Lefty Fascists Shut Down Yet Another College Speech

a reply to: neo96

Smart is not determined by skin color.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: reldra

I am a constitutionalist.

Excuse me for a couple of minutes while I go roll on the floor and laugh hysterically.

You are excused, but please collect yourself.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Once upon a time, people were... somehow, not to borrow a trending meme but, they persisted.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Smart is not determined by skin color.

Right thats determined by geographic location in proximity to the equator and melanin production.

Skin color has exactly jack snip to do with 'race'.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: reldra

I would not attend a conference on why my favourite author was a hack though, even in my hometown. No precognition needed, I am in charge of my self and simply going to an event I dislike then getting so mad I get violent is not a wise thing to do.

Also, not inviting speakers that you view as causing violence in others obviously means there is no precognition needed either, as you must know this in order to consider them a bad idea to invite.

Yes but that's rational behavior: don't attend an event that you don't want to attend, and don't go listen to somebody talk that you don't want to hear talk.

We shouldn't expect that of our precious college age folks.

That is just obtuse. Of course college students will protest speakers at their college or university that they deeply do not like. At a Liberal or Conservative school. Has been that way for 100 years or more.

It doesn't mean they are 'precious' or soft in some way. They are what is our future. Has been that way probably since the beginning of time.

I can imagine similar protests in ancient Athens.

Oddly, somehow, all of them are commie anarchist snowflakes with coloring books now. It's just an absurd idea.

I would think most people know better. This is not new even in a thousand years.

So...continuing to go off on tangents and not actually discuss meat and potatoes points? Fun.

Continuing to argue about things that nobody has said, while ignoring what people are actually saying? Fun.

What's ironic is that in this instance I didn't mean precious how you think I meant precious.

perhaps I was wrong in how you meant 'precious', it is often used in the last year or so.

Meat and potatoes of it? This OP has been discussed in depth. I gave my take on how these always end and why it is ridiculous to blame the students, as if this is a NEW thing.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: neo96

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation

en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds like the left to me.

See speech getting shut down, and violent protest since before the election, and has continued to this day.

I am not sure what universe you woke up in, but democracy is fine by me. Totalitarianism is bad. Never said violence was good against free speech.

It is actually the right that pushes the militias, which I do believe in when organized against a fascist state.

You seem very confused.

I am a constitutionalist.

Don't get it twisted: you are absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt NOT a constitutionalist. Of all the utterly ludicrous things you've said in this thread, that comment far and away takes the cake.

originally posted by: reldra

I am a constitutionalist.

But you don't defend the Rights of the invited speaker to speak or those who want hear to hear the speaker? It's hard to unite the two idea's?

Why is protest to deny others the Right to speak OK with a "constitutionalist"? How is picking and choosing who has Rights constitutional? Do you think the Constitution only applies to some ideologies and not others?

a reply to: Kali74

Once upon a time, people were... somehow, not to borrow a trending meme but, they persisted.

We let anyone speak for that very reason. In fact, it is more important to protect views we disagree with. "If freedom means anything, it means freedom for those who think differently"—Rosa Luxenburg.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: neo96

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation

en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds like the left to me.

See speech getting shut down, and violent protest since before the election, and has continued to this day.

I am not sure what universe you woke up in, but democracy is fine by me. Totalitarianism is bad. Never said violence was good against free speech.

It is actually the right that pushes the militias, which I do believe in when organized against a fascist state.

You seem very confused.

I am a constitutionalist.

Don't get it twisted: you are absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt NOT a constitutionalist. Of all the utterly ludicrous things you've said in this thread, that comment far and away takes the cake.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I always thought of you as someone that pays attention.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: reldra

I would not attend a conference on why my favourite author was a hack though, even in my hometown. No precognition needed, I am in charge of my self and simply going to an event I dislike then getting so mad I get violent is not a wise thing to do.

Also, not inviting speakers that you view as causing violence in others obviously means there is no precognition needed either, as you must know this in order to consider them a bad idea to invite.

Yes but that's rational behavior: don't attend an event that you don't want to attend, and don't go listen to somebody talk that you don't want to hear talk.

We shouldn't expect that of our precious college age folks.

That is just obtuse. Of course college students will protest speakers at their college or university that they deeply do not like. At a Liberal or Conservative school. Has been that way for 100 years or more.

It doesn't mean they are 'precious' or soft in some way. They are what is our future. Has been that way probably since the beginning of time.

