There Will Never Be A N****r At SAE!

Post Reply New Topic

When have YOU ever minded your own business when I post something? What's good for the goose...

You say a lot of stupid and easily disproved things on a forum devoted to debate, so of course I'm going to respond, where in this case I'm snarking back at someone taking shots at me, a fight that you have no dog in, and should stay out of.

Clearly you think I've made a misstep and think you can get a few cheap shots in, but like usual have misread what was said and blundered in foolishly, so buzz off.

I am not referring to my perceiving missteps on your part, but your put down of the rest of us WPers with your allegation that it's not saying much by proclaiming yourself to be the smartest person here. So, yes, I was quite justified in saying: "Leave it to Dox to insult the whole WP membership."
And think what I post is stupid if you will, but I will not buzz off.

I was referring to the other current participants in this thread, not the forum as a whole, and being facetious to boot, not that you'd pick up on any of that. The real issue is that you're not even participating in the thread at this point, you're just coming in to take a shot at me, something I'm going to remember next time you complain that you're being singled out. Do you really want my finger in your eye more than it is already?

If that was your intent, then yes, obviously it went over my head. Autism, remember?!?!
And if I'm not participating, it's only because I don't currently have anything specific to say on the topic - not that the situation won't arise to tempt me to.
As for my interjecting myself just to smack you down - all I have to say is, you have a very high opinion of yourself, and a very low opinion of me, apparently.

Geeze Dox, bait much?

What happened to 'taking it easy on me?'

Just, to set a few things straight... I was never fighting with you about whether or not those two expulsions at OU would pass the current SC. As a matter of fact, I know I said at least twice that it probably wouldn't. So, there's no beef there.

Also, the point of that Atlantic article and that ancient ruling, wasn't to justify ANYTHING regarding these expulsions or their constitutionality. The point was simply to illustrate that the 1st amendment has not always been interpreted so literally as it is now. That in the past, free speech was not always seen as a binary, black/white issue. In the past, there were more shades of gray. That's all.

Our argument started when I observed that you, like many Americans, seem to have a fanatical, uncritical devotion to freedom of speech, and you got EXTREMELY butt-hurt.

You seem to be claiming the freedom of speech is some immutable element of natural law. You can quote law professors and non-ancient Supreme Court rulings all you like, but they won't prove that your position is somehow morally superior to mine. It only proves that those people agree with you (I concede the obvious) and that the expulsions are likely to be ruled unconstitutional if the current SC reviewed them (another point I have conceded at least twice).

At this point, I could possibly agree that your feelings about the 1st amendment are not totally uncritical... BUT, you upped the ante when you started claiming that free speech was some kind of universal, self-evident, moral PRINCIPLE that trumps all else, including the systematic oppression of entire races...

You haven't proven that. You are certainly welcome to try, but I don't think you can... If that's what you were try to do with all those quotes, you need to find another strategy. Because what your doing is the equivalent of a Christian quoting bible verses to prove the existence of God.

Right now, I really must go write a paper, but I'll be happy to continue this argument, THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, when I catch up on my school work.

Says the guy that mentioned me in six posts that weren't even replying to me who keeps needling me with schoolyard taunts. Project much?

Also, there's nothing uncritical about my position, as I've weighed all the pros and cons and still think absolute free speech is the only option, it's your brand of 'speech hurts feelings, ban it!' censorship that doesn't look at the big picture. This is a common problem I have with lib/progs, they're like scientists building a doomsday machine, absolutely certain that it won't ever fall into hands less benevolent than their own, whether it's executive power and drone programs or free speech and who it's used to suppress, it never seems to occur that they're creating extremely abusable frameworks in their zeal to do good.

And yet if some black lunatic appeared before you merely to rant and rave, which is a form of talking, not to harm you physically, but to just hurl obscenities, insults, cuss words and threats, you would be the first to take some kind of action. You wouldn't just let him exercise his first amendment right and even if you did for a while, you would eventually make him stop somehow, when you just got tired hearing him.

