Theater Professor's Firefly Poster Declared Threatening

ocean_soul writes "Probably because nothing more threatening was happening and they need to prove their usefulness the school police at University of Wisconsin-Stout decided a Firefly poster with the quote: "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed," was a threat to the safety on campus. Wasn't that a quote about not killing people?"

Comments

FSZ's

[Scutter]

Surely he can hang his poster up in the Free Speech Zone set aside for that purpose. You know, the three square feet way off in the back of the most distant parking lot where you can say whatever you want without fear that anyone will actually hear what you're saying.

-
All free Americans should despise our new so-called "Free Speech Zones". My "Free Speech Zone" used to be called "The United States of America".

Re:FSZ's

[captainpanic]

I started writing this post, and I thought you made a joke about the FSZ... and I thought I'd just write something witty (which will then get modded down for bad humor). Then I decided to quickly doublecheck, and this Free Speech Zone is actually a real thing. Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Then I read a bit more on wikipedia, and I found out that in the US, you're not always allowed to protest, except in your FSZ... which is practically hidden from public view.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Kev Vance]

Eric Cartman? Is that you?

From the article...

[broginator]

"...school police chief Lisa A. Walter..." It's the L.A.W.

Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror!

[L4t3r4lu5]

Who'da thunk that a failed mall-cop would screw up something as simple as english comprehension, eh? I've never heard that quote before, yet even I can see that it's essentially saying that the person will only kill another person if they are presenting an immediate and credible threat to said person's life. HURRR DURRR, that's the only time it's legal, and they'd better have the pistol to your head and their finger on the trigger for you to react like that.

Someone send that guy back to kindergarten so he can learn to understand a sentence properly.

TAT

[georgenh16]

You know what this means - the next time he wears a bonnet on campus, he'll be threatened by the "Threat Assessment Team".


"I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you."

Posters are unsafe

[not_surt]

I got a paper cut from one. I nearly died.

Work too

[Bigbutt]

I get the same thing at work. A few friends had a photo op for a school project and the main person decided to do a Shadowrun themed shoot. We dressed up in our gear and I grabbed my fake Katana ($40 at a game convention; yea fake) for some fluff along with my hat and oversized coat over my motorcycle jacket (for bulkiness). Anyway, she took some really good pictures. I printed out one of me with my sheathed sword and posted it in my cube. I got a little "talking to" from my supervisor about appropriate content at work.

I've been talked to a few times about different things. My Zombie t-shirt with the shotgun on the back was one. I'm to the point that I have only one non-work related item up in my cubical. My Zombie calendar. I'm actually surprised it's lasted this long.

[John]

Re:Work too

[tophermeyer]

You didn't state where you work or what industry you work in, but there is a totally reasonable understanding in most workplaces that everybody maintain a professional business atmosphere. It might sound ridiculous to most of us, but displaying images of weapons and the shambling undead make some people uncomfortable. Businesses, generally by law, need to maintain a work environment free of those kinds of things.

I'm to the point that I have only one non-work related item up in my cubical.

Again I don't know what your organizational culture is like, but at most places I've worked personal items were extremely rare (i.e. pictures of kids, that sort of thing). Unless you have a legitimate business need to show off your zombie paraphernalia, it's usually a good idea to leave that stuff at home.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times have they tried to ban fraternties and sororities because some emo pussies might get their feelings hurt if they don't get a bid?

I think it was more because some emo pussies got killed or seriously injured in a stunningly immature and irresponsible hazing ritual, after which rich spoiled brats ran shrieking to their daddies to protect them from the consequences of their inexcusable behavior.

Maybe that part doesn't compute for you because you are just another spoiled brat with a big fat mouth.

Re:Quotes don't kill people

[Deus.1.01]

Chuck Norris sucks cock for cab fare and then walks home.

I'm SORRY! IM SORRY!

You may mod me down! BUT I HATE CHUCK NORRIS JOKES!

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[Attila Dimedici]

There would be something to what you say, except that the campus administration appears to be siding with the Rent-a-cop (who happens to be a woman).
Having watched Firefly, I believe that the quote was saying that the individual would only attempt to kill someone who was in a position to defend themselves and know why that person was attempting to kill them. Even with that more hostile reading of the quote, it is not a threat. The sentiment of the quote could be restated, "I won't blind-side you or backstab you. If I decide that you need to be taken down, you will know I'm coming and will have an opportunity to defend yourself."

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[tires don exits]

As fun as it is to make fun of the rent-a-cop overstepping his bounds (which he did), the summary is a bit misleading. The quote is more about honor than anti-violence. Mal was just saying that he won't kill somebody in their sleep and the only way he will kill is if his opponent has a fair chance. Mal is in no way against violence (although he doesn't like trouble, which violence usually brings. So he tries to avoid combat if he can). The quote was in no way about "not killing people", neither in nor out of context.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[nharmon]

It is funny because I understand the poster to be saying exactly what you think it says as well. Except neither the professor nor police chief seem to think it says that at all. The police chief, obviously, sees it as threatening. And the professor? Well, I can not imagine a person who writes this in his e-mail is someone who supports self-defense rights:

I am a committed pacifist and a devotee of non-violence, and I don't appreciate card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons lecturing me about violence.

I really do want to know what the professor thinks the poster's quote means.

Self-defense is disturbing for feminists

[Anonymous Coward]

...this kind of stuff presses into their ego in a way that is disempowering.

For me, watching the bitch get it is like watching the bad die at the end of a movie.

Interesting that they're both zealots

[Aquitaine]

On principle I side with the forces of Post Whatever You Damn Please On Your Office Door, but isn't there a certain amount of hilarity in how far removed from reality both of these people are in how they approached this issue?

The public safety officer is hewing to the absolute letter of the law with no interest in exercising any kind of critical thinking or good judgment, and the prof leaps directly to 'OMG I AM A VICTIM YOU ARE TRAMPLING MY RIGHTS' as if they'd shut down a newspaper or burned books rather than removing a piece of Hollywood memorabilia from an office door.

It seems to me that a dry, P. J. O'Rourke or Jon Stewart style response might have been better suited to pointing out the absurdity of the situation, instead of the 'I am being victimized by the man' clarion call, but as other posters have said, this is Madison.

