Black Lives Matter Students Shut Down the ACLU's Campus Free Speech Event

[Yarathir]

No, because it's the same vernacular white supremacists used to gin up antipathy towards a civil rights movement. Since this is a civil rights movement, you have been deluded, parroting the same language used by white supremacists 50 years ago. "Law & Order!" "Welfare Queen!" "Inner City!" "Protest the way I want you to!"

I love that you're not even trying to form a coherent argument, just a thought-terminating "if u think my protests are stupid u want to keep me down."

I respect that kind of straightforward lack of productivity. It allows me to just skip your posts altogether.

[Nitro Fun]

Oh are you the arbiter of all things?

If you want to claim to be a civil rights movement then don't fucking go out there and destroy peoples property. That makes you a thug.

[Daelak]

I love that you're not even trying to form a coherent argument, just a thought-terminating "if u think my protests are stupid u want to keep me down."

I respect that kind of straightforward lack of productivity. It allows me to just skip your posts altogether.

Good, another non-answer. You don't even know why you think it is stupid, or the historical context why millions of people would create a movement in this way.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to claim to be a civil rights movement then don't fucking go out there and destroy peoples property. That makes you a thug.

Ok Mr. Arbiter of all things right and wrong, I'll be sure to ask you before I do anything that may offend you.

[Yarathir]

Good, another non-answer. You don't even know why you think it is stupid, or the historical context why millions of people would create a movement in this way.

Thank you for admitting. Kiss?

[Video Games]

That the American public does not care about criminals being lynched is well known.

ftfy
101010

[Nitro Fun]

ftfy
101010

Best fix ever.

[Barnabas]

For them personally. In that particular instance. Doesn't shirt the racial power balance, though. Doesn't make the person lose their status as a white, though.



And I said just cuz you don't use a term doesn't mean the concept isn't real there also.

- - - Updated - - -



If I was a Nazi, sure. Against Nazis everyone and everything has the moral high ground.



Why though? Why would you defend Nazis under any circumstances?



How so? I am the only here not trying to create a white victim hood narrative.

No, again, you have no moral high ground here. You are defending an Us vs Them on the basis of I disagree with said speech. Past atrocities doesn't mean you can condemn any type of speech you disagree with. Should we do that to blacks because a long time ago blacks sold blacks as slaves to pay for their wars in africa? Eventually you have a society of people but nobody can speak. All because people decided to virtue signal speech they don't like into complete silence instead of ignoring speech they don't like. Can you understand why you are wrong now?

[Armourboy]

So calling someone a derogatory slang based on race isn't racism? Sounds good.

He reminds me of a friend I know in West Virginia who is all about everything being racist, even though he is white, all of his classmates were white, everyone he works with is white, etc. He lives in an all white world but somehow he knows about things.

Meanwhile I've been friends with people of other colors my whole life, dated them, heck even was the only white guy in pretty much an all black neighborhood in Atlanta for several years. I apparently know nothing though. My experiences aren't valid. Being heckled in super markets, trying to do my laundry, heck even ended up having to renew my drivers license in Tennessee rather than Georgia because every time I went to do it I needed another piece of paper, meanwhile my black friend from Florida walked right in with nothing and walked out with his 15 minutes later. He was flabbergasted at the problems I was having. Now don't get me wrong I'm not sitting around crying because I was oppressed or anything, but being a white guy in that part of Atlanta came with more than a few issues ( my wife also had to drive to a different county to get a job because no one would hire her where we lived ).

[Adam Jensen]

ALCU is absolutely the wrong thing for BLM or any black rights group, or any liberal group for that matter, to stand againt.

Did they argue in favor for free speech of nazis? Yes, but even Nazis get the same rights as accorded by the Constitution.

[Armourboy]

- - - Updated - - -



Ok Mr. Arbiter of all things right and wrong, I'll be sure to ask you before I do anything that may offend you.

Pretty sure destruction of property has been deemed " offensive " by every race, religion, and ethnicity since humans began making civilizations.

[ati87]

BLM isn't a civil rights movement.

That;s like you're opinion...based on crap like '''hang them'' attitude we have seen here.

[Mistame]

Quoting to nothing specific, but reading your responses and logic is nothing short of embarrassing in this thread...

