You are talking out your ass. Explain wtf "applying force to speech" evens means. You said you yourself can decide what is false. But no one else can? If Facebook or someone is as smart as you and decides something is false, you want to force them to keep it in their content, huh?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. But I stand by my assertion. We are still in the problem of definitions. Now the thread of our discussion contains "left," "right," "liberal," "conservative," and you have added "Democrat" and "Republican." It's a problem of terms.
Ufh. The fairness doctrine forces broadcasters to give a view they may not otherwise or else the broadcaster is punished. Applying force to speech is controlling speech.... I don't advocate forcing anyone to do anything. I desire, without force, for Facebook to let individuals decide for themselves what is true.
These people think protest can solve things, when 99% of the time it does nothing. If they devote all that time to election, it will be much more effective at getting things done.
I only got through the first page+, but that is one of the most unintentionally funny threads ever in the D/D. Kudos rocketman1981, tallanvor, bobbytheguy, for taking it seriously.
I want them to be able to do what they want and I wold prefer them want to let thier users decide for themselves what's true.
Conservatives used to drown civil rights workers or shoot them in their driveway, or throw battery acid in teenage girls' faces on integration day. Or literally beat entire segments of the population to death with either no prosecution or a guaranteed acquittal.
I don't disagree with that. the left on the other hand supports the Fairness Doctrine. A total contradiction of the above statement.
Well, this just happened. http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/...ll-hammers-milo-uc-davis-event-smash-windows/ This coming from the "tolerant" lefties. The irony.
I agree that groups that participate in protest with violence do not only not solve anything, they create more problems. But non-violence... MLK and Mahatma Gandhi are examples that non-violence protests do absolutely work. The key is non-violence. Left or right - whatever. Non-violence vs not non-violence is much more important and interesting debate points. Here is a very interesting finding on the "3.5% rule" (worldwide). Basically, if there is an active and sustain participation of at least 3.5% a population in non-violence resistance, they have always been successful in recent history (1900-2006). This was a surprising finding for the presenter below, who thought violence would be more successful. https://rationalinsurgent.com/2013/11/04/my-talk-at-tedxboulder-civil-resistance-and-the-3-5-rule/
It's a terrible look and the wrong thing to do. It would be one thing if the university were a private institution, but this is a publicly-funded (well, only about 10-15%, but still) institution. The best protest would be a civil one and then convincing people not to attend. If the speaker has about eight people in the audience, that sends a message. Getting his stupid talk cancelled only makes him into more of a hero for our darker-souled compatriots.
Wrong. never encourage someone to ignore certain viewpoints. The best response is to give the dissenting opinion right after and be compelling. Denying (or discouraging in your case) people access to viewpoints is how North Korea works. Instead give them access to both and let them decide. In general i find almost all forms of public protest moronic (including the civil rights ones). boycotts and other methods of protest make more sense.
The "viewpoints" are well known. Dude is well published, well-blogged, and incredibly repetitive. I'm sure though that you encouraged as many right-wing friends as possible to go hear Bernie, for instance, to listen to his (also very repetitive) message in detail. Nice as we approach MLK Jr. Day, but not too surprising, to hear you call civil rights public protests "moronic." You don't get the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act without MLK Jr. forcing the government's hand on that. They were happy (as has been richly documented) to keep ignoring the Civil Rights movement. Of course, some of your compatriots would like to undo both, and they've already mostly dismantled the Voting Rights Act. Congrats on that. ... And bye.
This thread is incredibly whiny, elitist and divisive. There will be things you're compelled to protest against in a democracy. We do share those values and the last time i checked, protest is a form of speech. Not everyone can pour in millions of dollars complaining about a government position they want to change. Both parties house poor, stupid, ignorant, impoverished, and desperate people. They might even be your neighbor. OH DEAR!
of course i did. you speak as if you have met or know me. you don't. the cause was virtuous . the means was often misguided and useless. you get the civil rights act because republicans beat southern democrats by making compelling arguments (as did MLK).
