By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses | TIME

EricHiggin said:
Torillian said:

The same reason they put up satanist statues next to Christian ones on government property: to make sure the government is applying these regulations fairly. 

Well if you don't think God is real that's less of a concern. Here are their tenets if you're curious. I'm particularly a fan of no. 5

  1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
  2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  3. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
  4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
  5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
  6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
  7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

So I'm always happy to see them put up a statue on government property next to one of the ten commandments. 

Not sure what the construction of a statue has to do with free speech.

#5 and #7 are a problem because one says you should base your beliefs around what we know now scientifically, and the other says the rules are designed to promote thought. How do you think people like Einstein came up with their idea's? By using the known methods that weren't working, or going beyond them?

What a weird interpretation of free speech and the idea that ones beliefs should conform to our best understand of the world. 

I guess I'll just say:

1. free speech includes actions

2. I don't think that conforming your beliefs to scientific understanding means all science stagnates. People like Einstein worked within the scientific method to help better our understanding of the world. He did not just believe something despite all the evidence against it, which is what #5 is trying to address. 



...

Around the Network

Good. Short of physical threats or inciditing riots/property damage, etc, anyone and everyone should be allowed speech about whatever they want without them or their listeners having fear of being harrassed, egged, or wacked over the head with bike locks by neo-Fascist groups like Antifa (and yes, Fascist is what they are). Let the public decide for themselves what they can hear, what's sensible, what contains good ideas and what don't. Others don't get to make that decision for them. At least not in this country.

I would typically think an executive order like this is excessive and redundant, but in our current climate in this country, where people think it's acceptable to riot and burn shit, harrass listeners of a speaker, block off entrances, etc because "muh feelings", desperate times call for desperate measures.

Let's not forget that Ben Shapiro, a pretty reasonable center-right-libertarian speaker needed like hundreds of thousands of dollars in security to ward off the Fascists, to make a speech whose central theme was essentially "think for yourself, work hard for yourself. Don't succumb to crippling identity politics"..

Something NEEDED to be done.

If the speech/speaker is idiotic/psychotic enough, the vast majority of people won't listen to them anyway, so what exactly are people worried about. More speech should be encourage, always. Never less.

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 25 March 2019

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

SpokenTruth said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

by neo-Fascist groups like Antifa (and yes, Fascist is what they are).

Are you sure you know what a fascist is? I mean it's right in their name "anti-facism" that they aren't....more to the point, they oppose it.  How can opposing fascism be fascism?

By acting in "facist" manners, completely contrary to how they apparently want to be percieved as.



SpokenTruth said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

by neo-Fascist groups like Antifa (and yes, Fascist is what they are).

Are you sure you know what a fascist is? I mean it's right in their name "anti-facism" that they aren't....more to the point, they oppose it.  How can opposing fascism be fascism?

Is this serious? 

The name means absolutely nothing. A name is a name..

I can call myself Emperor of the Universe. But I'm just a dude from Chicago who writes about video games.

What matters to me is their actions. Their actions are extremely fascist. They're litterally attempting to dictate what can or cannot be spoken through force. It doesn't get any more Fascist than that.

Even if you want to argue the laughable claim that the people these guys target are "Fascist" and therefore they're the anthesis of that.. Well, the vast majority of the people these lunatics claim to "fight" against are not really Fascist. From what I've seen, most of them simply don't tow the modern day "Progressive" line. Some are even center-left, Classical Liberals and Libertarians. And sure, some might be right wingers, maybe even Authoritarian right wingers.. but Authoritarian right wingers = Fascisim is about as sensible as Authoritarian left wingers = Communism. 

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 26 March 2019

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

sundin13 said:
Public Universities already have to comply with the First Amendment. All this really does is let the federal government dictate speech on campuses which could actually directly go against free speech if it is actually enforced beyond what enforcement currently exists.

First of all, this doesn't just apply towards public universities. It also applies towards private universities who receive federal funding. Second, while public universities are technically required to respect the first amendment, there was never any serious consequences if they don't. That's what this is designed to do. 



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
SuaveSocialist said:
As free speech already existed on college campuses, the Executive Order doesn't change anything.

Perhaps it's just to be used as an excuse for arbitrarily de-funding colleges. It wouldn't be the first time Beloved Leader's regime explored options to decrease college attendance. To Beloved Leader's collaborators, logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

1. I feel like you should get "Beloved Leader" tatoed on your forehead with a heart next to it. 

2. Who are the collaborators to you

1. Maybe if I was a member of the Esoteric Order of Dagon.  But I'm not.

2. His accomplices within his regime and the sycophants prostrating themselves in hopes of earning his favor.



SpokenTruth said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

by neo-Fascist groups like Antifa (and yes, Fascist is what they are).

Are you sure you know what a fascist is? I mean it's right in their name "anti-facism" that they aren't....more to the point, they oppose it.  How can opposing fascism be fascism?

