Peterson, Harris, etc....

[Silva]

Is Fox different from FOX?

 

[Eboue]

Some of stuff put out by Peterson, Rubin, Shaprio is absolute drivel. There's no conspiracy about their views not being top of the news every night.

I don't see Chapo Trap House-like content on my TV either.

conservatives control every branch of the federal government. they control a large majority of state governments. the flagship lib paper features david brooks, ross douthat, brett stephens and bari weiss. and yet they still complain about being oppressed.

 

[Eboue]

Some is and some isn't. That's all subjective. The overarching point being that they should be heard, as should their critics.

except if they support bds. then they have no right to be heard

 

[Minimalist]

Genuine proposal: put Shapiro, Rubin etc on some kind of Kardashian's level programme following them day to day as the mutter about the 'regressive left' like homeless alcoholics. That's the level of respect they deserve.

 

[Eboue]

All the usual "liberal media" suspects excluding Fox.

and yet all of them feature these brave dark web warriors prominently

 

[Silva]

except if they support bds. then they have no right to be heard

The law is worse than that. They no right to any government resources.

 

[Raoul]

Genuine proposal: put Shapiro, Rubin etc on some kind of Kardashian's level programme following them day to day as the mutter about the 'regressive left' like homeless alcoholics. That's the level of respect they deserve.

Rather than attempt to suppress them because you disagree with their views - why not put them on a proper debate stage with their critics, negotiate a moderator and ground rules and let them hash it out on national tv.

 

[Raoul]

and yet all of them feature these brave dark web warriors prominently

I wouldn't say prominently. The only one vaguely pushing them is Maher - obviously because he agrees with their views. Other appearances are generally one offs.

 

[Eboue]

I wouldn't say prominently. The only one vaguely pushing them is Maher - obviously because he agrees with their views. Other appearances are generally one offs.

Bari Weiss posts this type of article every couple months in the new york time, the paper of record in this country

 

[Eboue]

Rather than attempt to suppress them because you disagree with their views - why not put them on a proper debate stage with their critics, negotiate a moderator and ground rules and let them hash it out on national tv.

Great let's give bds supporters as much exposure as we give Jordan Peterson and ben Shapiro

 

[Raoul]

Great let's give bds supporters as much exposure as we give Jordan Peterson and ben Shapiro

I have no issue with that at all. Let them debate the pros and cons of Israel policy - something that isn't done nearly enough.

 

[Minimalist]

Rather than attempt to suppress them because you disagree with their views - why not put them on a proper debate stage with their critics, negotiate a moderator and ground rules and let them hash it out on national tv.

Why? What does a debate do? I agree with Sam Harris a lot of the time but even when he went against critics in debate (and in my view won), it didn't make any difference to those of the opposite opinion. A debate does feck all.

My legit interest is in why people can't see through shitty arguments. I don't actually care about the individuals like Shapiro etc. He's a qualified lawyer - he can lie his ass off and look after himself.

 

[berbatrick]

Bari Weiss posts this type of article every couple months in the new york time, the paper of record in this country

Bret Stephens has written this many times as well in the same paper.

And also David Brooks a few times.

Jonathan Chait in NYMag talks about little else.

These are people with more audience/platform and freedom to choose their topic than anyone they criticise.

 

[Minimalist]

I wouldn't say prominently. The only one vaguely pushing them is Maher - obviously because he agrees with their views. Other appearances are generally one offs.

Maher also said Milo was a young Chris Hitchens.

...yeah.

Not sure I care who he's pushing.

 

[Raoul]

Why? What does a debate do? I agree with Sam Harris a lot of the time but even when he went against critics in debate (and in my view won), it didn't make any difference to those of the opposite opinion. A debate does feck all.

My legit interest is in why people can't see through shitty arguments. I don't actually care about the individuals like Shapiro etc. He's a qualified lawyer - he can lie his ass off and look after himself.

It promotes a broader swath of ideas across wider segments of society who don't ordinarily see these types of debate, and if they occasionally do, they are shunted into compartmentalized, groupthink cliques on social media when they should be debated in the same arena as political debates, presidential debates, and the like. What you or I think is a shitty argument shouldn't prevent other people from having a shot of making their own minds up about them.

 

[Raoul]

Maher also said Milo was a young Chris Hitchens.

...yeah.

Not sure I care who he's pushing.

He also used the N word to be provocative and had to apologize. They can't all be gems.

