It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservatives are the real campus thought police squashing academic freedom

page: 10
88
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
OP clearly states a recent circumstance by which death threats generated by dishonest coverage from the "right wing' media has effectively silenced Dr. Ciccariello-Maher at Drexel University.

Can any of you dispute that? If not, the OP's point stands.




posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
OP clearly states a recent circumstance by which death threats generated by dishonest coverage from the "right wing' media has effectively silenced Dr. Ciccariello-Maher at Drexel University.

Can any of you dispute that? If not, the OP's point stands.


I see you're attempt at silly intellectual pablumatic sewer cloggers....

And I raise you one "WHERE IS JIMMY HOFFA????"


Now, bye!



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
White men are sooooo entitled they just need to vent once in a while ????? What a crock. No wonder it's in the mud pit.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




OP clearly states a recent circumstance by which death threats generated by dishonest coverage from the "right wing' media has effectively silenced Dr. Ciccariello-Maher at Drexel University.

Can any of you dispute that? If not, the OP's point stands.


Though the articles are about tweets, and thus about nothing particularly news worthy, I see nothing dishonest about the coverage.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That’s your opinion in response to mine.

If you care to discuss something concrete have at it.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

edit on 10-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




That’s your opinion in response to mine.

If you care to discuss something concrete have at it.


I read the articles in question and they are not dishonest. They portray the tweets, which are a matter of public record, fairly accurately. We can look at the tweets and compare them to the articles.

Are you able to show me how they are dishonest?



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
LOL only non controversial speakers should be allowed to talk in order to not create protests... that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




That’s your opinion in response to mine.

If you care to discuss something concrete have at it.


I read the articles in question and they are not dishonest. They portray the tweets, which are a matter of public record, fairly accurately. We can look at the tweets and compare them to the articles.

Are you able to show me how they are dishonest?


You read the articles and formed opinions as I said. You seem to be focused on one word in my description "dishonest" in terms of describing the articles alluded to in the OP's article.

If you wish to discuss that, in line with the OP's thesis here, have at it, don't just describe that we can have that conversation. Bring your evidence, so long as it addresses the matter at hand.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's either dishonest reporting or it isn't. When the accusation is that dishonest reporting generated death threats, you might at least attempt to show how it is dishonest. If you are unable to show how, it is a baseless accusation built on a lie. If the reporting is accurate, it is his own comments, and not the "right-wing news", who generated the subsequent outrage.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As usual you wish to quibble about semantics.

I do not.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




As usual you wish to quibble about semantics.

I do not.


Usually when we accuse others we can back it up, but I guess in this case dismissing evidence to the contrary suffices enough.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Agree or not with the title, but to sit there and say the liberal left is only assaulting free speech is a lie to its core.


That's no doubt true, but does it change the fact that when either side interferes with free speech it's wrong? Does it make the groups from the Left who do things like block doors, heckle speakers and riot to stop speech any less guilty?

I don't buy into the look at what they do argument to justify the same from the other side approach that is taking IMO. They are also doing a dance around what they said in much the same was an errant teenager would do. But, but other people do it..............

It's a tantrum to be honest. They said provocative things and got a predictable response and now are using the predictable response to defend themselves. No way did this person not know what the response would be.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




As usual you wish to quibble about semantics.

I do not.


Usually when we accuse others we can back it up, but I guess in this case dismissing evidence to the contrary suffices enough.


I didn't "accuse others" of anything. I made a statement of opinion; you have made a statement of opinion.

Unless you have some other evidence about something germane to the OP's topic ... you have nothing.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
No way did this person not know what the response would be.



You are talking about Milo and Ann? I agree.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I didn't "accuse others" of anything. I made a statement of opinion; you have made a statement of opinion.

Unless you have some other evidence about something germane to the OP's topic ... you have nothing.


Like I previously mentioned, we can compare the tweets to the article and see if it is "dishonest" or not. We can also scour the internet for any evidence that the threats were "generated by dishonest coverage from the 'right wing' media", evidence which is suspiciously missing. But if you want to relegate your conclusions to the domain of opinion, opinion which lacks evidence, you're free to it.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And as I said earlier (and this will be my last to you unless you have something more substantial than your opinion and your incessant quibbling to offer) that you can feel free to bring your points of evidence (that is, if you are confused, evidence from the articles you claim to have read as compared with the author's tweets.)

I offered that my evaluation of the articles in question is my opinion. You seem to be obsessively stuck there.

You have done nothing more than offer your opinion of my opinion and your opinion of said articles NONE of which is on topic here. I can understand your need to segue to something else after the embarrassment you were handed by OP, but I'm not going to facilitate your side-stepping any further without valid reasons.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

I guess I failed to note the portion of OP's argument that stated that the fact that the "right wing" also tries to suppress free speech means that supposed efforts from the left to do the same are justifiable.

Am I reading your statement correctly?



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm fine at leaving your baseless accusations as just that, opinion, but I have to wonder how you can rationally hold an opinion without first discerning the facts of the matter? There is a fine line between opinion and dogma. It doesn't matter—if you're ever willing to back up your baseless conclusions I'll be more than happy to argue otherwise, and maybe we can discern the truth together.
edit on 10-10-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The left tries to silence speech. It’s been proven.

The right tries to silence speech. It’s been proven.

The left tries to force speech (PC).

The right tries to force speech (NFL).



It’s not partisan.



There... did that really need 10 pages?



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join