The Politics Thread 3.0

Our best bits.
User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by That » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:27 pm

captain red dog wrote:Karl, if universities take public money they do kind of have a duty to ensure freedom of speech is upheld where invites are extended to people to speak.

My office takes public money (via research grants) too, do we have to let crazy people in to talk to us? Or maybe I could invite the Hitler Fanclub to speak at my local public library, does that have an obligation to free speech too? No other organisation, public or not, would let a fascist in to give a rally.

You have a right to speak freely, not a right to speak in some particular location.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:30 pm

Karl wrote:
captain red dog wrote:Karl, if universities take public money they do kind of have a duty to ensure freedom of speech is upheld where invites are extended to people to speak.

My office takes public money (via research grants) too, do we have to let crazy people in to talk to us? Or maybe I could invite the Hitler Fanclub to speak at my local public library, does that have an obligation to free speech too? No other organisation, public or not, would let a fascist in to give a rally.

You have a right to speak freely, not a right to speak in some particular location.


Maybe we could fine MPs if they don’t let Richard Spencer speak in the House of Commons?

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:31 pm

Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:So now either nobody gets to speak, or only select speakers decided by a couple of the old white boys at the top of the university administration? If an invite is extended then the person invited should be allowed to speak. Anyone who doesn't like it has the right to protest peacefully like they did with Marine Le Pen I believe, and nobody is forced to attend the talk.


Yeah, the university administration should have no say at all in what goes on in the university…

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to speak wherever you want.

No it doesn't, but if you are invited by student groups, the ones paying to attend the university (with support from the public purse), the administration really shouldn't be blocking invited guests simply because they don't like the content of their talks. Provided the talks break no laws, they should have the right to speak at public institutions where invited in my opinion.

User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Garth » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:35 pm

Political parties receive public money, so will anyone be allowed to go speak at the next Conservative party conference?

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Lex-Man » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:42 pm

Moggy wrote:
Karl wrote:
captain red dog wrote:Karl, if universities take public money they do kind of have a duty to ensure freedom of speech is upheld where invites are extended to people to speak.

My office takes public money (via research grants) too, do we have to let crazy people in to talk to us? Or maybe I could invite the Hitler Fanclub to speak at my local public library, does that have an obligation to free speech too? No other organisation, public or not, would let a fascist in to give a rally.

You have a right to speak freely, not a right to speak in some particular location.


Maybe we could fine MPs if they don’t let Richard Spencer speak in the House of Commons?


Everyday for five years straight.

I think I would have agreed with red dog a few years ago, but seeing the effect these groups have been having on the world I think it would be better to shut them down. These speaking tours are used as recruiting grounds for more extremist groups. Uni students aren't a bunch of free thinking geniuses, a lot of them are pretty thick (myself included) when it comes down to it.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:43 pm

captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:So now either nobody gets to speak, or only select speakers decided by a couple of the old white boys at the top of the university administration? If an invite is extended then the person invited should be allowed to speak. Anyone who doesn't like it has the right to protest peacefully like they did with Marine Le Pen I believe, and nobody is forced to attend the talk.


Yeah, the university administration should have no say at all in what goes on in the university…

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to speak wherever you want.

No it doesn't, but if you are invited by student groups, the ones paying to attend the university (with support from the public purse), the administration really shouldn't be blocking invited guests simply because they don't like the content of their talks. Provided the talks break no laws, they should have the right to speak at public institutions where invited in my opinion.


Maybe Harvey Weinstein could give a talk to the film studies students on making movies?

Gary Glitter could pop in to a music lecture for a chat about 70s music?

Mark Sampson could come along to a sports class to talk tactics?

It is ridiculous to force universities to let people in to speak, universities receiving public money and/or fees from the student is irrelevant, plenty of places receive public money and charge entry, are you arguing that National Trust properties should be forced to allow far right rallies?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:46 pm

lex-man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl wrote:
captain red dog wrote:Karl, if universities take public money they do kind of have a duty to ensure freedom of speech is upheld where invites are extended to people to speak.

