(03-19-2021 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2021 10:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So, it would appear the vast majority of the Capitol "protesters" were nonviolent - that is, peaceful protesters - only a tiny minority were violent or rioters.
I am just curious to hear what 93 has to say to this - did he just define the Capitol Uprising as a mostly peaceful protest?
I am quite sure that most of the protesters at the Capitol Uprising did not engage in (what I would consider) violent acts.
I am sure too,, but CNN/MSNBC would not agree.
So it would fit your definition of a "mostly peaceful protest"? Sounds like it.
I don't have a definition for "mostly peaceful protest" because I don't understand the term.
Yet you are studiously ardent about what is not a violent protest, from above. Absolutely amazing.
(03-19-2021 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am just curious to hear what 93 has to say to this - did he just define the Capitol Uprising as a mostly peaceful protest?
I am quite sure that most of the protesters at the Capitol Uprising did not engage in (what I would consider) violent acts.
I am sure too,, but CNN/MSNBC would not agree.
So it would fit your definition of a "mostly peaceful protest"? Sounds like it.
I don't have a definition for "mostly peaceful protest" because I don't understand the term.
Yet you are studiously ardent about what is not a violent protest, from above. Absolutely amazing.
I mean... we are talking about two different things. "Mostly (x) thing" is a really nebulous phrase.
(03-19-2021 09:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I am quite sure that most of the protesters at the Capitol Uprising did not engage in (what I would consider) violent acts.
I am sure too,, but CNN/MSNBC would not agree.
So it would fit your definition of a "mostly peaceful protest"? Sounds like it.
I don't have a definition for "mostly peaceful protest" because I don't understand the term.
Yet you are studiously ardent about what is not a violent protest, from above. Absolutely amazing.
I mean... we are talking about two different things. "Mostly (x) thing" is a really nebulous phrase.
I see that you have an incessant trait of having to talk about two different things.
At least, are we clear on the 'violent' aspect and your continued attempts at strawman on that?
(03-19-2021 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 09:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am sure too,, but CNN/MSNBC would not agree.
So it would fit your definition of a "mostly peaceful protest"? Sounds like it.
I don't have a definition for "mostly peaceful protest" because I don't understand the term.
Yet you are studiously ardent about what is not a violent protest, from above. Absolutely amazing.
I mean... we are talking about two different things. "Mostly (x) thing" is a really nebulous phrase.
I see that you have an incessant trait of having to talk about two different things.
Honestly no idea as to what you're saying here.
Quote:
At least, are we clear on the 'violent' aspect and your continued attempts at strawman on that?
What strawman argument do you think that I have constructed here?
(03-19-2021 11:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 09:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a definition for "mostly peaceful protest" because I don't understand the term.
Yet you are studiously ardent about what is not a violent protest, from above. Absolutely amazing.
I mean... we are talking about two different things. "Mostly (x) thing" is a really nebulous phrase.
I see that you have an incessant trait of having to talk about two different things.
Honestly no idea as to what you're saying here.
Quote:
At least, are we clear on the 'violent' aspect and your continued attempts at strawman on that?
What strawman argument do you think that I have constructed here?
First, your continued addition of 'to people' in your attempts to frame the term 'violence' or 'violent'.
Second, for changing the issue from 'violent act' to 'violent protest'.
Then you have your non-answer of an ad-hom that I dont know how to classify.
(03-19-2021 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]back to Sellers
By punishing both the speaker and the person who remained silent, the dean of Georgetown's law school sent a chilling message: if you are to participate in any discussion regarding grades and race, you must express the politically correct view of the matter. Silence is not an option.
THIS is what is problematic about 'cancel culture'.
I'm not saying that these people were thinking this when they said it... I have absolutely no idea what is in their minds... but If it is a FACT that black students are routinely performing at the bottom of a class, PERHAPS A SCHOOL SHOULD WONDER WHY THEY ARE FAILING TO REACH THESE STUDENTS!!!
You've got people complaining constantly about 'white privilege' and yet when an opportunity presents itself to potentially DEMONSTRATE its existence in an unintended way (like the SAT favoring urban/suburban dwellers over rural or agrarian)... people are FIRED for even mentioning it??
Seriously, WTF. I mean if she'd said, 'they're stupid' or something like that, that's one thing... but having angst over it?? Isn't that precisely what 'woke' people are doing? Having angst over racial disparities in things like education?
(03-19-2021 12:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]back to Sellers
By punishing both the speaker and the person who remained silent, the dean of Georgetown's law school sent a chilling message: if you are to participate in any discussion regarding grades and race, you must express the politically correct view of the matter. Silence is not an option.
THIS is what is problematic about 'cancel culture'.
I'm not saying that these people were thinking this when they said it... I have absolutely no idea what is in their minds... but If it is a FACT that black students are routinely performing at the bottom of a class, PERHAPS A SCHOOL SHOULD WONDER WHY THEY ARE FAILING TO REACH THESE STUDENTS!!!
You've got people complaining constantly about 'white privilege' and yet when an opportunity presents itself to potentially DEMONSTRATE its existence in an unintended way (like the SAT favoring urban/suburban dwellers over rural or agrarian)... people are FIRED for even mentioning it??
Seriously, WTF. I mean if she'd said, 'they're stupid' or something like that, that's one thing... but having angst over it?? Isn't that precisely what 'woke' people are doing? Having angst over racial disparities in things like education?
Agree.
(03-19-2021 12:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]back to Sellers
By punishing both the speaker and the person who remained silent, the dean of Georgetown's law school sent a chilling message: if you are to participate in any discussion regarding grades and race, you must express the politically correct view of the matter. Silence is not an option.
