Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    43163
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    237

Everything posted by Brisketexan

  1. They often are not. They are free to get all the food and water they want -- I'm sure there's a cafe near campus. They just have to leave the building they have taken over to go get it. And no, the university has no obligation to allow other people to bring food and water in to those people. If you wanted food and water when you started your illegal occupation of a facility, you should have planned ahead and brought some. But this is about being performative and "look at me," not about any actual well-thought-out strategy. Y'all made a poor choice (set up camp in a building without bringing the necessities). Live with your choice.
  2. This is the Surly content we were all looking for.
  3. I would neg you. But I would much prefer to kick you in the balls until you puke.
  4. And that's why the Governor said he was busting up the protests! No tents! Follow the rules! Oh wait...that's not what he said at all. He said, in plain language, that the protests were busted up for their content:
  5. And this is truthcasting. By late 2026, Paxton will either be the US Attorney General, or the newly elected junior Senator from the State of Texas.
  6. Wait.....someone's GOTTA have a screencap of the last scene, the arrest of the, uhh, little person. That's fantastic. Also, if only we had a buncha cops who were able to put on a large show of force to stop violence. But they were all busy strapping on their riot gear and cracking skulls of students protesting down on campus. Priorities, ya know. Also, E. 6th is and has been a shithole for some time. Hell, pre-pandemic, we went to Esthers Follies for the first time in better than a decade. After the show, we walked up 6th back to my office on Congress. We walked.....quickly.
  7. Man....that's some wishcasting there.
  8. Young people don't make the best decisions, and are prone to believing their own bullshit at the expense of actually being effective advocates. Film at 11:00 to cover this shocking expose. I found most student protests to be stupid and ham-handed even back in my campus days, regardless of the topic. Because 18-22 year olds are not the wisest bunch. But they're also figuring shit out. And what better place to figure shit out/learn than a university campus? Next thing you're gonna tell me is that young people sometimes ingest more substances than their reasonable limit, and make poor decisions about sexual partners and whatnot. Don't tell me that, I just can't handle the shock to my system, I may come down with a touch of the vapors. This. Which tells us that the goal was the display of "look at us being tough, fuck those libtards" as opposed to being to actually protect any real campus interests. I don't think any of us on here would have a problem with clearing all protesters and their gear at 10:00 pm. -- that's a good, clean, content-neutral and reasonable rule to keep the campus safe and clean. You can show up every day, from here to eternity, to protest. But you can't take up residence when you do so.
  9. This. It is readily apparent that we swim in a fucking ocean of stupidity, with functionally no rafts to cling to. It's stupid, in every direction, as far as the eye can see. Right, left, all of it. Stupidity is our brand. We might as well just put "WE ARE SO FUCKING STUPID" on all of our coinage.
  10. Bingo. Snacks is a regular attendee at the Church of Ain't Nothin' Gonna Happen. I would know, we share a pew.
  11. Cool. So, we can beat and arrest people for future crime. Just want to get your position on the record. Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries, so I was gonna leave it there past 8:00 am without paying. Reasonable and proper application of the law often IS a "law school exam question." You guys wanna put up tents in solidarity? Cool. I think it's silly, I think your whole protest is silly, but the mission and needs of the university can be met and protected so long as your act of solidarity doesn't go past 10 pm. Oh, you say you intend to stay after 10 pm? Well, I'm going to encourage you not to do that, because we will come by and remove all tents at 10:01. I then have cops out there at 9:50 saying nicely "folks, curfew is at 10:00, so we need y'all and your stuff out in ten minutes. And you can't return until 8:00 tomorrow." Then, when they don't move (you know, when they ACTUALLY break the rules), remove them and their tents. Future crime isn't a thing. It's like you've never even heard of a sex tent. @Wulaw Horn can educate you.
  12. Really.....so you didn't hear any statements, see any signs, etc. from the UT student protests that peacefully stated their position? Way to tell us that you haven't seen any of the photos or video.
  13. Really? Because we allow portions of campus and other state property to be turned into a "tent city" with great frequency and regularity. Or, perhaps you've never been on campus on a football weekend, with tents all over? Now, all of those circumstances have a rule to protect the overriding interest of the state and the university to not be turned into a permanent/overnight encampment: tents can only go up at a certain time, and must be taken down by a certain time. I'm sure that if you leave your tent up on a state lot after hours, and refuse to vacate, DPS will remove you and your tent. But to argue that a blanket "no tents, ever, for any amount of time" rule is necessary to protect the interest of that public property flies in the face of the fact that we have a different rule when you're putting up a tent for the purpose of celebrating longhorn football. A rule that says "no tents can remain after hours/no overnight camping" would make perfect sense, and would almost certainly be enforceable as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. The fact that I can put up a picture of the university and state property covered in tents on other dates for a different purpose demonstrates that the university actually does not need or enforce a strict "no tents ever" policy. Nor should it. Because that blanket policy would be dumb as hell.
