take the side of the violent counter protests, even if they are conservatives.
For instance, this is an example of a time when the police came to the aide of peacfully protesting anarchists againt violent right wingers.
I don’t watch videos at work, so I’ll have to take your word for it for now. Kudos on the police for helping to keep a demonstration peaceful.
…in today’s “Stupid Social Justice Warrior Bullshit O’ the Day”, the NZ ACT Party (which has seats in parliament by the virtue of them being “gifted” an electoral seat by the National Party) leader David Seymour just said this:
[QUOTE=ACT Party]
“It is with great sorrow that we hear former Prime Minister Jim Bolger is now parroting online social justice warriors, complaining about ‘neo-liberalism’,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“He is wrong that neoliberalism has led to inequality globally. Global absolute poverty recently fell below 10 per cent for the first time in history. When Mr Bolger was first elected, it was 37 per cent.
“He is wrong about inequality in New Zealand. According to the Ministry of Social Development, hardly an organ of the radical right, inequality of consumption between New Zealand households has barely changed since the Household Labour Force Survey began in 1982.
[/QUOTE]
http://act.org.nz/bolger-should-apologise-for-rma-not-neo-liberalism/
Jim Bolger, for those who who don’t know him, was the National (“Right wing” party) Prime Minister of New Zealand between 1990 and 1997, and presided over the “Mother of All Budgets.”
If Jim Bolger, Jim Fucking Sterling, Anita Sarkeesian, and random twitter poster #343445 are all Social Justice Warriors: then fuck it…we are all Social Justice Warriors. How the heck does the definitions in this thread match the person responsible for the harshest cuts to our social welfare system, a guy who makes funny videos about video games while standing behind a podium wearing a Jimsaw mask with a dildo-bat over his shoulder, a feminist who makes youtube critiques on pulp-culture, and a “nobody” who occasionally posts thing that (at only 140 characters long) may well be taken out of context?
Essentially, yes. If you live in America you have the right to the right to bear arms explicitly because it’s written on a piece of paper and the state recognises it as a right.
Go to the UK and insist you be allowed to own a handgun because it’s your “right” and see how far you get. Spoiler alert: Not very.
Similarly, you have the right to free speech because the US constitution says you do. Head to North Korea and try criticising Dear Leader and let us know how it goes - if and when you finally get released from the gulag.
Guess what happens to people who espouse the wrong religious beliefs in some less tolerant countries? Bleating about “your rights” isn’t going to help if the state has decided the penalty for disrespecting their national religion involves a caning or just looking the other way while an angry mob beats you to a pulp (or worse).
Even the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights - more or less the gold standard of Human Rights - are “written on a piece of paper” and recognised as rights by all civilised countries.
You still don’t know what you are talking about.
To begin with because you, in spite of your glorious intelligence, didn’t notice that what Peterson said was that those people opposing free speech showed elements of Post-Modernism and elements of Marxism in their ideology; which you, master of logic and reason that you are, then conflated into claiming that he said they were the same thing.
I’m weary of explaining something as obvious as this to a magnificent mind as yours but, when an ideology incorporates elements from two different ideologies into it doesn’t make the new ideology representative of either of the two original ones as a whole. Furthermore, oh enlightened one, ideologies can and do have internal contradictions, indeed one of the reasons SJW get mocked is precisely because of those internal contradictions, such as in one hand denouncing and calling out as a racist everyone and their dog while simultaneously saying and doing blatantly racists things themselves.
Finally, it appears that a towering intellect like you doesn’t really need to know what someone actually says to begin insulting their intelligence, because if you had actually seen the video Quint posted, to which you responded, you would have seen professor Peterson addressing, specifically, the apparent contradiction of ascribing Post-Modernist and Marxist ideological elements to those wanting to curtail free speech.
The only thing you have demonstrated here is what the problem with the censorious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou people being called out here, they already know what is what, that they are right and anyone that dares poke holes at their preferred narrative is not just wrong, that person must be stupid and/or evil to even try, therefore it’s OK to try to suppress their views being heard.
Did someone give you a lantern and send you out into the Internet looking for a liberal who supports violent protest? I’d have thought you’d realized you won’t find it here by now, but you seem fixated on the belief that we all must.
I’m curious what these unlisted rights are. Just claiming that unlisted rights exist doesn’t give people the right or the excuse to block roads and destroy property.
If blocking a road is an unacceptable form of protest, how do you feel about, say, occupying a lunch counter?
I think that’s different.
Occupying a lunch counter during the 60s where people were being denied equal treatment is a legitimate form of protest and societal pressure. Even if it infringed on people’s property rights what was the purpose? It was to be able to actually patronize the establishments.
And what was the harm? The harm was to the right of people to discriminate based on race. Is this a right society wants? We have ladies nights still which is discriminatory. We have gender based car insurance differences which are discriminatory. So that’s not really a settled question.