By that logic, I'm sure that the Mistry of Truth in 1984 really was telling the truth. I would argue that while Antifa aren't fascists by the strictest definition, they act like fascists. They initiate force in a non-defensible way and use authoritarianism in order to achieve their goals.  The main differences are that while fascists still believe in the continued existence of the state, Antifa does not. 



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

SpokenTruth said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

Is this serious? 

The name means absolutely nothing. A name is a name..

I can call myself Emperor of the Universe. But I'm just a dude from Chicago who writes about video games.

What matters to me is their actions. Their actions are extremely fascist. They're litterally attempting to dictate what can or cannot be spoken through force. It doesn't get any more Fascist than that.

Even if you want to argue the laughable claim that the people these guys target are "Fascist" and therefore they're the anthesis of that.. Well, the vast majority of the people these lunatics claim to "fight" against are not really Fascist. From what I've seen, most of them simply don't tow the modern day "Progressive" line. Some are even center-left, Classical Liberals and Libertarians. And sure, some might be right wingers, maybe even Authoritarian right wingers.. but Authoritarian right wingers = Fascisim is about as sensible as Authoritarian left wingers = Communism. 

The name bit is a joke.  My first question was serious though.  And given that your only inference to fascism so far is the use of violence against something, then that suggests you really aren't all that familiar with the concept of fascism aside from that one factor. You just see AntiFa's predilection for violence as equivocal to fascism because fascists were also violent....but for very different reasons.

You ignore the fact AntiFa's violence is a reaction.  Fascist violence is a not.  It's a core tenet of growing their party/nation.  Further, fascism is built around a single, authoritarian leader with staunch protectionism, isolationist and military expansionist polices.  Fascists absolutely oppose liberal or western democracies.  Every bit of that is antithetical to AntiFa.

A reaction to what exactly? Speech? New ideas? There is absolutely no justification to "react" to speech in the way they do, just because you don't agree with it. Ideas are largely subjective in terms of their positive or negative impact on people/society. Violence is not. 

Maybe they aren't "Fascist" in the traditional sense or on a government level - but they certainly use Fascist-like tactics because as they're using force to basically shape discourse and thus society for the benefit of "the collective". Sure the collective might not be for the "state" in this case, but it's still a top-down sort of operation.

At the very least, they should be considered terrorists performing terrorist acts. I've also heard the term Anarcho-Fascist to describe them.

And there is such a thing as left-wing Fascism, so it does make sense.



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

DarthMetalliCube said:
SpokenTruth said:

The name bit is a joke.  My first question was serious though.  And given that your only inference to fascism so far is the use of violence against something, then that suggests you really aren't all that familiar with the concept of fascism aside from that one factor. You just see AntiFa's predilection for violence as equivocal to fascism because fascists were also violent....but for very different reasons.

You ignore the fact AntiFa's violence is a reaction.  Fascist violence is a not.  It's a core tenet of growing their party/nation.  Further, fascism is built around a single, authoritarian leader with staunch protectionism, isolationist and military expansionist polices.  Fascists absolutely oppose liberal or western democracies.  Every bit of that is antithetical to AntiFa.

A reaction to what exactly? Speech? New ideas? There is absolutely no justification to "react" to speech in the way they do, just because you don't agree with it. Ideas are largely subjective in terms of their positive or negative impact on people/society. Violence is not. 

Maybe they aren't "Fascist" in the traditional sense or on a government level - but they certainly use Fascist-like tactics because as they're using force to basically shape discourse and thus society for the benefit of "the collective". Sure the collective might not be for the "state" in this case, but it's still a top-down sort of operation.

At the very least, they should be considered terrorists performing terrorist acts. I've also heard the term Anarcho-Fascist to describe them.

And there is such a thing as left-wing Fascism, so it does make sense.

Here's the truth about Antifa. They're mostly made up of upper class, well off, well fed white people. They got their shiny new iPhones, their Nike high-top sneakers, their trust fund and parents who have bulldozed every obstacle and challenge out of their way so they can have an easy life. As a result of having everything, they're bored. Their boredom has somehow convinced them that they're living in an oppressed society. These people have never been to a third world country. Most of them have never even been outside of the United States (I'm referring to the ones who live in America, obviously). They claim to speak for the working class and every racial group under the sun that isn't white even that as a group, they're made of mostly white people who don't work. I can tell you that real working class people would never be part of a group like that because they're too busy actually working and making a living.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Jon-Erich said:
SpokenTruth said:

Are you sure you know what a fascist is? I mean it's right in their name "anti-facism" that they aren't....more to the point, they oppose it.  How can opposing fascism be fascism?

By that logic, I'm sure that the Mistry of Truth in 1984 really was telling the truth. I would argue that while Antifa aren't fascists by the strictest definition, they act like fascists. They initiate force in a non-defensible way and use authoritarianism in order to achieve their goals.  The main differences are that while fascists still believe in the continued existence of the state, Antifa does not. 

You just made that up.

The vast majority of anti-fascists are against authoritarianism. And most anti-fascist people have not used force since WW2.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.