It popped up in Poland when I was about 24. I thought "kinda... annoying, but I might consider it if it's free." Wasn't exactly free, but the cost was peanuts. Looked at the list of available titles. Noped the hell out of the idea.
You need more than a few of these to start a major riot though. So they are no longer an "insignificant but vocal minority" - they are a large, influential group.
Actually, I posted the above and then did a double take.
Are you seriously defending "carbon fiber is sexist" and "feminist glaciology" as valid science, and claim criticism of that is bullshit and hand-waving, and you're dismissing discussion - criticism of THAT - as promulgating errors and falsehood?
Yeah. I realize that. In defense of minorities and immigrants from Trump, they set a limousine owned by a Muslim immigrant on fire, and wounded the driver, who was a Mexican immigrant.
I seriously wonder how to stop this crap efficiently without using guns.
Wait, are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me? Because what you wrote is essentially the same as I wrote, except for some random negations and criticism of the rightists.
Racism disguised as oppression ("blacks can't be racists"), introducing black-only dorms, banning whites from events, successful influential, rich women whose social and material status would be a subject of envy of many, complain about being oppressed by patriarchy (not even generally - them, themselves!), big victories of feminism of 20th Century fought as patriarchal and chauvinist, "die cishet scum"...
That's pure racism and sexism.
Really, I've seen quite enough frenetic hand-wringing by self-proclaimed martyred victims that your own response is far less persuasive than you realize. Because you see, it's the bullshit spreaders who have adopted that tactic, to get us to ignore their racism, sexism, and other bigotry.
There. That sentence. I agree 100% but I believe we have a different outlook on who's a self-proclaimed martyr and bullshit-spreader.
If you missed the point of discussion, it was about universities. Institutions that are supposed to adhere to rules of good science and instill them in students.
Yes, discussion isn't an end by itself. Improvement is the end - but improvement requires weeding out errors, and that in order is only achievable through accepting and analyzing outside views and critical opinions - discussion. Discussion, therefore is a necessity.
Meanwhile, outright dismissing all criticism as bigotry - combined with labeling critics as all kinds of -ists, and -phobes - is the prevalent attitude. Taken by OP, by students, and the university staff. Any dissenting opinion is automatically assumed wrong, and critical discussion is deemed "meaningless spittle". Everyone, who doesn't agree with anything created in these echo chambers is quickly labeled a 'neonazi', 'pedophile apologist', 'bigot' and their contribution dismissed as invalid with zero consideration to any actual merit. And that allows total bullshit to proliferate unchallenged.
It's okay until you start pointing at random people, who may or may not have different point of view than you do, and label them nazi.
I'm definitely of a centrist view, considering both extremes very bad. Nevertheless, I've been labeled nazi, sexist, racist, and all despicable things, simply because I disagreed with one of the extremes.
I was labeled "SJW" at one occasion by the far-right too, but they were actually willing to listen when I explained my position.
Yeah, just personal experiences, not a general population study, but the far left I see is very numerous - and its views are extreme enough that it labels enough moderates / centrists as "nazi" that the sides seem proportional by size to them.
Nope, not everyone who voted Trump is a nazi. Really.
Given the damage to the city infrastructure, and the fact the peaceful protesters didn't even try to stop the rioters... yeah, the facts are that a lot of people got their property broken. Keep denying and downplaying that, instead of getting your shit together and actually doing something about it.
Also:
"PS those were bussed in external rioters." - an honest mistake (buses that shuttled participant of a business conference to a conference that happened to take place then and there, an entirely unrelated event) that grew into an urban legend, debunked a long, long time ago. Shows how you care about facts.
Without being challenged, viewpoints degenerate, echo chambers amplify the noise until it overwhelms the signal.
Read up about feminist glaciology, how carbon fiber is sexist, or why snow should be removed from back roads first, leaving main arteries for later (hint: gender discrimination).
