Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:45:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
Poll
Question: .
#1
Donald Trump
 
#2
Trump supporters
 
#3
Chicago police
 
#4
The protesters
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 162

Author Topic: Who holds the blame for the events in Chicago?  (Read 12422 times)
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: March 12, 2016, 07:53:12 AM »
« edited: March 12, 2016, 07:59:24 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

Not everything is political philosophy. Yes, Trump has a right to hold rallies and his supporters have the right to hear him speak. That's all well and good. That doesn't mean that these students deserve to be maligned by pearl-clutching latte liberals or conservatives, who have essentially done nothing besides wring their hands and decry the lack of civility in politics, all the while making false equivalencies between Trump and Sanders. In general, the notion that Trump supporters, who commit violence on a regular basis towards protesters, are comparable to these students is inane and smacks of stupid "horseshoe theory of politics" garbage that fits into TJ's desired narrative.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: March 12, 2016, 08:01:11 AM »

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here. 

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: March 12, 2016, 08:01:11 AM »

huh? I was not advocating for any sort of legislation banning certain candidates from speaking or anything of the sort. I simply believe that it would have been sensible for university administrators to search for means to re-route Trump away from speaking at their campus through various channels. They could have conveniently rented out space to other groups before the primary or asked him politely to consider holding his event elsewhere and coordinated with the private sector to make this happen. None of this, to my knowledge, would have been illegal. It would have been sensible. It certainly would not have invoked the specter of a "progressive state". It would not have been an infringement upon free speech. Any claims to the contrary are ridiculous and display a total ignorance of how speech rights are exercised in practice: they're governed by social norms. Trump violated social norms by attempting to hold a rally at this university. There would have been nothing illegal or immoral to attempt to steer him elsewhere.

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow and the catalyst for this commitment is hardly inspiring, rooted not in any sort of commitment to democracy but rather to ideological purity. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

Umm, well, unfortunately some fraction, maybe ~30% of the students on the left are exactly that. And no, I'm not siding with Trump. And no, I'm not siding with the protesters either. Trump fortunately does not lack the right to speak at a public university, thanks to the administration maintaining neutrality as they should. Sure the university could come up with some other reason to deny him the venue and lie about it, but if they had, they would still be denying him a venue on ideological grounds but with a quick legal wink-wink cya. Why am I making this argument? It sure as heck isn't to try and spin things in Trump's favor. He's brought all of this upon himself and can deal with the consequences. I'm making it because it's an important point that needs to be remembered in this discussion, which has gone on the tangent of whether the university should have allowed Trump to there. I am aware you have not voiced support of legislation banning Trump, nor do I think you seriously want to take away my rights to free speech (though the most ruthless of the left wing student kind certainly do). I was not accusing you; I was merely stating my view on the topic. A large fraction of my recent posts are criticizing Trump; am I not allowed to say something else every once in a while?
Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,022


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: March 12, 2016, 08:09:51 AM »

Trump literally tells his supporters to roughen up detractors.

He insults opponents at every turn. He degrades other races. He incites hatred toward an entire religion.

The violence in Chicago is wrong, no matter which side.

But Trump and his supporters started this, and even encourage violence like this to happen. I think they're just surprised the violence was directed at them this time.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: March 12, 2016, 08:12:26 AM »

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here. 

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.

Basically Alcon, I don't like your pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students, nor do I like TJ's pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students. I don't think they pose any sort of threat to the freedom of speech or the freedom of association nor do I think the disruption of this event is particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that there hasn't been a "popular" response to Trump but, instead, a response by anemic elites.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: March 12, 2016, 08:16:39 AM »
« Edited: March 12, 2016, 08:19:08 AM by Grad Students are the Worst »

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here.  

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.

Basically Alcon, I don't like your pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students, nor do I like TJ's pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students. I don't think they pose any sort of threat to the freedom of speech or the freedom of association nor do I think the disruption of this event is particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that there hasn't been a "popular" response to Trump but, instead, a response by anemic elites.