My office takes public money (via research grants) too, do we have to let crazy people in to talk to us? Or maybe I could invite the Hitler Fanclub to speak at my local public library, does that have an obligation to free speech too? No other organisation, public or not, would let a fascist in to give a rally.

You have a right to speak freely, not a right to speak in some particular location.


Maybe we could fine MPs if they don’t let Richard Spencer speak in the House of Commons?


Everyday for five years straight.

I think I would have agreed with red dog a few years ago, but seeing the effect these groups have been having on the world I think it would be better to shut them down. These speaking tours are used as recruiting grounds for more extremist groups. Uni students aren't a bunch of free thinking geniuses, a lot of them are pretty thick (myself included) when it comes down to it.


Even if they were free thinking geniuses that would shut down any hate speakers, there should still be no obligation for a university to allow anybody entry to the premises.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Lex-Man » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:56 pm

Moggy wrote:
lex-man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl wrote:
captain red dog wrote:Karl, if universities take public money they do kind of have a duty to ensure freedom of speech is upheld where invites are extended to people to speak.

My office takes public money (via research grants) too, do we have to let crazy people in to talk to us? Or maybe I could invite the Hitler Fanclub to speak at my local public library, does that have an obligation to free speech too? No other organisation, public or not, would let a fascist in to give a rally.

You have a right to speak freely, not a right to speak in some particular location.


Maybe we could fine MPs if they don’t let Richard Spencer speak in the House of Commons?


Everyday for five years straight.

I think I would have agreed with red dog a few years ago, but seeing the effect these groups have been having on the world I think it would be better to shut them down. These speaking tours are used as recruiting grounds for more extremist groups. Uni students aren't a bunch of free thinking geniuses, a lot of them are pretty thick (myself included) when it comes down to it.


Even if they were free thinking geniuses that would shut down any hate speakers, there should still be no obligation for a university to allow anybody entry to the premises.


Sure, but I was trying to counter the idea that the average uni student would easily be able to see through the fallacies in an extremists arguments. That's kind of the point, they dress up they're horrible ideas in watered down safer ideas, that kind of sound reasonable if you squint a little bit.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:59 pm

lex-man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
lex-man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl wrote:
captain red dog wrote:Karl, if universities take public money they do kind of have a duty to ensure freedom of speech is upheld where invites are extended to people to speak.

My office takes public money (via research grants) too, do we have to let crazy people in to talk to us? Or maybe I could invite the Hitler Fanclub to speak at my local public library, does that have an obligation to free speech too? No other organisation, public or not, would let a fascist in to give a rally.

You have a right to speak freely, not a right to speak in some particular location.


Maybe we could fine MPs if they don’t let Richard Spencer speak in the House of Commons?


Everyday for five years straight.

I think I would have agreed with red dog a few years ago, but seeing the effect these groups have been having on the world I think it would be better to shut them down. These speaking tours are used as recruiting grounds for more extremist groups. Uni students aren't a bunch of free thinking geniuses, a lot of them are pretty thick (myself included) when it comes down to it.


Even if they were free thinking geniuses that would shut down any hate speakers, there should still be no obligation for a university to allow anybody entry to the premises.


Sure, but I was trying to counter the idea that the average uni student would easily be able to see through the fallacies in an extremists arguments. That's kind of the point, they dress up they're horrible ideas in watered down safer ideas, that kind of sound reasonable if you squint a little bit.


Yeah I agree with you. Intelligent people can be taken in by charismatic demagogues just as easily as thickos.

User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by That » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:00 pm

I find increasingly they're becoming quite effective at pushing this idea of, well -- they recognise that there are a lot of younger left-wing people who are a bit overly moralising and annoying, and they really work that into this kind of 'libcuck' narrative. I think it's appealing to stupid people because they find it funny. Much like Boris Johnson.

EDIT: I'm reclaiming the term 'libcuck' by the way. Snowflake pride. :toot:

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:07 pm

Karl wrote:I find increasingly they're becoming quite effective at pushing this idea of, well -- they recognise that there are a lot of younger left-wing people who are a bit overly moralising and annoying, and they really work that into this kind of 'libcuck' narrative. I think it's appealing to stupid people because they find it funny. Much like Boris Johnson.