But the harm to society of someone having a sit in at a lunch counter is pretty restricted. And if there were a law in place that mandated places open to the public were open to all society would benefit.
So it was a good cause. And the method was not dangerous to society. Sitting at a Woolworth’s for an extra few hours as a protest does not stop an ambulance from getting to the hospital. It doesn’t stop a fire truck from getting to a fire. It doesn’t stop someone getting home from work to their children. It stops a few people from getting a grilled cheese.
So while I don’t think being in the road during a protest ought to be a mandated death penalty I don’t think that those who rely on the roads as critical infrastructure ought to be inconvenienced to the point they are.
I’m not opposed to protest. I’m opposed to disproportionate level of disruption relative to the cause.
Want to end slavery or lynching? I’m for rounding up a militia and putting an end to the power structure that enables it.
Want to end discrimination where people can’t even be served food? I’m for sit ins, boycotts, and drum circles and all that hippy protesting.
Want to end the disproportionate level of violence employed by police on minorities or other groups? I’m for marches and federal oversight.
Want to prevent a person from speaking as an invited guest? I’m against pepper spraying, assaulting, road blocking, and arson to prevent that.
…so this makes you a Social Justice Warrior. As the official spokesman for the Straightdope Chapter of the Church of Latter Day SJW’s I’m against all those things too. Welcome to the club! I’m glad you finally came to your senses.
Well damn. 
And here we come back to the fundamental critique of the term: it means approximately fuck-all. It’s like “redneck” except three times as broad and with the perjorative thereof meaning considerably less.
Nice strawman.
You’ve already been called out on your deliberate shift of language from “protest” to “riot” so I’ll leave that one, but I wanted to revisit one particular point regarding that law.
Note the bolded parenthetical phrase. Now consider - which segment of the US population is most associated with wearing hoodies? Consider further - which segment of the population of Missouri (the state in which this law was proposed) has been protesting most in recent times?
It may look like an innocuous bit of legislation to you but anyone who doesn’t think the underlying intent was to enable police to crack down on Protesting While Black is very naïve indeed.
On a lighter note, and in case no one has mentioned it yet - former England footballer, current BBC television sports presenter, potato chip salesman and all-around nice guy Gary Lineker had a beautiful responsible to criticism of SJWism from The Sun:
Lineker’s response on Twitter:
Sheer class.
…so we can add this former English footballer to the list of SJW’s that now includes octopus, this band, the former Right Wing Prime Minster of New Zealand, and the guy who walks around with a dildo bat.
Why do SJW’S hate the dentist?
Because they make teeth straight and white!
I just read a better metaphor for why terrible people should be allowed to speak on campus: every student should be required to take a full course in Defense Against the Dark Arts.
In general, I agree with that. Two caveats:
- The action of inviting a particular speaker is speech as well.
If I were a student, faculty member, or alum of a university that invited, say, Richard Spencer to speak there, I would protest that invitation because to some extent, the university represents me, and I don’t want to be associated with that kind of speech.
This goes double if they pay him, or are giving him an honorary degree. These things indicate approval for his speech.
Caveats to this caveat:
a) Universities, as proponents of ideas and debate, should make their facilities available, at cost, to uninvited speakers who wish to gain a hearing for their views, regardless of how repugnant their views might be.
b) Student groups have a right to speech, and they have the right to be regarded as only speaking for themselves. They should be able to invite whoever they please, and pay them as they see fit, as long as they’re doing it with their share of student activities fees, and money they raise themselves. (If they’re funded by outside entities, not so much.) If other students don’t like it, they can argue for cutting that group out of any share of the following year’s student activities fund.
- Anti-vaxxing: I’m going to make an argument that this is different from most other political issues.
With your typical political issue, from climate change to eminent domain to whatever, people debate these things in various fora, but it takes a lot of debate and persuasion to move the needle of public opinion, and then it takes a bit more action to move the needle of how one’s government acts on that change in public opinion. And the views of a small minority aren’t usually a problem: if 90% of the population wants well-run public schools, and 10% are vehemently opposed to ‘government schools’ as their opponents call them, the 10% won’t get their way.
Herd immunity, however, is maintained not by the decisions of any governmental body, but by the individual choices of parents. And if 10% of the kids don’t get vaccinated, there goes your herd immunity, and the diseases they’re being vaccinated against can spread, rather than dying out because the vulnerable population is too sparse.
So anti-vaxxing propaganda is pernicious in and of itself in a way that, say, climate denial isn’t. The speakers are appealing directly to the people they need to persuade in order to undermine herd immunity, and if they persuade enough people - even a very small minority of the population as a whole - the result can be deadly.
I’m very much torn as to whether this difference is great enough that anti-vaxxers should be denied fora to spread their views, but there’s no question in my mind that there’s a much stronger argument, a qualitatively different argument, for it than there is over the typical run of issues.