This is the kind of fruit of "science" borne from silencing the opposing views. This is the environment that happily swallows "penis is responsible for global warming" as a valid scientific conclusion - because it got so efficient at silencing and dismissing any opposing views that it's completely unable to tell complete bullshit from real science.
And what you're doing in your post is exactly dismissing the opposing views as "spittle from twats".
Maybe listen to some of that "spittle" before claiming with total authority that you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
"Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming,"
You should watch some videos from Berkeley, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a speech. Nope, it wasn't the radical rights screaming, using fists, and setting the campus on fire.
I'd say some publicity stunts like some nutcases giving a speech to an empty lecture hall is a small price for stopping that sort of behavior.
You should catch up with the news. Armed mobs setting fire to the campus to prevent a speaker of the opposing views from speaking. That's how "questioning the authority" currently looks like, and what the bill tries to curb. It's the title that is biased - yes, the bill might be overly broad, and overreaching, but it's not about "questioning the authority", it's about stopping armed thugs from strong-arming their view points through beating and arson.
The flagship left "social sciences" have been shamed over and again over accepting total BS for science and being unable to comprehend the scientific methods. And when a lander was reaching the surface of a comet, all the feminists could think about was what shirt the head of astrodynamics team wore.
Doxing... too many examples to list.
And as for 'power gambit', you mean the gambit of cheating Sanders out of the nomination in the primaries, only to lose the general elections?
Prove otherwise. The messages are gone, so it's up to you to prove that the administration overstepped the bonds.
Are you going to say that setting cars on fire, as done on the inauguration day, is a protected free speech as well? Or setting a campus on fire, when a speaker for the conservatives is to give a speech? The "opponents" have a long and sordid history of violating the rules of civil discussion, so in absence of solid proofs that this instance specifically this was not the case, I'm strongly inclined to believe you're trying to dig up dirt on the administration where there is none.
What about being disruptive, disorderly and a nuisance to the users and hosts?
Can I just walk into a limited public forum and start screaming through a megaphone whenever someone tries to speak? Can I claim 1st amendment protection on performing a DDoS comprising of political criticism messages?
Press conferences are a channel of gathering questions/requests for information from the public, providing answers on the spot. Only select members of public are authorized to participate, only selected from these get to ask the questions. Or do you have some more contrived definition of a channel of communication?
"The government" is obligated to listen to listen to everyone about everything, everytime, per 1st amendment.
Noticed how I dropped one point? "Everywhere". Nope. The government is mandated to designate channels for this communication, which are open to everyone, about everything and everytime. As long as these exist, it's free to create any other channels that have arbitrary restrictions.
All the disgruntled blocked Twitter users are still perfectly welcome to send emails to president@whitehouse.gov and as long as that work they should STFU about 1st amendment.
Except it wouldn't: the government must provide inbound communication channels for all citizens, but it's free to restrict certain channels to certain groups, as long as alternatives for them exist. There's president@whitehouse.gov, there's @POTUS, there's that form, there's snail mail address... the government has absolutely zero obligation to make @realDonaldTrump yet another inbound contact channel.
No need to open private tab - you can simply read the page even when you're blocked. You're just not getting live updates to your timeline. But this is the standard modus operandi of government releases: you need to reach given outlet and read the statements. Sending them directly to your inbox is just a completely voluntary choice of the government and they are free to revoke it at will.
And it's still accessible to everyone through https://twitter.com/realDonald... regardless of their blocked status, so the public does retain access to the statements.
It is not an official grievances channel as required per 1st Amendment. President's courtesy is the only reason why any replies and messages directed by public to @realDonaldTrump are read, but he's fully at liberty to disregard or block them - the official e-mail address of president@whitehouse.gov is still fully active; he has zero obligation to treat the personal Twitter account as an equivalent.
Slashdot Mirror
It popped up in Poland when I was about 24. I thought "kinda... annoying, but I might consider it if it's free." Wasn't exactly free, but the cost was peanuts. Looked at the list of available titles. Noped the hell out of the idea.