I don't know why anyone even bothers responding to him. He's clearly trolling, using made-up definitions of words he clearly don't understand.

[ati87]

ALCU is absolutely the wrong thing for BLM or any black rights group, or any liberal group for that matter, to stand againt.

Did they argue in favor for free speech of nazis? Yes, but even Nazis get the same rights as accorded by the Constitution.

They do have the right to speak but then that doesn't exclude other peoples right for free speech.

The idea that we need to tolerate intolerance comes from fascist pricks that talk about ''peaceful ethic cleansing'' or those that don't mind it ''peaceful ethic cleansing''.

Being able to counter-protest or overwhelm hatefull speech is free speech.

[Armourboy]

They do have the right to speak but then that doesn't exclude other peoples right for free speech.

The idea that we need to tolerate intolerance comes from fascist pricks that talk about ''peaceful ethic cleansing'' or those that don't mind it ''peaceful ethic cleansing''.

Being able to counter-protest or overwhelm hatefull speech is free speech.

Yeah except in this case they did it against the ACLU which is anything but a hate group, in fact they have often defended members of BLM's.

They may have had the right to drown them out, but it makes them look foolish, and does absolutely nothing but hurt their own cause. They really chose the wrong target this go around.

[Runenwächter]

They do have the right to speak but then that doesn't exclude other peoples right for free speech.

The idea that we need to tolerate intolerance comes from fascist pricks that talk about ''peaceful ethic cleansing'' or those that don't mind it ''peaceful ethic cleansing''.

Being able to counter-protest or overwhelm hatefull speech is free speech.

That doesnt even make a shred of sense. It is not speech, its is white (or rather black) noise designed to make others unable to hear what the affected party trying to say. That is not covered by the 1st amendment. It is not conversation, it is disrupting and purposely destroying an ongoing conversation.
There is not difference between chanting BLM slogans and going "RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".

They should have taken the pictures of the protestors and after they failed to obey the order to leave, identified the suspects and put the fear of god into them. By which I mean take every legal action possible to make their life miserable.

[ati87]

"Your freedom stops where mine begins"

Also while we are at this.

Why is it that hateful speech by hateful people get priority protection...

Their freedom for speech ends when it involves harming others.

[Agartha]

2nd amendment is still in place, yet you can't buy full automatic weapons, making a law against hate speech does not require removing the 1st amendment, stop beeing a dramaqueen.

On paper this sounds reasonable, but then you look at Canada where you can now be charged with a hate crime for not calling a trans person by the pronoun they prefer. It gets out of control very quickly which is why uninhibited free speech has always been the right answer.

[Player Twelve]

On paper this sounds reasonable, but then you look at Canada where you can now be charged with a hate crime for not calling a trans person by the pronoun they prefer. It gets out of control very quickly which is why uninhibited free speech has always been the right answer.

Source for this?

[Deleted]

Source for this?

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/19/ca...nder-pronouns/
http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-is...nder-pronouns/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...ctions-n773421
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ouns-and-has-a

There is a couple of links. It is a vague law that essentially puts misgendering into the harassment category. It should however be noted, that the way that harassment laws work, is that you have to have strong evidence of the perpetrator doing so, which means the person essentially would have to chase you down misgendering you constantly, or simply refuse even after having been told that it is harassment to continue doing so.
Which honestly doesn't fall far from standard harassment laws. Which does actually cover non-trans people from being misgendered in a harassing way.

[Player Twelve]

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/19/ca...nder-pronouns/
http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-is...nder-pronouns/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...ctions-n773421
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ouns-and-has-a

There is a couple of links. It is a vague law that essentially puts misgendering into the harassment category. It should however be noted, that the way that harassment laws work, is that you have to have strong evidence of the perpetrator doing so, which means the person essentially would have to chase you down misgendering you constantly, or simply refuse even after having been told that it is harassment to continue doing so.
Which honestly doesn't fall far from standard harassment laws. Which does actually cover non-trans people from being misgendered in a harassing way.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en.../first-reading

Can't say I understand how he even get that from it that it's a crime to say the wrong gender. Seems to about banning discrimination against them, adding them to group protected in the advocating genocide law, pushing for more severe sentencing if a crime is committed against them because they'r trans.