US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Rightey wrote:Well seeing as they are a university group who also attends this univeristy I would assume they get better rates for booking a venue on campus.

No one forces you to go to these events, you can choose to ignore it, or you can go and protest what this dickhead is saying but he should not be stopped from simply going to speak.

The point is this group of students organized the event, they go to this school as well, and the tickets to see Milo speak sold out very quickly. Why should others have the power to shut down an event they organized

Universities are all about people talking and challenging each other with different opinions, not blocking others from being able to speak.

At the National Prayer Breakfast this week, Donald Trump asked attendees to pray for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has replaced him as host of The Celebrity Apprentice.

Trump said ratings for the show have since ‘gone down the tubes’.

He told those congregated at the breakfast:

I just want to pray for Arnold, if we can, for those ratings.

But the former governor of California has responded with a way better idea.

Schwarzenegger tweeted a video, saying:

Hey Donald, I have a great idea.
Why don’t we switch jobs?
You take over TV, because you’re such an expert in ratings, and I’ll take over your job, so people can finally sleep comfortably again.

Rocsteady wrote:Can't say I'm a fan of no-platforming. strawberry float knows why a uni would book Milo anyway but I'd rather challenge such views in person than merely refusing them and turning him into a sort self-proclaimed martyr.

Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly pushing to erase neo-Nazis and white supremacists from the US government’s counter-extremism programme by moving it to focus exclusively on Islamist terrorism.

American officials briefed on the proposed changes told Reuters the Countering Violent Extremism (DVE) initiative could be renamed to “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism”.

The reclassification would remove its work combating far-right attacks and mass shootings, such as the massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston, which are rarely classified as terrorism by American authorities.

twitter.com/psycotria/status/827164733535055872

Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ Law Banning Political Activity by Churches

President Trump vowed Thursday to overturn a law restricting political speech by churches, a potentially huge victory for the religious right and a gesture to his political base.

Mr. Trump said his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from engaging in political activity at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

Repealing the law would require approval by Congress. Certain tax-exempt organizations — in this case, churches — are not allowed to openly endorse or campaign for political candidates. If they do, under existing law, they risk losing the benefits of their tax-exempt status.

In addressing the issue of churches and political speech, Mr. Trump said, “I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

He added that “freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is under serious threat.”

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised to push for repeal of the law, which was passed in 1954 and named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who proposed the change to the tax code.

Memento Mori wrote:This page. This hasn't been a good day.

“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

He added that “freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is under serious threat.”

Rightey wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Preezy wrote:Well the fact that students pay high fees is irrelevant. They're purchasing a service, that doesn't mean they should have a say in what the university does.

I actually think you are very wrong there. Look at any other business (which is what the uni is if they are charging), do customers not get a say in how the place is run?

If your local pub starts selling shitty beer, are you not entitled to tell the landlord that you will not come back unless he ups his game?

If your local music arena/hall/stadium is booking shitty bands, are you not entitled to tell them that you will not come back unless they up their game?

If your favourite restaurant has a dip in quality, are you not entitled to complain and tell them that you will go elsewhere if the don’t up their game?

What’s the difference between a shitty steak and Milo?

Those are all terrible analogies. You make it seem as if you have no choice but to drink at that pub, or go to that concert so you are demanding they change their practice.

That's really what this was. A student group at the university invited Milo to speak, not the university itself, and people were protesting. They are fully within their right to protest what he says but they should not be trying to ban him from speaking. There are plenty of people there who did want to hear him speak.

To use your own example it's like if I came to the pub you go to and demanded that beer wasn't served because me and my associates don't like it.

Or going to a stadium and getting a gig you wanted to go to cancelled because I don't like the music you like.

Or for a more British example, banning the kind of porn you watch because I don't agree with it.

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:Can't say I'm a fan of no-platforming. strawberry float knows why a uni would book Milo anyway but I'd rather challenge such views in person than merely refusing them and turning him into a sort self-proclaimed martyr.

Rocsteady wrote:[*]

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:Can't say I'm a fan of no-platforming. strawberry float knows why a uni would book Milo anyway but I'd rather challenge such views in person than merely refusing them and turning him into a sort self-proclaimed martyr.

Out interest - straight white male I'd assume?

It's a different to perspective when it's "I say, I'd like to challenge all the radicalisation against those other [...strawberry floated the quote and on my phone so cba fixing it



It's not much of an assumption I would have thought, been posting about girls alongside pictures of my body on here for years.

It will be a different perspective but many people from all backgrounds have argued the same, notably such as Peter Tatchell, so it's not just - I'm in the majority therefore safe from abuse and thus will automatically be supportive of allowing anyone to speak.

No - platforming has allowed the prevalent view of young people and liberals to be scared of debate to manifest itself. What has no - platforming actually achieved? How did we manage without it, by and large, until the last few years? What benefits are there?

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:[*]

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:Can't say I'm a fan of no-platforming. strawberry float knows why a uni would book Milo anyway but I'd rather challenge such views in person than merely refusing them and turning him into a sort self-proclaimed martyr.

Out interest - straight white male I'd assume?

It's a different to perspective when it's "I say, I'd like to challenge all the radicalisation against those other [...strawberry floated the quote and on my phone so cba fixing it



It's not much of an assumption I would have thought, been posting about girls alongside pictures of my body on here for years.

It will be a different perspective but many people from all backgrounds have argued the same, notably such as Peter Tatchell, so it's not just - I'm in the majority therefore safe from abuse and thus will automatically be supportive of allowing anyone to speak.

No - platforming has allowed the prevalent view of young people and liberals to be scared of debate to manifest itself. What has no - platforming actually achieved? How did we manage without it, by and large, until the last few years? What benefits are there?

No - but it's interesting to point out that you're the one telling woman, blacks and other groups - or in Milos case certain specific individuals - etc what they should have to put up with or risk being unleashed on them given his past behaviour.

He's a utter banana split and you're defending his right to claim a private platform (where most owner don't want him) for himself to best attack people (but not you, don't worry) as 'free speech'.