I don't think left-wing students are "evil" and I'm not "pearl-clutching" except in the sense that I vehemently disagree with behavior/beliefs and clearly explain why I'm concerned by them

Is this basically a fancy way of saying that you don't like that I and TJ are concerned about something you aren't, but you want to criticize us for being concerned without actually arguing with us?
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: March 12, 2016, 08:19:06 AM »

The following seems pretty clear:

  • Sadly, it appears that the city of Chicago has decided to set aside a presidential candidate's right of free speech and the right of a group of people to peacefully assemble.
  • It was good of Trump to cancel the event, given the activities of the protesters, the possibility of violence/problems, and the recommendations of those law enforcement folks on the ground.
  • Apparently the protesters in question are organized supporters of Bernie Sanders. Will we be hearing from Sanders about his support of the rights granted by the constitution? What would happen if protesters prevented a Sanders event from taking place?
  • One reason Donald Trump is the GOP frontrunner is the perception many have that there exists a double standard with regard to the treatment of those on the left and those on the right. If freedom of speech applies only to those with whom we agree, haven't we failed as a nation? Can't we all agree that as a principle, we need to protect the rights of those who want to wave the flag as well as those who want to burn it?
  • I contend that things like this will only serve to strengthen Trump's support.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: March 12, 2016, 08:23:58 AM »
« Edited: March 12, 2016, 08:26:55 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Frankly TJ, the fact that you're implicitly siding with Trump in going to great lengths to defend his God-Given Constitutional Right to speak at a Public University here goes a long way in explaining my disdain for #NeverTrump Republicans: your commitment is shallow. You've expressed a long-time fidelity to a party that has embraced xenophobia and race-baiting for decades. Now that social movements of the left are actively opposing Trump, your response is to side with the Presumptive Republican nominee rather than applaud the efforts of protesters. There's nothing noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of Donald Trump. We all know the legal arguments here and there has been no claim made that Trump lacks the right to host a rally at a public university. As a result, it's clear that you're making a different kind of argument, an argument that fits into the storied template of the right, in which students on the left are little more than wannabe authoritarians who must be thwarted by esteemable solons in positions of power.

You're arguing that there's nothing "noble or valiant about defending the speech rights of" people you think are bad (or dangerous or something?), and then bemoaning that he assumes that "students of the left" are "authoritarians"...?  eh?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  But I'm trying to figure out what substantive point you're making -- your post is more about the associations of what he's saying than the content itself.

alcon trynna rope me into an argument. he wants to beat me. he wants to win.

To be clear, I'm being a dick on purpose here. I want to make TJ think about the fact that he's more concerned about student protesters and his general dislike of liberal students than a dangerous quasi-fascist politician. I also want to vent. I think the substance of my argument is okay and I could defend that but I'll be honest instead because it's nearly 5 in the morning.

I really don't argue just to be competitive.  That can be a fun part of debating, but I'm genuinely concerned about what you might be arguing here.  

I'm not sure I've seen TJ said he's more concerned about student protestors (maybe I missed that?) and he's certainly been vocal about how awful he thinks Trump is.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to think that defending someone's free speech rights is a tacit defense of them, or indication that you don't think they're awful...which is a weird sentiment to express in a post where you complain people are accusing you and likeminded people of authoritarianism.

Basically Alcon, I don't like your pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students, nor do I like TJ's pearl-clutching about the evils of left-wing students. I don't think they pose any sort of threat to the freedom of speech or the freedom of association nor do I think the disruption of this event is particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that there hasn't been a "popular" response to Trump but, instead, a response by anemic elites.

I don't think left-wing students are "evil" and I'm not "pearl-clutching" except in the sense that I vehemently disagree with behavior that I can clearly explain why I'm troubled by

Is this basically a fancy way of saying that you don't like that I'm concerned about something you aren't, but you want to criticize me for being concerned without actually arguing with me?