Keep in mind, in the 1700s when these elitists were penning the Bill of Rights, most the population, even in the "freer" colonies did not actually have freedom of speech. In fact, the ones they were referring to when they wrote the constitution were themselves, the rich, white, elite men and they wanted freedom from tyrannical kings in Great Britain who wouldn't let them cuss the king or print what they wanted about the king or complain about taxes and monarchy in general and those same rich, white men did not want to bow to another American King. They weren't implying everyone in this country should have freedom of expression or religion for that matter. It was their speech and their expression, not that of the inferior or servant and certainly not that of the poor immigrant, for by then the colonists were already getting a bad attitude about foreigners, and their religion, which was, in many instances, fanatical protestantism like Anabaptists and Puritans, stuff too extreme for Europe. European monarchies were more than happy to issue edicts against such religious sects, limiting the freedom to practice the extreme Christianity. That's what they were talking about. Hey, it's obvious they weren't writing it for everyone or they would have let their slaves go, wouldn't flog or punish anyone for speaking out against them, which they did all the time. They were just as big a bully as any elitist in Great Britain and considered themselves to be lords, the aristocrats of the colonies.

Check out this wiki article about the Founding Fathers. I know it's wiki but still... Look at the ones who had slaves in this quote:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_F ... ted_States

I have to admit I admire ole Ben Franklin for being one of the few, if not the only one with the guts to free those slaves and work to abolish the slave trade. That is one man who seems to have really understood the definition of freedom but those others - dubious at best. Just half ass attempts as lofty sentiment that didn't really mean anything to most of the people living in the US. Look at the native Americans, the slaves, servants of all kinds and of course, women. The constitution did not apply to them.

Even the first President - slave owner. Anyone that owns slaves cannot possibly represent this idea that everyone has freedom of expression or speech because these ideas are incongruent with slavery yet people are determined to interpret it to mean anyone can say whatever pops into their mind whenever they want no matter how foul or ridiculous, inappropriate or abusive and then they declare it's what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the Bill of Rights. Reality spoke differently! Woe be the negro, Native American, servant or woman who cussed out any of the founding fathers, except for maybe ole Ben, they would have paid a dear price for it.

Study and it will become more than evident they did not have freedom in mind for everyone, just themselves and other rich white (male) colonists.

Thats' a slippery slope fallacy, isn't it? I get where you're coming from, but someone could apply the same thing to your position: If racism is allowed to play out unchecked, then it can provide fertile soil for some kind of escalation, etc.

There's only so much in-your-face verbal abuse that human beings can tolerate without some kind of outward or inward snap. I'm on board with the idea of the justice system trying to prevent some of that by limiting speech at times. I acknowledge that political correctness is also a trojan horse which can crush free thought and expression, shut down satire, create an atmosphere of zealous self censorship and all of that, but I still think an absolutist approach to free speech creates problems which outweigh the benefits.

And that is the problem of libertarianism. The notion that rights and liberties are absolute, the consequences be damned.

Speech that incites violence is not protected.

Laws exist for use of such unprotected language




First, the law is not absolute. Rights and liberties are treaded on all the time.

Second, you would prefer the law is applied capriciously? Think about what you are saying. This is why the ACLU , a promient civil rights organization fights adamanetly for free speech, they know how easily it can be used to crush minority groups.

That's only a problem with MODERN libertarians.*














*See Edmund Burke on what qualifies men for freedom.

In what way is singing about hanging n****rs from trees not violent?

As has been pointed out, all you need do is broaden your target.

Singing about lynching a specific n****r might cause a problem. Singing about hanging ALL n****rs is somehow deemed to be okay...

Seems pretty asinine and perverse to me.

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Nor does it extend to inciting hatred that leads to oppression or even violence. Then there's the matter of private businesses or organizations that have specific rules they intend to be followed by employees of members - case in point, a TV anchor could expect to be fired for spouting a blue streak of profanity on air, regardless of constitutional protection of speech.