Re:Interesting that they're both zealots

[Rogerborg]

The direct letter of the law in this case is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, as repeatedly confirmed by courts at every level when applied to a government funded institution. If you're going to have a rent-a-cop execute the "law" then they should be expected to take the time to learn it first, rather than simply trotting out "Me am too dumb for my own thinking to make, you bring lawsuit thing now okey dokey."

Re:Interesting that they're both zealots

[joebagodonuts]

There is no "Sliping into lawlessness". We've always been here.

Lets see if I understand this.

[loftwyr]

I read the original exchange [http://thefire.org/article/13592.html], as well as the linked article. From that I get the following:

1. The Campus Police saw a poster on a bulletin board near and removed it due the the reference to killing.
2. They notified Professor Miller that he or someone had posted it and they removed it due to the reference. They asked him to contact them with questions
3. He exploded at them about first amendment rights and called them fascists.
4. They asked to sit down with them and go over the problem and informed him of campus requirements. They also let him know that if he violated campus requirements there may be penalties.
5. He called them "card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons" and put up a poster again calling them fascists.
6. The CP contacted his boss who asked him to meet with him ASAP.
7. He went crying to the media about how his rights are being trampled by fascists.

It seems to me that if he had simply talked rationally about this from the start (after the poster was removed) this whole problem could have been avoided. While the Campus Police may have gone too far enforcing campus rules, the prof went way out in the deep end without any concern for sanity.

Nothing the CP did was a terrible fascist crime, if Professor Miller had bothered to think before screaming, this would have been a non-issue.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[Tom]

While I generally agree that the calm, rational approach is the right one, it also shouldn't be the only one in your repertoire. And there are times when exploding on someone is the best way to handle a matter. That is especially true if the other side is acting first, and talking after the fact. Had they talked to him before removing the poster, I dare to guess he would have been calmer.

Here's why I can relate: I live in the center of my city. There's a street filled with pubs nearby. Near the weekend, lots of people over there are drunken assholes. Sometimes, on their way home or whatever, they come through my street, and yell, fight or piss in my entrance. If I ever catch one in the act, I've sworn to myself I'll rough him up badly. Because the fact that he got that idea in the first place disqualifies him for any rational discussion, calm or otherwise. And besides, the damage is already done.

While Miller reacted strongly, it seems to me that he was in a similar situation. They had already removed the poster, and their initial notification didn't indicate they were willing to reconsider, only that they'd answer questions. From his perspective, there was no option for a solution in his interest offered, so exploding was the act by which he intended to open up the issue, so the option "put the poster back" was at least on the table.
Could he have done it in a different way? Maybe. Sometimes, stating your thoughts calmly and rationally is the right thing. But sometimes, it also means you're not going to be taken seriously, and your opponent will not look for a compromise solution, but rather for a way to brush you off, exactly because you aren't loud, so you're not a thread, just a nuissance.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[Hatta]

Ah, so the real problem isn't that the content of the poster was threatening. The problem is that he didn't show the proper deference to authority. Just making sure we're clear on this.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[BigT]

You want rationality from a theater professor? But where's the drama in that?

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[mikechant]

Sometimes, on their way home or whatever, they come through my street, and yell, fight or piss in my entrance. If I ever catch one in the act, I've sworn to myself I'll rough him up badly.

Don't you think a more sane and proportionate response would be to throw a bucket of water (or better, a bucket of piss) over them? Particularly given that 'roughing up badly' can easily turn into 'accidentally killing' when he falls awkwardly and cracks his head?
And no, I'm not some wimpy pacifist type - if he's attacking you, threatening you or you family etc., whatever, then go for it (and hopefully the law will be on your side).
In this case you'd be risking destroying your entire life (by going to prison and losing your job, house etc.) if you beat the shit out of someone for taking a piss in your entrance. The law *would not* be on your side in this case.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[Lumpy]

"they come through my street, and yell, fight or piss in my entrance."

when I lived in chicago we solved that one. every friday night 2 of my neighbors and I would sit out on the porch with a gardenhose and a trigger nozzle. Nothing stops idiots like having 3 people hose them down as they walk by.

IT took only 3 weeks of this and suddenly we did not have the problem anymore. Which sucked, because it was a lot of fun drinking on the porch and hosing down idiots.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[billcopc]

Well, Tom, mr UID 822, I for one am quite pleased that you're not one of those P.C. apologists. Yes, people aren't always people, sometimes they're just savages, and should be treated as such.

As someone who has spent far too much time in bars, as both a patron and employee, I whole-heartedly agree with you. The latest generation has been so coddled that they believe themselves impervious to criticism and reprimand. Waking up to a good sore knuckle imprint serves to fill in for the lessons their parents failed to teach.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[eepok]

You're right. Honorably, as the poster intended, there's nothing wrong with stating that you won't shoot unaware and unarmed opponents.

However, college campuses, like airports, are areas of heightened sensitivity to threats of violence (especially from firearms and explosives). If someone personally identifies with a series of triggers (for lack of a better word) to kill someone with a firearm, law enforcement will likely take issue.

It's common sense. Don't talk about bombs at an airport. Don't talk about shooting people on a college campus (or any educational campus). Of course, sometimes there's over-reaction. (I'm looking at you, Boston.) And sometimes there's too much haste to action (University of Wisconsin, Stout). But the worst thing you can do in those situations is make a big deal of it because law enforcement digs its heels in and forms a nearly impermeable blue line... and then nothing constructive happens.

It was irrationally reactionary to take the poster down before consulting the owner. But there are better ways to respond to bad moves than insults and crying wolf.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[ColdWetDog]

No, no. Bucket of water means you have to stand there all night. His UID is low enough to suggest at least a passing familiarity of tech - I might suggest an electric fence charger with a couple of excellent grounding wires and some standing water. Urine streams are reasonably conductive. Bonus points for a web cam.

Re:Lets see if I understand this.

[Commontwist]

I read the e-mails as well and, well, I have to side with the prof.