 

[berbatrick]

I have no issue with that at all. Let them debate the pros and cons of Israel policy - something that isn't done nearly enough.

This isn't a question of debating Israel - it is a direct attack on the core of the 1st amendment that the government cannot regulate political speech.

Congress shall make no law[...]or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In that sense it is directly different from any free speech issues within a private organisation or groups of people - this is direct censorship by the govt itself and unambiguously condemned by the 1st amendment. As to your technical question of whether this applies to Texas - it does, the 14th amendment issue was resolved about 50 years ago: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine



And it's hilarious that you bring up Greenwald because unlike me he is a first-amendment absolutist and in fact became a journalist after being a civil rights lawyer - doing more for actual free speech issues than this entire "oh no, PC" club collectively. I will go further and suggest that you might listen to an actual civil rights lawyer (or an organisation of them) and not overpaid columnists if you want to learn about threats to free speech.

 

[Raoul]

This isn't a question of debating Israel - it is a direct attack on the core of the 1st amendment that the government cannot regulate political speech.


In that sense it is directly different from any free speech issues within a private organisation or groups of people - this is direct censorship by the govt itself and unambiguously condemned by the 1st amendment. As to your technical question of whether this applies to Texas - it does, the 14th amendment issue was resolved about 50 years ago: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine



And it's hilarious that you bring up Greenwald because unlike me he is a first-amendment absolutist and in fact became a journalist after being a civil rights lawyer - dong more for actual free speech issues than this entire "oh no, PC" club collectively. I will go further and suggest that you might listen to an actual civil rights lawyer (or an organisation of them) and not overpaid columnists if you want to learn about threats to free speech.

That may be the case re: the 1st amendment, but that would need to be litigated up the judicial chain since I'm guessing the constitutionality of the Texas state law would need to be challenged in court.

 

[berbatrick]

That may be the case re: the 1st amendment, but that would need to be litigated up the judicial chain since I'm guessing the constitutionality of the Texas state law would need to be challenged in court.

You have made a lot of deductions and other sentences using reasoning in this thread and reached conclusions without needing to see any data. You can do the same regarding the legality of the BDS laws without waiting for court rulings. Further, you have shown an interest in defending free speech in this thread. If you do believe in free speech as a virtue, I fail to see how you can tolerate a law that attacks a political position.

 

[Raoul]

You have made a lot of deductions and other sentences using reasoning in this thread. You can do the same regarding the legality of the BDS laws without waiting for court rulings. Further, you have shown an interest in defending free speech in this thread. If you do believe in free speech as a virtue, I fail to see how you can tolerate a law that attacks a political position.

I don't think the BDS movement should be limited in what their proponents are saying. My point is that this is a legal argument that has to be adjudicated at the federal level in order to ascertain whether Texas has a states right argument about being able to limit public funds for a matter that their voters (and by extension the politicians they elected) object to.

In a more perverse example, replace BDS with NAMBLA and you see what I mean. Should some one who advocates for the North American Man/Boy Love Association (a group that advocates for pedophilia) be allowed to collect state money as a result of a workshop they teach at a public University. Well if the public finds out someone is a NAMBLA proponent, they are likely to object, even if the workshop was related to a completely different topic.

 

[Silva]

Should some one ... be allowed to collect state money as a result of a workshop they teach at a public University.

this is how employment generally works

 

[berbatrick]

whether Texas has a states right argument about being able to limit public funds for a matter that their voters (and by extension the politicians they elected) object to.

This is political censorship/mob rule/whatever other horror free-speech advocates believe college students can bring about.

 

[Raoul]

this is how employment generally works

Ordinarily yes, but not when there are legal considerations at play.

 

[Silva]

Ordinarily yes, but not when there are legal considerations at play.

The reason employment works like that is because it's illegal make people work for nothing. There was a whole war over it.

 

[Raoul]

This is political censorship/mob rule/whatever other horror free-speech advocates believe college students can bring about.

Not sure what this means, but consider that employment isn't open ended. You can advocate for things that cause offense in the public domain and have that affect your employment status. People get sacked all the time for saying extremely offensive things.

 

[Raoul]

The reason employment works like that is because it's illegal make people work for nothing. There was a whole war over it.

I agree with that bit. As I said earlier, its wrong to retroactively not pay someone for work they have already performed.

 

[berbatrick]

People get sacked all the time for saying extremely offensive things.

