Canadian students express support their U.S. counterparts with solidarity rallies
Bye, bye. Don’t let the barn door hit you on your way out!
Laura Ingraham was pretty stupid to make that comment. You would think people used to the public court of opinion would have a little more brains and situational awareness when it comes to stuff like this. Like the other conservative calling the young female survivor a nazi. What an asshole.
Someone on that link made this comment
"I proudly cancelled my @hulu subscription. I will not give my money to a company who does not believe in free speech and uses fascist-like tactics to silence people they disagree with. I encourage you to do the same" in response to companies pulling their advertisements.
It's well within the perogotive of companies to pull their advertisements in situations like this I think but I agree it's fascost-like tactics.
Instead of debating from a researched and informed position David Hogg simply uses tactics like this to shut down opposing views and voices. Conservatives and gun-advocates can't win against tactics like that. The smartest thing they could do would be to throw him on block/ignore and not rise to the bait.
The smartest thing they could do would be to throw him on block/ignore and not rise to the bait.
I think it's very difficult to ignore and ostracize kids who have just survived a school mass shooting. I think the proper response to that kind of situation is compassion and understanding. Making fun of a kid who just survived a school shooting should be beyond the pale. Ingraham's ridicule of this student shows how politics in America and elsewhere is becoming dangerously toxically polarized and I wonder where that is going to lead the US and the world. It seems to me that we have to come up with better ways to respectfully include everyone in political conversation and decision making. I think winner take all politics is causing a lot of anger. This is one reason we should get rid of FPTP and move to a more consensual process.
There's nothing unfair about a call for a boycott. And if we want to talk unfair it is a far stretch from that to buying members of congress.
If anything is irrational it is the continued stonewall of the NRA in the face of growing opposition to people being slaughtered.
"I proudly cancelled my @hulu subscription. I will not give my money to a company who does not believe in free speech and uses fascist-like tactics to silence people they disagree with. I encourage you to do the same" in response to companies pulling their advertisements.
It's well within the perogotive of companies to pull their advertisements in situations like this I think but I agree it's fascost-like tactics.
I continue to find it bizarre how "free speech" has been transformed from "The government can't fine or arrest me for speaking" to "People are obligated to pay me for speaking, no matter what I say". Advertisers hold the power when it comes to ad-driven media platforms, because they're the ones with the money. If you say something that offends someone, and that person doesn't want to pay you to repeat it, well, tough shit: the market decided. If that's "fascism", what qualifies as the free market? Should gunmakers be obliged to advertise in pro-gun control publications, because otherwise they're restricting anti-gun speech?
I think it's very difficult to ignore and ostracize kids who have just survived a school mass shooting. I think the proper response to that kind of situation is compassion and understanding.
I think in David Hoggs case he's gone well beyond the realm of scared and shaken survivor to fully embracing his role as new frontman for the left and anti-firearm advocates. Any of these survivors who don't share that specific narrative have been themselves ignored and ostracized by the media.
It's being pushed that we need to listen to these kids about gun violence when in reality they're no more an expert than you or I on the matter. Surviving a tragedy doesn't make someone an expert. Going back to the argument about voting they're saying 16 year olds are mature and grown enough to vote but not to drink alcohol and the age of buying a gun should be raised from 18 to 21.
Making fun of a kid who just survived a school shooting should be beyond the pale. Ingraham's ridicule of this student shows how politics in America and elsewhere is becoming dangerously toxically polarized and I wonder where that is going to lead the US and the world. It seems to me that we have to come up with better ways to respectfully include everyone in political conversation and decision making.
I very much agree. Name calling is weak, attacking childen even if they're jumping into adult politics is disgusting. Tactically it's also dumb because you just look like a bully.
I continue to find it bizarre how "free speech" has been transformed from "The government can't fine or arrest me for speaking" to "People are obligated to pay me for speaking, no matter what I say". Advertisers hold the power when it comes to ad-driven media platforms, because they're the ones with the money. If you say something that offends someone, and that person doesn't want to pay you to repeat it, well, tough shit: the market decided. If that's "fascism", what qualifies as the free market? Should gunmakers be obliged to advertise in pro-gun control publications, because otherwise they're restricting anti-gun speech?
