• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two big reasons my generation hates free speech

RabidAlpaca said:
Please provide evidence that any significant number of millennials are throwing molotovs and bricks. It must be hundreds of millions of people to be characteristic of an entire generation, so it should be easy to find that data.
Click to expand...

Well your specific reply was that "nobody is demanding anyone be arrested." And since 1 is greater than 0...I don't really think I need to provide anywhere near a million. Mainly all I need to show is that the millennial generation has demonstrated they aren't really supporting free speech. But what do you expect from a generation of entitled ******s with participation trophies? God. I hate that I am considered a millennial.

Ps

Before you start bitching about republican this and that...I'm talking about the generation. There are plenty that fit the mold on both sides of the aisle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Geoist said:
Of course not. But this is Milo we are talking about here. If there was an opportunity to sue and milk more free press coverage for him and his new book then he'd take it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of Milo having sued anyone before. Is that just a bit of hyperbole there or do you have a link to him suing people?

As for milking things to get more free press....lots of people do that all the time. :shrug:

Geoist said:
And how exactly would going at vandals with nightsticks have prevented the cancellation of Milo's speech?
Click to expand...

As for the riots, those should never be tolerated no matter the situation or issue that's being rioted about. Whether it would or wouldn't have prevented the cancellation of anyone's speech is imo irrelevant as to if the police should have acted more aggressively when a riot is going on.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I agree entirely. People seem to think that free speech means they can say whatever they want with no consequences and I agree that people can vocally oppose ideas. However, I would also argue that if you are using your speech to encourage genocide, promote ideas that other races are inferior and need to be 'handled,' and the like, that you have forfeited your right to free speech and should be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Mr. Invisible said:
On top of that, who are they throwing the molotovs and bricks at? Is it literal neo-Nazis who advocate that other races need to be kicked out/genocided? Because I am completely OK with that happening.
Click to expand...

If you attempt to deny it just because they say things that you do not like then you are not supporting free speech. You are in fact against free speech. Free speech is not about only allowing things to be said that you agree with or slightly disagree with. It is also about allowing things that you even abhor to be said.

You are correct in saying that there are consequences to speech. But those consequences are just as limited as free speech is. Those consequences can no more violate a persons Rights as speech can.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I agree entirely. People seem to think that free speech means they can say whatever they want with no consequences and I agree that people can vocally oppose ideas. However, I would also argue that if you are using your speech to encourage genocide, promote ideas that other races are inferior and need to be 'handled,' and the like, that you have forfeited your right to free speech and should be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Luckily, the Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment to allow government to trample on the freedom of speech in the way you advocate. Despite the efforts of leftists to destroy the Constitution and the liberties it guarantees, this is still a free country. Anyone is free to stand in a public park, or on a street corner, and tell everyone who will listen, until he his blue in the face, that this or that group of persons is subhuman, does not deserve to draw breath, and should be exterminated like so many roaches. Some of us will always fight to protect a person's right to say those things against attempts by people who share your views to silence him, because we know, between the two, which presents the greater threat to freedom.
 
blackjack50 said:
Well your specific reply was that "nobody is demanding anyone be arrested." And since 1 is greater than 0...I don't really think I need to provide anywhere near a million. Mainly all I need to show is that the millennial generation has demonstrated they aren't really supporting free speech. But what do you expect from a generation of entitled ******s with participation trophies? God. I hate that I am considered a millennial.
Ps
Before you start bitching about republican this and that...I'm talking about the generation. There are plenty that fit the mold on both sides of the aisle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Since you narrowed it down to the 0.00001% of millenials throwing molotovs and bricks, how is that equivalent to demanding the government lock their political opponents in prison? Doesn't that seem more like a vigilante thing, the exact opposite?
 
Kal'Stang said:
I wasn't aware of Milo having sued anyone before. Is that just a bit of hyperbole there or do you have a link to him suing people?
Click to expand...

Alright fair point, I'll walk that back. I don't know for certain if suing is his style.

As for milking things to get more free press....lots of people do that all the time. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, there's a difference between looking for free press and looking for free press by acting like a troll. But that's just my opinion.



As for the riots, those should never be tolerated no matter the situation or issue that's being rioted about.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


Whether it would or wouldn't have prevented the cancellation of anyone's speech is imo irrelevant as to if the police should have acted more aggressively when a riot is going on.
Click to expand...