I can imagine similar protests in ancient Athens.

Oddly, somehow, all of them are commie anarchist snowflakes with coloring books now. It's just an absurd idea.

I would think most people know better. This is not new even in a thousand years.

So...continuing to go off on tangents and not actually discuss meat and potatoes points? Fun.

Continuing to argue about things that nobody has said, while ignoring what people are actually saying? Fun.

What's ironic is that in this instance I didn't mean precious how you think I meant precious.

perhaps I was wrong in how you meant 'precious', it is often used in the last year or so.

Meat and potatoes of it? This OP has been discussed in depth. I gave my take on how these always end and why it is ridiculous to blame the students, as if this is a NEW thing.

Not really. You've done a lot of dancing and a lot of equivocating, very little actual discussing.

But hey, at least you didn't try to shut everything down I guess.

a reply to: neo96

Smart is also not determined by evolution of race in proximity to the equator.

a reply to: Kali74

I am not talking about a popular book, I'm talking by studies both before and since conducted by many nations, not just predominantly white, Jewish or Asian.
If I remember the authors of the bell curve were political scientists and bigots. Many others have worked in the field of intelligence and genetics, environmental factors and many other areas and come up with troubling results. These are often touted by the bigots of the day until they read the parts that say if race and genetics is the main factor, as bigots wish, then they are not the superior race.

Don't try to sweep many peoples research under the rug with a book written by Americans with interests in proving their hypothesis.

(to be clear I'm not a fan of this field of study, the evidence suggests it lies somewhere between genetics and environment, which is also a problem. Should probably also state I'm not a racist before that pops up)

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: neo96

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation

en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds like the left to me.

See speech getting shut down, and violent protest since before the election, and has continued to this day.

I am not sure what universe you woke up in, but democracy is fine by me. Totalitarianism is bad. Never said violence was good against free speech.

It is actually the right that pushes the militias, which I do believe in when organized against a fascist state.

You seem very confused.

I am a constitutionalist.

Don't get it twisted: you are absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt NOT a constitutionalist. Of all the utterly ludicrous things you've said in this thread, that comment far and away takes the cake.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I always thought of you as someone that pays attention.

I have, which is how I can say what I said with absolute certainty.

Ignoring the COTUS and BofR entirely when it suits you to ignore it and clinging to it when it suits you to cling to it does not a constitutionalist make.

Edit for your edit: I am. No need to go down the road (again) of trying to get personal. Your comments speak for themselves. As do mine.

I, for one, go out of my way to ensure I attend events where the viewpoints of those AGAINST my stance are given.

I WANT to hear the other "side's" view , I guess it's an IQ thing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: reldra

This was not obstruction. Only the government can obstruct free speech.

Sadly, I've heard it used by many. The argument that free speech applies only to the government shows the deep ignorance towards one of the most basic human rights.

The first was created as a protection for political speech.

No matter how the sword cut.

originally posted by: reldra


I am a constitutionalist.

You would shut down the right to speak of the actual forefathers who wrote the constitution.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: neo96

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation

en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds like the left to me.

See speech getting shut down, and violent protest since before the election, and has continued to this day.

I am not sure what universe you woke up in, but democracy is fine by me. Totalitarianism is bad. Never said violence was good against free speech.

It is actually the right that pushes the militias, which I do believe in when organized against a fascist state.

You seem very confused.

I am a constitutionalist.

Don't get it twisted: you are absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt NOT a constitutionalist. Of all the utterly ludicrous things you've said in this thread, that comment far and away takes the cake.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I always thought of you as someone that pays attention.

I have, which is how I can say what I said with absolute certainty.

Ignoring the COTUS and BofR entirely when it suits you to ignore it and clinging to it when it suits you to cling to it does not a constitutionalist make.

Edit for your edit: I am. No need to go down the road (again) of trying to get personal. Your comments speak for themselves. As do mine.

I don't do what you say. You act as if you can see into my mind.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Smart is also not determined by evolution of race in proximity to the equator.

Right intelligence is something people are born with.

It's either people have it or they don't.

Most people don't.

Sad fact of life.

People can memorize all they want to.

Read all they want to.

But how they use it is intelligence.

Closed minds,shutting down speech denotes a lack of it.

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: reldra


I am a constitutionalist.

You would shut down the right to speak of the actual forefathers who wrote the constitution.

No, why would you say that? That is really insulting.

a reply to: reldra

he kinda can based on what you have been writting in this entire thread.