Charlottesville VA - WTF???

[Tinordi]

My goodness. Violence had no role in advancing the civil rights movement?

Is that a serious argument?

I suggest reading a book on the civil rights movement.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, no, you've missed the point.

Actually, I think you've missed the point, or are just poorly making yours. The point of the cartoon was "hey, this is how free speech works in the real world, so when you're being an a-hole and claim 'free speech!' this is why there are still consequences."

Go off on the philosophical ideal that we should all strive towards all you want, but the way it's applied is not how you describe, because like most very academic ideas they only work in practice, not in theory. The ideal of free speech doesn't work because of humans. We do, however, have a real version of free speech that DOES work, albeit not the high standard of the ideal, and calling hat one "wrong" just seems ignorant or overly academic.

You can talk about the philosophical concept of free speech, or free speech as it's successfully applied in many liberal societies all over the world. One is influence by the other, but only one actually exists.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Try to follow the thread of conversation.

1. New Era said the approach to civil rights employed by MLK was ineffective.
2. I said it was more effective than the violent tactics employed later in the 60s and 70s. I cited the Freedom Riders as an example of protest that didn't initiate violence.
3. Flash implied that the violence that surrounded he Freedom Riders was initiated by the civil rights activists.
4. I asked him to clarify how he thinks initiating violence is a winning tactic for the left.

I think there is some confusion here. The argument was that the MLK strategy of non-violence was not predicated on not using violence like you suggest, but allowing violence to be used against people of color, then responding accordingly. There are many forms of non-violent protest, and many strategies for response. There is the non-violence of allowing yourself to get beat into a coma, which is not very effective. There is the non-violence of getting beat, and only fighting back when the cameras have already shown the oppression. This is pretty effective in winning the propaganda war. There is the non-violence is taking a shot in the mouth, then kicking the #### out of the guy that hit you. That can be pretty effective too. All forms were used by MLK and his followers, and all to varying levels of effectiveness, and evolving as the civil rights movement progressed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Actually, I honk you've missed the point, or are just poorly making yours. The point of the cartoon was "hey, this is how free speech works in the real world, so when you're being an a-hole and claim 'free speech!' this is why there are still consequences."

Go off on the philosophical ideal that we should all strive towards all you want, but the way it's applied is not how you describe, because like most very academic ideas they only work in practice, not in theory. The ideal of free speech doesn't work because of humans. We do, however, have a real version of free speech that DOES work, albeit not the high standard of the ideal, and calling hat one "wrong" just seems ignorant or overly academic.

You can talk about the philosophical concept of free speech, or free speech as it's successfully applied in many liberal societies all over the world. One is influence by the other, but only one actually exists.

Look, if you're not even willing to make the effort to read my post when I clarify what I mean, and just want to repeat your original misinterpretation of what I'm saying, I don't really know what to do with that. Yet here, I shall try one more time.

only one actually exists.

Again, both actually exist. There is, first, a guarantee that the government will not arrest you for what you say which is enshrined in the constitution. That is a thing that exists. There is another thing that exists, which is the principle, which most of us value, that people should be able to exchange competing views and figure out who is right.

Neither of those things are limitless. The government can still place limits on your free expression, e.g. you cannot burn down a government building to express your frustration with taxes. In some places you can't deny the holocaust. There is a reasonable debate on how far the government should be able to go in limiting expression.

Likewise, society can still place negative pressure on certain viewpoints; e.g. in the past, you couldn't tell your co-workers about your views that you don't think Christianity makes much sense and so you're an atheist without risking social reprisal and possibly the loss of your job. Now, you can't write the Google memo without much the same consequence. There is a reasonable debate about what perspectives society should take a dim view of, and how significant the negative impacts should be (e.g. should Justine Sacco really have had her life ruined).

The XKCD cartoon, which is posted all over the place and has been repeatedly objected to on exactly this basis by the way, suggests that the first thing is the only thing that "freedom of speech" refers to. That is wrong. The fact that you can have a conversation with someone and disagree about literally anything of substance - say, what the corporate tax rate in Alberta should be - and then go on with your life demonstrates the existence of freedom of expression as a general principle, regardless of what limits the government places on its own interference with that principle.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That comic is stupid because it suggests that as long as the government isn't arresting you, no free speech issue arises.

That's a stupid thing to say because the opposite is not true either. Just because you get banned from a webforum or Facebook does not automatically mean it's a free speech issue. Sometimes it really is just people getting fed up with BS and stop enabling idiots.

That comic is written in the context of a certain discussion and is not an attempt to cover all things free speech. It's not stupid. It's just a limited view for a limited context.

I also kind of fail to see the big boogeyman you keep saying we should be worried about. Conservatives control all branches of government and several media outlets blasting out such shameless propaganda it would make Pravda blush. The White House is a platform of racist rhetoric and implied white supremacy. I kind of fail to see how free speech for the conservaties is something we should be super worried about right now.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm merely posting to refute your ahistorical accounting of the history of the civil rights movement in the US.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

My goodness. Violence had no role in advancing the civil rights movement?

Is that a serious argument?

I suggest reading a book on the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement was successful because of its moral righteousness. And it's morally righteousness rested on the dedication of its leaders not to initiate violence.

Of course it was violent. The whole point was to defy the law and provoke a violent reaction that would gain the sympathy of the American public.