But you said the Berkeley administrators violated Milo's free speech by "allowing" people to riot. People would have rioted whether the police went in heavy-handed or not, so I do not see how Berkeley's policy violated Milo's 1st Amendment rights.
 
Geoist said:
But you said the Berkeley administrators violated Milo's free speech by "allowing" people to riot. People would have rioted whether the police went in heavy-handed or not, so I do not see how Berkeley's policy violated Milo's 1st Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Actually that was Grim that said this. Not me. While I think their policy could be abused and might very well be being abused I would not deny their Right to deny someone being allowed to speak at their institution for reasons of safety. Particularly when a riot is going on.

Edit: weird, for some reason when I posted this it said that I was quoting Invisible. Post edited to reflect who I was actually quoting. :doh
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Since you narrowed it down to the 0.00001% of millenials throwing molotovs and bricks, how is that equivalent to demanding the government lock their political opponents in prison? Doesn't that seem more like a vigilante thing, the exact opposite?
Click to expand...

The only people that blackjack has advocated being thrown in prison are the rioters that are being violent, which is against the law. You are creating a strawman through spin.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Since you narrowed it down to the 0.00001% of millenials throwing molotovs and bricks, how is that equivalent to demanding the government lock their political opponents in prison? Doesn't that seem more like a vigilante thing, the exact opposite?
Click to expand...

What? Are you stating that people throwing those bricks and molotovs are ok with other people expressing their views?
 
blackjack50 said:
What? Are you stating that people throwing those bricks and molotovs are ok with other people expressing their views?
Click to expand...

No, and I have no idea how you arrived there after this ridiculous tangent you've dragged me on. My original statement stands. Even the molotov and brick throwing millennials aren't saying the government should put their political opponents in prison, so I don't know why you felt it necessary to argue semantics. To make the argument that "millennials" as a generation do not support free speech you're going to have to show a significant portion don't, not the 0.0001% of whack jobs you cherry pick from the internet.
 
matchlight said:
Luckily, the Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment to allow government to trample on the freedom of speech in the way you advocate. Despite the efforts of leftists to destroy the Constitution and the liberties it guarantees, this is still a free country. Anyone is free to stand in a public park, or on a street corner, and tell everyone who will listen, until he his blue in the face, that this or that group of persons is subhuman, does not deserve to draw breath, and should be exterminated like so many roaches. Some of us will always fight to protect a person's right to say those things against attempts by people who share your views to silence him, because we know, between the two, which presents the greater threat to freedom.
Click to expand...

In what way am I advocating that the government trample on free speech? I don't want the government to become involved.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
In what way am I advocating that the government trample on free speech? I don't want the government to become involved.
Click to expand...

You wrote that anyone who promoted certain ideas which you apparently dislike forfeited his right to free speech by doing that and should be dealt with. How, if not by government coercion? If government were not involved, as you claim to want it not to be, how would you stop these people from promoting these ideas? When you claim other people have forfeited a fundamental right by saying certain things which displease you, and say they should be dealt with, you are talking pretty tall. If you mean to enforce your ban personally, you can expect violence.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
Because this is what happens when such a debate takes place:




.
Click to expand...


Ben Shapiro does always come loaded for bear. He always does bring reasonable and logical points to back up his arguments.
 
matchlight said:
You wrote that anyone who promoted certain ideas which you apparently dislike forfeited his right to free speech by doing that and should be dealt with. How, if not by government coercion? If government were not involved, as you claim to want it not to be, how would you stop these people from promoting these ideas? When you claim other people have forfeited a fundamental right by saying certain things which displease you, and say they should be dealt with, you are talking pretty tall. If you mean to enforce your ban personally, you can expect violence.
Click to expand...


I find it hilarious that you think that the only option to deal with literal neo-Nazis is by involving the government. Antifa regularly deals with trash like them.

It has nothing to do with what pleases or displeases me that is being said, but rather the fact of what they are saying and that they want to carry such actions out.l
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I find it hilarious that you think that the only option to deal with literal neo-Nazis is by involving the government. Antifa regularly deals with trash like them.

It has nothing to do with what pleases or displeases me that is being said, but rather the fact of what they are saying and that they want to carry such actions out.l
Click to expand...

I think you are easily amused. I am glad to see you make your dislike of the freedom of speech so plain. We are lucky that the Supreme Court is still dedicated to protecting that freedom from people who want to silence everyone whose views happen to displease them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom