or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 388

post #5806 of 6075
^ that's the same problem alt-right has, there are intelligent people with legitimate concerns in their ranks as well as racists of worst kind and I think you correct pointing out that this will prevent them from getting support of the general public.
post #5807 of 6075
First degree manslauter charge for the Tulsa cop.
post #5808 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post

First degree manslauter charge for the Tulsa cop.

That was quick
post #5809 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


There is BLM, which is a loosely organized group, and then within that group there is a smaller subset of opportunists, anarchists, communists, thugs and criminals who piggyback on the movement as a way to justify their behavior. As long as the latter exists within the larger group, the former is never going to have a message that will be perceived as legitimate by the overall public. And we should probably also mention that as long as the statistics prove that their gripes are vastly overblown and sometimes built on complete falsehoods, it's unlikely the truthful part of their message will ever be heard.


any group can be co-opted of course.

 

what i'm getting at is that it's one thing to, say, flatly disagree with CK's refusal to salute during the anthem. even in disagreement that is an actual political dialogue.

 

it's another thing altogether to disclaim the point entirely on the basis that "it's the wrong venue" or "it's not done in the right way" or whatever. as if the listener chooses the time and place of the speaking. which i've heard quite a lot of over the past few weeks and is antithetical to civil discourse. it's a deft if dishonest tactic but as ever it works on bystander rubes.

post #5810 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post


any group can be co-opted of course.

what i'm getting at is that it's one thing to, say, flatly disagree with CK's refusal to salute during the anthem. even in disagreement that is an actual political dialogue.

it's another thing altogether to disclaim the point entirely on the basis that "it's the wrong venue" or "it's not done in the right way" or whatever. as if the listener chooses the time and place of the speaking. which i've heard quite a lot of over the past few weeks and is antithetical to civil discourse. it's a deft if dishonest tactic but as ever it works on bystander rubes.

So if someone has a problem with advocates of heavy bondage sex talking at pre-schools that's a dishonest tactic? If someone thinks a synagogue is a bad spot to spout theories the Holocaust didn't really happen that's "antithetical to civil discourse?"

Interesting position.
post #5811 of 6075

Is "it's one thing to, say, flatly..." the correct grammar or "it's one thing to say, flatly..."?

post #5812 of 6075

"say" = "for instance"

post #5813 of 6075

right, dumb question

post #5814 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


So if someone has a problem with advocates of heavy bondage sex talking at pre-schools that's a dishonest tactic? If someone thinks a synagogue is a bad spot to spout theories the Holocaust didn't really happen that's "antithetical to civil discourse?"

Interesting position.


how uninteresting. 

post #5815 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post


how uninteresting. 

Just like you!
post #5816 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post
 


any group can be co-opted of course.

 

what i'm getting at is that it's one thing to, say, flatly disagree with CK's refusal to salute during the anthem. even in disagreement that is an actual political dialogue.

 

it's another thing altogether to disclaim the point entirely on the basis that "it's the wrong venue" or "it's not done in the right way" or whatever. as if the listener chooses the time and place of the speaking. which i've heard quite a lot of over the past few weeks and is antithetical to civil discourse. it's a deft if dishonest tactic but as ever it works on bystander rubes.

 

 

 

The wrong venue line of attack is hilarious.  It's not like CK sat Indian style on the 50 yard line at kickoff and said, "I've got a problem America...".  He sat during the anthem for a 2 games and it wasn't until the 3rd game when this picture was tweeted that people realized that he did not stand for the anthem. You couldn't ask for a more silent protest

post #5817 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post



The wrong venue line of attack is hilarious.

So is there no such thing as a wrong venue or is this case just special?
post #5818 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


So is there no such thing as a wrong venue or is this case just special?

 

The idea that there are ground rules when it comes to protests is hilarious.  Perhaps every city should set up a Speaker's Corner like they have in Singapore, where those with grievances can sign up ahead of time and speak their mind at a proper venue 

post #5819 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

The idea that there are ground rules when it comes to protests is hilarious.  Perhaps every city should set up a Speaker's Corner like they have in Singapore, where those with grievances can sign up ahead of time and speak their mind at a proper venue 

I'm not asking about "ground rules" I asked if you think there's no such thing as an improper venue. You apparently think it's cool for NAMBLA to speak at a Boy Scout gathering?
post #5820 of 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


So is there no such thing as a wrong venue or is this case just special?


addressing the reductio ad absurdum examples posited earlier, if we start by assuming that we're actually talking about protected speech (and CK was not even out of bounds of NFL policy fwiu) i think that dispenses with the first. one could call a riot an extreme form of protest but it was never within bounds in the first place. 

 

to the second i believe holocaust denial is protected speech. whether in front of a synagogue (temple sanctuary is not a public venue) or a whole foods it is almost universally distasteful. and yet political speech never needed to be particularly savory in the first place. 

 

if somebody cares to come up with a worthwhile example (that doesn't waste my precious keystrokes in response) perhaps it is possible to find the precise limits of political etiquette (which has been - for some - the basis of dismissing CKs protest)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?