While he was being *gasp* dramatic he did have a point in his first letter. Basically, she politely said 'we tore down your sign and took it while you were away because we 'felt' it was a threatening, mind altering poster and we don't need to ask if you aren't there even if you, the professor, put it up.' There was nothing respectful in that letter--polite, yes; respectful, no--and he let her have it with both barrels in no uncertain terms. Not to mention he's a drama professor and she tore down a poster (of a relatively popular sci-fi drama series, go figure) of material relevant to his profession without asking him first because she didn't like it? In a mild way, she just told the professor his ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE was offensive to her and she could do whatever she wanted to tear it down and he could do jack.

I'd be right pissed off too.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Antisyzygy]

Even though I don't agree with his liberal bashing, he is right about the offending part. Offending someone doesn't hurt them, and they should have the balls to fucking ignore it. If you are such an asshole you have to censor people because of your nimrod self-entitlement complex, you don't even deserve to live in this country.

Of course

[joebagodonuts]

If you go to the trouble to fund and staff a "Threat Assessment Team", then they have to find threats. Even if none really exist, something will be labeled Threat. Bureaucracy will take it from there.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[nedlohs]

He thinks it's a quote from a fictional character and being older than 6 doesn't have to 100% agree with the philosophy of said fictional character in order to enjoy the story or think it has some sort of artistic merit.

Why can't people be reasonable?

[yakovlev]

Actually, the quote wasn't quite that noble. What it's saying is that the person will only kill someone with the ability to defend themselves.

In a twisted way I see how they could have an argument.

If you dig a little deeper (like looking at the case on the FIRE site) the professor then put up a poster against fascism, indicating that fascism can lead to violence and death. Campus police took that one down too and got the dean involved, which is when this guy got a lawyer.

Seriously, Fascism?! Campus police has a problem with a poster against Fascism?!

Basically, what's going on here is that the professor had a poster that could, by a decidedly UNreasonable (but still sane and literate) person be construed to be a threat. Campus police took it down. The guy got upset and replaced it with a new poster which, while DEPICTING comic violence, constituted real political speech and clearly was NOT a threat of any kind. It was phrased as a warning that Fascism can lead to violence. This is where the story should have ended.

Campus police decided that since this guy was a "troublemaker" they would show him by taking down the new poster too and going after his job. This is where campus police went too far. The new poster was NOT a threat, and campus police knew it, or should have known it.

So, the professor got a lawyer.

And, the moral of the story is: Fear the police, they have public opinion, power, and guns on their side. :-(

Re:Why can't people be reasonable?

[lahvak]

I disagree. I've seen some ridiculous communist/fascist loving stuff at University. I've seen people who "admire" Kim Jong-Il, and who "admire" Hitler, and who "admired" Mao.

I have been around various universities pretty much all my life, and I don't think I have ever seen a person who genuinely admired any of the dictators that you mention (except some communist fanatics at the communist government controlled university that I studied when I was young, and these people generally did not belong at a university, and were booted from their positions by the rest of the academic community soon after the revolution). I have seen people who studied Kim Jong-Il, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. I have also seen people who claimed to admire them, in order to shock or create controversy, both in university environments and outside.

These "leaders" killed millions of people in the name of truly evil ideologies, and they are typically tolerated at academic institutions.

If by tolerated you mean discussed and studied, you are right. You see, the thing about academia, the whole purpose of it is to figure out things and understand them, understand where they come from, what caused them, how can we recognize them when they come along next time, etc.

For example, UW Madison had its local paper run an ad by a Holocaust denier, because, "âoeno opinions or assertions can be so offensive that we cannot bring ourselves to hear them.â'

As much as I oppose holocaust deniers, I completely agree with the UWMs reasoning. And I am not the only only one, there is for example this famous quote by Salman Rushdie: âoeWhat is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to existâ. I think he speaks from experience. From an academic point of view, it is impossible to study an opinion or assertion, debate it and argue against it, without hearing it.

Also, UW Madison has *at least* one professor (Erik Olin Wright) who studies the "scientific" ideas of Stalin. A mass murderer by *any* standard. Probably the most prolific mass murderer in history.

Indeed, and that's exactly why we need to study his ideas. We need to understand what did the most prolific mass murderer in history think, how did he justify his actions and so on. If for no other reason, than at least in order to prevent others like him to gain power and attempt to repeat his actions. If you look around the world, there are plenty of people who would very much like to emulate Stalin, and no, most of them (if any) are in academia.

Scary to me that a Firefly poster would be considered the "worrying" document.

I completely agree with you on this. That is completely ridiculous. However, I think that it is not necessarily caused by either liberal or conservative point of view, as many people here argue. I think at the beginning it was simply a stupid business decision. I imagine that the administration on the university probably instructed the cops to be on a look out for certain keywords. I imagine that they are mostly worried that a student will read the poster, misunderstand it, mention it to parents, somebody will call in a reporter, it will be on the news, and bunch of complete idiots will say that someone (it does not matter who) at the university is threatening students, other bunch of complete idiots will believe it, the enrollment will drop, and since most income in state universities these days come from tuition, it will be an economic disaster for the school. I don't agree with that reasoning, I thing it is stupid, but unfortunately, you can see it at various state schools around the country all the time. The rest is just the cop being dumb. No need to spin it into some sort of "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" thing.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[L4t3r4lu5]

Replying to an AC, but hey, I have a little time to burn.

Thanks for the clarification of the likely employment status of the officer. I'm not sure if you're supposed to be somehow protecting other non-police force security officers somehow by making the distinction, or dragging down the already sullied name of "police officer" by including this barely literate individual within that group. Either way, I don't think my assessment of their demeanour was unfair; They fail at basic English comprehension. I'm surprised s/he was capable of filling in the application form.

Regarding your second point, ad hominim and non sequitur; I am not an asshole, I have never met any campus security and therefore would not generalise about them (having referred to only the one in question in my post), and I don't see a cause / effect relationship between my opinion of the officer's obvious lack of basic language skills as being a cause for their bitterness.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[GreatBunzinni]

How many times have they tried to silence *any* dissent outside of the most batshit crazy Che-Guevara-t-shirt-wearing hippies screaming about oppressive capitalism?