Do you really think the cause would have gone better if sympathizers had smuggled weapons into the South and the marchers at Selma had been armed?

You guys are smarter than this. Hatred of Trump is no reason to abandon the core principles of civil society - or even just to posture about it on a forum.

[DuffMan]

well, this thread is forked.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

I also kind of fail to see the big boogeyman you keep saying we should be worried about. Conservatives control all branches of government and several media outlets blasting out such shameless propaganda it would make Pravda blush. The White House is a platform of racist rhetoric and implied white supremacy. I kind of fail to see how free speech for the conservaties is something we should be super worried about right now.

Sure, very true. I'm not exclusively worried about free speech for conservative views. In fact, I don't really care what the views are for the most part (leaving aside lines that may be drawn to prevent people from holding nazi rallies, which as I've said I'm open to). Trump's threats to open up libel laws or crack down on certain news outlets, if he carries through, are a clear threat to free speech for left-leaning viewpoints. Hell, his constant recitation of "fake news" and similar gaslighting by conservatives represents a currently enacted threat to the free and open exchange of ideas.

That being said, it's also the case that there are only a few social media outlets that comprise the largest sources of information and conversation between people, being twitter, facebook and the like, and on those, you're far more likely to have bad stuff happen to you if you fail to adhere to a particular brand of left-wing politics. Those companies have significant influence over the zeitgeist, I'd say to a degree not seen since there were only a couple of news channels on TV to get world events from. So the whims of those private-industry masters of information dissemination are arguably more impactful on the public discourse than the government, even, at this point.

Though I don't know that institutional bias at twitter is actually a greater threat to the open exchange of ideas than the basic medium itself, which is premised on carefully curating a stream of information only from people you like and blocking anyone you don't. That's probably a bigger problem than Jack Dorsey deciding to flex his ideological muscles.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

well, this thread is forked.

The violence in Charlottesville was 9 days ago. What, exactly, do you expect this thread to be addressing at this point?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The violence in Charlottesville was 9 days ago. What, exactly, do you expect this thread to be addressing at this point?

I dunno, how about the town council meetings with the very angry citizens?

or the the plan to drape all of the statues there?

[Titan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I dunno, how about the town council meetings with the very angry citizens?

or the the plan to drape all of the statues there?

Then maybe post about it with links and your take?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

...with that principle.

I've never seen someone so passionately defend their misinterpretation of a comic strip.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

How am I misinterpreting anything? The first panel could not be any clearer.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

it's also the case that there are only a few social media outlets that comprise the largest sources of information and conversation between people, being twitter, facebook and the like, and on those, you're far more likely to have bad stuff happen to you if you fail to adhere to a particular brand of left-wing politics.

Unless of course you count being being barraged by rape and death threats as a bad thing, in which case by far the most common reason for getting in trouble in social media is by being a woman in the wrong place. Say gaming or film industry, or comic books. God forbid you're a trans artist. Oh, and being a relatively young leftist woman is also a really easy way to get targeted by harassment.

In other words: yeah not so much.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Titan

Then maybe post about it with links and your take?

I don't want to disrupt the current ongoing discussion.

[jammies]

CHL, you are misunderstanding the point of the comic, which is that those who cry "you're infringing on my freedom of speech!" are incorrectly assuming the legal right to free speech extends to private entities. Nothing else. Arguing that the theoretical right is different than the legal right is utterly irrelevant, nowhere in that comic is it implied we are discussing the philosophical version; that is all assumption, and a bad and puzzling assumption, on your part.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

CHL, you are misunderstanding the point of the comic, which is that those who cry "you're infringing on my freedom of speech!" are incorrectly assuming the legal right to free speech extends to private entities.

And yet a lot of people seem upset that the stance Colin Kaepernick and others NFL players have taken over the anthem could get them sanctioned by the private entities of their NFL teams. So the 'be prepared to accept the private consequences of free speech' principle seems to be applied selectively, depending on whose ox is being gored.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And yet a lot of people seem upset that the stance Colin Kaepernick and others NFL players have taken over the anthem could get them sanctioned by the private entities of their NFL teams. So the 'be prepared to accept the private consequences of free speech' principle seems to be applied selectively, depending on whose ox is being gored.

I think it's more of an issue that the NFL seems perfectly content to look the other way about domestic abuse, sexual assault, CTE studies, etc, but some guys peacefully protesting racism is something they won't bend on.

Art Rooney Jr was on TV today saying how he would "have a conversation" with any Steeler who wanted to kneel during the anthem.

Art Rooney Jr employs James Harrison, who personally admitted to beating up his girlfriend. Art Rooney Jr said it was okay because he wanted to take his child to get baptised and the girlfriend disapproved. Art Rooney Jr thinks domestic abuse is okay, but protesting racism is not.

At least for me, this is the issue I take with the NFL's handling of player protests.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

well, this thread is forked.

couldn't disagree more, this is exactly what this site and thread need more than anything. True debate championed through intellectualism, ideas and respectful discourse. It's also the natural evolution of a thread like this, and probably the reason why many, including you, keep coming back to Calgarypuck.

You should consider engaging in it a bit more actually.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

My goodness. Violence had no role in advancing the civil rights movement?

Is that a serious argument?

I suggest reading a book on the civil rights movement.

that wasn't his argument.