I'm strugling a bit to follow what you're saying but what I'm talking about is how the go to response to something that someone doesn't like is an attempt to silence the speaker. A professor comes to your university to give a speach, instead of researched relevant and poised counter points being debated what do we see? Screaming, bull horns, trying to smash windows, breaking sound and video equipment. In the gun community when someone like me says hey whats the logical reason you need an assault rifle or machinegun, or as I eluded to earlier someone saying blowing away an intruder with a shotgun shouldn't be your first line of defense what happens? We get attacked, and in the case when it's a business our business gets attacked, negative reviews and down voted, people filling up our advertising pages and shit.
People weaponize social media. In the example from the link above what was David Hoggs automatic reaction to Laura Ingrahams insults? A list of advertisers in which he insinuates people should email with a view harassing them for their association with Ingraham. I suppose it's the standard today in which people operate by. One of the definitions of fascisim is the forcible suppression of opposition. I still think it's a suitible definition of that behavior.
I'm strugling a bit to follow what you're saying but what I'm talking about is how the go to response to something that someone doesn't like is an attempt to silence the speaker.
I'll try to clarify. There's a whole spectrum of ways someone can be "silenced", some real, some essentially imaginary. Let's take a hypothetical individual we'll call Hateful Bob, who's just finished writing a racist book.
If the government arrests Hateful Bob and burns his books, that's infringing on his freedom of speech (albeit in a way that seems fairly popular in Canada at the moment). If someone shoots Hateful Bob in the head, and the Crown says it won't prosecute the shooter, because Bob was an asshole, he's definitely been silenced, with state acquiescence if not direct culpability.
If people protest outside the bookstores selling Hateful Bob's book, and those stores decide selling the book is more trouble than it's worth, Hateful Bob hasn't been silenced. He can still read chapters on the street corner, or sell the book out of his garage.
But what if nobody buys it? In a free-market system, where individuals have the right to spend their income as they wish, this isn't silencing. It's just people refusing to pay him to be an asshole. When it happens at a remove ("If you spend money paying this asshole to speak, I'm not going to spend my money on the product you're advertising"), it's still not silencing. Businesses make business decisions to cut loose controversy every day.
A professor comes to your university to give a speach, instead of researched relevant and poised counter points being debated what do we see? Screaming, bull horns, trying to smash windows, breaking sound and video equipment. In the gun community when someone like me says hey whats the logical reason you need an assault rifle or machinegun, or as I eluded to earlier someone saying blowing away an intruder with a shotgun shouldn't be your first line of defense what happens? We get attacked, and in the case when it's a business our business gets attacked, negative reviews and down voted, people filling up our advertising pages and shit.
For the campus example, you may find this article of interest. When it comes to getting fake bad reviews on your business's Yelp page over an unrelated issue, that sucks, but it still isn't silencing you.
People weaponize social media. In the example from the link above what was David Hoggs automatic reaction to Laura Ingrahams insults? A list of advertisers in which he insinuates people should email with a view harassing them for their association with Ingraham. I suppose it's the standard today in which people operate by. One of the definitions of fascisim is the forcible suppression of opposition. I still think it's a suitible definition of that behavior.
The names of advertisers aren't, and cannot be, secret. They pay to get their names out there. Itemizing them and saying "don't buy from these companies as long as they subsidize this show" isn't "weaponizing" anything (surely that's ironic phrasing in the context of an actual shooting with an actual weapon?), and it's definitely not "forcible suppression of opposition". If someone threatened you with violence (as the Parkland kids have been threatened), that would be forcible suppression. "Don't buy this guy's stuff" is not, and it sure as hell isn't fascism. Nobody's under an obligation to buy your stuff -- a point realized by the commenters who said they'd boycott Hulu in response to it pulling its advertising from Ingraham! That's not violence against Hulu, and it's not forcible suppression of anti-gun viewpoints.
