Ironically, there is some truth to that statement, just not for the reason claimed. Interesting times...
Shutting down free speech is purely mob mentality.
It's the mentality of a mob that at some level knows that its agenda cannot be implemented by ideas, but only by force.
The Bolsheviks knew that too.
This really angers me.
I read they also chanted 'the revolution will not uphold the Constitution'.
That's all I need to know. If this reflects the BLM movement's code of behavior they've not only lost my sympathy, but I will oppose them.
Anti-free speech groups need to be stopped - if not by the State, then by The People themselves.
The Constitution cannot be your moral compass. It is an amazing document. But it has been wrong too many times. It was wrong on prohibition, it was wrong when it stated that a black man has 3/5 the vote of a white man. It was wrong when it said that only men could vote. It was wrong when it said indians could not vote. And it was wrong when it said the the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (because it is infringed, we cannot e.g., own tanks). To name just a few examples.
Just because a group refuses to uphold the constitution does not make them unsupportable. Susan Anthony did not wish to uphold it, nor did Dred Scott, Row, Brown or Obergefell.
Now the conservatives here will argue that all of those people I listed were wrong. That women, blacks, natives and gays are less then they are. Those people who would claim this are wrong, just as the constitution was wrong on those counts.
Giving a voice to those who would turn back the clocks is indeed a fair idea, an idea that the founding father sought to temper when they required peaceful assembly.
All good points my friend. Our Constitution is certainly not infallible.
I believe I follow my own moral compass - treat others the way I would want them to treat me, etc, etc.. It's pretty much in alignment with society's, but I still like to believe it's my personal choice.
From what I've read, 'the revolution will not uphold the Constitution' was chanted by people as they prevented someone from exercising her right to free speech. That is the particular action that angers me.
I guess I should be thankful these people didn't do something worse. They could be strapping bombs on themselves. Still though, our right to free speech is fundamental to all other rights. When is it every justifiable to take away someone else's right to free speech? Certainly not in this case.
The BLM movement depends on this same right - at this moment arguably more than most other people. I'm dismayed they don't seem to realize this.
True, but what one group of protestors chant does not necessarily speak for what the movement stands for.
That is my hope.
Lots of luck with that, Phil.
Only time will tell.
Oh, yeah, right, Vic.
Besides, they don't mean what they chant, as the BLM organizer in the clip below says.
Has BLM hired you as a spokesperson yet, Vic? If not, they should.
Erasmus must have seen you coming Tink
And when you have no argument, dodge.
Your response was indeed a dodge.
No it wasn't.
It pointed out that BLM pretends after the fact that it didn't really mean what the chanters said, much as you tried to cover for what the anti-ACLU chanters chanted.
Clearly you've never be in charge of a large group of people.
And the PLO says one thing in Arabic and another in English too, Vic.
And no, I have never been in charge of a large group of hooligan people. I can understand how there may be difficulties in keeping their stories for public consumption straight.
And the Trump whitehouse says one thing in English and then explains it the next hour in the same English.
Hooligans? Good one. Very clever way to dehumanize your adversaries.
Yes, Trump's self-contradictions remind me very much of yours, in style, if not in substance.
Besides, I thought he was supposed to be speaking in dog whistles.
Whaddaya mean dehumanize? Aren't hooligans human beings too?! That was VERY insensitive of you, Vic!
I call humans "humans".
My experience has been that when I am organizing a large group of volunteers it is a bit difficult to keep them all on point. There is little to no leverage, e.g., risk/reward mechanism. You have to take what you get.
When, on the other hand I am directing a large group of employees I find it much easier to keep the message clean and concise. Those who deviate can be removed
from their roles easily.
That's just me. I suppose with your superpowers you could control everything your volunteers say - at least to the extent that Trump can get his paid staff to mimic his tweets.
Well clearly, Vic, a man of your talents is much more cut out to lead a volunteer group like Antifa.
If anyone doesn't toe the line with that group, they get the sh*t beaten out of them with clubs. How's that for leverage?
I understand your displeasure with antifa does not make you a 'fa' any more than my own does.
However where I come from we don't beat volunteers.
I think I want to know where you come from, I cannot image what a Vergilian nightmare your life must be.
Glad to hear it, Vic, then we are both fascists, as far as Antifa is concerned.
And as far as what you can imagine is concerned, well, that seems to change every day, as your often self-contradictory posts amply prove.
Don't you wish you could be open minded like me?
your open mind
is like a sieve
that can retain but little
and what gets stuck
is so congealed
it's not worth the transmittal
It seems to keep me from becoming a dick.
our odd friend Vic
by his weird posts
may not be ever fated
to be a d*ck
No, I do not agree with with what the BLM students said or did, at all. While I do think students attending their university have every, uh, "right" to express their displeasure over who is invited to speak there, or what they say IF allowed to speak, many do seem to be a little(?) confused about what they are STANDING for or protesting.