You need more than a few of these to start a major riot though. So they are no longer an "insignificant but vocal minority" - they are a large, influential group.
> .using all methods including violence
and downvotes.
Your own response is far less persuasive than you realize
Actually, I posted the above and then did a double take.
Are you seriously defending "carbon fiber is sexist" and "feminist glaciology" as valid science, and claim criticism of that is bullshit and hand-waving, and you're dismissing discussion - criticism of THAT - as promulgating errors and falsehood?
Are you for real?
Yeah. I realize that. In defense of minorities and immigrants from Trump, they set a limousine owned by a Muslim immigrant on fire, and wounded the driver, who was a Mexican immigrant.
I seriously wonder how to stop this crap efficiently without using guns.
Still, do many universities award degrees in creationism?
Wait, are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me? Because what you wrote is essentially the same as I wrote, except for some random negations and criticism of the rightists.
Racism disguised as oppression ("blacks can't be racists"), introducing black-only dorms, banning whites from events, successful influential, rich women whose social and material status would be a subject of envy of many, complain about being oppressed by patriarchy (not even generally - them, themselves!), big victories of feminism of 20th Century fought as patriarchal and chauvinist, "die cishet scum"...
That's pure racism and sexism.
There. That sentence. I agree 100% but I believe we have a different outlook on who's a self-proclaimed martyr and bullshit-spreader.
Well, he doesn't set anything on fire, and doesn't go punching random people. And he keeps his volume to reasonable levels too... most of the time.
'cause currently threat of these makes universities bow to demands of the rioters.
With a law that disallows that, rioters will achieve nothing.
If you missed the point of discussion, it was about universities. Institutions that are supposed to adhere to rules of good science and instill them in students.
Yes, discussion isn't an end by itself. Improvement is the end - but improvement requires weeding out errors, and that in order is only achievable through accepting and analyzing outside views and critical opinions - discussion. Discussion, therefore is a necessity.
Meanwhile, outright dismissing all criticism as bigotry - combined with labeling critics as all kinds of -ists, and -phobes - is the prevalent attitude. Taken by OP, by students, and the university staff. Any dissenting opinion is automatically assumed wrong, and critical discussion is deemed "meaningless spittle". Everyone, who doesn't agree with anything created in these echo chambers is quickly labeled a 'neonazi', 'pedophile apologist', 'bigot' and their contribution dismissed as invalid with zero consideration to any actual merit. And that allows total bullshit to proliferate unchallenged.
It's okay until you start pointing at random people, who may or may not have different point of view than you do, and label them nazi.
I'm definitely of a centrist view, considering both extremes very bad. Nevertheless, I've been labeled nazi, sexist, racist, and all despicable things, simply because I disagreed with one of the extremes.
I was labeled "SJW" at one occasion by the far-right too, but they were actually willing to listen when I explained my position.
Yeah, just personal experiences, not a general population study, but the far left I see is very numerous - and its views are extreme enough that it labels enough moderates / centrists as "nazi" that the sides seem proportional by size to them.
Nope, not everyone who voted Trump is a nazi. Really.
Shooting people dead because you "think" (read: believe) they're wrong and evil is how rightwingers make their speech free.
Yeah, left-wingers prefer stabbing.
Given the damage to the city infrastructure, and the fact the peaceful protesters didn't even try to stop the rioters... yeah, the facts are that a lot of people got their property broken. Keep denying and downplaying that, instead of getting your shit together and actually doing something about it.
Also:
"PS those were bussed in external rioters." - an honest mistake (buses that shuttled participant of a business conference to a conference that happened to take place then and there, an entirely unrelated event) that grew into an urban legend, debunked a long, long time ago. Shows how you care about facts.
Without being challenged, viewpoints degenerate, echo chambers amplify the noise until it overwhelms the signal.
Read up about feminist glaciology, how carbon fiber is sexist, or why snow should be removed from back roads first, leaving main arteries for later (hint: gender discrimination).