I'll try to clarify. There's a whole spectrum of ways someone can be "silenced", some real, some essentially imaginary. Let's take a hypothetical individual we'll call Hateful Bob, who's just finished writing a racist book.
If the government arrests Hateful Bob and burns his books, that's infringing on his freedom of speech (albeit in a way that seems fairly popular in Canada at the moment). If someone shoots Hateful Bob in the head, and the Crown says it won't prosecute the shooter, because Bob was an asshole, he's definitely been silenced, with state acquiescence if not direct culpability.
If people protest outside the bookstores selling Hateful Bob's book, and those stores decide selling the book is more trouble than it's worth, Hateful Bob hasn't been silenced. He can still read chapters on the street corner, or sell the book out of his garage.
But what if nobody buys it? In a free-market system, where individuals have the right to spend their income as they wish, this isn't silencing. It's just people refusing to pay him to be an asshole. When it happens at a remove ("If you spend money paying this asshole to speak, I'm not going to spend my money on the product you're advertising"), it's still not silencing. Businesses make business decisions to cut loose controversy every day.
I basically agree with all of that. And you made that pretty easy, with "Hateful Bob" and his "racist" book.
Can you do the same with "Controversial Steve" and his not-necessarily "racist" book? Because sometimes that's what we're talking about.
I guess I also agree with Paladin1 that if you show up to hear someone's talk (who isn't "Racist Bob") and just happen to have a 300 watt white noise generator with you, then there's something more we need to talk about. What's the story there?
I don't think we're restricting it to "Racist Bob" any more. Anyone who feels hard done by seems to also feel that "anything goes".
Can you do the same with "Controversial Steve" and his not-necessarily "racist" book? Because sometimes that's what we're talking about.
Sure. Heck, I'll give a real-life example from the area where I grew up: Controversial Charles Darwin and his "Origin of Species". Where his book was legally banned from being sold, his freedom of speech was infringed. Where Christian bookstores didn't carry it because it was lies from the pit of hell, his freedom of speech was not infringed. Where individual Christians refused to shop at any bookstore that sold it, his freedom was likewise intact.
I guess I also agree with Paladin1 that if you show up to hear someone's talk (who isn't "Racist Bob") and just happen to have a 300 watt white noise generator with you, then there's something more we need to talk about. What's the story there?
Is Controversial Steve speaking at an outdoor rally with his own amplifier and being drowned out by protesters? Or was he set to speak inside, and the university cancelled his speech after a bunch of protesters exercising their own freedom of speech made the administration (or his own security staff) feel that it wasn't a welcoming environment?
I don't think we're restricting it to "Racist Bob" any more. Anyone who feels hard done by seems to also feel that "anything goes".
Back in 2003, I took part in a fairly massive protest in Washington, DC against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Along the way, there was a group of agitated counterprotesters waving signs calling me a bin Laden sympathizer and so forth. While noisy, they stayed to the side and were nonviolent, so my freedom of speech was not infringed.
A decade later, I took part in protests against the Québec tuition hikes. The government introduced special laws (all later either repealed or declared unconstitutional) banning said protests. That [i]did[/i] infringe my freedom of speech, even though I was lucky/cowardly enough not to become a test case.
Also, anyone who supported the tuition hikes and, as a result, didn't donate to alternative media or buy red squares was not infringing my freedom of speech. Nobody's obliged to pay me to speak.
Sure. Heck, I'll give a real-life example from the area where I grew up: Controversial Charles Darwin and his "Origin of Species".
OK. We still agree.
Is Controversial Steve speaking at an outdoor rally with his own amplifier and being drowned out by protesters?
Well, it's pretty normal for a speaker to have a microphone. Moreso than an audience member to have a white noise generator. I don't think it's quite the same.
Or was he set to speak inside, and the university cancelled his speech after a bunch of protesters exercising their own freedom of speech made the administration (or his own security staff) feel that it wasn't a welcoming environment?
What does "welcoming environment" mean, though?