THIS is what is problematic about 'cancel culture'.
I'm not saying that these people were thinking this when they said it... I have absolutely no idea what is in their minds... but If it is a FACT that black students are routinely performing at the bottom of a class, PERHAPS A SCHOOL SHOULD WONDER WHY THEY ARE FAILING TO REACH THESE STUDENTS!!!
You've got people complaining constantly about 'white privilege' and yet when an opportunity presents itself to potentially DEMONSTRATE its existence in an unintended way (like the SAT favoring urban/suburban dwellers over rural or agrarian)... people are FIRED for even mentioning it??
Seriously, WTF. I mean if she'd said, 'they're stupid' or something like that, that's one thing... but having angst over it?? Isn't that precisely what 'woke' people are doing? Having angst over racial disparities in things like education?
That is bad enough. The person who was simply listening was fired as well.
(03-19-2021 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 12:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2021 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]back to Sellers
By punishing both the speaker and the person who remained silent, the dean of Georgetown's law school sent a chilling message: if you are to participate in any discussion regarding grades and race, you must express the politically correct view of the matter. Silence is not an option.
THIS is what is problematic about 'cancel culture'.
I'm not saying that these people were thinking this when they said it... I have absolutely no idea what is in their minds... but If it is a FACT that black students are routinely performing at the bottom of a class, PERHAPS A SCHOOL SHOULD WONDER WHY THEY ARE FAILING TO REACH THESE STUDENTS!!!
You've got people complaining constantly about 'white privilege' and yet when an opportunity presents itself to potentially DEMONSTRATE its existence in an unintended way (like the SAT favoring urban/suburban dwellers over rural or agrarian)... people are FIRED for even mentioning it??
Seriously, WTF. I mean if she'd said, 'they're stupid' or something like that, that's one thing... but having angst over it?? Isn't that precisely what 'woke' people are doing? Having angst over racial disparities in things like education?
That is bad enough. The person who was simply listening was fired as well.
From the link:
But Georgetown Law School has not only denied its faculty and students the right to discuss the subject; it has also denied them the right to remain silent while such a discussion is occurring.
Think of how permeated the culture is even in those elected.
From 4 months ago we have the adage that "Presidents do not get the benefit of the First Amendment. You can impeach a president for speech which is not criminal."
And more recently "You can remove an elected member of congress from committees, and try to expel her for speech the member made before she was elected, when she was a private citizen, even if the speech was known to the voters when she was elected."
I mean, progressives have seriously moved the needle on this.
I caught the 'suspended for listening' issue as well... but if I were their lawyer, I'd be throwing the University under the bus.
THIS is an example of 'what they say' and 'what they do' being polar opposites. By they this time I mean the University.... but I'm wondering why a conservative old white guy is the one noticing this, and the 'keepers of woke' haven't said a word?
(03-19-2021 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Think of how permeated the culture is even in those elected.
From 4 months ago we have the adage that "Presidents do not get the benefit of the First Amendment. You can impeach a president for speech which is not criminal."
And more recently "You can remove an elected member of congress from committees, and try to expel her for speech the member made before she was elected, when she was a private citizen, even if the speech was known to the voters when she was elected."
I mean, progressives have seriously moved the needle on this.
I think "progressive" is a misnomer. A lot of the stuff they do is highly regressive.
"Those of us who strongly believe in academic freedom, freedom of thought and expression and true diversity of ideas must fight back against the groupthink now being imposed by university administrators, at the demand of students and others who seek to censor certain ideas. Firing professors for expressing deeply felt angst and honestly believed positions on complex matters is simply un-American. Georgetown is better than that, and must do better for the sake of all Americans who have the right to hear all points of view on divisive issues."
(03-21-2021 09:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]"Those of us who strongly believe in academic freedom, freedom of thought and expression and true diversity of ideas must fight back against the groupthink now being imposed by university administrators, at the demand of students and others who seek to censor certain ideas. Firing professors for expressing deeply felt angst and honestly believed positions on complex matters is simply un-American. Georgetown is better than that, and must do better for the sake of all Americans who have the right to hear all points of view on divisive issues."
I think Georgetown has proved it is NOT better than that.
It is bothersome that "hate" speech policies are very vague and used to punish legitimate discourse. I saw a letter to the Thresher where someone was complaining about a Rice police officer was wearing a Blue Lives matter mask because it was racist.
(03-26-2021 10:16 AM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]It is bothersome that "hate" speech policies are very vague and used to punish legitimate discourse. I saw a letter to the Thresher where someone was complaining about a Rice police officer was wearing a Blue Lives matter mask because it was racist.
I agree.
We have had discussion here about what is wrong with saying "All Lives Matter". Maybe one of those guys can explain how Blue (or any other) Lives matter is racist and wrong.
(03-19-2021 12:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]If it is a FACT that black students are routinely performing at the bottom of a class,
I wonder if the ones are the bottom are diversity admissions, while the ones at the top are probably merit admission.
I guess anybody can be labeled an oppressor.
Activists protest renaming school for Barack Obama
"If you’re removing the name of Thomas Jefferson, one oppressor, the name of Obama is another oppressor, and our families do not want to see that name," she added.
Three million people were deported during Obama’s eight years in office. A Washington Post report in 2019 found that Obama deported far more in the first three years in office than did President Trump. The Obama administration deported 1.18 million people in three years, and under Trump, about 800,000 were deported in the first three years.
I guess this means Obama was more racist than Trump.