To be even more transparent: I'm a human being, not some sort of automaton and I'm a Mexican one at that. As a result, this election has #rattled me and I feel angry and irritated all of the time. Because I spend a lot of my time reading and writing high-falutin publications, I feel the need to express myself using bigger words and such and to make my statements appear more meaningful. This leads to polemics that are mostly just vitriol. I'm letting off steam.

I'm not particularly pleased that I have to bear the burden of being Mexican this election cycle and feel irritated that other people are more concerned about FREE SPEECH and muh liberal freedoms than millions of families being separated or a current of xenophobia that's sweeping the West, yes. Are you surprised? Did you really have to make these posts to unearth this fact? Come on man! It's not that complex. Frankly, I'm irritated that you guys can afford to be "reasonable" because, ultimately, xenophobia and general hostility towards racial minorities has no affect on your existence.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,660
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: March 12, 2016, 08:27:46 AM »

So to be clear:

1. Trump's rhetoric attracts some people who might be prone to start sh!t

2. Hundred of protesters show up to start sh!t

3. Sh!t starts

Verdict: Trump's fault.

Huh

That is not clear. If you are going to use the "Let's be clear" tagline, you need to follow with statements of fact.

"Let's be clear" is more.of a legal preface to a series of points which you can prove to be true.

What follows are three sentences of sh**t, literally.

Case not proven.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,660
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: March 12, 2016, 08:41:40 AM »

The following seems pretty clear:

  • Sadly, it appears that the city of Chicago has decided to set aside a presidential candidate's right of free speech and the right of a group of people to peacefully assemble.
  • It was good of Trump to cancel the event, given the activities of the protesters, the possibility of violence/problems, and the recommendations of those law enforcement folks on the ground.
  • Apparently the protesters in question are organized supporters of Bernie Sanders. Will we be hearing from Sanders about his support of the rights granted by the constitution? What would happen if protesters prevented a Sanders event from taking place?
  • One reason Donald Trump is the GOP frontrunner is the perception many have that there exists a double standard with regard to the treatment of those on the left and those on the right. If freedom of speech applies only to those with whom we agree, haven't we failed as a nation? Can't we all agree that as a principle, we need to protect the rights of those who want to wave the flag as well as those who want to burn it?
  • I contend that things like this will only serve to strengthen Trump's support.

You raise some interesting points.

It's not Sanders fault. It is not really Donald's fault.

It is the protesters looking for media attention predominantly.

Trump cant stop it now, and he can only rely on security experts to minimize these protests, but look at the media coverage.

The media spotlight is glaring at Trump. These protesters have figured out the best way to get in his way is to deny him the spotlight.

The Bernie supporters probably got more national airtime than if they had been at a Sanders rally, and that is the point.

A lot of the behaviours around Trump are because of that intense US and global spotlight.

The protesters momentarily took it.

Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: March 12, 2016, 08:50:17 AM »


LOL! Sure they agree, cause they are trying to beat TRUMP and will say anything they think will hurt TRUMP.

This is very true.  Normally, the GOP candidates would channel their 1968 Dick Nixon and point out that the response to this event was that we were blaming the violence on "everyone but the rioters themselves".  But when it comes to Donald Trump, these "principled conservatives" who call for "personal responsibility" are doing a 180 degree turn on their standard orthodoxy.

Donald Trump, Jr. is right on his tweet about liberals loving the 1st Amendment until you say something that they disagree with.  

If you disagree with Trump, don't go to his rallies.  Go out and do the hard work of convincing people that you are right and get folks to vote against Trump.  Turn out more folks to vote against Trump.  What these folks disrupting Trump rallies are doing is nothing short of coercive behavior that gives folks attending Trump rallies the choice between (A) submitting to intimidation and leaving, or (B) responding in kind.  They are no better than the abusive husbands/boyfriends who engage in domestic abuse in the form of threats and coercion, which they can back up because of their size/strength advantages over their female partners.  Then, they are shocked when their female partner fights back.  The difference between the violence of the instigators of violence (the abusive husbands and the protestors) and those who respond (the female partners and the rally attendees) is the difference between those who deliberately intimidate and those who wish to be free from intimidation in an environment where they have every right to be.

Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,751
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: March 12, 2016, 09:05:44 AM »
« Edited: March 12, 2016, 09:07:48 AM by Sprouts Farmers Market »

If Trump people are attacking people outside of his rallies, that's a problem.

If violence breaks out inside a rally, that's the protesters fault for being there. It's not very hard to understand. Chicago is a trashy city and always will be.

This stuff abut peaceful protesting is an added laughable layer. Throw in buzz words. Peaceful clearly also means obnoxious and obstructing. When I despise every candidate, this is what continues to push me to Trump.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: March 12, 2016, 09:09:25 AM »

I hate Trump and his band of idiots as much as anybody, and would gladly march in a rally against him, but going inside the event and starting sh**t is what caused the violence in Chicago, I don't see how anybody can see it any other way.  You can't initiate violence against people, even if they are horrible people.  Doesn't matter if it's the Klan or Trumpettes (pretty close to being equally horrible in my book).
Logged
Lemmiwinks
Rookie
**
Posts: 140


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -1.04

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: March 12, 2016, 09:10:00 AM »

Trump is indirectly to blame, as his rhetoric encourages extremists from both sides to come out of the woodwork. In this instance, however, the protestors are to blame. If they really want to protest Trump, they should go and cast their ballots against one of his opponents (in the primary or the general). This does not excuse the other incidents of Trump supporters attacking people.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,751
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2016, 09:18:54 AM »

I'm sure Bernie Sanders would love to have to face an angry mob scene with Trump protesters in response to this. What would this forum be saying then? That Trump inspired hatred and has no standing to send in his people to do that. Yet it would be in response to this. If this happens again, every single Bernie rally better get shut down. I don't want that dangerous man speaking either.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: March 12, 2016, 09:26:11 AM »

I can't wait to when Bernie comes to town. The North Florida hicks will come out in droves to protest after this. Those Bernie pussys will run like hell just like they did when they attacked us in a Miami when the first State Trooper showed up.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: March 12, 2016, 09:26:13 AM »

To be even more transparent: I'm a human being, not some sort of automaton and I'm a Mexican one at that. As a result, this election has #rattled me and I feel angry and irritated all of the time. Because I spend a lot of my time reading and writing high-falutin publications, I feel the need to express myself using bigger words and such and to make my statements appear more meaningful. This leads to polemics that are mostly just vitriol. I'm letting off steam.

I'm not particularly pleased that I have to bear the burden of being Mexican this election cycle

I appreciate your honesty on this and it's no big deal to vent.  There's nothing wrong with writing an entire post just to vent.  I can only imagine it becomes exhausting to constantly be in a position where you're, like, the de facto spokesman, but you also can't totally reject that role because it's something you care about a lot.  You totally don't need to fake meaning.

and feel irritated that other people are more concerned about FREE SPEECH and muh liberal freedoms than millions of families being separated or a current of xenophobia that's sweeping the West, yes. Are you surprised? Did you really have to make these posts to unearth this fact? Come on man! It's not that complex. Frankly, I'm irritated that you guys can afford to be "reasonable" because, ultimately, xenophobia and general hostility towards racial minorities has no affect on your existence.

Look, why do you think I care about pluralism and freedom of speech?  You act like it's some abstract ideal.  You're like "guys, why are you concerned about pluralism and free speech when authoritarianism is taking root?".  I'm concerned about pluralism and free speech because of the prospect of authoritarianism.  I'm concerned about it because people tend to resort to authoritarianism and oppression when they are scared -- not because they are evil, not because they're sadists, but because they're scared and think they're protecting themselves, their livelihood, their identity, whatever.

