Article 50 US code 842

[odeon]

This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.

But carry on, children.

Something I said?

Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.

Children is plural, so it understandable how that could be construed when blasted into the wind of a discussion. This has been a good conversation. Neo-Marxist and neo-facists are terms used for far left and far right ideologies, and while I took the position of nullifying the meaning of these terms, that doesn't necessarily negate the existence of the terms, their meanings or usage. Sir_Les seems to have taken a middle ground on the topic. Kek has expressed a legitimate concern and suggested a solution. While taking the stance against this solution, I've also offered no alternate solution because I can't think of one.

Doesn't change my perception that the labels rather than the ideologies were being discussed.

[Jack]

This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.

But carry on, children.

Something I said?

Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.

Children is plural, so it understandable how that could be construed when blasted into the wind of a discussion. This has been a good conversation. Neo-Marxist and neo-facists are terms used for far left and far right ideologies, and while I took the position of nullifying the meaning of these terms, that doesn't necessarily negate the existence of the terms, their meanings or usage. Sir_Les seems to have taken a middle ground on the topic. Kek has expressed a legitimate concern and suggested a solution. While taking the stance against this solution, I've also offered no alternate solution because I can't think of one.

Doesn't change my perception that the labels rather than the ideologies were being discussed.

Wasn't trying to contradict that perception, but rather confirming that yes I was in fact discussing the labels as part of my contribution to this topic.

[Jack]

What do you think about this, Kek? There's been a few threads and videos posted about free speech on campuses. Am not really knowledgeable or invested it in the topic, so have been operating under an assumption similar to your views. That assumption is, a small faction of sensitive people are demanding someone else to protect them from controversial viewpoints, they're squeaky wheels getting grease and possibly influential due to the support of outside organized forces. Working on the assumption these are outliers and not very representative of the whole, it made me wonder what is happening with the voice of the majority and if they have organized support. While there does appear to be organizations competing for free speech on campus, this article suggest this is a fairly evenly divided topic, it's not a left against right issue at all, but rather the mentality of today's young adults who don't even know what their rights are in the first place.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

[Lestat]

Can somebody please explain what this ANTIFA is/who they are and what they are about/it is about?

[Jack]

Here you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

And some history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Can somebody please explain what this ANTIFA is/who they are and what they are about/it is about?

They claim to be anti-fascists but are nothing more than a gagglefuck of pathetic street thugs who only attack others when they outnumber them at least 4 to 1.

They will attack anyone to the right of Jane Fonda, which is to say. the majority of people in a civilized country.

Oh, they are basically neo-Marxist "anarchists" who live in their mothers basement and engage in LARPing mostly because they're bored.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Whilst it might be able to work if everybody genuinely believed in the ideals touted by communism and actually did proceed accordingly, IRL it just isn't going to happen, and it will indeed poison any society it infects; because the problem is that even if 98% of those partaking of a benevolent ideology, do follow it faithfully and conduct themselves well, it only takes that 2% where there is a power structure, to be the ones who will make it a priority to worm their filthy ways into it and burrow in like a tick, sucking from the lifeblood of a nation and defaecating lies, propaganda and the germs of greed and hunger for power into the wound.                                                                                                                                     

Actually, no, it's the philosophy itself that is poisonous.

Communism is founded on the ugliest of human emotions, resentment.

The basic idea is if that one person has more than another, it's because they got it through nefarious means, rather that through hard work and being smart with money.

This is how it destroys the society, by chopping down anyone who dares to be successful and rewarding those who contribute nothing to society.

The only people who end up winning are the political class, just like the pigs in Animal Farm and every other case of communism, like ever.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.

Most US universities are public with Federal funding.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

For university administrators to placate a small subset of the student population who are intolerant of oppositional views, may possibly promote some level of harmony, but its a valid question to ask at what price.

The question isn't worded right. basically, universities are allowing a small subset to bully the rest of the student population.

