Jump to content

Mikey4

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    1432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mikey4

  1. 18 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

    I will be royally pissed if we lose any of that group of nine.

    Me too. It would be an upset. But we have a fluke upset game almost every season. Last year we squeaked by a couple of tight games, but we won't always win those.

  2. 1 minute ago, Captainant said:

    There is an ocean of context that differentiates a COVID style facemask from the symbol of hate and state sponsored oppression (in the post reconstruction south, specifically) that is a KKK mask. You are literally comparing the two directly and contrasting them as being characteristic to one type of speech or another. 

    The recent 2019 campus free speech law didn't really make sense -it was a solution in search of a problem - and it was signed anyway. And then it was ignored when convenient by the fascist who signed it to force universities to allow white supremacists on campus

    It's great that you've figured this out. If you were in charge of writing the rule on whether people can conceal their faces on campus, what would you write? "No masks if you're protesting racial integration, but masks are okay if you're protesting in favor of Palestinians?"

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, Welshy said:

    Seriously - rules about concealing faces, tent erection times...? it's so disingenuous and dumb.

    No one but the most simple among us thought any of these protest groups weren't going to establish encampments after Columbia. Columbia allowed it, with limited restraint, and the protestors broke into and occupied a building...then demanded humanitarian relief/food. Their agenda is the "free speech" angle many here are espousing, But it's weaponized. And obvious. I'm sad how many people buy it.

    I lean hard towards Gaza in what's happening now, it's too much and not reciprocal, but this bullshit makes me want to wash my hands of it, remembering 40 years of changing goal posts from Palestinians and the terrorism they glorify in. That they still glorify in. The constant missile fire for decades and the stated goal of eradicating Israel.... Fuck these kids. 

    Flame away. 

    No flaming here. I don't care for these protesters or their message. I'm firmly on the other side of this issue. But we have a constitution, and the best and most balanced policies emerge when everyone is able to speak and debate freely. So let them protest. If they want to hide their faces, I'm fine with that, too. I'm also fine with a general ban on erecting tents on campus and enforcing the ban as long as people have notice of it and a chance to comply. And if it bleeds over into Columbia, then shut it down.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  4. 10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Comparing a blue COVID mask to a KKK hood is certainly a take. 

    I'm not comparing them or offering a "take." I'm asking whether it makes sense to have a law that prohibits people from concealing their faces.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 12 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

    It’s actually nobodys fucking business why someone is wearing a mask on their face. Y’all get hung up on some weird shit.  

    This is my initial reaction, especially if it's in the context of mainstream political speech like this. Whether I agree with the speech or not, If someone wants to hide his identity when protesting, why should I care? Then I consider KKK members wearing masks to burn crosses. For them -- hell no. Show your face. But then, you can’t ban masks for only some categories of speech. It’s a hard question.

  6. 1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

    I understand. And in my post I acknowledged that other mechanisms exist for protesters to address those concerns. That said, I want to focus on the bolded portion of your statement as it has the structure of our system of government backwards. It isn't for the government to decide what freedoms we are "allowed" to have. Rather, it is for us decide what power the government has to restrict those freedoms. By phrasing it as you've done, you've implicitly suggested the government is being generous by letting us do certain things. I'm not saying this is intentional, but this sort of phrasing can color how one views the issue. My suggestion is that the proper view recognizes the government is curtailing our ability to do something because that is ultimately how the exercise of power here works. And, in doing Constitutional analysis we're generally more focused on whether what government restriction was reasonable and necessary for the purpose it sought rather than whether the government could have taken even more restrictive action. 

    I can't do a proper constitutional analysis because I don't have legislative findings or a factual record to show what interest the state is trying to advance. I can think of possible interests in banning tents on the lawn (architectural consistency of structures, preserving the lawn, keeping the lawn open to students to the greatest extent), but it's admittedly speculation.

    I do know, however, that a restriction on tents is either not a restriction on speech at all, or at most is a content-neutral restriction on the manner of speech. For that reason, it's important that the restriction permits the core political speech at issue and allows reasonable alternatives for students who want to protest next to a tent (protest in a raincoat, use an umbrella, etc.). I don't mean to suggest that the government is being generous, but rather that the government can impose content-neutral restrictions where, as here, alternatives are available. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. 5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    You're confused about what "less restrictive measures" refers to. In constitutional analysis, it refers to government action, not the actions of the public, i.e., the government could choose an action less restrictive than outlawing the use of tents entirely. Here, that would be time limits and registration/reservation. Further, the solution to a problem caused by government restriction of free speech in a public forum cannot be "go someplace else". Literally, the place people are suppose to be able to go is the public forum. That said, I agree that a no tent policy isn't extremely restrictive and that so long as other government restrictions aren't in play, free speech is only marginally affected by the restriction. As I said, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But because less restrictive options are available to the government, I'm not entirely sure that conclusion is obvious. 