I don't know. Do you? I mean, do you actually have any evidence that anyone actually tried to do what you've just accused some random, faceless group of actually perpetrating, or are you just rambling incoherently?

How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)? You're talking about a conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals pushing each other out of the way to tell you how anti-corporation they are--and then tweeting about it on their band-new Macs and iPads (with absolutely no sense of irony).

I am not an american citizen, nor I ever set foot near it, but from all the Hollywood movies I've been exposed to and from all the political posturing that some US citizens are responsible for in online forums such as this one, I assumed that the US of A was supposed to be a constitutional republic whose citizens enjoyed a set of rights as encoded in the United States Bill of Rights. Among this set of rights, there was supposed to be this right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition. If this is supposed to be true then it would mean that it was everyone's business, including "conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals", to take stances, "liberal" or not, on any issue anyone sees fit, which includes wars and union organizing.

But, somehow, it appears that you disagree with this, that you somehow believe that a specific group of people which are a part of your society should be barred from exercising these rights which supposedly people like you hold as fundamental for your very own society.

So, how do you explain your stance on this issue?

Man, I told him...

[Moheeheeko]

He should have put up the poster with "I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you."

Just in case you didn't RTFA...

[pongo000]

...the second poster he hung up is better than the first. Much better.

If I kill you, you'll never know

[jfengel]

Yeah, the quote sounds all manly and tough, but I think it's also pretty stupid. If I am going to kill you, it's because it's important that you be dead. It's not a test of my masculinity, or some kind of honor thing where I'm going to let Fate or our skills with a weapon decide which of us really deserves to be deceased.

If I kill you, I'm going to sneak up on you, and you'll have no idea what's happening until you no longer know that anything is happening. It won't be "honorable", just necessary. If it's not necessary, I won't do it.

The real civility and honor comes BEFORE the killing part, where I try to settle our differences like adult human beings, with language. If you have any honor, we'll settle it then. If we don't find an honorable way to settle it, I won't be looking for an honorable solution, just a solution.

Re:If I kill you, you'll never know

[kcbnac]

I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot and kill him.
- Autobiography of Mark Twain

Just a Reminder about Rights

[Dareth]

You have as many rights in these United States of America as you can afford to hire lawyers to defend.

Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists

[Stoutlimb]

Because slamming one side automatically means he's vouching for the other side, right?

Because there are only two real options in your country, both just as bad?

Wake up and realize that what you think is "liberal" and "conservatives" are just two sides of the same superficially democratic machine, and it's only real purpose is to keep itself in power. You only have one party, thinly veiled as two. Any American who gets into a con vs lib argument is just a zombie doing exactly what the system wants them to do. It's very sad and pathetic watching this from the outside, seeing everything you people believe in as a lie. I guess being immersed in it since childhood makes it easier to believe. It's kind of like watching a documentary about cargo cults... it's hard to believe people living in such ignorance exist... but there they are.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[Antisyzygy]

Because women are different than men? This is proven physiologically both in the brain and in the body. Women routinely get treated better in court cases, this is a proven fact. Women have more child rights, women have lower requirements for physically demanding jobs, etc. Only an idealistic idiot thinks otherwise.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[eepok]

She's not a rent-a-cop or a mall-cop. She's the chief of an actual police department. Many universities have their own police department.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[Anonymous Coward]

The cop understood the quote just fine, she just disagrees with the message. Cops don't seem to like the idea that normal people should be able (or really even willing) to defend themselves. Partly because they see that as their job, and partly because they don't want ordinary citizens to be able to defend themselves against cops.

Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists

[Frenzied Apathy]

^^This

It is my observation and opinion that conservatives/Republicans believe that their views on society and policy are the only answer. It seems to me that they believe there is no room for debate, discussion, or compromise.

Begin flame war

Re:How about flashing?

[N0Man74]

If I flash you, your mom, daughter or wife, they aren't hurt, are they?

Actually... probably not.

Does it make me old that I can remember a time when things like flashing, mooning, public urination, and streaking, were seen as being disorderly, but not thought of as psychologically damaging? Now a mooning can make you a registered sex offender.

Re:A blank page?

[Tom]

They're trying to make sure readers don't steal bandwidth

And I thought we had gone too far when we called illegal copying "stealing".

Dude, nobody has stolen their bandwidth. Look, it's still there! Look!

I'm surprised Slashdot's comments section doesn't die if you block it's advertisement code.

On the contrary, if your karma is high enough, you even get an option to disable advertisement. Some sites still understand that without readers, they're nothing but a guy wanking in the basement.

Basically, if you want to be paid for your content, put up a paywall. Ads are not payment. Putting them on your site is a bet, not a price ticket. You play a bit of lottery, every ad is a ticket that may or may not yield you some cash. If your business model is based on ads, then you're a professional gambler, nothing more. Sure, with large enough numbers, statistics usually level out in your favour, but never forget that there's no guarantee - getting 100 million page views with zero ad clicks may be a statistical anomaly, but it could happen. If that means you starve, then you've bet the farm on an unreliable business model.

Short version: Your problem, not mine.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[billcopc]

I believe the administration was threatened by that quote, because they clearly aren't in the business of giving people a chance at a fair defense.

If this prof is any good at what he does, he should jump ship, immediately, and find work in an institution that actually fosters learning.

That, or have his students prank the dumb rent-a-cop daily until she checks herself into the nearest psychiatric hospital.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[billcopc]

I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

No, really. This equality bullshit fad needs to end NOW! Reminds me of the Kurt Vonnegut story "Harrison Bergeron", recently made into a movie, where

The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains

That nicely sums up my opinion of political correctness. If the only way to achieve a stable society is to stoop down to the lowest common denominator, I say ship all the weak, ugly imbeciles off to a damn Mars colony so we can have our nice little utopia, and they can have their real-life Idiocracy. Everyone's happy then, right ?

Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists

[pecosdave]

Mod this guy up!

Democrats and Republicans are like Firebirds and Camaros. They have the same power train, almost all the parts are interchangeable among the same year model, they do the same exact thing, but they were different badges while doing it and they each have their own dedicated group of supporters that argues why their version is better and the other has flaws.