This is the kind of fruit of "science" borne from silencing the opposing views. This is the environment that happily swallows "penis is responsible for global warming" as a valid scientific conclusion - because it got so efficient at silencing and dismissing any opposing views that it's completely unable to tell complete bullshit from real science.
And what you're doing in your post is exactly dismissing the opposing views as "spittle from twats".
Maybe listen to some of that "spittle" before claiming with total authority that you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
"Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming,"
You should watch some videos from Berkeley, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a speech.
Nope, it wasn't the radical rights screaming, using fists, and setting the campus on fire.
I'd say some publicity stunts like some nutcases giving a speech to an empty lecture hall is a small price for stopping that sort of behavior.
You should catch up with the news. Armed mobs setting fire to the campus to prevent a speaker of the opposing views from speaking. That's how "questioning the authority" currently looks like, and what the bill tries to curb. It's the title that is biased - yes, the bill might be overly broad, and overreaching, but it's not about "questioning the authority", it's about stopping armed thugs from strong-arming their view points through beating and arson.
I think you might have the Gerstmann syndrome
The flagship left "social sciences" have been shamed over and again over accepting total BS for science and being unable to comprehend the scientific methods. And when a lander was reaching the surface of a comet, all the feminists could think about was what shirt the head of astrodynamics team wore.
Doxing... too many examples to list.
And as for 'power gambit', you mean the gambit of cheating Sanders out of the nomination in the primaries, only to lose the general elections?
Prove otherwise. The messages are gone, so it's up to you to prove that the administration overstepped the bonds.
Are you going to say that setting cars on fire, as done on the inauguration day, is a protected free speech as well? Or setting a campus on fire, when a speaker for the conservatives is to give a speech? The "opponents" have a long and sordid history of violating the rules of civil discussion, so in absence of solid proofs that this instance specifically this was not the case, I'm strongly inclined to believe you're trying to dig up dirt on the administration where there is none.
What about being disruptive, disorderly and a nuisance to the users and hosts?
Can I just walk into a limited public forum and start screaming through a megaphone whenever someone tries to speak? Can I claim 1st amendment protection on performing a DDoS comprising of political criticism messages?
Press conferences are a channel of gathering questions/requests for information from the public, providing answers on the spot. Only select members of public are authorized to participate, only selected from these get to ask the questions. Or do you have some more contrived definition of a channel of communication?
Press conferences would end only when every single person present had their questions answered.
"The government" is obligated to listen to listen to everyone about everything, everytime, per 1st amendment.
Noticed how I dropped one point? "Everywhere". Nope. The government is mandated to designate channels for this communication, which are open to everyone, about everything and everytime. As long as these exist, it's free to create any other channels that have arbitrary restrictions.
All the disgruntled blocked Twitter users are still perfectly welcome to send emails to president@whitehouse.gov and as long as that work they should STFU about 1st amendment.
Except it wouldn't: the government must provide inbound communication channels for all citizens, but it's free to restrict certain channels to certain groups, as long as alternatives for them exist. There's president@whitehouse.gov, there's @POTUS, there's that form, there's snail mail address... the government has absolutely zero obligation to make @realDonaldTrump yet another inbound contact channel.
No need to open private tab - you can simply read the page even when you're blocked. You're just not getting live updates to your timeline. But this is the standard modus operandi of government releases: you need to reach given outlet and read the statements. Sending them directly to your inbox is just a completely voluntary choice of the government and they are free to revoke it at will.
And it's still accessible to everyone through https://twitter.com/realDonald... regardless of their blocked status, so the public does retain access to the statements.
It is not an official grievances channel as required per 1st Amendment. President's courtesy is the only reason why any replies and messages directed by public to @realDonaldTrump are read, but he's fully at liberty to disregard or block them - the official e-mail address of president@whitehouse.gov is still fully active; he has zero obligation to treat the personal Twitter account as an equivalent.