500 people who want to hear what someone has to say? Or ten people with white noise generators?
Does the "welcoming environment" have to mean "50% support +1" to be legitimate? How many people should it take to shut down "Socialism in the 21st Century"? More than show up to hear? Or a few with some white noise machines? Is a "welcoming environment" really a bar we want to set?
While noisy, they stayed to the side and were nonviolent, so my freedom of speech was not infringed.
Would this be a reasonable counter-protest today? Or should they have tried to shut you down by whatever means necessary? For the record, I like the idea that you had your say and they had theirs. But that's just called a "fail" in 2018. If you got to speak, THEY FAILED.
If people protest outside the bookstores selling Hateful Bob's book, and those stores decide selling the book is more trouble than it's worth, Hateful Bob hasn't been silenced. He can still read chapters on the street corner, or sell the book out of his garage.
I quoted only a small portion of your response but I'm speaking to the whole thing.
Under your example of him selling books at a book store and the advertisers decide to drop him (hope they didn;t have a contract). I'm not sure if I would consider that silencing him I'd have to think about it a bit. But it's now 2018 and tactics are different. What if Bob is at the book store to speak about his book and protestors physically impose themselves between people wanting to hear him and him. At times physically preventing people from passing, kicking doors and windows to make noise, drowing out his microphone with noise generators, damaging sound and video equipment. They're physically preventing him from speaking (in the spirit of free speech). This is what's happening these days. But not only that, protestors will also videotape and record people, doxx them and begin harassimg them online. Harassing their social media accounts, their friends and family and even their place of work.
Case in point. Someone donated to Gerald Staneley's gofundme account and used their real name. A woman got a hold of the mans name, found out who he worked for and he ended up getting fired. I'm not sure if there is more to the story but that's pretty crazy if you ask me.
We've gone well beyond simple protesting and take an active role in attacking people with opposing views. Whether it's punching them in the face, hitting them in the head with a bike lock, online harassment or trying to get them fired.
But what if nobody buys it? In a free-market system, where individuals have the right to spend their income as they wish, this isn't silencing. It's just people refusing to pay him to be an asshole. When it happens at a remove ("If you spend money paying this asshole to speak, I'm not going to spend my money on the product you're advertising"), it's still not silencing. Businesses make business decisions to cut loose controversy every day.
For the campus example, you may find this article of interest. When it comes to getting fake bad reviews on your business's Yelp page over an unrelated issue, that sucks, but it still isn't silencing you.
Fake reviews and complaints fradulantly harm your business but it's not silencing someone you're right.
The names of advertisers aren't, and cannot be, secret. They pay to get their names out there. Itemizing them and saying "don't buy from these companies as long as they subsidize this show" isn't "weaponizing" anything (surely that's ironic phrasing in the context of an actual shooting with an actual weapon?), and it's definitely not "forcible suppression of opposition". If someone threatened you with violence (as the Parkland kids have been threatened), that would be forcible suppression. "Don't buy this guy's stuff" is not, and it sure as hell isn't fascism. Nobody's under an obligation to buy your stuff -- a point realized by the commenters who said they'd boycott Hulu in response to it pulling its advertising from Ingraham! That's not violence against Hulu, and it's not forcible suppression of anti-gun viewpoints.
I still feel it is, at least in spirit. Someone points, says GO, and a swarm of people launch. When someone is afraid to voice an opinion for fear of physical and monetairy reprecussions I consider that silencing someone.
I still feel it is, at least in spirit. Someone points, says GO, and a swarm of people launch. When someone is afraid to voice an opinion for fear of physical and monetairy reprecussions I consider that silencing someone.
When the organization in question is the top cable news network in the United States I call bullshit on that so-called free speech argument. Whom do you think you are fooling?
Laura Ingraham said some insulting and uncalled for things and got taken to task for it. That is what is going on here. She is not the victim, and no one is silencing her.
people can be afraid to voice their opinions for a variety reasons and choose not to. i wish people would stop sharing their "opinions" a lot more.
i find if what you know to be truth and factual knowledge, as opposed to ill formed opinions, you have more courage to express it. but not always.