At what price?? the answer is that no price is worth catering to mentally ill bullies, simply beat down the bullies.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Doesn't change my perception that the labels rather than the ideologies were being discussed.

Nothing changes your perceptions, because in your mind, you're the smartest person in the universe.   

[Yuri Bezmenov]

What do you think about this, Kek? There's been a few threads and videos posted about free speech on campuses. Am not really knowledgeable or invested it in the topic, so have been operating under an assumption similar to your views. That assumption is, a small faction of sensitive people are demanding someone else to protect them from controversial viewpoints, they're squeaky wheels getting grease and possibly influential due to the support of outside organized forces. Working on the assumption these are outliers and not very representative of the whole, it made me wonder what is happening with the voice of the majority and if they have organized support. While there does appear to be organizations competing for free speech on campus, this article suggest this is a fairly evenly divided topic, it's not a left against right issue at all, but rather the mentality of today's young adults who don't even know what their rights are in the first place.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

This is the harbinger of the fall of western civilization.

If this is implemented in society at large, speech crimes and thought crimes will become the norm.

[Jack]

The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.

Most US universities are public with Federal funding.

Thanks for mentioning that. The federal funding is a valid point. Other than research grants, the majority of government funding to universities is indirect through channels of student funding. Though for the point of direct funding, universities already have to comply to certain standards to receive funding, so if the government wanted to include free speech standards among the qualifications, they could do that and it wouldn't be unconstitutional, or a government attack on anyone, or criminalizing anything. This is a viable and reasonable alternate solution to the implementation of code 842. Problem solved. Now if only someone would elect me.

[Jack]

For university administrators to placate a small subset of the student population who are intolerant of oppositional views, may possibly promote some level of harmony, but its a valid question to ask at what price.

The question isn't worded right. basically, universities are allowing a small subset to bully the rest of the student population.

At what price?? the answer is that no price is worth catering to mentally ill bullies, simply beat down the bullies.

Though it may not be a small subset. The article I posted shows it could be about half the student population with seemingly no real political influence. The article made a good point that students act as their own arbiters for free speech, and speech is being restricted because that's what a lot of them want. It may not be related to politics at all, but rather a reflection on the public schools system. Young adults today were raised in the environment of zero tolerance in schools, where anything considered to be disruption to teaching and learning can be harshly punished with no consideration to circumstances. They've been lorded into submission in the name of harmony and their own good, so it's could explain why many may view their educators as having a responsibility to supress controversy. It may also explain why many might have the mentality that everyone should shut up and play nice, and if they don't then that's their ass.

[Lestat]

I suppose it depends on the view of the individual communist. And how they themselves would reason it were they the administrator at top-level of organization. Myself, I wouldn't have thought of that, its quite an alien idea to my ways of thinking. Not now you point it out, its understandable enough, but certainly, not innate. Not, that I call myself a communist. It doesn't work, due to the fact that it only takes one or two bad applies in the entire country-size barrel for everybody bar a handful of self-enriching corrupt bastardlyshytes to go fuck themselves and starve in order to fatten the wallets of said 'elite' handful of greedy gobshites.

[Gopher Gary]

I suppose it depends on the view of the individual communist.

One of the core principles of communism is the statement by Carl Marx: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Do you see the inherent problem with any system based on this principle? In order to derive the maximum benefit from such a society, you have to have the least ability and the greatest needs. This is anti-meritocracy, it rewards the least fit while punishing the most fit. This is why all communist based political systems fail, it creates a dysfunctional hierarchy.

Not, that I call myself a communist. It doesn't work, due to the fact that it only takes one or two bad applies in the entire country-size barrel for everybody bar a handful of self-enriching corrupt bastardlyshytes to go fuck themselves and starve in order to fatten the wallets of said 'elite' handful of greedy gobshites.

It's also the institutional greed from the bottom up that collapses the system, for the reasons just stated. The elites who run the system also operate by a different set of rules since all communist systems create a "priest" class of educated overlords. In reality, it's impossible to eliminate the natural hierarchies of the strongest liars.