Private companies have total freedom over their employees, which trumps their free speech rights. Indeed it was a Republican NLRB that ruled that James Damore could fe fired because they felt that his employer had the right to be "permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace". (Source:http://mattbruenig.com/2018/02/16/trump-nlrb-smashed-google-guy/)

For comparison:

There is almost no chance that a Democratic-controlled NLRB would have reached the same conclusion. As proof of this, consider the Cooper Tirepicketing case decided under the Obama Board. In that case, picketers yelled out clearly racist statements at replacement workers and were fired for doing so. The NLRB said the termination was unlawful because the statements occurred in the context of protected activity (picketing) and the 8th Circuit ultimately affirmed the NLRB’s decision in that case.

Wake me up when Weiss et al attack the establishment Republicans for their hostility to free speech.

It is different when it comes to the government, that too as a client:

Hurricane Harvey's floodwaters damaged many homes in the Texas city of Dickinson, and residents are applying for assistance and working to repair their properties.

But Dickinson's application for repair grants is raising eyebrows. Alongside standard items such as project descriptions and grant amounts, the city application reads:

"By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this agreement."

In doing so, the application appears to make eligibility for hurricane relief funds contingent on political beliefs regarding Israel, which the American Civil Liberties Union describes as unconstitutional.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...y-if-you-boycott-israel-you-may-be-out-of-luc

 

[Raoul]

Private companies have total freedom over their employees, which trumps their free speech rights. Indeed it was a Republican NLRB that ruled that James Damore could fe fired because they felt that his employer had the right to be "permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace". (Source:http://mattbruenig.com/2018/02/16/trump-nlrb-smashed-google-guy/)

It is different when it comes to the government, that too as a client:



https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...y-if-you-boycott-israel-you-may-be-out-of-luc

That's why I said this is a matter between the state's right to make its own laws based on its community standards and the federal 1st amendment. It has to be adjudicated up the judicial chain.

 

[berbatrick]

That's why I said this is a matter between the state's right to make its own laws based on its community standards and the federal 1st amendment. It has to be adjudicated up the judicial chain.

Ok, this is going in circles.
I think the only consistency in your position is a defence of positions you think need more airtime and a willingness to forgo free-speech protections for positions you don't feel like bothering with.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I blame Oprah.

She is the one who popularized and commercialized a model that disavows any sort of objectivity or journalistic integrity. She regularly had hucksters and con artists on the show while again disavowing any responsibility to the truth. She publicly disavows any responsibility for promoting questionable characters.

While Orpah's brand of "feel good" materialism made her the most profitable media personality for decades, her emotional QVC show normalized the idea that its okay to have completely one-sided media that has no responsibility to the truth or looking for a balanced opinion but just selling products on emotional appeal.

Even beyond Oprah, I think it can be argued that Joe Rogan is more of a journalist than the old late night talk show hosts like Johnny Carson or David Letterman who were really just selective long form advertisements disguised as "comedy" (I don't think I have ever laughed out loud at anything Carson, Letterman or Leno ever said).

 

[Raoul]

Ok, this is going in circles.
I think the only consistency in your position is a defence of positions you think need more airtime and a willingness to forgo free-speech protections for positions you don't feel like bothering with.

Then you've completely misunderstood my position. I'm not arguing that BDS proponents don't have the right to promote the group. They do. But a member or fan of the group can't expect to not be penalized for having broken a state law. For the third time - That is a matter that has to be adjudicated between the federal and state governments. Such a legal process of course wouldn't prevent a BDS supporter from utilizing their first amendment right to support BDS as long as it doesn't run counter to an employment agreement they willingly signed. The issue isn't a pure 1st amendment issue - its a legal dispute between federal law and local standards.

 

[berbatrick]

Then you've completely misunderstood my position. I'm not arguing that BDS proponents don't have the right to promote the group. They do. But a member or fan of the group can't expect to not be penalized for having broken a state law. For the third time - That is a matter that has to be adjudicated between the federal and state governments. Such a legal process of course wouldn't prevent a BDS supporter from utilyzing their first amendment right to support BDS. The issue isn't a pure 1st amendment issue - its a legal dispute between federal law and local standards.

If the 1st amendment prevents the federal govt from making some law, that same law is DoA everywhere else because of the incorporation clause in the 14th amendment.

Also:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Imagine my shock

 

[Raoul]

If the 1st amendment prevents the federal govt from making some law, that same law is DoA everywhere else because of the incorporation clause in the 14th amendment.