What does "welcoming environment" mean, though?
My point is that if the [i]university[/i] cancels it for their own reasons, that's not infringement on freedom of speech.
Would this be a reasonable counter-protest today? Or should they have tried to shut you down by whatever means necessary? For the record, I like the idea that you had your say and they had theirs. But that's just called a "fail" in 2018. If you got to speak, THEY FAILED.
What if Bob is at the book store to speak about his book and protestors physically impose themselves between people wanting to hear him and him. At times physically preventing people from passing, kicking doors and windows to make noise, drowing out his microphone with noise generators, damaging sound and video equipment. They're physically preventing him from speaking (in the spirit of free speech). This is what's happening these days.
At many of the protests I've attended, there's a group of protesters who are looking to get arrested and become martyrs, whether that's by linking arms in front of the door the speaker's going to enter, chaining themselves to a bulldozer, throwing a water balloon at a city councillor, or whatever. Elizabeth May recently joined this category. Generally speaking, they get arrested and the speech goes on, everyone having gotten what they desired out of the interaction. Other than the fact both they and the boycotters are opposed to the speaker, there's no equivalence between "I'll throw my body in front of the train to stop you from speaking" and "I won't buy stuff from any company that pays you to speak". One's physically interfering. The other's just not buying.
We've gone well beyond simple protesting and take an active role in attacking people with opposing views. Whether it's punching them in the face, hitting them in the head with a bike lock, online harassment or trying to get them fired.
Punching them in the face, hitting them in the head with a bike lock: criminal acts.
Online harrassment: depends on what that constitutes. Getting an email calling you an asshole: free speech. Getting an email threatening to rape and murder your family: criminal act.
Trying to get them fired: well, here's where the libertarians wind up tripping over themselves. If you believe in the right of an employer to fire someone for any reason, you also believe your public stances don't insulate you from getting fired. If you want protection from being fired for your political views, consider unionizing your workplace.
I still feel it is, at least in spirit. Someone points, says GO, and a swarm of people launch. When someone is afraid to voice an opinion for fear of physical and monetairy reprecussions I consider that silencing someone.
"Monetary repercussions" like being fined by the government for speaking is indeed silencing. "Monetary repercussions" like "Once people have heard me speak, they won't want to buy my product anymore" is the free market at work.
My point is that if the university cancels it for their own reasons, that's not infringement on freedom of speech.
I would agree that it's not an infringement on freedom of speech. Like when George Galloway wasn't given a Canadian microphone, and we all unanimously agreed that's no problem at all because evidently his Twitter still works fine.
But are these sorts of things a problem at all? Or no problem at all?
A university who doesn't want to host a controversial speaker certainly has both the opportunity and the right to say "no thanks, not here". But if they agree to host a speaker, then cancel at the last minute because they were promised a shitstorm, I'm not sure that's how decisions like that are supposed to be made.
And again, we're not talking about "Racist Bob" any more. We're talking about "Won't say 'Xim' Tim". Or "Didn't Sign on With #MeToo Hugh". Examples involving proud Nazis aren't really illuminating any more. We're down to life-sized, reasonable non-fatal disagreements of opinion now.
Galloway was banned from entering Canada, then allowed after a judicial decision. Personally, I'd have allowed both Galloway and Fred Phelps to be admitted, and then let protesters have it out on the street. I don't think either is a free speech issue, though, as you seem to agree.
Universities get, and will continue to get, a lot of heat on these issues, due to their unusual role as semi-public holdover medieval guild institutions which serve as society's unofficial arbiters of intellectual respectability. The question of whether Galloway's allowed into Canada, to me, seems different than the question of whether Trinity Western invites him to speak.
As far as "Don't Say Xim" Jordan Peterson, it seems to me that nobody's interfering with his tenure, let alone his speech. He's allowed to spout whatever he wants [i]and[/i] get paid for it. How's his speech threatened? By people not liking it? There's no Charter right to be popular.