I do not think either liberalism or conservatism are "white supremacy"...
Of course they don't know what they are standing for. They just mindlessly chant their empty slogans, which not ONE of them could defend in an open, reasoned discussion, hence the yelling.
In the Pelosi clip above, the chant leader even had to read what to chant from a script.
Aside from the of course they don't know part, I got the same feeling. I most always do, when I see what is clearly "mob mentality".
That's practically straight out of 1984.
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!"
The left is becoming a caricature of itself.
It's also practically straight out of the French Revolution.
As he was being led to the guillotine, Danton's last words were, "My only regret is that I won't live to see this happen to that rat, Robespierre."
I don't know much about US politics, but from the little I know, it sounds pretty surprising that anyone would claim that. US politics makes my head hurt. :P
Ever since the Russian Revolution, there has been a motley collection of far-left political "useful idiots" in the US, as Lenin is said to have styled them.
They have a resurgence every now and then, because they know nothing of history.
All sides have their extremists.
Indeed they do.
But at the moment in the US, it is mostly the left-wing extremists that are resorting to violence and/or shutting down speech they disagree with.
Not really so hard, people just like to fuss a lot. As is possible in a free country USA.
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around, much to the rich, white liberal elites' consternation.
Yes, she probably needed a clean pair of Depends.
Immigrants? Why are they allowed to be doing that? They are supposed to take the new country USA as it is, not try to change it! What if enough rotten isis people get here and are allowed to change our country into that horrible place instead of what we are?
All the more need for stricter border and immigration control.
And of course there are enough home-grown radicals who want to change our country into a left-wing dictatorship, where only the speech they agree with is permitted.
Most conservatives do, but then they weren't a part of this story.
And, I thought the ACLU hated conservatives!
It's nice when a blind squirrel finds a nut.
I do not in any way agree. "Liberalism" is the opposite of supremacy. It's striving toward full equality and opportunities for all regardless of gender,sex,orientation, class, ability, etc. That's my undersanding and working knowledge of it.
The definition(s) of liberal/liberalism in politics varies widely. It varies both between and within countries, as well as over time. There also seems to be variations between your average leftist or left-leaning voter in America and the small, but growing, and very vocal segment we are seeing protesting today.
For a much more in-depth explanation, which points out an aberration of modern "liberal" thinking (long read, pertinent segment posted below):
Liberal Aberration: Political Correctness and the Emergence of Group Rights
A variation of modern liberalism is popular among faculties at college campuses. Its adherents reject not only the idea of individual economic rights, but also the idea of individual rights as such. Instead, they believe that people enjoy rights and incur obligations as members of groups.
On this view, a black American should enjoy rights that are denied to white Americans — not because of some injury or harm one has done to the other or because of some contract, but merely because one is black and one is white. Similarly, Native American Indians should have rights that a black does not have. A woman should have rights that a man does not have.
Adherents of this view believe there is no such thing as an individual right to freedom of speech or expression or association. What rights or privileges you have depend on what group you are a member of, and the state may properly enforce such distinctions. For example, speech that is permissible if the speaker is black might be actionable if the speaker were white, Asian or Hispanic, depending on how the speech affects the sensibilities of other blacks. Or if blacks or Hispanics, say, form groups and exclude others, that is generally permissible; but the same actions by a group of whites or any of the European ethnic groups would probably be proscribed.
Assigning rights and responsibilities to groups rather than individuals is at the heart of collectivism. Political correctness is a sort of barnyard version of collectivism. In this sense, the type of liberalism that is popular on college campuses is far more consistent than mainstream liberalism. This version of liberalism rejects individualism as such.
Such consistency, however, exists only in the abstract. In practice, politically correct liberalism is anything but consistent. For example, the standard justification for giving group A more rights than group B is some injustice committed by B’s ancestors against A’s ancestors. Yet among the black students at Harvard University (all of whom presumably qualify for racial preferences), only one-third are unambiguous descendants of slaves. More than half are immigrants! Harvard and many other prestigious universities are assigning privileges to students not based on past grievances but on skin color alone. 6
"Hate speech", speech which denigrates a particular group of people based on their identity, is protected by the First Amendment UNLESS it seeks to incite imminent violence toward that group. That is how SCOTUS has ruled each time the issue has come before the court.
Here is the statement released by the representatives of the William and Mary chapter of Black Lives Matter; http://blackvoicewm.weebly.com/...speech-for-who
It does not say "Liberalism is White Supremacy".
You're reading the expurgated version, Chris.
Try listening to what was REALLY chanted at the event. "The Revolution will not uphold the Constitution", "Liberalism is white supremacy", etc. etc.