Also:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Imagine my shock

Not the federal government - state governments

 

[berbatrick]

Not the federal government - state governments

What is incorporation?

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution(known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Which amendment applies to speech? 1st

Is it incorporated? Yes

Is there a case regarding this? Yes
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gitlow_v._new_york_1925

A U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech applied to state laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

More relevant to Bari Weiss:
Do free-speech columnists talk about this, GOP-promote employer censorship and other govt over-reach post 9/11 when they mention threats to free speech? No

Should they be taken seriously? Hence, no.

 

[Cheesy]

Its not about the individuals in question - but rather that a broader set of ideas should be debated in popular culture. Currently, people have to go fishing on YouTube, Reddit and Twitter to ferret out these debates when said ideas should be more prominently talked about on MSM outlets.

Outlets like Reddit, Twitter and YouTube are huge though - they're hardly outside the mainstream. And as has been pointed out these voices do get plenty of MSM exposure anyway.

 

[Raoul]

What is incorporation?


Which amendment applies to speech? 1st

Is it incorporated? Yes

Is there a case regarding this? Yes
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gitlow_v._new_york_1925


More relevant to Bari Weiss:
Do free-speech columnists talk about this, GOP-promote employer censorship and other govt over-reach post 9/11 when they mention threats to free speech? No

Should they be taken seriously? Hence, no.

Gitlow v New York is a pure free speech case, not a case of a state funded entity (University) having the right enter into an agreement with its employees about what constitutes acceptable conduct.

As for Weiss, I think its unfortunate that the Greenwald cabal are spending the entire day attempting to discredit her for writing an opinion piece promoting alternative opinions. Finding obscure articles from years ago to discredit her is also poor form, as many people evolve and grow their views over time.

 

[Raoul]

Outlets like Reddit, Twitter and YouTube are huge though - they're hardly outside the mainstream. And as has been pointed out these voices do get plenty of MSM exposure anyway.

They are huge in terms of the fact that anyone can access them, but they are entirely different than MSM outlets where information is presented and contextualized to the public, where viewers don't have to look for the news.

 

[Cheesy]

I blame Oprah.

She is the one who popularized and commercialized a model that disavows any sort of objectivity or journalistic integrity. She regularly had hucksters and con artists on the show while again disavowing any responsibility to the truth. She publicly disavows any responsibility for promoting questionable characters.

While Orpah's brand of "feel good" materialism made her the most profitable media personality for decades, her emotional QVC show normalized the idea that its okay to have completely one-sided media that has no responsibility to the truth or looking for a balanced opinion but just selling products on emotional appeal.

Even beyond Oprah, I think it can be argued that Joe Rogan is more of a journalist than the old late night talk show hosts like Johnny Carson or David Letterman who were really just selective long form advertisements disguised as "comedy" (I don't think I have ever laughed out loud at anything Carson, Letterman or Leno ever said).

Fair point. I think this is a problem in general - I have no wish to desire or censor someone like Shapiro, but at the same time he is regularly paraded as some sort of expert whose opinion must be respected when in reality he's mostly just a man with some very biased and one-sided opinions. We see this in the UK too - regularly voices are given to celebrity-types who aren't really experts on any area of politics but just people who're well-known and get platforms to espouse ill-informed views based on their own personal feelings.

It's all well and good to say that they should be debated for their opinions to be shut down/rebuked, but in debates sometimes superior speakers can look more coherent than they actually are through certain debating tactics they use, and often facts can be skewered to suit their own agenda without journalists calling them out on it. And that's not to say Shapiro should be automatically shut down as a voice - at the same time though I'm not sure what he's really done to be regarded as a authoritative or useful voice on political matters, unless I've missed something, apart from managing to become popular. Which shouldn't be an automatic entry barrier unless we're willing to argue genuinely reprehensible people should get a voice because their views were once popular.

 

[berbatrick]

As for Weiss, I think its unfortunate that the Greenwald cabal are spending the entire day attempting to discredit her for writing an opinion piece promoting alternative opinions.

This is literally the debate you claim to crave. They are arguing against her premise that the people she touts are being suppressed.

 

[Cheesy]

They are huge in terms of the fact that anyone can access them, but they are entirely different than MSM outlets where information is presented and contextualized to the public, where viewers don't have to look for the news.

They're very different, yes, but they're still hugely in the mainstream and are incredibly influential. Plus as has been said Shapiro et al get to appear on a lot major news outlets and talk shows regularly anyway.