  14. I’m a super big fan of the people who love to get to their office super early, and decide to start calling people then. Love it when my phone rings and it’s a client or some such while I’m brushing my teeth at 7:00 am. Dude. The rest of the world does keep farmer’s hours like you do.
  15. And had you told college-Brisket "hey, you can go to this protest, but we have a strict rule against you getting laid".......
  16. The playbook has existed for years. It's just that this regime doesn't want to follow it. The playbook is: take incremental steps. Start with non-uniformed administrators/officials visiting with the protest leaders to discuss the process, and obtain clarity. Then, have a handful of uniformed campus police do the same. Issue a direct warning and directive, ideally telling the protesters how they can continue the protest within the rules (e.g., "based on your current intentions as you have stated them, so long as you remove the tents, remove face coverings, and leave by 10:00 pm, being free to return when campus opens at 7:00 am, we will not take any action to disperse the protest.") You then obtain the response from the protesters. Then you send out a larger group of police to disperse them. If/when the protesters respond with violence (throwing rocks, etc.), then you bring in a larger show of force in riot gear. That is a solid evidentiary record to demonstrate that you have attempted to accommodate all reasonable First Amendment protected activity. And you should do that with every group. Yes, including the KKK.
  17. The fact that a sociopath who tries to talk like an 80s skateboarder has any power at all in our society is among the most damning indictments of us I've ever seen.
  18. I. Fucking. Wish. Would be the coolest office in town.
  19. Racist speech, so long as it doesn't call for violence or make specific threats of violence to individuals and the like - abhorrent as it is - is generally going to be protected speech as well. To be clear, antisemitic speech, so long as it remains non-violent in its messaging, is legal. I hate it. I don't agree with it. But for the 1,000th time, we don't get to ban speech just because we don't agree with it and find it loathsome.
  20. Your blanket statement is false. If UT chooses to waive a rule in the interest of keeping the peace, that is not dispositive as to all future actions (regardless of viewpoint). It can be evidence, yes, which is why a well-run entity documents the action, the reasoning therefor, and all communications with the protesting group to that effect. And further, the mechanism of enforcement is also quite discretionary. One doesn't have to go right to "deploy a Roman phalanx with tear gas and truncheons."
  21. Of course it doesn't protect ALL speech (we've already discussed the fact that it doesn't protect calls for violence, direct threats, and the like -- to the extent that any of those happen, the individual speaker is subject to having their speech shut down). But he posters I have pointed to above are not attacking the speakers because of a specific call for violence, but rather because those speakers "support" a regime they hate, call for the end of Israel, etc. I may agree that those positions are shitty....but "shitty" is not an exception to the First Amendment. That's what the problem is here -- content-based repression of speech, across the board (again, they aren't just nabbing someone who said "kill that jew over there" or something like that. They're shutting down the entire protest). And mine. I am confident that's exactly what happened, AND Hartzell was told that if he wants to keep his fucking job, he needs to say it was all his idea. Once you have experience with how this particular governor's office works, you know that's exactly what happened.
  22. So, I presume that you are pissed off when the cops don't pull you over for going 56 in a 55? When you've had some drinks at the tailgate, and while under control, are clearly intoxicated in public, and the cop just smiles at you and lets you walk by? Law enforcement and the prosecutors having the good judgment to not go full "ARREST, TRY, AND EXECUTE THEM ALL!" on every single TECHNICAL violation of the law is absolutely necessary for a functioning society. So, yeah, the approach that the U of Chicago has taken is a damned good chess move. Sure. The protests at Columbia have gotten way out of hand, and I am all for law enforcement clearing them out of the hall and their encampment. But....if you're going to point to campuses where the law didn't go full Gestapo, maybe you oughta point to campuses like Chicago and Northwestern, where administration has been in dialogue with the protesters and has forged a path that has allowed for protest action while also preserving the peace. It can be done. Step 1 for administration is "don't be fucking assholes." When you show up spoiling for a fight.....you often get one. The job of admin should be to forge a path forward that preserves a functioning and safe academic environment. Not "showing those whiny bitches who's boss," which then results in over-the-top pushback, which commences a full shitshow.
  23. The bolded is why "FUCK YOU." You are pissed about the content of the speech. The content doesn't. Fucking. Matter. That's the whole motherfucking point of the First Amendment, and the Texas Statute that your hero governor waved around (whoops....turns out he only meant that law to apply to speech he agrees with. Bad move, Abbott). I don't agree with any of the messages you stated (although you overstate like a motherfucker and commit about a dozen logical fallacies in the process). But they are 100%...not 90%, not 99%, but 100% allowed by law to peacefully state their position, no matter how loathsome any of us may find it. Either the First Amendment protects speech, or it doesn't. You don't get to cherrypick its applicability based on whether you agree with the message. That's the one approach that you can't take. Yet.....a shitload of people on this very thread are taking it, demonstrating yet again that the percentage of Americans who get how the First Amendment works is likely in the low single digits.
×
×
  • Create New...