b1rd claims to be an anarchist yet supports trump who is quite clearly extremely authoritan
I'm pretty sure he has literally no values at all
I'm pretty sure he has literally no values at all
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,164
I support trump. Come at me Maho.
fuck off coldtooth
It's not about reason either. It's about adult citizens who complain about their own country and yet they don't go out and vote (and that's how Trump obviously won; a lot of the people were fed up with the status quo and they went out and done something about it. But it seems like no one on the left wants to admit that -- calling everyone racist is much easier). It's sad seeing people wasting away their rights like that, because people in other countries would kill for a chance like that.Kisses wrote:
There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line) etcFoxtrot wrote:
Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.
ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line)That's pretty ungrateful of you
Anyone who voted trump is either completely ignorant of the candidate they're voting for, or willing to accept racism in exchange for the rest of his policies. Either one is unacceptable imo. And if they wanted a change in the status quo, they're fucking retarded for voting for the billionare businessman.
And yeah, a lot of people were really fucking complacent too. Polls didn't help with that either. The one good thing coming out of this presidency is that it's motivated a lot of youths to get involved with politics.
And yeah, a lot of people were really fucking complacent too. Polls didn't help with that either. The one good thing coming out of this presidency is that it's motivated a lot of youths to get involved with politics.
I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.
I'm still trying to work out why you hate Trump and his supporters so much. Do you think they're genuinely evil, or is it just some intellectual disagreement. Because the hates he's getting really isn't proportionate to anything he's done.
Well, there's "tolerance", as in, being tolerant of Muslims, LGQTBQQ, terror attacks, other liberals, and people and groups you already like. Then there's the tolerance of allowing people you don't necessarily agree or with or like the right to speak, give them basic respect, and not use violence against them. Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side, and have been pretty hypocriticial in things like being tolerant of Muslims, but not Christians. Respecting free speech and such, has mainly been a virtue of the right.Raspberriel wrote:
Funny how tolerance only entered the picture again once your side came to power.
I'm still trying to work out why you hate Trump and his supporters so much. Do you think they're genuinely evil, or is it just some intellectual disagreement. Because the hates he's getting really isn't proportionate to anything he's done.
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.Dawnsday wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
You don't protest free speech with free speech, that's how free speech dies. Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
e; this is a reference to the berkely milo riots :-D
e; this is a reference to the berkely milo riots :-D
big suck
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.[/quote]Dawnsday wrote:
You're lying by saying I am "triggered" never once did I express being in the act of "triggered" so really what my point im getting at here is that you have nothing to stand on to try an gather people against me.
Also that is a lovely photo <3
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
That's literally the point of free speech
Making voting mandatory is stupid, but it should be a right regardless. People have the right to throw away their rights, so I can't exactly do anything about it but except have an opinion on their character. Unfortunately, there's always going to be all kinds of misinformed people who are gonna vote, but we can't exactly throw democracy out of the window because of that.B1rd wrote:
I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.
Out of curiosity, but why do you keep quoting one sentence out of an entire paragraph and make an argument out of that, instead of just answering to the paragraph itself?Mahogany wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
That's some good stuffDawnsday wrote:
Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works
picky picky_old
You missed theMahogany wrote:
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
That's literally the point of free speech
Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entitiesDawnsday wrote:
Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.
Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.
As always, xkcd explains this better than I ever could
Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.
As always Sargon of Akkad explains this better than me because my english is too shaky to give a /full/ speech here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU
As always Sargon of Akkad explains this better than me because my english is too shaky to give a /full/ speech here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by. They had it to shut down because the riots were getting out of hand. Even the chancellor of the university defended Milo and his right to free speech. It wasn't the university that drove him out, it was the students themselves. How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him, as you claimed lmaoMahogany wrote:
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entities
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.
Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.
Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".
big suck
And those disguised attackers are despicable.Dawnsday wrote:
Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.
Doesn't change the fact that the peaceful protestors have a point, and it was the uni's choice to shut it down based on reaction. Yes, it was a boycott/complaint type of "we don't want to listen to you".
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.Foxtrot wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".
He didn't get an event there though, precisely because the university didn't want him. They outright protested his talk.Foxtrot wrote:
How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him
Do you have anything to disprove my point other than rhetoric of what you think free spech means?
