I'm not sure why you're harping on about the costume thing so much, you appear to be arguing with the air now because I never said a single thing about the Halloween costume situation. I don't know enough about that particular situation to have an opinion on it, I'm honestly not sure who you think you're arguing with here.
You are a KiA/GG fellow traveler. If it walks like duck... etc.
Your fellow travelers keep citing the Yale case as evidence of some broader academic repression.
The number one feature of KiA louts is the dismissal of all subjective concerns when such they disagree over such concerns (of course, their own subjective concerns are paramount). It's usually stuff like this:
Aside from the fact that "a better studying environment" and "demeaning nonsense" are both 100% subjective ideas
Yes, they are subjective concerns, which doesn't make them unreasonable or any less real to the people affected.
I mean, if a bunch of people showed up in Yale on Halloween dressed up as nazis and stereotypical Jews, no one would make any hay over this issue of banning them: you wouldn't see mouth-foaming KiA reactionary mobs screaming at the resulting protests, but when a native american is upset over a Pocahontas costume, it's suddenly the end of academic freedom as we know it!
It's because such issues are subjective and multifaceted that we have private autonomy and pluralism. The educational establishments can sort it out together with their students, teachers and donors.
But this new paragraph appears to change your argument.
Not it doesn't.
Now you're saying that private institutions only have the right to "limit disruptive behavior" if the behavior in question is something YOU find disruptive.
No, it's something they find disruptive.
because they find it disruptive but another institution cannot limit, say, Hispanics or women or homosexuals if they find them to be disruptive.
No, they can't. Or presumably they can't. You see, the institutions are still bound by the law, which forbids them from practicing such discrimination. It doesn't forbid them from placing ground rules on disruptive behavior such as demeaning costumes.
That's a double standard.
Not it isn't. It's liberal democracy. The state places limits on discrimination which the democracy finds appalling, but allows discrimination and practices that are found acceptable.
Great, so this applies to every speaker ever right? It's cool if a college bans Noam Chomsky from speaking there, right, because his "garbage" is found all over the web and he is given plenty of platforms elsewhere, so the students who wanted to see him aren't actually missing out on anything, right?
Sure, it applies to Noam Chomsky as well, but he isn't an appalling and hateful moron so people are less incline to reject him.
A university can refuse to platform Noam. I'm sure, no doubt, that some establishments have refused him.
First, I'm not sure you know what the word totalitarian means.
Oh, and i'm sure KiA louts never misuse the term. Oh wait they do.
I'm not using the term totalitarianism because I want to use it: I'm using it because it's used against me KiA morons who do not understand how things work.
Like all language, there is an inherent imprecision with all concepts, especially political language, but usually, the important distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is the degree to which political pluralism is allowed. Totalitarians are never satisfied until all institutions and people repeat their nonsense and all platforms are inundated with their political messages. Totalitarians are never satisfied until all pluralism is destroyed.
This is, to me, exactly what GG and KiA stand for. This is why they mock the concept of safe-space. This is why they consider almost any type of moderation to be censorship. This is why they mock people who delete demeaning messages, or reject their pathetic icons like Mr. Milo from a debate.
Additionally, totalitarians are deeply attracted to paranoid conspiracy theories: which is an extremely common feature among KiA reactionaries.
What I am arguing for is the exact opposite of totalitarianism. What I am arguing for is that people should be allowed to say whatever they want and do whatever they want as long as they are not harming anyone else (the non-aggression principle).
Oh, this absurd libertarian drivel again. It gives me a headache.
This is nonsense. Brains are affected by abuse and mockery. Thus, the damage is physical and would violate your narrow NAP.
Totalitarianism by definition requires state power to enforce one set of ideals on everyone, and I want the state to be as small as humanly possible and hopefully the only ideal they should be enforcing is the non-aggression principle.
Yeah, but that's a cop out similar to "it's not racism because it's not a race!1". It's extremely superficial semantics, which you employ because you've already lost the underlying argument.
It's your group that is driven by a totalitarian urge to destroy political pluralism: firstly by destroying the ability of private establishments to platform whom they want. Then destroying safe space where people can be free of mockery and abuse. Etc.
This apparently is the behavior that you are referring to as totalitarian, since at no time have I advocated for anything like state force to be used to enforce anything I say.
KiA and their type of people do not employ the state for their goals, which is true enough. They instead resort to cyber-mobs and bullying.
But more seriously, I DO believe that property rights are a fundamental natural right.
In our current governmental environment, they are heavily compromised, that's true, and is one of the reasons I don't like the state. But in this thread I am talking about how things should be, not how they necessarily are. The government CAN legally seize property from people at any time and for almost any reason. That does not make those actions moral. You say that the state defines property laws. I disagree. Property laws being granted "divinely" or "naturally" or however one chooses to look at it is 100% required if we wish to make any definitive statements about ethics and morality. If property rights are defined by the state only, then in a state where theft is not illegal, theft would also not be immoral, which is nonsense. Theft is immoral wherever you are and regardless of what the state says about it, since it is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
There are no natural rights. If you believe in such things, you are not truly an atheist.
Laws are defined by a political sovereign, which has the power to enforce them. In a democracy, our state is run by elected representatives, who (hopefully) write laws that we approve of.
Theft itself is nothing without laws to define property rights in the first place. Without a common law, property is a subjective desire, not a rule.
I suggest you read this:
http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/
First of all, I've read the tweets, and no, they were not vicious and abusive, they basically amounted to "I think what you're doing is not very nice".
I doubt that. From what I've read, he constantly tweeted about this woman long after he'd been told to stop it and the woman had tried to break all contact with him. If he had kept sending similar mail to someone, who had made similar requests and attempts to break contact, I doubt that we'd be having this conversation. Again, I don't see this as abusive or frivolous law suit.
You don't see anything dishonest about a person lying... not being mistaken, straight up LYING, about getting raped at a party, when it has been shown that not only was she nowhere near the area at the time, but that there was in fact not even a party?
Of course, but that's not indicative of any larger problem. A lot of rapes are she-said-he-said cases, and compared other similar cases, where it's the plaintiff's word and against the defendant's word, rapes are
less likely to lead to a sentence.
Again, one person lying doesn't mean that there is a larger problem with someone kind of all-encompassing "regressive left"
That's not an argument, tell me why you see this as being okay and we can maybe have a discussion about it, simply saying it's "pretty damn weak" tells me that you have nothing valid to say about it.
Yes it is an argument. Your examples are unbelievably
trivial. Even the journalist in question thought the resulting controversy was a bit odd.
Like what do you think they were actually hiding? Were they sacrificing babies?
A single journalist got denied access to take a photograph of something no one would have cared about for any reason. Boohoo. Huge problem. Certainly something to foam at the mouth about.
Some times protesters get unnecessarily aggravated and lash out against the wrong people: perhaps there was something else going that had gotten them worked up. I Just don't see what is the major problem here. It happens. It's not some cosmic calamity that should worry us all.
People in Ferguson will never riot and set fire to buildings, stop being so paranoid!
Ferguson is a corrupt banana republic. Setting buildings on fire was appropriate: and it worked.
The protests may have targeted civilian property, but it got the county to correct some of it's vast abuses. For instance, Ferguson has been compelled to reform it's obscenely corrupt practice of funding its county through fining (mostly) minorities for trivial traffic violations. Yes, this was a county funded with penalizing minorities for imagined offenses.
Sometimes calamitous riots bring about positive political changes; it drags people out of their bubbles and forces them to face the shortcomings.
It's pretty clear to me that you are just opposed to any left-wing activism of any kind.