Meanwhile they're completely ignoring every other manufacturer out and using their arguing not to fight each other, but hoping that argument polarizes others into siding with "one or the other" even though they're actually the same so that the Charger gets excluded all together.

University cops are sometimes real cops

[perpenso]

She's not a rent-a-cop or a mall-cop. She's the chief of an actual police department. Many universities have their own police department.

University of California campus police are real police, state police in fact so they may have wider jurisdiction than the local police department. I recall that every fall quarter, and often in the winter and spring quarters, the same story appeared in the campus paper. A student new to campus ignores instructions from a UC police officer while saying something to the effect of "I don't have to listen to a rent-a-cop", the stories then continues with that student's arrest.

I also recall that UC Police often responded to emergencies near campus, not just on campus. An armed bank robbery occurred near campus, the UC police were first on the scene and "contained" the robber. A local Sheriff's deputy was shot during a "routine" traffic stop 10+ miles away, the suspect fled into an industrial park. While various SWAT teams from the region maintained a perimeter around the park three K-9 teams searched the complex, one was from the UC police.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Antisyzygy]

Nope, white male and poor since the economy sucks ass right now and apparently I went to school for the wrong thing, Applied Mathematics. I'm also married to a black woman that agrees with me who has probably lived a harder life than 90 percent of the people in this country. My father lived a harder life than her starving most of the time while his sisters got raped and given Hepatitis C by their sociopath uncle who murdered my grandfather and one other person. He worked his ass off to get where he is today, which is also poor now since the economy sucks. Psychological trauma and pain from what? Only a fucking nimrod gets "Hurt" over words from someone they don't even know. If I can ignore them, why can't they? If you can't handle it then go start your own utopian dream land and please stop bothering me. There is a major difference between something like PTSD from bombs exploding near you all the time, and getting "trauma" from a god damn poster. Give me a fucking break.

Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists

[pecosdave]

When using proper definitions - not the modern twisted ones, you can be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.

A liberal believes in freedom.

A conservative believes in not wasting.

I'm both, I believe in freedom and not having my freedom trampled in the name of having my income taken to waste on unnecessary overhead.

The modern definition of liberal is one who wishes to impede financial freedom, discriminates against traditional values, impose socialism, and destroy "conservatives".

The modern definition of conservative is one who wishes to impede personal freedom, discriminate against non-traditional values, impose government supported capitalism and destroy "liberals".

This has nothing to do with the political parties each associates themselves with which is actually just one party disguising itself as two. Until Americans realize this we are on the same path of self-destruction.

Context

[paleo2002]

If the poster was of 1940's Ronald Reagan dressed as a cowboy with the same quote, people probably would've been leaving flowers and candles at the door.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[WhiteWolf666]

What is *truly* offensive to me:

We're talking about a quote from a mainstream sci-fi series. A quote. . . posted on the door of a theater professor's door.

Yet, no one would blink twice about Mao Tse Tung quotes/posters (which I've seen, not to mention occasionally repeated by Government officials), Che posters (which are common place in academia), or Holocaust deniers (Google it, these roaches are present at several American academic institutes). There are also a fair number of "academic" North Korea lovers, a locale with ongoing state-sponsored mass murdering.

Yeah, that Firefly poster is totally something to panic about. But ululation of mass murdering communist/fascist goons? Totally fine in the name of free speech.

I'd think that Holocaust deniers, or Che-lovers, or Kim Jong-Il lovers are *far* more likely to cause psychological harm and terror.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[pecosdave]

This is the biggest smoke screen liberals are using today.

I'm a libertarian, I look at the left vs. right debate mostly from the outside and I've declared most of it foolish. What I have noticed is a lot of quotes coming from the left that say "even liberals in America are conservatives when compared to the rest of the world" "all right wingers are incredibly right wing so they see only slightly liberal or even neutral institutions as far left." The left is an attack machine against the right and the general goal of the overall left is to "change the center of balance" so that it appears that moderates on their side are neutral so that radicals seem moderate - bringing their fringe closer to center and moving the rights moderates to the radical realm in the general overall perception.

What I see from the right is mostly a dismissal of the left as wrong. When they do go on the attack against the left they usually attack the individual issue, not the person/people in general (the left does not constrain itself so). When the issue a left and right winger disagree on is financial right wingers are usually ok with the left winger otherwise, the left winger usually sees nothing from the right winger as acceptable. When it's a moral cause right wingers tend to be less accepting of the left otherwise.

Us libertarians, when we do agree with either of your issues in principal just wished you would stop legislating them on everyone, especially at the federal level so we don't screw the nation as a whole when you're wrong. Even when you're right we want you to leave it out of the federal level of laws so it's not mismanaged at the top, over taxed for, and imposed on all 50 states plus territories through what should be illegal symbiotic relationships with corporations that have unreasonable relationships with the federal government.

"Threatening" behavior on campus

[perpenso]

Even though I don't agree with his liberal bashing, he is right about the offending part.

Its not just people's interpretation of offending behavior, it their interpretation of threatening behavior. I knew a professor who did computer vision research and had a round bulls-eye target (*not* a silhouette target, ie it was the type of target you would find in the Olympics not on a police or military range) shot full of holes on his wall. This target was used in a computer vision project and the professor would occasionally glance at it while thinking of algorithms to apply to its image. He joked he'll have to complete the project quickly because someone will invariably walk by in the hallway and see the target on his *interior office wall* and file a complaint saying the target created a threatening environment. He was serious, he was quite confident he will eventually be asked to take it down.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Antisyzygy]

I don't know what you have been smoking, but the right is the first to attack ANYTHING the left does. Congress is by and large doing nothing simply because right wingers can't compromise, and they must get their way like spoiled little babies. I am most definitely moderate since I basically disagree and agree with about 40-50 percent of each side, and many are like me. I get called "liberal" all the time. Libertarian isn't even "moderate" considering political beliefs aren't one dimensional.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[serviscope_minor]

Because women are different than men?

I think it was because the GGP post referred to the mall cop as a guy, "he", "him", etc.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[pecosdave]

I disagree with you.

Many among us are not in the least trying to make our founding fathers visions a reality. One of the first lines of attack against their vision is they attempt to re-define dictionary words through intentional misuse so that the words of the fathers become distorted. I see it all the time when people read "protect the general welfare of the states" as an excuse for the individual welfare system and other intrusions into state affairs. The intentional re-interpretation of the word militia to Nerf the right to keep and bare arms (the bare part is so ignored now). The next line of attack is to increase the power of the federal government to work outside of constitutional constraints. At the turn of the 20th century the constitution was sufficiently in-tact that a constitutional amendment has to be passed for prohibition to pass. Not long after no such thing had to be done to outlaw scores of drugs and regulate the ones that weren't outlawed, they did this various US Code circumventions and one president in particular threatening to "court pack" the supreme court to get his way. Would it take an amendment to outlaw anything today? Hardly. The only reason we still have guns is arms are very specifically protected, but they're chewing away at the edges of that. Even with that protected why can't I wear a sword? Is a sword not a protected arm?

When did the 9th and 10th amendments get repealed? I never got that memo.

Wickard v. Filburn was the worst Supreme Court decision ever. It needs to be revisited TODAY even though all those involved are now dead. This decision, though outright wrong enabled the federal government to creep into every facet of our lives in the guise of regulating interstate commerce. Nobody in the federal government wants to do that, and I don't know any way to get the decision overturned or repealed, the repercussions would be massive.

You are correct about us not being of one mind, but there are many of us that not only aren't trying, but actively circumventing the intent.

Re:I will make my one point and get out...

[PPH]

Cops are not the arbiters of good taste. If the campus police chief determined that the poster could be threatening to some, then take that issue up the chain of command. That would be (I assume) the school's administration. Seizing property would only be justified by an immediate threat. Which I doubt this poster was.

Next item: Miller was called into a meeting with Walter, the campus police chief. Now that's not the normal enforcement procedure I'd expect. Police are there to secure dangerous situations (which this was not) and collect evidence. Evidence which is then made available to the authority empowered to bring charges and/or mete out justice. In the real world, that would be the court. On campus, the administration. But no, 'the law' in this case was the police itself.

This attitude of "I'm a cop, so I'm the law in these parts" is completely wrong headed. The police are agents of the courts (or their equivalent) and only empowered to enforce the law to the degree that the latter sees fit. In fact, getting dragged into a meeting with the chief of police is in and of itself a threat. It says the police are the de facto law and there will be no getting around them to an actual impartial party to seek justice.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Slime-dogg]

It's actually pretty true. Madison is similar to the PCU depicted in the movie.

don't get confused

[YesIAmAScript]

You are allowed to protest pretty much anywhere if you do so peacefully. At certain big events where there is expected to be disruption and not peaceful protest (like the anti-WTO protests) there are designated free speech zones.

Yes, these free speech zones are far out of the way and not conducive to protest.

You thinking that in the US you cannot protest anywhere else would be equivalent to me looking at the Speaker's Corner article on wikipedia and concluding there is no free speech or protest legally allowed outside a few tiny regions of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers'_Corner

Re:don't get confused

[lymond01]

I wish I had mod points. I'm not sure what people think protests are. Here's a hint: publicity. You go, you hoot, you holler, you sit in, you get in the way. And yep, if you do it during someone's speech you're likely to get arrested for disturbing the peace, etc. But then you, and your cause, are news which is the whole point -- you don't want to interrupt someone's speech, you want your cause to be heard. So you take one for the team and spend a few hours in jail. Don't be an idiot about it -- just lie there and let them take you in all friendly like.

If you don't want to be heard then yes, go stand in the free speech zone. That's what it's there for.

Re:don't get confused

[dkleinsc]

You are allowed to protest pretty much anywhere if you do so peacefully.

Tell that to the protesters who were barred from going near Wall St about 2 weeks ago (and then in some cases penned in by police barricades and shot with pepper spray).

At certain big events where there is expected to be disruption and not peaceful protest (like the anti-WTO protests) there are designated free speech zones.

No, it's not limited to big events where there is expected to be a disruption. For instance, in 2004, I was outside the Vice-Presidential Debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney. There were no plans by anybody to commit acts of violence, vandalism, or even blocking traffic, just people who wanted to use a political event to engage in political speech (crazy concept). They set up a Free Speech Zone about half a mile away from the actual event and only some of the many people engaged in political speech ended up being sent there (signs with "Kerry/Edwards", "Bush/Cheney", "Michael Badnarik", or "David Cobb" were fine, while "Leave Iraq Now" were not). And I should point out that not 1 TV camera or reporter went anywhere near the FSZ.

For what it's worth, my experience as an occasional political protester is that police don't go after protesters unless they think that those protests are going to be both heavily anti-corporate and large enough to be noticed.

Re:don't get confused

[Darinbob]

I think the idea is that they don't want mobs. Too many examples in the past of angry protesting mobs disrupting events; blocking entrances, shouting at people entering the events, etc. Free speech is allowed, disturbing the peace is not. So now the free speech zones seem to be the preemptive approach to avoiding disruption and/or violence. I do agree that many jurisdictions are taking this preemption too far.

Basically we still do have free speech everywhere. But that is not the same thing as being allowed to protest everywhere. You are allowed to walk to the entrance of the NYSE and speak your mind even with unpopular views. However you're not allowed to incite others to violence, or bring a group of people to disrupt traffic and block entrances.

Of course even if this is a legal infraction does that matter? The civil rights marchers went ahead and marched even though it was illegal.

Re:don't get confused

[Carewolf]

This is why the freedom of speech is usually followed by the freedom to assemble, so you can't make that silly loophole to free speech.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Antisyzygy]

You completely misunderstand the left all together. I have never seen a group try to compromise more than the left. Its built into their "bleeding hearts", since they try to protect people even from themselves (which is not always best). You are basically arguing using a false analogy of "the left wants all our money". Bullshit. The left wants a more progressive distribution of wealth, and tends to also lean towards health care. Sometimes they go about it the wrong way, but it certainly isn't fair that I pay 30 percent of my pay checks when I make next to nothing, and some guy pays 15 percent of the millions he makes off of investments. Either reduce my taxes to 15 percent or raise theirs. Thats the argument of the left.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Svartalf]

Compromise?