I care about this sh**t because I think "this is no time to bother with free speech or pluralism when society is too endangered for that -- don't worry about it, we're the good guys" is a terrible argument to entertain, even if I'm sympathetic to the people making it.

Also, I can (very vehemently) argue against this stuff while not thinking that it's the most important thing in the world.  I do think this is very important, but I don't devote argument in exact proportion to how important things are, and neither do you.  I also don't avoid criticizing sh**t I think is dangerous just because it's done by people whose goals I might agree with or sympathize.  The fact that you think that's a petty concern is pretty screwed up to me, and I've articulated why clearly...so I'm not sure (besides the fact that you don't like anything that vaguely "defends" people you don't like) you keep objecting to it.

Hopefully that rant helps you understand where I'm coming from better.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: March 12, 2016, 09:34:48 AM »

For the record, I regret making that post, and I have already deleted it. Not because I do not want to discuss this with DFB, but because even if I find his particular formulation of his argument to be poor, it struck me that I actually see where he's coming from in the sense that I don't particularly care about people's "free speech" on campus if they are inciting hatred against my people either. I cannot blame minorities for being angry at Trump.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: March 12, 2016, 09:37:21 AM »

The campaign must take some blame for choosing the time and place of the rally. Consider these factors:

* Chicago has a very long history of organized protests, and for some of them the organization breaks down and chaos ensues.

* The atmosphere for protest in Chicago is particularly strong in the wake of the Laquan McDonald shooting.

* There's a number of emotional primary campaigns that play upon that shooting as well as the distaste for Pub Gov Rauner.

* UIC has a student body known to protest speakers who do not comport with a left-leaning world view.

* Traffic in and around the UIC Pavilion is notoriously bad.

* Social media was active with efforts to both infiltrate the rally and gather outside for a number of days before the event.

* There are many other large venues in Chicagoland suitable for a rally with 10,000 people.

Why would the campaign pick the Pavilion, and once they did and saw signs of trouble why not switch to a different location well in advance of the event?
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: March 12, 2016, 09:38:28 AM »
« Edited: March 12, 2016, 09:40:08 AM by Get on board the Trump train! Cho cho! »

Yeah. I don't like DFB. I do not wish him well. I wish he was one of the illegals he loves so much. This isn't exactly a new sentiment from me, and it long predates Trump, as DFB himself can attest.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: March 12, 2016, 09:41:24 AM »

Yeah. I don't like DFB. I do not wish him well. I wish he was one of the illegals he loves so much. This isn't exactly a new sentiment from me, and it long predates Trump, as DFB himself can attest.

Get help.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: March 12, 2016, 09:42:24 AM »

Free speech is extremely important: but so is the right to protest against it. It is important that those supporting Trump are made aware of what others think of them: this does not restrict their own rights.

On the substance, Donald Trump is fully to blame for what is happening in this campaign.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: March 12, 2016, 09:45:35 AM »

Yeah. I don't like DFB. I do not wish him well. I wish he was one of the illegals he loves so much. This isn't exactly a new sentiment from me, and it long predates Trump, as DFB himself can attest.

Trust me: a lot of people around would not have a kind word to say in your favor when St. Peter is deciding whether to send you up or down.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: March 12, 2016, 09:46:43 AM »

Yeah. I don't like DFB. I do not wish him well. I wish he was one of the illegals he loves so much. This isn't exactly a new sentiment from me, and it long predates Trump, as DFB himself can attest.

Get help.

I doubt he could be, or should be, helped.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: March 12, 2016, 09:48:45 AM »

Yeah. I don't like DFB. I do not wish him well. I wish he was one of the illegals he loves so much. This isn't exactly a new sentiment from me, and it long predates Trump, as DFB himself can attest.

Trust me: a lot of people around would not have a kind word to say in your favor when St. Peter is deciding whether to send you up or down.
MAKE HEAVAN GREAT AGAIN
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 15 queries.