SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[Kraenen]

Even words are considered violence nowadays. "He cursed! Quick! Everyone run to our "safe place."

remember the credo- "don't speak- you just might possibly offend someone, somehow" -brought to you by SJW's and progressives...

Ahh... the future is sooo bright....

Interesting how we'll come right back around to "he cursed us! burn him!"

[Mormolyce]

For Canadian standards this was a bloodbath.

Nobody even said "excuse me"! Are these people savages!!??

- - - Updated - - -

Even words are considered violence nowadays. "He cursed! Quick! Everyone run to our "safe place."

remember the credo- "don't speak- you just might possibly offend someone, somehow" -brought to you by SJW's and progressives...

Ahh... the future is sooo bright....

So you guys keep saying, but the only people I see getting triggered and offended online these days is the hordes of anti-SJWs whose mouths start frothing at the most trivial things.

[sethman75]

Even words are considered violence nowadays. "He cursed! Quick! Everyone run to our "safe place."

remember the credo- "don't speak- you just might possibly offend someone, somehow" -brought to you by SJW's and progressives...

Ahh... the future is sooo bright....

For the people that didn't actually watch the video but commented on it anyway, here is the part where the Dr. Frank-N-Furter wannabe tries to hit and kick the reporter. Then Eric Cartman lies to the police about not seeing anything. So physical violence and lying to the police.

[Alydael]

For the people that didn't actually watch the video but commented on it anyway, here is the part where the Dr. Frank-N-Furter wannabe tries to hit and kick the reporter. Then Eric Cartman lies to the police about not seeing anything. So physical violence and lying to the police.

For someone that wasn't following the conversation thread (and then decided to comment on it anyway (for some odd reason). I was replying to someone else, not the actual video (hence, the reason there was no mention of the video in my post). Guess you missed that.

[downnola]

“In a recent statement from Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, on students speaking their minds for Donald Trump, Jerry said, ‘It is a testament to the fact that Liberty University promotes the free expression of ideas unlike many major universities where political correctness prevents conservative students from speaking out,’” Schmieg wrote in a Facebook post on Tuesday.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...newspaper.html

Damn SWJs and their safespaces, fascism at its finest.

[sethman75]

For someone that wasn't following the conversation thread (and then decided to comment on it anyway (for some odd reason). I was replying to someone else, not the actual video (hence, the reason there was no mention of the video in my post). Guess you missed that.

1. It wasn't aimed at you. There were at least a dozen posts throughout asking where the violence was
2. Forgive me for replying to the post i started on the topic that was started

[Alydael]

1. It wasn't aimed at you. There were at least a dozen posts throughout asking where the violence was
2. Forgive me for replying to the post i started on the topic that was started

How would I know that it wasn't aimed at me, if the post was a direct reply to my post (it would make sense that it was aimed at me, no)?

I also really don't care what you were replying to or even if you were totally off topic. I just felt it was unjust for you to be snooty with me.

[garr21]

So, you are essentially tucking your tail between your legs and reduced to whining about me being unfair? There is no foul when debating someone who starts out with this.



Fake outrage,and once you are called out and unable to defend your argument you are reduced to whining. You first tried to act as if I was a supporter and then once it is brought to your attention that you ideals would harm the very civil rights movement you "so admire" you are reduce to crying on the forums that I am unfair. Lol at you.

Why is it fake outrage? you are comparing a none issue to an very real issue that was dealt with. Oh and if you want to say me calling you out is bullshit i can do the same your use of "strawman" as a counter to my claim is now invaild. You seem to think i care about you i don't, i care about the interest of fairness of debate you cannot smack rules on people and not follow them yourself. So follow the debate rules or die. Don't be a hypocrite.

[Endus]

Very clever... using "have" as both a noun and a verb to rationalize this convoluted analogy

Speech is a noun. The definition is explicit. It is, by definition, a definition. Definite. Distinct. Clear.

What on Earth are you talking about?