So, was Pelosi and the Democrats compromising when they forced ObamaCare on everyone?
So the head of the Teamsters Union was compromising when he said "Take those SOB's out"?

There's tons more...if one cares to look just a smidge. Sorry, I just can't believe you meant what you said. Must have mis-stated it...or you're living in a rose-colored glasses induced world there.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Antisyzygy]

Sure they were, that's why the bill sucks so bad. Republicans wanted it to fail, so they made it shitty with compromises. No-one on the right ever budges on anything, because they are assholes. Everyone on the left always budges on everything, because they are pussies.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[The-Blue-Clown]

My little story. Back in 1994 when I was attending a NC university. I was working the computer labs as a part-time job soIi could afford the one meal a day at the school's all-you-can-eat buffet line. I was putting myself through school and working two part-time jobs. I was tired. I in a shit-hole but it was all I could afford. I had a hand gun in my car. In NC it has to be in plain sight. It saved my ass more than a few times when assholes would come up to my window at a light then walk off quickly when they saw my "extra gear shift". So I was tired one day. I drive onto campus to get my bag from one of the labs. My main purpose there was to help mommy's little precious get his porn and show him how to write a paper on the computer. So I get pulled over going 25 in a 20mph zone. Not thinking where I was (sleepy as hell) I put the gun on the dashboard and put my hands at 10 and 2 like a state trooper had said I should when I asked him what I should do if stopped. So the campus cop goes Barney Fief and calls for backup and doesn't even ask me anything. 5 more cars pull up (6 in all) with lights and I'm pulled out of the car at gunpoint. They hand me off to the city cops who drive me over to the chancellor's office. I've got no record and I'm an A student. "Make an example of him and book him as a felon." was his reply. The cops booked me thankfully under a misdemeanor. My punishment? The loss of my handgun, University probation for 2 years, and I had to make 6 anti-gun posters, and serve 250 hours of community service. the last was easy as I already helped with Habitat for Humanity. I thoroughly believe the adage, "If you can't do, teach." In my experience its true. The staff at the university are not your friends. You are product and they do not want leaders. They want sheep. PC seems to be seeping out of the university culture into everything now. Feel offended? Its not your fault and you don't have to tolerate it. Now sit down and color.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[makomk]

The above comment was presumably brought to us by the "project your side's malevolent activities onto your opponent, get moderated Insightful" school of political thought? Because US politics didn't used to be nearly as far to the right as it was, and the way it got there was through the use of exactly the same tactics by the right that you're accusing the left wing of using - they deliberately drove ideas further and further to the right into the political mainstream, redefining what counted as centrist and far-left as they did so. We know this from statements by members of the right wing saying that this is what they were doing.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[wiedzmin]

Remember, folks: divide and conquer.

That sounds threatening.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[makomk]

"ObamaCare" was very definitely an example of them compromising. A few years ago, the exact same scheme would've been considered a Republican idea, and they even piled some extra compromises on top of it. In fact, all the compromising is probably what's going to kill it; they should really have just passed a proper single-payer scheme like other countries have, but in the US that's considered too far-left for the Democrats.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[mcgrew]

I think you're a little confused, or haven't been paying attention. To a right winger, anyone who thinks pollutants should be regulated is a "tree hugging hippie" and global warming is a left-wing conspiracy, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and the poor are all poor because they're barely human,creationism should be taught in schools and think "God helps those who help themselves" is in .the bible (it isn't) and it's your God-given right to never pay taxes ("Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's").

Libertarians can lean to the left or the right. Me, I'm probably more left leaning; you should be able to do whatever you want so long as you don't victimize me, but then I consider paying someone shit for an honest day's work is victimizing him. I'm all for a European-style health care system; our own is simply retarded.

That said, it's just wrong to supress this guy's speech. You should have the right to say anything you want no matter how offensive, but if you slander me I have the right to sue.

You have the right to bare arms, but you don't have the right to point one at me.

Youe rights end where mine begin (and no, I agree that you don't have the right to not be offended).

I aim to misbehave

[lymond01]

Way better quote:

Mal: This report is maybe twelve years old. Parliament buried it, and it stayed buried till River dug it up. This is what they feared she knew. And they were right to fear because there's a whole universe of folk who are gonna know it, too. They're gonna see it. Somebody has to speak for these people. You all got on this boat for different reasons, but you all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make peoplebetter. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave.
        . . .
Jayne: Shepherd Book used to tell me, "If you can't do somethin' smart... do somethin' right."

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[Belial6]

Uh, you might want to watch the movie again. The Operative WAS threatening him, and was heavily armed. The threat was that the Operative would kill everyone that Mal holds dear, and he was armed with an entire armada of war ships to do it.

From the same scene.

The Operative: I have to hope, you know you cannot beat us. Mal: I've got no need to beat you. I just want to go on my way.

and:
Operative: I have a war ship in deep orbit. We locked on to Serenity's pulse becon the moment you entered atmo. I can speak a word and send a missile to that exact location inside of 3 minutes.

The scene you quote is quoted WAY out of context. The conversation took place in a hostage situation. The operative was an assassin that was holding one person hostage with the demand to deliver another person for execution. The violence had already started, and the assassin was not unarmed.

So, the quote "If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed" described the situation.

Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists

[dkleinsc]

There's an important difference between Democrats / Republicans and Firebirds / Camaros though: The cars might actually take you someplace you want to go.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[mcgrew]

The trouble with "libertarians" is some have a funny definition of "liberty", thinking that taxes and regulations infringe on their freedoms, when your refusal to pay your fair share and your pollution infringe on my own rights.

You don't have the right to dirty my air and rivers. You should have the right to smoke crack with your hired bitch; it's your right to destroy your life any way you deem fit. Smoke your crack, but don't burglarize my house to pay for your habit.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[TangoMargarine]

I'm not trying to imply that it's racism (well, not much, anyway). Segregation doesn't have to be by race, that's just what we've taken it to mean.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[RobNich]

That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.