DP
How's his speech threatened? By people not liking it? There's no Charter right to be popular.
People messing with sound equipment. Showing up at his speeches trying to kick windows in with assassin garroettes in their pocket. Protestors shouting "lock them in and burn it down" - with some reports of protestors trying to bar and lock doors with people inside the room. Drowing out him speaking by making noise banging stuff and white noise makers.
I'll break it down again:
People messing with sound equipment.
Crime.
Showing up at his speeches trying to kick windows in with assassin garroettes in their pocket.
Crime.
Protestors shouting "lock them in and burn it down"
Not a crime, probably.
with some reports of protestors trying to bar and lock doors with people inside the room.
with some reports of a crime.
Drowing out him speaking by making noise banging stuff and white noise makers.
Not a crime. There's no Charter right to a silent, rapt, and attentive audience. But if the venue you're speaking at wants to evict the noisemakers, they have the right to do that.
Not buying his book: [b]Not a crime.[/b]
Telling anyone who advertises on a hypothetical TV show he has you won't buy their products: [b]Definitely not a crime.[/b]
See the difference?
Mostly. Physically preventing someone from speaking in those ways I think might be a grey area with Charter rights. Violates the spirit of it IMO.
As for shouting lock them in and burn it down that sounds like inciting violence and murder to me. Sorta bringing back memories of the Blue Bird Cafe fire in Montreal that killed (murdered) 37 people.
I'll break it down again:
People messing with sound equipment.
Crime.
Showing up at his speeches trying to kick windows in with assassin garroettes in their pocket.Crime.
Protestors shouting "lock them in and burn it down"Not a crime, probably.
with some reports of protestors trying to bar and lock doors with people inside the room.with some reports of a crime.
Drowing out him speaking by making noise banging stuff and white noise makers.
Not a crime. There's no Charter right to a silent, rapt, and attentive audience. But if the venue you're speaking at wants to evict the noisemakers, they have the right to do that.
Not buying his book: [b]Not a crime.[/b] How is that working out?
Telling anyone who advertises on a hypothetical TV show he has you won't buy their products: [b]Definitely not a crime.[/b]
See the difference?
Yeah. Peterson is now so famous that his book is a best seller and he had to shut his clinical practice down because he is too busy with speaking engagements.
In other words, his freedom of speech hasn't been impinged in any way, despite his alt-right affiliation and hallucinations about liberal "fascists" and the transgender mafia coming after him.
In other words, his freedom of speech hasn't been impinged in any way, despite his alt-right affiliation and hallucinations about liberal "fascists" and the transgender mafia coming after him.
Freedom of speech being infringed upon is a case by case basis. He might be such a commercial success because of attempts to limit his speech and opinion.
There's no Charter right to a silent, rapt, and attentive audience.
True. Though not getting a silent, rapt and attentive audience has been referred to as "misogynoir" -- a violent crime against people of colour. Google "Henry Parada".
Thing is, I basically agree with most of what you're saying, and certainly the parts about what is or is not a crime. Not buying someone's book is not a crime.
At the same time, I have to agree with Paladin1 that political disagreement has become vicious and desperate and ugly. And it's not even that the stakes are higher!
If anything, they're normal, reasonable, life-sized disagreements, not "life and death". So what's with the white-noise generators? What's with trying to shut down a speech rather than rebut it? Sure, those aren't "crimes", but they're a Tea Party step backward in terms of political discourse. Hair pulling and eye-gouging (and threats, online bullying, "doxxing" and job loss) are OK now, because the only goal is to WIN -- not with better ideas but with better organization and an "all-in" attitude. We don't have to criminalize it, but we don't have to say "well, it's not a crime so whatevs" either. Public political disagreement, no matter how small, is best left to those with nothing to lose, except then we all lose.
Thing is, I basically agree with most of what you're saying, and certainly the parts about what is or is not a crime. Not buying someone's book is not a crime.
At the same time, I have to agree with Paladin1 that political disagreement has become vicious and desperate and ugly. And it's not even that the stakes are higher!