The point is that you don't understand how the word "and" is used in standard English grammar. According to you, if a movie theater is showing Star Wars and Back to the Future, you must attend both shows, rather than going to whichever you'd prefer.

Literally nothing in your source backs up your assertions. You're using words incorrectly. There is nothing about the word "speech" that requires it to only express dispassionate thoughts, nor does it require those thoughts to be particularly well-thought-out to be "speech". It's all nonsense, and it all amounts to an attempt to declare that some speech isn't speech, so you can deny those speakers their rights.

[Truculentt]

What on Earth are you talking about?

The point is that you don't understand how the word "and" is used in standard English grammar. According to you, if a movie theater is showing Star Wars and Back to the Future, you must attend both shows, rather than going to whichever you'd prefer.

.

What's wrong with you?


showing "star wars" and "back to the future".
is the same as
express "thoughts" and "feelings"


The only person who doesn't understand this is you. you're adding nonsensical meanings to things, to desecrate the definition of speech.

someone moaning "blehhhhh blehhhhh bleehhhh" is not speech. If that's too difficult for you to realize, you probably shouldn't be attacking posters for correcting you.

[Santti]

.

What's wrong with you?


showing "star wars" and "back to the future".
is the same as
express "thoughts" and "feelings"


The only person who doesn't understand this is you. you're adding nonsensical meanings to things, to desecrate the definition of speech.

someone moaning "blehhhhh blehhhhh bleehhhh" is not speech. If that's too difficult for you to realize, you probably shouldn't be attacking posters for correcting you.

If that's not speech, then where do you draw the line? When does something become speech?

I think it has to be considered speech, to erase the possibilities of ones speech "not being good enough".

[Truculentt]

If that's not speech, then where do you draw the line? When does something become speech?

I think it has to be considered speech, to erase the possibilities of ones speech "not being good enough".

just by the definition.

speech is an expression of thought. have thoughts, and you can have speech. mindless blabbering is not speech, and shouldnt be defended as such.

[Endus]

.

What's wrong with you?


showing "star wars" and "back to the future".
is the same as
express "thoughts" and "feelings"


The only person who doesn't understand this is you. you're adding nonsensical meanings to things, to desecrate the definition of speech.

You're arguing that thoughts alone were speech, for some reason, and not feelings.

someone moaning "blehhhhh blehhhhh bleehhhh" is not speech. If that's too difficult for you to realize, you probably shouldn't be attacking posters for correcting you.

This is false, if they're expressing a feeling. Your own definition makes this clear.

- - - Updated - - -

just by the definition.

speech is an expression of thought. have thoughts, and you can have speech. mindless blabbering is not speech, and shouldnt be defended as such.

See? Specifically ignoring that your own definition says "thoughts and feelings".

You're insisting that that phrase means "thoughts and only feelings if they are also thoughts", and that's just literally not what it actually says.

Also, nobody said "mindless blabbering". But shouting "Augh" or "Boo" because you're dismayed is an expressing of your feelings, and thus is speech. The only "mindless blabbering" that would be deemed to be not-speech would be unconscious exhalations by someone in a vegetative state. Someone shouting "booo" to express dissent is not "mindless" in any way, and what they're doing is absolutely speech. Any attempt to claim otherwise is an attempt to decide what speech you'll protect, which means you're not defending free speech, but just "speech you approve of".

[Truculentt]

You're arguing that thoughts alone were speech, for some reason, and not feelings.



This is false, if they're expressing a feeling. Your own definition makes this clear.

- - - Updated - - -



See? Specifically ignoring that your own definition says "thoughts and feelings".

You're insisting that that phrase means "thoughts and only feelings if they are also thoughts", and that's just literally not what it actually says.

what i meant was, in that case, thought was the missing component of speech.

thats not to say speech doesnt require feeling. it does. but it also requires thought.

its easy to act on emotion. its not easy to think.

