DudeAnon wrote:Ever notice that those who complain about Political Correctness seem to be the most sensitive? Nut up jax, its not that big of a deal.
So Dudeanon, we are living in a utopian society, our citizens live in perfect harmony, important issues, such as a severe fracture in race relations don't exist. Bigotry, sexual assault, bullying, gay marriage, single family households, the wealth gap/redistribution of wealth, transgenderism, and bipartisanship between the two parties at every level of government, have been resolved, and are non-issues. There's no army manual with a list of taboo subjects containing the following but not limited to;(passed during the last administration) soldiers are prohibited from criticizing anything related to Islam, derogatory comments about the Taliban, Women's rights, and homosexuality in any way. The last administration definitely did not ban all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. And most importantly, and both sides of the aisle acknowledge, and agree, that the more we become a P.C. nation, the closer we are where legislation prohibiting an action that could in any way be construed as offensive to anyone, will be commonplace in Congress.
As long as we are a PC nation, the above mentioned issues will never be resolved, and if you read my thread before this, you would understand why. DudeAnon, you carelessly misinterpreted my perceived complaining/sensitivity for what is a very real concern for this country and it's future. Perhaps, as you so eloquently put it, you need to nut the f#ck up DudeAnon, as it is a big deal.
Yeah we should embrace making each other feel uncomfortable. Thats how large groups of people will live amongst each other without any problems right? Dude, stop with the libertarian BS. This whole word salad is just silly. Protesting is robbing others of their first amendment rights so people should express their right to protest? No? They have the right to protest but they shouldn't because it's robbing others of their rights? Jeez dude, this is some insane circular logic you got going on.
-Njredman
Wow, your response tells me that there either was a lack of comprehension, I did not adequately explain/communicate my point, or a combination of both. I will simplify this completely. I NEVER said we should make others uncomfortable. I said we should embrace making OURSELVES uncomfortable. One example, as it pertains to the subject matter, is we are so focused on sparing feelings and avoiding controversy, that we fear expressing our opinions or taking stances on serious issues. By neglecting to voice these thoughts, we also forgo the opportunity of hearing the opinions of others and learning something new. I first heard a version of that at a speaker series I attended where Colin Powell was the feature speaker(you hear it from many CEOs as well). He said that to really grow as a person, you should do two things everyday that take you out of your comfort zone. As far as the Libertarian BS comment. You might want to read up on your Libertarian dogma, as nothing I said was particular to any political group.
Protesting is robbing others of their first amendment rights so people should express their right to protest? No? They have the right to protest but they shouldn't because it's robbing others of their rights? Jeez dude, this is some insane circular logic you got going on
-NJ
NONE of what you wrote here is even remotely in the realm of the point(s) that I made, or at least tried to make.
I absolutely agree that protesting is an important part of freedom of expression and the First Amendment.
My point was protestors/protesting , especially on college campuses, is far from what the forefathers had in mind when drafting the First Amendment. These are gatherings, not of peaceful protesters, but fanatics, extremists, and angry activists that utilize violence and intimidation, among other tactics, to achieve their agenda(s). Those agendas are usually to block an invited speaker that they disapprove of. And if they "win", a person has lost their right to free speech, to express their beliefs. And interested parties planning on attending are cheated of a chance to potentially learn something.
This example in more detail may help. Milo Yiannopolis is a Conservative pundit and writer. He was invited by the Cal Berkely Admin. to speak/do a Q&A. Cal Berkely has a very liberal oriented student body, perhaps the MOST Liberal student body of any University in the country. They gathered in large numbers, and protested outside the auditorium, for days before, and in even in greater numbers when Milo arrived for his speech. His speech went mostly without incident, yet more importantly, he was able to excercise his right to freedom of expression. The protestors were able to express themselves as well, and a person, with differing views, was able to share his views with students interested in opposing convictions and beliefs. This was a purely fictional, hypothetical situation where protesting/gathering of a peaceful assembly was what the 1st Amendment was all about. The protestors were able to express themselves, and a person, with differing views, was able to share his views with students interested in opposing convictions and beliefs.
What really happened. Milo Yiannopolis is a Conservative pundit and writer. He was invited by the Cal Berkely Admin. to speak/do a Q&A. The student body started protesting 3-4 days before Milos speech(it turned into more rioting then protesting by day 2). The real police were called in and had to dress in riot gear, as the "protestors"/now rioters started throwing objects at them. They started fires, dressed in masks, and attacked the police. They also caused more than $100,000 in damage. There were arrests. Weapons were found on students/RIOTERS and confiscated. All of this fanatical, suppressive behavior so a person with differing views would not be able to express those views for one measly hour. They not only robbed him of his right to free speech(essentially they censored him), but they also cheated the students who wanted to hear the speech, and perhaps compare and contrast his views and convictions with their own. The Admin ended up cancelling the speech due to safety concerns. This has become commonplace now at Berkely, and many other campuses across the country unfortunately. These rioters/fanaticists realize that they need to go way beyond the boundaries of the First Amendment, as it will not come close to providing the two pronged outcome they seek; The first being to discredit, disparage, and shutdown the speaker. The second is satisfied if the first succeeds, which is keeping students from hearing the speakers message. And then you introduce a group like ANTIFA, which is like dropping a nuke on the fire.
I will stop permanently.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERY MEMBER ON THIS BOARD FOR BRINGING POLITICS ONTO IT. ITS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. THIS IS AN ESCAPE/A PASSION, A PLACE WHERE ONLY BIG EAST BALL AND MEMBER TEAMS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED.
If I've offended anyone, please feel free to PM me.