Uglier than the good old days of bombings, lynchings, martial law in Montréal, and so forth?
If anything, they're normal, reasonable, life-sized disagreements, not "life and death". So what's with the white-noise generators? What's with trying to shut down a speech rather than rebut it? Sure, those aren't "crimes", but they're a Tea Party step backward in terms of political discourse. Hair pulling and eye-gouging (and threats, online bullying, "doxxing" and job loss) are OK now, because the only goal is to WIN -- not with better ideas but with better organization and an "all-in" attitude. We don't have to criminalize it, but we don't have to say "well, it's not a crime so whatevs" either. Public political disagreement, no matter how small, is best left to those with nothing to lose, except then we all lose.
It's been my experience that: many of the anecdotes you're citing are overblown, most of the ones that really happened had far more significant precipitating events than an online flame war over pronouns, and most of all, there never was a time when people just sat down and had peaceful academic debates over serious issues. There's a major nostalgia filter going on when people decry the modern lack of "civility". Don't get me wrong, there were certainly old white guys with no investment in the issues whatsoever debating them in committee chambers, but there was also a great deal of street-level "incivility". The whole "the kids these days are just so disrespectful" meme gets wearying at times.
Uglier than the good old days of bombings, lynchings, martial law in Montréal, and so forth?
I hope it's not a contest.
I guess I'm just thinking "uglier than" when people could let someone speak and rebut them if they wished.
In the olden days, if you didn't want to listen to someone speak about something you'd already made up your mind about you skipped it in the same way that we don't all rush out to buy and read "Atlas Shrugged".
Now it seems to be more important than ever to attend a speech you've already decided is hate speech.
And I'm sure people got themselves all worked up into a lather 30 years ago too. But was the lack of white noise generators solely dependent on them not being invented yet? Or was there a sense that bad ideas are best opposed by good ones, rather than just drowned out?
I'm not demanding some historically-inaccurate return to "Roberts' Rules of Order". But did we always need to pack a garrote, "just in case"? Do you really, genuinely, honestly believe that nothing has changed?
I'm not demanding some historically-inaccurate return to "Roberts' Rules of Order". But did we always need to pack a garrote, "just in case"? Do you really, genuinely, honestly believe that nothing has changed?
I really, genuinely, honestly believe that change has mostly been for the better when it comes to speech. Groups that wouldn't have dared to speak out 30 years ago are daring to today. Where there have been declines in freedom of speech, it's the legislative ones I'm most concerned about.
Groups that wouldn't have dared to speak out 30 years ago are daring to today.
And a guy who, 30 years ago, would have taken his chances dating white women got to be President.
But that doesn't mean the nature of political discourse and political disagreement hasn't changed for the worse. I'm glad more people are speaking out, but I wish everyone could stick to actual speech is all.
ed'd to add:
Did a search. Turns out Dog Island lives in Halifax.
https://www.patreon.com/dogisland69
And while it doesn't say so explicitly, by guess is barista by trade. Maybe s/he's just trolling them:
https://www.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/7yfcap/i_work_at_the_toront...
Though I have to admit, I have once or twice bought a ten cent copy of Atlas Shrugged from the thrift store just to chuck it in the bin. Wonder what gets the Randians more worked up - censorship, or their bible being used to generate charity for worthless people?
Could be. I checked the original tweet, but of course anyone can say anything. I just couldn't really figure out why anyone would lie about this. It wasn't from yesterday (i.e. April Fools' day). And it seemed like a pretty inexplicable thing for "Atlantic Canada’s #1 cultural Marxist internet radio programme" to want to lie about. I suppose the book-burning thing could get people angried up, but the getting fired part is only going to give them comfort, so I guess I don't quite get it.
Interesting aside: check that Twitter feed and look who replied to Dog Island six hours ago (from the time of this post)! Not to the TPL tweet, but just in general.
We're way off topic, but this is quite funny.
https://twitter.com/dogisland69/status/963511281322995712?lang=en
It kind of is funny, actually. I get the joke, but I still don't get why Dog Island made it. A mystery for the ages, I guess.