>unis choice
i dont think they were given much choice, it was a state of "if this goes ahead we will continue to loot, assault and generally be a nuisance to not only the university but the outside communities"
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time, Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same. The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
Peaceful protest would just be not going, in fact the ENTIRE logical approach from libs to this situation should've been, not going and not caring, it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
i dont think they were given much choice, it was a state of "if this goes ahead we will continue to loot, assault and generally be a nuisance to not only the university but the outside communities"
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time, Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same. The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
Peaceful protest would just be not going, in fact the ENTIRE logical approach from libs to this situation should've been, not going and not caring, it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
Yes they were.Dawnsday wrote:
i dont think they were given much choice
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?Dawnsday wrote:
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Dawnsday wrote:
Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same.
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.Dawnsday wrote:
The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
That's a boycott, not a protest. There was a sizable peaceful protest going on, with a separate rogue element doing their own thing.Dawnsday wrote:
Peaceful protest would just be not going
"Hey guys ignore it and it'll go away"Dawnsday wrote:
it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
Inaction is the entire reason Trump got elected, you dolt. I don't give a shit if this gives Milo attention, nor should anyone else. He's drawing attention to the worst side of the alt-right, and sabotaging his own movement - which is great. I hope he keeps doing his thing, people keep protesting him, and he keeps getting shut down, like the rest of his shitty movement.
This is not what free speech is about, and has nothing to do with free speech. Great job showing that you're absolutely clueless as to what that means.
Jesus, why do you have to make it so hard to reply to you. Is this another tactic of yours
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.Mahogany wrote:
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideasMahoganyt wrote:
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speechesThey also rely on the students financially, so yeah, no shit they'd follow their best interest.
Having to do a full reponse in 2017
alright let's do it
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech (even though they were destroying shit lmao), Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here??", You all held your tongues because antifa's views aligned with yours.
Lol.
alright let's do it
Yes they were.They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech (even though they were destroying shit lmao), Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here??", You all held your tongues because antifa's views aligned with yours.
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.No, the mayor told them to stand down. Eventually the choice was changed and the police forcibly dispersed everyone with rubber bullets and teargas, sadly the event was already cancelled by this point.
Lol.
Thanks.
Ahh, so the mayor is the smart one. Credit to themDawnsday wrote:
They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
Nah fam I denounced the violent rioters as much as the next guy. The peaceful protestors were fine thoDawnsday wrote:
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech
I did, and that proves your shit wrong right thereDawnsday wrote:
Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here?
I didn't. I voiced my opposition to the violence, you fucking dolt. Don't speak for shit you can't prove, or don't even know about.Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues
There were, you dolt. There were both peaceful and violent contingents. I stand fully against the violent ones, and fully behind the peaceful ones.Dawnsday wrote:
there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo""
thats an odd way to spell "thankfully"Dawnsday wrote:
sadly
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Foxtrot wrote:
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.
Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
why are you so delusional
You two don't even begin to understand the very basic concepts of free speech and it's honestly embarassing. People like yous are part of the problem with democracy
If he's actively pushing Nazism i.e. in a speech then... eh? It's not THAT bad- it's forcibly stopping him from spreading hate speech-, although I'd prefer him to just get arrested. Vigilantism is a dangerous road, and hate speech is illegal already, so.Dawnsday wrote:
is it ethical to punch a nazi
If he's just existing in the street? Fuck no, get out
btw Mahogany PLEASE stop doing the line-by-line quote responses please. Just respond normally, it allows much better conversation than splitting everything into easier-to-argue-against quotes.
good advice thank you 
Jesus christ.Mahogany wrote:
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
why are you so delusional
I'm comparing those forums to the way businesses have their right of free speech. For example, they can deny service to any customer they want, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that the denied clients stop having that right as of that moment. That's the point I was trying to make because you said private entities shouldn't uphold right of free speech. And besides, businesses are also private entities, and so are forums, but that's another point.
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Kind of hard to ignore riots.
Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.
Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
You're wrong here. If you watch any videos of the violence, you'll see plenty of people shouting at the antifa extremists to stop, and that violence is wrong. There were plenty of lawful peaceful protesters doing fine.
Also, it's not actually bystanders' responsibility to intervene when stuff like that happens, generally.
Fuck anyone who was encouraging or participating in those actions though. They're cowards.
By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.
"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."B1rd wrote:
By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.
Nazism explicitly incites violence, so it's not protected by free speech, iirc.
It's definitely banned here and elsewhere in Europe, although I'm not entirely sure about America. Legality of stuff over there seems pretty random
Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence
We're not talking about Islam
Don't even.Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence