Berkeley riot organizer = insane idealogue

Laiya

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 5:20 pm

marina wrote:

1. If universities are already not hiring based on the content of speech, those applicants can sue under the First Amendment. That is how they can protect their free speech rights.

2. Legislation is in a very different category than just agencies acting badly. If a piece of legislation blatantly proposes to violate the first amendment, that's very different than if a particular university human resources guy makes a bad call.

Here's an example: Say you come to a government building and are prevented from entering with a gun. You can try to go to court and claim that they violated your 2nd amendment rights, etc. But that's a million worlds away from the legislators trying to pass a law saying that we have cancelled the 2nd amendment in our state.

1. Almost impossible to prove such a case. The discrimination probably takes place before even getting to the point of holding an interview.

2. Let's first acknowledge that we don't know what the finding would be in your hypothetical constitutional challenge to the proposed legislation, but assuming you're right and the law would be found unconstitutional.

You asked,

marina wrote:

Tell me how much it bothers you that LEGISLATORS (not crazy college kids and middle school teachers) introduced a law requiring universities to condition hiring based on political party affiliation.

Does this vicious assault on the First Amendment make you worry at night? Are you going to post a thread about this on imamother? Or are you like: YOU GO IOWA!

So my outrage at legislators for wanting to condition hiring at universities upon political party affiliation, is somewhat tempered by any outrage I may have against universities for hiring based on political party affiliation.

Please note, I did NOT say I think it's a great law and a great idea.

Fox

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 5:25 pm

marina wrote:

That still doesn't always warrant the kind of outrage against all Liberals that I am seeing here. It really seems like people are feeling bad for poor Milo who is being unfairly attacked by the Entire Evil Left.

I honestly think you're misreading this. I don't think anyone feels abnormally sorry for Milo. In fact, I'm sure he'll do quite well out of this. As a friend of mine put it, "He hasn't even shut up about Twitter yet! Can you imagine how long he'll bray about this?"

There are basically two problems people have, and they're related:

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with people's natural and appropriate revulsion to the abuse of children. It is entirely political. The interviews have been available on YouTube for over a year, and no one made a peep. Only when Milo became more prominent and incurred opposition from a particular quarter (which happens to be on the right) did his remarks become an issue. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Milo, but none of them have any relation to concern for children's welfare.

Second, the left (which, granted, is an amorphous designation) displays a shameless degree of selective outrage. When people had a problem with Lena Dunham's memoirs that included coerced s-xual activity with her sister, apologists tried to minimize and normalize what she'd written -- and she was invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to the backside rape of a 13-year-old girl, but he is routinely praised by the same Hollywood figures who lend their voices and celebrity to the left.

George Takei has joked about being seduced as a 13-year-old by a much-older camp counselor to the apparent hilarity of all.

So while there are plenty of people (my Twitter feed is full of them) who don't like Milo for various reasons, including ideological, personal, and professional, everyone agrees that a clear double-standard is in play.

PinkFridge

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 5:33 pm

marina wrote:

This is another problem here. I have repeatedly noted that I don't support violence or extremists. I often identify as a liberal, but there's no acknowledgement of this nuance on this thread. It's just like I'm a liberal so we must all fit your misguided preconceptions of what that means. Just another form of prejudice. Same w people who accuse the entire "right" of whatever ****.

I feel like your doppelganger from the right here.
(4 more pages! Good thing we're having franks and chips tonight, otherwise supper would be burnt, or worse.)

PinkFridge

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 5:35 pm

marina wrote:

This entire thread is about how liberals are evil because they just want to shut Milo down. Look through the first pages. And no, I don't think most people here care about free speech, although some are couching it that way. They don't speak out when the Westboro Baptist Church is barred from holding their anti-Jew protests,etc.

I mean, really, how many people are appalled at this image of a woman hitting ( direct violence) a neo Nazi demonstrator? Anyone? Anyone here? Who is appalled by her physical attack on free speech?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....ndbag

I'm not thinking about the legal angles, but there does seem to be a difference between one person speaking in a hall, and people can choose to attend or not, and a mob of protesters getting in people's faces as they try to go on their way.
Both, of course, are odious.

PinkFridge

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 5:41 pm

dimyona wrote:

We can probably all agree that his words are tasteless, like many jokes about Holocaust victims, some of which I also find funny. Please don't throw tomatoes- humor/laughter is an involuntary reflex, and often helps us deal with dark and painful topics.

Of course, no one is obligated to provide him with a platform. Simon & Schuster is free to cancel their deal, as I'm sure their contract allowed for, and CPAC may invite the nutjob of their choice to speak. (Their prior roster usually included calm intellectuals like Ann Coulter, if that gives you a picture of whom they find acceptable.)

A few thoughts:
Re Holocaust humor, MAD had a great send-up of Hogan's Heroes.
And yes, I'm appalled that some Salem radio hosts have Ann Coultergeist on regularly, though I will confess to listening. (And if anyone has a link to that Huff Post article around the election that had some vintage Coulter quotes, please pm me. I couldn't find it.) As well as everyone's favorite hail fellow well met, Pat Buchanan.
I can think of a few houses I'd aim some poxes at.

PinkFridge

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 5:45 pm

marina wrote:

Quote:

I am not against millions of women being against DT, but I don't understand what are the ascertainable goals. If he isn't your president, then who is? Is there a secret shadow government?

Did I ever say he's not my president? Of course he is.

And that phrase when used by others generally means "I don't accept his moral authority" not that he is not actually the president.

The goals of any march is first and foremost to raise awareness and then to unify the protesters. If you look at the NYT's photos of the marches across the world, you will see what I mean. What people were protesting what awareness they were trying to raise, etc.

Interesting if you would take a survey. I think that more than a few mean exactly what they say.
Hey, I don't look to the president for moral authority either, but I do show respect to the holder of the office. We've had to pay homage to czars, etc., too.

SixOfWands

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 6:13 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Quote:

Well, its too early to say, I told you so, so I wont say it yet. One day soon, many of you are going to wake up and realize you voted a man you know precious little about into our nations highest office.

* * *

Where does that leave the rest of us, though? According to [], 58,076,398 people voted against []. What about them?

I dont know. I honestly dont. What could I say that would console them for their loss, for our loss?

What Im going to say is something [] hae said for the last 8 years, bitter at their losses to President [].

Hes not my president.

So before you get on my case about not supporting the president, ask yourself if you supported President []. My guess is you didnt. If thats true, get over yourself. Dont expect the 58 million of us who voted against [] to suddenly fall in line behind him like you did. We cant (and shouldnt) be expected to join you in lockstep behind your candidate a candidate we never supported.

All political correctness aside, I have absolutely no respect for [] or his victory. I think the country made the wrong choice, and will realize it only now that its too late.

* * *

Besides, it isnt like the [] have done anything for national unity over the last eight years. We have endured attack after unfounded attack on our president, and now that coin will be flipped. I hope they can take a dose of their own medicine.

I have spent months outlining my objections to the [] nominee, and now that he will be president, they seem even more relevant, though I wont bore you with a reiteration.

What Im saying is that those of you who voted [] into office on Tuesday shouldnt expect everyone else to join you in your love affair with the president-elect. I have respect for the office he will hold, but youre kidding yourself if you think all of you respected either while President [] has been in office.

Maybe [] will do something right, but I have to admit my expectations could not be lower. I hope for our sake as a nation that he doesnt fail, but we dont know enough about him to make that prediction yet.

* * *

Fast quiz. Who is the president discussed in this?

Hidden:

Which major newscaster declared that the duly elected president of the US was "not his president"

Hidden:

Which news source favored by many amothers declared that a person was not their president.

Hidden:

This isn't new rhetoric. Somehow, it only becomes distasteful to the Right when its directed at them.

OTOH, I personally find it juvenile. On all sides. Trump is president. We need to find a way to live with that.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Feb 21 2017, 6:19 pm

OK Marina, this is for you. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to the First Amendment.

I personally support ALL people's rights to say ANYTHING, short of calls to violence.

Violence is NEVER OK, and calls to violence are never OK. Regardless of which side they come from.

If a person of color wants to tweet "I hate white people", I'm OK with that. If they want to tweet "Kill all white people", I am not OK with that.

I find #PunchANazi to be just as abhorrent as #PunchAZionist or #ShootACop.

Deranged anti-Semitic nutjobs should be allowed to give speeches, and their opponents should have the right to hold PEACEFUL protests, WITHOUT barring anyone from attending those speeches.

Individuals have the right to financially support, or withdraw financial support, from any business or institution they like, based on any speech they do or do not like. "Free speech" means that you open your mouth and sound comes out. It does not entitle you to be financially supported in doing so.

If alumni want to defund a department based on the speech of it's professors, that's fine. If others want to step up and increase their donations, that's fine too. If I don't like the professors, I can choose to send my daughter to a different college, and vote with my dollars. Parents do this every single day. It's not censorship.

BTW, I think I was the one who said "I follow Milo". To clarify, I mean I don't "follow him like a guru", I mean I follow the news with a certain amount of interest.

marina

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 12:15 am

Laiya wrote:

. Almost impossible to prove such a case. The discrimination probably takes place before even getting to the point of holding an interview.

Makes no difference. File the lawsuit and if your allegations are solid enough, feel free to collect a hefty settlement.

Also, a halfway decent attorney should be able to discover all of this evidence through discovery. Ask some good questions, request some records and you're pretty much set.

People put such stupid **** in emails, you wouldn't believe. If the university really has a solid practice of, say, not hiring individuals who speak on conservative topics because of the content of their speech, I'd expect that somewhere, there's at least one email that says : Let's not hire such radicals or Let's hire someone whose speeches match our preferences better.

If a client came to me with a solid believable claim, I would take that.

marina

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 12:34 am

Fox wrote:

Second, the left (which, granted, is an amorphous designation) displays a shameless degree of selective outrage.

Come on. Doesn't everyone? I haven't heard too many right wing conservatives outraged at Trump's security gaffes or emoluments violations, despite all the emails and pay-to-play drama about Hillary that seems even more ridiculous in retrospect.

The last part of Clinton Cash was about how Hillary's relationship with Putin affected our country's security. If that's not selective outrage, I don't know what is.

DrMom

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 3:57 am

marina wrote:

No he doesn't. College kids protest ALL the time and sometimes those turn violent. Also sports fans. If you're going to take away funds from those colleges just because kids are dumb, I mean good luck with that.

Also, I don't think there's any legal mechanism to remove funding based on perceived First Amendment violations. There is a mechanism to do so for violating some federal laws, like title ix, but not the first amendment.

Your first paragraph made no sense.

As for the second one: UC Berkeley is a public university, and is thus subject to the same First Amendment rights as apply in the public sphere.

marina

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 9:29 am

DrMom wrote:

Your first paragraph made no sense.

As for the second one: UC Berkeley is a public university, and is thus subject to the same First Amendment rights as apply in the public sphere.

Did you read his article? He wants UC Berkeley to be defunded by Trump because kids caused damage.

My point is that this would defund pretty much all colleges bc many colleges have kids who sometimes act terribly. That's just part of having many kids in one place.

My second point is a legal one. The federal government has no way to remove funding based on perceived violations of the first amendment. This is different than Title Nine which he talks about in this article