At the same time, it would have fallen right on its face if everyone who read that tweet said to themself "this can't be real! Nobody would ever destroy a book in 2018 just because they disagree with it".
Is that maybe the funny part? As Homer Simpson says, "It's funny because it's true"?
Good article if you want the facts, just the facts.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-americans-are-dying-from-suicide-drug-use-and-diarrhea/
Youth march for their lives against a vicious gun lobby pushback
Canadian students express support their U.S. counterparts with solidarity rallies
https://ricochet.media/en/2153/youth-march-for-their-lives-against-a-vic...
Good to see!
Sandy Hook parents sue InfoWars’ conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for defamation
https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-conspiracy-al...
Good article if you want the facts, just the facts.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-americans-are-dying-from-suicide-drug-use-and-diarrhea/
Well if that's the facts and only the facts,that flushes your whole thread down the shitter,NR.
Sandy Hook parents sue InfoWars’ conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for defamation
Admittedly, accusing anyone -- directly or indirectly -- of being a willing participant in faking a mass murder seems like actionable speech.
Didn't we have a k00K here at babble arguing that the Sandy Hook victims were child actors? Or was it only the Boston Marathon victims who were actors? Anyhow, it was super, either way. What could give the left more credibility than suggesting that someone's child is really hiding in the attic, pretending to be dead for the next 60 years. That's some seriously good "method acting".
Bump stock maker Slide Fire shutting down business
Bump stocks were found among the weapons used by Stephen Paddock as he shot from his hotel room on Oct. 1, killing 58 people at a concert and wounding hundreds in Las Vegas.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/18/bump-stock-maker-slide-fir...
In order to support their fellow American students I demand Canadian students be given transparent backpacks and only allowed to use them at school.
As an aside, there are sites on the web that sell a range of different transparent products (e.g. radios, computers, televisions, etc.) that can be shipped directly to inmates in prisons that require this. So if your friend is in prison, you can send him a clear gadget and such. Also, packs of snack foods, but I digress.
Anyway, transparent backpacks sound like a prison thing.
A prison thing but also a means in which to observe the contents of students belongings with a view to recognizing a student bringing in an AR15.
Hard to smuggle in assault weapons with many high capacity magazines when the container is see through.
Students have every right to want to learn and be protected by a secure environment. Unlike perhaps a large number of gun owners laughing at the students with these transcluscent backpacks I don't see any humor in it. I however do think it is a life lesson, non-sarcastically along the lines of careful what you wish for. The security you want isn't always the security you get. Know what I mean?
One injured, suspect in custody in Florida school shooting on the anniversary of the Columbine massacre
The shooting happened as students around the country walked out of class to protest gun violence on the anniversary of the massacre at Colorado's Columbine High School
A Marion County Sheriff's Deputy stands outside Forest High School as students exit the school after a school shooting occurred, Friday, April 20, 2018 in Ocala, Fla. One student shot another in the ankle at the high school and a suspect is in custody, authorities said Friday. The injured student was taken to a local hospital for treatment.Doug Engle / AP
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/1-injured-suspect-in-custody-in-flori...
An American student expressed a different solidarity.
Why Americans don't do anything about mass shootings
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/opinions/why-we-dont-give-a-damn-about-ma...
Vista Outdoor, U.S. firm dropped by MEC after school shooting, to exit gun manufacturing
MEC stopped orders from Vista on March 1
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/vista-outdoor-mec-guns-1.4643294
[Unionist scrapes the bottom of the barrel with another of his trademark "I TOLD YOU SO"™ moments:]
There is no movement for gun control in the U.S. The best we can do to commemorate this and other similar catastrophes is to rid Canada of this menace. It will mean combatting the same powerful lobby and money here, but it can be done.
Just thought I'd note that one year after the Parkland shooting, and all the noise about how these young people would never let this happen again, nothing whatsoever has changed in the U.S. - nor will it. Our best hope is still for Canada.
Police kill gunman in workplace shooting that left five others dead