Secondly, let's consider a scenario: Group A wants independent states and a small Federal government, so they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. Group B wants to increase Federal government size and power by increasing spending and eventually taxes.

What's the compromise? No increase in spending? Well, the compromise in the US has ALWAYS been an increase in spending, there's never been any actual cut in spending.

The law says that the Federal budget will always increase each year over the previous ("baseline budgeting"), so if neither group takes any action, Group B's desires are met. (Any "cuts" they talk about are actually reductions in future spending from the baseline, never reductions from the current year's budget.)

So that's why Group B wants to "compromise", because it makes them look more reasonable without risking anything--their goals are being met if they get none of their evident demands.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Anonymous Coward]

"How many times have they tried to ban fraternties and sororities because some emo pussies might get their feelings hurt if they don't get a bid?"

Frats are still there. QQ moar.

"How many times have they tried to silence *any* dissent outside of the most batshit crazy Che-Guevara-t-shirt-wearing hippies screaming about oppressive capitalism?"

Zero times?

"How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)?"

Who is "they?" And what issues are they, in your mind, allowed to take stances on?

"You're talking about a conglomeration of tens-of-thousands of smug trust-fund liberals pushing each other out of the way to tell you how anti-corporation they are--and then tweeting about it on their band-new Macs and iPads (with absolutely no sense of irony)."

University of Wisconsin-Stout's in-state undergrad tuition is around $8.5k a year (2 semesters of 15 credits). Yeah, only Rockefellers going there! Do you have any idea what a "trust fund" is, or how much other universities cost?

"Christ, I think Madison was the *birthplace* of the smelly drum circle."

Have you ever even left Wisconsin?

And let me get this straight--you think hippies are against free speech? Hippies support the police going into offices and tearing down posters? Hippies are in cahoots with the "campus threat assessment team"?

This post is fairly hilarious.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Magnus Pym]

Usually, when some right-wing guy brings up the `get a pair' taunt during some argument about some symbol/statement/law that offends somebody, I usually use the following to make them get the point.

1) Mosque at ground zero. If the Muslims have money to set up a mosque there, why is it your concern? You should just swallow your feelings, right?
2) Mapplethorpe Exhibit. Jesus in a jar of urine. You should just man up, right?
3) Gay parade in SF. Everybody should just STFU, right?

You get the picture. There are lots of such examples you can bring up.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Antisyzygy]

So additional income from money you invest is not income? Give me a break. This is why 10 percent of the population controls 90 percent of all wealth. Do you seriously think that 10 percent of the population is so much smarter and harder working than the other 90? I have a millionaire boss who I had to do basic algebra for, and I am also working here more often than he is. Both parties increase spending, with republicans just as bad as democrats. Funny thing about republicans though, they only want to cut democrat supported programs.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Oligonicella]

Well AC (fitting), that sounded social sciency and all but it's horseshit.

As the bulk of humanity has this capability and psychopaths are by definition uncommon at least, this is horseshit.

Add to this the fact that you cannot in any meaningful or intelligent manner correlate the occurrence of a reduced amygdala and someone's ability to not be emotionally distraught by a perceived insult (yet another layer of uncertainty) and you're pulling this one out of your ass.

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[Coriolis]

Wait, what I don't even

What are you saying here?

1. Warren Buffet is an idiot?
2. Warren Buffet is lying?
3. Warren Buffet can't add up?
4. Warren Buffet doesn't understand taxation?

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[BigDogCH]

Clearly, you have no idea what ObamaCare is, and what it was originally. The Left compromised a lot on that one....to the point that the bill was a shadow of its former self. It was a victory for the right; it seemed more in line with what the right wanted than the left. Oh the irony that you posted this in a story about Wisconsin where the Right minority (according to the latest polls) have forced their plan on the people. It is fun watching the Right try to save face this week by acting like they actually care about helping the economy.

As an independent, I am seeing a pattern here on slashdot and everywhere. Those on the right don't seem to remember history very well, and seem to continually fail to argue their point. When they do use historical references and sources, they show a lack of understanding or a total denial of facts. Maybe this is due to religious foundations in blind faith, or due to being more comfortable simply denying things (like man-caused climate change).

Too many of those on the left ignore these inaccuracies, weaknesses, and mistakes, considering the person some sort of extreme person that can be ignored. The problem is, more people are buying into the extreme bunk and then are brainwashing others. The right needs a history lesson, and the left needs to toughen up. Stop worrying about hurting peoples feelings and start telling people when they are flat-out wrong.

As it stands however, I don't think the left has a chance. The majority of the media is currently controlled by the right, brainwashing the masses of American Idol watching zombees. Several hundred from the left were arrested this week in a protest.....didn't hardly make the media. If it were several hundred tea-party members.......it would be all we hear about.....24/7 coverage. The left needs to step up their game. Yeah, the crookedness of the right may have pushed me to the left...even though I still call myself independent.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[scot4875]

If you equate PC with the Harrison Bergeron story, I think you're woefully far down a "slippery slope" argument. In case you hadn't noticed, nobody is being forced to wear weights, masks, or be fitted with earpieces.

PC definitely has flaws, but its general goal is behavior modification, not ability modification.

--Jeremy

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[SETIGuy]

elrous0 is just upset that he got expelled from Wisconsin because he was caught pissing on the statue of Lincoln while yelling "How dare you impede the free market by freeing the slaves you damn hippy!"

Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin

[SETIGuy]

That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.

This is one reason why the right hates education. Anyone who can subtract the sales price from the amount invested can understand what a capital gain is, and can understand that tax was paid on the original investment but has not been paid on the gain. So the right would prefer a populace that can't subtract.

In other words, the capital gain is income, and should be taxed like income. And if you can't understand that, I can see why you'd vote for a tea party candidate. After all you wouldn't want anyone in office who can subtract.

Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror

[tehcyder]

It would be very difficult to function as a theatre professor with a complete aversion to fictional violence.

You seem to think that the definition of a pacifist is someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, covers their eyes, and cannot cope with violence.

In fact, of course, a lot of art is created by pacifists, and they are rather more likely to show the reality of violence (nstead of the glorification and romanticism of it that you generally get in Hollywood movies) than to shy away from it.