    My point is that the *government* allows a range of alternatives that address the concerns you raise (e.g., protection from the elements) while also ensuring that  the public space will be available to others. I'm not saying they need to go somewhere else. Protest right there. You don't need a tent to do that.

  8. 1 minute ago, bolverk said:

    I invite you to visit the Hartzell thread in CR, which discusses this very topic. It's six pages of debate/discussion/dissent, with lots of back-and-forth. Having just skimmed the entire thing just now, I counted 1 "fuck you" emoji. I'll also ask you to look at the last page, where one poster came in well over an hour ago with a flaming hot take on the current president of the US (not the university). Guess what? Not a single neg.

    Here's a link if you'd like to check for yourself: https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/35367-jay-hartzell-is-not-out-standard/page/6/

    If you're really concerned about avoiding neg reps on this site, I'd suggest never, ever visiting the Football board.

     

    I'll check it, thank you. I've been posting on the football board for 6+ years, and shaggy before that, and hornfans before that. I've had no problems with negs or hostility on there.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  9. 3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    In my experience, people only pick up a ton of negs when they come in hot without any supporting evidence or citation for their claims. There is certainly a belief of what you claim, but it's ironically completely supported by a mindless repetition of something that isn't quite true.

    I don't doubt that some of it is justified, but a lot of times people just neg when they see a view that's different from their own. It's also the style of discourse -- for example, attacking people with personal slurs rather than debating their positions. It's not appealing to me.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    If I say you can protest in this field but you cannot wear shoes, and the field volcanic is surrounded with volcanic rock, am I infringing speech? The shoes may not directly contribute to the speech, but they sure as shit make it a lot easier to do.

    Yes, shoes assist in protesting for the reason you mention, and a ban on shoes would burden speech.

     

    Quote

    An umbrella and a tent do the same thing to differing degrees. As I said, no tent ever is pretty harsh rule. If a less restrictive measure exists that will serve the same end goal, then that is the measure that should be used.

    Less restrictive measures exist and are permissible. If you need protection from the elements, then you can use an umbrella, wear a raincoat, or assemble in a covered space. If you need somewhere to sit and rest, bring a folding chair or find a bench. A tent adds absolutely nothing other than exclude people from using public space.

  11. 5 minutes ago, immamac said:

    This isn't true - I think there is confusion on the argument here. Some people are arguing that there is justification in this because they don't like the content of the protest or the way the protest is happening. 

    I don't follow. I was agreeing with Nicole that people are disuaded from posting in CR and to some extent DT due to tribalism and a rush to neg rather than engage in a debate. There is certainly some good faith debate and discussion, but the extremists make it unpleasant.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. 29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

    A ban on tents does not infringe free speech even "indirectly," and certainly not "materially." A tent has absolutely nothing to do with conveying a political message. It's either detrimental to the message (if you're *in* the tent, then people are less likely to hear your message) or it's just an irrelevant structure sitting empty while you protest.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 25 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

    But there is this need to attack any opinion that doesn’t align with the group. And we all know mobs and groups aren’t exactly the sharpest people.

    Exactly why I avoid CR and generally avoid DT as well. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  14. 11 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

    What makes you think it’s any of your fucking business, Karen?

    Well Ken, I'm trying to make sense of the story. I've never seen someone set up tents there, and it's not obvious to me what the tents have to do with the protest. And no, you can't speak to the manager. Now go away.

  15. how long before somebody can take a legitimate post game presser and start inserting AI shit after the first minute or two, so it starts out looking real and then goes completely off the rails? I bet we see some of that this year.

  16. 1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

    As fun as it is to watch a wide open receiver catch a bomb, that doesn’t tell us much. 

    My only gripe with this is that deep coverage busts happen in real games, and too often our QBs (between Colt and Quinn) didn't see it or, if they did, missed the throw. Arch saw it immediately and found the receiver. If he can do that a couple of times in a season, those are free points.

×
×
  • Create New...