It’s partially that, but it’s also this (very American) idea that freedom of speech is threatened. They make it sound so reasonable, why shouldn’t they be able to speak to students and let the students make up their own minds? Why shouldn’t they be able to have a Twitter account and be able to say what they like? Why shouldn’t they be able to hold rallies in public parks where they can wave their flags?

Once they succeed in making people think freedom of speech is threatened, it’s easy then to make their opponents look like the draconian fascists. How often do we see them saying things like “the left are the real intolerant ones!!”? Yeah, it’s the left that is intolerant because they threaten to counter protest your EDL rally… :roll:

User avatar
Irene Demova
Member
Joined in 2009
AKA: Karl

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Irene Demova » Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:59 pm

CRD's whole argument here is fundamentally flawed. The outright racist/fascist speakers are often invited by student societies with members in the single digits which are created just to invite people, there's no sincere interest in seeing them there.

This isn't a free speech debate it's an outright political attack by the billionaires who are backing these speakers. Look at turning point USA for an example, they're campus trolls whose main purpose is to harass "liberal" professors and they get nobody at their rallies. Yet this supposedly tiny student group is backed and funded by Foster Friess who is a billionaire conservative donor.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hexx » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:10 pm

Karl wrote:I find increasingly they're becoming quite effective at pushing this idea of, well -- they recognise that there are a lot of younger left-wing people who are a bit overly moralising and annoying, and they really work that into this kind of 'libcuck' narrative. I think it's appealing to stupid people because they find it funny. Much like Boris Johnson.

EDIT: I'm reclaiming the term 'libcuck' by the way. Snowflake pride. :toot:


Completely off topic "cuck" might be my most hated current word.
In large part as it's normally used by pale, spotty pond dwelling mouth breathing neckbeards who haven't known the intimate touch of person since they were born asserting that someone else "isn't a real man"

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:17 pm

Hexx wrote:
Karl wrote:I find increasingly they're becoming quite effective at pushing this idea of, well -- they recognise that there are a lot of younger left-wing people who are a bit overly moralising and annoying, and they really work that into this kind of 'libcuck' narrative. I think it's appealing to stupid people because they find it funny. Much like Boris Johnson.

EDIT: I'm reclaiming the term 'libcuck' by the way. Snowflake pride. :toot:


Completely off topic "cuck" might be my most hated current word.
In large part as it's normally used by pale, spotty pond dwelling mouth breathing neckbeards who haven't known the intimate touch of person since they were born asserting that someone else "isn't a real man"


It's hilarious that they have cottoned onto that word. Basement dwelling twats that have never spoken to a woman in real life, but like to look down on those that enjoy seeing their girlfriend/wife with other people?

I think snowflake is the worst though. They hold up Trump as their hero and then have the bollocks to call other people snowflakes? :lol:

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:19 pm

Cuck irritates me now as well.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hexx » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:25 pm

So that's Squinty and Hexx on Team Cuck, and Moggy on Team Snowflake.

I think that should be your next GRCade Solves :P

User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by That » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 pm

Hexx wrote:Squinty and Hexx on Team Cuck, and Moggy on Team Snowflake


Coming soon to PornHub Premium?

Image
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hexx » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:29 pm

Karl wrote:
Hexx wrote:Squinty and Hexx on Team Cuck, and Moggy on Team Snowflake


Coming soon to PornHub Premium?


Premium? Free Community Content all the way.

I'm told.

I mean "What's PornHub? A seafood shaped router?"

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:37 pm

The latest crime statistics are a complete disaster. Compared to last year: knife crime up 26% (almost half of that in London), sexual offences up 19%, stalking and harassment 36%, violence without injury 21%, with injury 10%, murders at their highest since 2008, acid attacks on the rise...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41677046

Image
User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Garth » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:49 pm

Cuts to policing combined with increased living costs, stagnant wages and the rise in poverty isn't a good mix.

But at least the rich are getting richer!


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 121 guests