But I am interested in what this argument is really about. This is one of many examples of what is becoming a national debate about free speech.
The argument is really about left-wing radicals shutting down speech they disagree with. "Nazis don't deserve free speech," they mindlessly chant, and naturally anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi.
In fact, these chanters have much more in common with Nazis than the ACLU does.
It's about shutting down any speech/speaker they disaprove of, not through rational argument, but through force and shouting them down.
No one, really, other than what amounts to a tiny percentage of the student body, would even have been aware of what Milo, or Shapiro, or other invited speakers did or might have spoken on at UC Berkeley had not the protesters made such a big deal about them. Had they simply ignored them, the speeches would have been heard by the conservative students and the handful of liberal students who chose to attend and question the speakers at the end of their speech (as they did with Shapiro). By making a big deal out of it, shutting down free speech, causing hundreds of thousands in damages and security costs, they have made it headline news, across the nation and worldwide. I'm sure that makes them proud, but factually it is counterproductive. People who never paid any attention to these speakers are taking a look now to see just what the big deal is, and some are finding points of agreement with the speakers.
As far as the Charlottesville groups, by drawing attention to them, they gave them a lot more attention than they would have otherwise received. Banning such speech, or the groups themselves, as is happening in parts of Europe, is giving these groups a far larger audience and effectively lending them legitimacy in a very real sense.
Of course they are, because they are opposed to "free speech" if it is speech with which they disagree. The ACLU did not single-handedly fight for the Charlottesville protestors, they joined the Rutherford Institute in filing suit, had they not, the suit would have gone forward without them.
The particular BLM group that staged this protest did not suddenly pop onto the scene, as their FB page clearly shows, so I cannot imagine how this could be construed as a false flag.
Of course it wasn't a false flag.
DWF is grasping at straws.
Socialism/Liberalism ends up eating its own in almost every case. There is always the scapegoat - be it religious, racial, or political - that they attack and use to build momentum. Once they get the 'power' they turn on those who did their 'dirty-work.'
Too bad for the patsies that did the dirty work; they expected to be part of the ruling elite.
History repeating itself!
In the 1690s, it was the witches, hysterical women and girls taken by Satan.
In the 1840s, it was Catholic immigrants, who were said by a presidential candidate to be besotted with “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.”
It seems every decade it has its scapegoats.
In the 1920s, it was anarchists, Reds, and pushy Hebrews.
In the 1950s, it was American Communist spies for Stalin.
In the 1960s, it was hippies, riotous blacks and traitorous opponents of the Vietnam War.
In the 2000s it was American Muslims
Then its BLM, and ANTIFA
and every time, after the smoke has cleared it turns out to be that Americans just did not want to face the harsh realities of changing times. They did not want to adapt or to give up their old ways of being; they wanted a easy target, a common enemy, a scapegoat.
Now its coddled, petulant college students and some of their professors, who, we’re being told, are forcing university administrators to silence and punish others who exercise freedoms of inquiry and expression in ways that offend and hurt the complainers.
Its all bullshit.
Stop suppressing people of color, stop oppressing LGBTQ folks, stop supporting those who want to claim that an all white cisgendered America is the real America. Then and only them with the real villains be unmasked.
You want to know what's bullshit, Vic?
The people complaining doing exactly what they are complaining about, claiming they are "entitled" to do so. That solves no problems, indeed it creates problems in areas and with people whom they never had problems with in the first place.
People constantly throwing around the terms "multicultural" and "diversity" when they haven't a fucking clue what the words actually mean is bullshit.
The idea that anyone has the "right" to not be offended is bullshit.
The idea that anyone has the "right" to silence others is bullshit.
The idea that it is okay to call for the president's assassination, the death of people of a different political persuasion or skin color, or to dismiss such deaths as "karma" or of no consequence is bullshit.
That women and gay SJWs embrace all Muslims as "allies" while demonizing all Christians is bullshit.
The idea that only minorities are allowed to celebrate their heritage is bullshit.
The idea that if I tan, wear hoop earrings, wear certain items of clothing, braid my hair just so, or have a themed party I am infringing upon others is not only bullshit, it's ridiculous to boot.
I am truly so fucking sick of all the pissing and moaning about microaggressions, cultural appropriation, triggers, safe spaces, and social justice I could puke.
But you know what, Vic? I don't really give a fuck if they spout their bullshit...so long as everyone else is afforded the same opportunity. I don't really give a fuck if they wish to self-segregate, as long as everyone else is allowed to do so as well. And I don't really give a fuck if anyone has a problem with what I say or do, because their bullshit isn't going to stop me.
My response to your comment was not unlike that of Laurie Anderson at the end of this clip. ☺
BLM has valid concerns and is playing the party of a scapegoat. But the first amendment? Really? Anyone who already resented the movement now can rightly argue tit-for-tat.