[Endus]

what i meant was, in that case, thought was the missing component of speech.

thats not to say speech doesnt require feeling. it does. but it also requires thought.

its easy to act on emotion. its not easy to think.

And the only "thought" required for it to be "speech" is "That BAD. Me YELL." That's "thought". Otherwise, you're effectively trying to put an IQ restriction on who gets their speech protected.

It doesn't have to be well-informed, rational, well-thought-out, or any of that. Speech created by a conscious mind is expressing that mind's thoughts and feelings. However little information you might think it actually communicates.

[Truculentt]

And the only "thought" required for it to be "speech" is "That BAD. Me YELL." That's "thought". Otherwise, you're effectively trying to put an IQ restriction on who gets their speech protected.

It doesn't have to be well-informed, rational, well-thought-out, or any of that. Speech created by a conscious mind is expressing that mind's thoughts and feelings. However little information you might think it actually communicates.

ah, see thats a discussion worthy topic.

should there be... higher standards(?) for open discussion of topics which are both contentious and important?


I say yes. why? because the standards we set define our culture - freedom of speech is a very serious topic, and of growing importance... because the ability to control the flow of information is evolving faster than the morality of that ability can be debated.

history proves unchecked control can be dangerous. Its the responsibility of the general public to make sure that control doesn't go unchecked.

thats going to be very hard in the near future if something doesn't change.

[Endus]

ah, see thats a discussion worthy topic.

should there be... higher standards(?) for open discussion of topics which are both contentious and important?

When it comes to free speech? Absolutely not. That's an attempt to declare which opinions are "right" and which are "not" and only protect the former, which is about as far from free speech as you can get.

It's fine if you want to argue that, but you don't get to claim you support free speech at the same time that you do so.

[Truculentt]

When it comes to free speech? Absolutely not. That's an attempt to declare which opinions are "right" and which are "not" and only protect the former, which is about as far from free speech as you can get.

It's fine if you want to argue that, but you don't get to claim you support free speech at the same time that you do so.

so you saw the video - did the "liberals" (dont even know if they deserve to be called liberal either, but anyway) have an opinion in the first place? and should the be allowed to hide behind "free speech"?



ill give an example of what I mean...

im a marketing director. as a result ive studied phyc. one psychological pillar of advertising is the helo effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

its the basis under which amazon build their brand, as well as the basis of what allows a startup brand successful in today's digital market.


- were those students expressing their own opinion of free speech? or were they expressing the opinions of what they associate to free speech?

in other words, was that not a bias attack on a professor? My bet - those kids just thought "trump". didnt hear a word the guy said.

[The Silver Prince]

Statens biografbyrå - A biograf, is a movie theater - And i will continue to point out that prohibiting them from being shown in movie theaters is not 'banning' them.
It is censorship, i don't dispute that, but its not 'banning'.

Censorship is a ban. They were banned from playing in theatres. You can spin it however you like, however you cannot change the fact that they were banned from being shown in public via theatres. You again are being intellectually dishonest.

I pointed out that having the most free 'free speech laws' might not necesarily be the most conducive to the free exchange of ideas - Specifically regarding disruption and noise.
By the way, a tactic also used by the KKK against the civil rights movement - I did not therefore by proxy defend hate speech laws.

And yet, Sweden has them so you keep bringing up that Sweden has free speech yet it possesses Hate speech Laws that have proven to do nothing prohibit speech based on what a few decide is hate speech at any given time.

well see in this context, he is not having a conversation with you, he is having a conversation with Other people..

If you are speaking in public space you are not given the right of privacy in a public spaces. If Group A is talking about a subject with group B and group C disagrees with Group A then Group A's rights of speech does not supercede the speech rights of Group C. Your argument that Group C has no right to voice its dissent in a public space is completely at odds with Free Speech. You again prove that you believe in the idea of a Safe Space. That being Group A gets the exclusive rights to free speech while Group C cannot have an opnion nor has the rights to voice its opinion.

Your argument was a straw man because of this:

What is illegal, is for a third party to stop party A, from imparting his or her views on party B, That wants to hear those views.
That made that a straw man.

