"Alternative Facts": Trump's War on the Media

[jimmy eat jazz]

Yes and no. It depends on the steps taken.

I am all for protesting, petitions, signs, meetings with school officials...

I don't agree with blocking traffic, assaulting people, physically blocking people to the event, burning trash cans...

Some of the recent events have gone more into this second category. If the school in this scenario decides to go ahead with that event and provide that platform they should not be prevented from doing so.

Yes and no. It depends on the steps taken.

I am all for protesting, petitions, signs, meetings with school officials...

I don't agree with blocking traffic, assaulting people, physically blocking people to the event, burning trash cans...

Some of the recent events have gone more into this second category. If the school in this scenario decides to go ahead with that event and provide that platform they should not be prevented from doing so.

I agree, as a general rule, that more drastic actions as you describe here should be avoided. They do not reflect well of those who engage in them and are possibly counterproductive in any case.

With that said, I disagree that someone advocating for open discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. should be given any platform paid for, in effect, by taxpayers. In such as case, I would undertand it if opposition groups took more drastic actions, as providing a public and taxpayer paid platform for hate messages is, in my mind, a far worse offense than reasonable opposition taken to prevent such a platform from being provided. What are the limits of reasonableness in this case? I'm not sure, rioting is most certainly is not reasonable, but is interrupting the meeting? I don't think so. This is why it's a murky line, at least in my mind.

 

[Stoked]

I agree, as a general rule, that more drastic actions as you describe here should be avoided. They do not reflect well of those who engage in them and are possibly counterproductive in any case.

With that said, I disagree that someone advocating for open discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. should be given any platform paid for, in effect, by taxpayers. In such as case, I would undertand it if opposition groups took more drastic actions, as providing a public and taxpayer paid platform for hate messages is, in my mind, a far worse offense than reasonable opposition taken to prevent such a platform from being provided. What are the limits of reasonableness in this case? I'm not sure, rioting is most certainly is not reasonable, but is interrupting the meeting? I don't think so. This is why it's a murky line, at least in my mind.

I wouldn't agree with their speech or event either, for the record.

But if we are going to allow political based speeches as tax payers we should allow them all. If you can convince a specific organization like a college to cancel an event through peaceful means than sure great. make your voice heard.

But I strongly oppose shutting it down by force and that is what I see happening in some cases. At that point its not free speech but the oppression of free speech IMO.

I agree that it is a murky line and people's opinions on where that line is will obviously differ.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I agree, as a general rule, that more drastic actions as you describe here should be avoided. They do not reflect well of those who engage in them and are possibly counterproductive in any case.

With that said, I disagree that someone advocating for open discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. should be given any platform paid for, in effect, by taxpayers. In such as case, I would undertand it if opposition groups took more drastic actions, as providing a public and taxpayer paid platform for hate messages is, in my mind, a far worse offense than reasonable opposition taken to prevent such a platform from being provided. What are the limits of reasonableness in this case? I'm not sure, rioting is most certainly is not reasonable, but is interrupting the meeting? I don't think so. This is why it's a murky line, at least in my mind.

therein lies the rub.

i dont think murderspeech aka abortion should be done with taxpayer funding

to me nationalsozialismus speech and abortion speech, are just as wrong. but you don't go see me burning down trashcans and riot!

i will always be for less taxes and get government out of most ****

 

[moevillini]

...i will always be for less taxes and get government out of most ****

except you think it's welcome to help itself to a woman's uterus, no questions asked!

 

[DutchJazzer]

except you think it's welcome to help itself to a woman's uterus, no questions asked!

government needs to protect "live"
scientifically prove to me that a baby in the belly is not live. and i will go on a vendetta and rip every single baby out of mothers wombs

 

[Siro]

So it looks like Milo finally lost the support of conservatives by daring to question the West's deepest taboo.

 

[Stoked]

So it looks like Milo finally lost the support of conservatives by daring to question the West's deepest taboo.

Finally pushed his abrasive personality to far and he lost a lot of fans.

 

[Ron Mexico]

So it looks like Milo finally lost the support of conservatives by daring to question the West's deepest taboo.

Not taboo or wrong for you?

 

[Siro]

Not taboo or wrong for you?

It's up for discussion. Like everything else. I don't see a reason to freak out over it.

 

[Ron Mexico]

It's up for discussion. Like everything else. I don't see a reason to freak out over it.

I think any thing is okay to have a discussion about and should not be taboo in those regards. This topic is fairly black and white for me with very little grey area so its a waste of time to talk about and/or debate about. I think it should be discussed more though to bring issues to light. Especially here in Utah where sexual abuse is very high (even more so if you compare to other crimes) including statutory rape. The harmful effects and how rampant it is is swept under the table often.

But this guy says despicable things all the time for attention, there is no reason to ever pay him attention for this or any of the other crap he tries to get a shock out of. I am not sure why anyone pays attention to him.

 

[Siro]

I think any thing is okay to have a discussion about and should not be taboo in those regards. This topic is fairly black and white for me with very little grey area so its a waste of time to talk about and/or debate about. I think it should be discussed more though to bring issues to light. Especially here in Utah where sexual abuse is very high (even more so if you compare to other crimes) including statutory rape. The harmful effects and how rampant it is is swept under the table often.

But this guy says despicable things all the time for attention, there is no reason to ever pay him attention for this or any of the other crap he tries to get a shock out of. I am not sure why anyone pays attention to him.

Information and openness is often the best remedy. As far as the issue at hand, I don't think it's black and white. At least not from the same angle you're approaching it. But I wouldn't want to waste your time.

As far as the man himself, ya, he's a troll. But a troll with millions of admirers. So he is successful at getting the attention of both friend and foe. I pay a little bit of attention to him because he's one of the few people whose opinions don't bore the **** out of me. Although I do think he's wrong on most things.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

A lot of it would have to do the arbitrary distinction of the "cut off" date. It's illegal for most to have sex with people 6574 days old, but perfectly ok with people 6575 days old. And even that shifts when you get into specific years. In two years, 6574 days will be legal for a little while, then it'll revert back to being illegal.