That is a logical fallacy. Group A is in a PUBLIC SPACE. You are not afforded privacy rights in a Public space, which by the way Sweden scores low in Privacy rights. If you want to have an uninterrupted conversation with group B you have every means to IMPART your message uninterupted in a a private setting. However, in a public setting as your own laws declare, are not afforded rights of privacy and hence given no protections. You are stating your opinions for all to hear and if you do not like it if someone voices their opinion about the content of your speech then thats on you. Group A's right to impart their message does not have the right to INFRINGE upon GROUPS C's right to IMPART THEIR DISSENT.

No, that's not even remotely what i want.

You have stated that a group of people, Group A, have a right to state their views without interference from views that are in dissent of their own. That a group dissenting and arguing back is infringing upon the rights of group A. That is the definition of a Safe Space. A safe space is where one can go to avoid ideals and opinions that conflict with their own. Only a Safe Space says one side has the right to IMPART their message uninterrupted while another group is PROHIBITED from IMPARTING their own message.

And the worlds oldest free speech laws - 1766 - 10 years older than your goddamned country.

Actually, the first entity to allow Free Speech was Athens. Also, your nation had more censorship issues in its past than ours. 10 years older means nothing. Your nation is still less free then us.

As i said:

Can you read? or do you need help parsing that sentence?

No, it isn't. It does not remain to be determined. More IDEAS and opinions are allowed in our nation than yours. This isn't a matter of debate. Your nation states that expression of contempt is not protected speech. You cannot argue that your idea of freedom of speech is better than ours since the US allows for far broader speech than you, unless you want to argue that freedom can only be only exist by the active attempt to curbing it.

No i fucking don't.

It wasn't an argument -
It was in reference to this:

Can you read? Or do you realize that the statement I was making was based on American laws. We do not have HATE SPEECH LAWs because if we did have hate speech laws like your country the 4 members of the Wayneboro Church protestors would have been arrested under Swedish Anti-hate speech laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Unlike USA where you can freely spread hateful messages about people. Great place right there, certainly a place I'd like to live in where people are free to act shitty towards everyone based on their race and so on.

Yep, you see Freedom of Speech means you take the good with the bad. Then again, its always the people who want to force polite interactions who want the censor to protect them from opinions they disagree with. Freedom comes with drawbacks and if you do not want the drawback then you do not want free speech. You just want speech that confines to your ideology and you just admitted it. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Assholes or Curbing of Speech you do not like. Now go back to your safe space.

[Endus]

so you saw the video - did the "liberals" (dont even know if they deserve to be called liberal either, but anyway) have an opinion in the first place? and should the be allowed to hide behind "free speech"?

Other than the shoving? Those answers are dead simple, and are clearly "yes" to both points. Because restricting people's speech because you disagree with their message is antithetical to the idea of freedom of speech.

ill give an example of what I mean...

im a marketing director. as a result ive studied phyc. one psychological pillar of advertising is the helo effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

its the basis under which amazon build their brand, as well as the basis of what allows a startup brand successful in today's digital market.

You haven't connected this to anything else you're saying.

- were those students expressing their own opinion of free speech? or were they expressing the opinions of what they associate to free speech?

in other words, was that not a bias attack on a professor? My bet - those kids just thought "trump". didnt hear a word the guy said.

Here, you're simply trying to define exactly what messages you want to exclude from protection, which again, is antithetical to freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if their opinions were valid or not. It doesn't matter if they were biased, or wrong. It doesn't matter if they were being reactionary rather than thoughtful.

Their speech is still to be protected, under the principles of free speech, unless it crosses one of the few lines into overtly harmful behaviour, such as actual threats of violence or whatnot. Anything short of that? Absolutely fair game, under the principle of freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if they want to loudly express how much they like bananas, or how stupid or irrelevant you think that opinion is. Still their right, and trying to censor and silence them is wrong.