Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    43,301
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    237

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 49 minutes ago, troph said:

    first amendment does not protect all speech and neither you nor I are there to hear what is being said.  it doesn't protect any assembly either. frankly I side more on the side of the first amendment here, but it's not carte blanche to do or say anything. I don't think the assemblers are interested in full compliance with first amendment laws.

    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).

    24 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

    That's not an opinion, it's a supposition.  And it runs counter to Hartzell's text saying he requested DPS presence.  Unless your supposition is also that Abbott ordered Hartzell to request DPS presence, Hartzell requested their presence, and then Hartzell lied to a state senator about the source of the request.  

     

    17 minutes ago, Blotto said:

    you have correctly surmised my opinion. 

    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.

  2. 1 hour ago, Alien Octopus said:

    Yeah ok, then what is all this outrage about spraying students when they are not students? They are paid protestors espousing the protection of the Death to America, Kill Jews, Mutilate Women and sell children regime?

    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.

    • Hook 'Em 8
    • Like 1

  3. The interesting thing is that statement isn’t capitulating it all. There’s even a little nicely veiled “you can go have your little protest over in the corner and we will look the other way in deference to your rights to free speech” snark to it. Then outlines the somewhat vague notion of “when this gets disruptive we may act”.


    Smart in that it doesn’t come across as heavy handed but still makes clear there is a line.

    And there should be a line. “The administration is spoiling for a fight and a chance to look like the Gestapo” shooting be that line.
    • Like 1
  4. d10aa12b4a6d8e578609af50126daaa1.jpg
    I know we have had a couple of Hawks in our neighborhood for a while now. Hard to get a picture of them. But just had this guy in my neighbors yard. Crested Caracara Falcon?

    Yeah. Interesting thing is, I’ve seen multiple in just the last few weeks, after never seeing any around here (only ever saw them in S Texas). They’re a cool-ass bird.
  5. Social media in that instance, because that’s where the bullshit is spreading, and that desire for likes and to be accepted drives that shit and makes it easy.  These younger people can get wrapped up in a false social media image of what is presented as being a manly man or whatever.
    I personally think it starts with kids being allowed to watch toy unwrapping videos on YouTube, along with the videos of adults trying to sound like kids and playing with said toys (all the while very adult hands are seen on camera manipulating the toys).  I think it puts those kids in an unrealistic and entitled mindset.  They get a dopamine hit from seeing new toys unboxed, and they end up going down that path of trying to see stuff that makes them feel good.

    And the next thing you know, we’re searching for all the videos we can of people fucking their newly unboxed toys. Right, guys?
    Guys?
    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  6. The Republican "small government-state’s rights” has always been a patriotic propaganda smoke screen to keep White Christians/Capitalists in power … and to resist progress … to resist equal rights … to resist protecting the environment ... to resist the very existence of modernity and the 20th and 21st centuries. 
    They’ve veered at least since Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex >>> more with Nixon-Kissinger war crimes (etc)  >>> a bit more with Reagan regime >>> then the Bushes, ramping up with W’s neofascist Patriot Act/Homeland Security and theocratic faith-based initiatives >>> full on fascist theocracy with MAGA Trump. 

    Once you crack the not-subtle code of “small government for me, suffocating theocratic micro-managing for thee,” their bullshit message makes perfect sense.
    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 4
  7. 1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

    I don't really know either of them well.  Tate seems like pseudo alpha a-hole.  Peterson insists on himself, but I haven't heard him espouse similar.  He says there are women psychopaths, but they can't use physicality to victimize so they use other means.  Which seems pretty right to me.  There are bad, bad people of both sexes out there.

    Peterson somehow manages to bundle "every woman who isn't a submissive tradwife type" into the "psychopath" group.  Women who exercise any agency fucking piss him off.  They piss off all of these losers.  Why?  Because women with agency and options don't fuck guys whose primary approach to women is "I'm the man, you owe it to me to give up the pussy."  Peterson puts a better vocabulary on it, with that nice Canadian accent and delivery, but the message boils down to the same thing.  Women who want to be submissive trad wives are emotionally and mentally healthy, women who exercise agency and dare reject sub-standard men are meanie psychos.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    Kinda hard to clean up after yourselves when you’re run off with pepper spray. How about sending in a couple of bike cops to say “hey guys just here to make sure things don’t get out of hand, and please clean up after yourselves when you take off.” But that’s not what this is about of course, hence Hotwheels’ Gestapo.

    Correct.

    That's because this show had ZERO to do with "keeping the campus and students safe," or "keeping campus clean and orderly."  Zero.  Actually, a negative number, because the cops WANTED it to look chaotic and messy - it serves their purpose.  There were 1,000 different permutations of this that would have better accomplished those goals, but none of those permutations have the cops dressing and acting like Stormtroopers, so those options were right out.

    This was a performative display of fascism, nothing more.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

    What’s the deal with all these Germans wanting to be Russian cucks?

    There have always been deep ties between them, all the way back to the Hanseatic League.  I mean, they were fucking bonded allies at the start of WWII.  And they both love them some shiny-boots authoritarianism.  Germany has plenty of cultural and political strains to the contrary, of course....but it's always had a sizable portion of its folks who are prone to sucking Russian dick.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  10. 2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    The way I read that rule bringing tents on campus is only prohibited after 10 pm.  "bringing tents on campus...later than 10:00 p.m."

    It's poorly written.  The English department coulda give them some help with those.  Then again, based on what I know of folks in the English department, they'd have told the admin to get fucked.

  11. 1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Regarding the tents:  I've reviewed all the footage I can on KXAN and I see one tent.  I see a shit-ton of umbrellas, which I think we can all agree is not a tent.

    So, wtf?

    Perhaps you are unaware of the negative history of a psycho bitch named Mary Poppins?  We can't have that bullshit in our state, nosiree.

    • Haha 2
  12. 12 minutes ago, Smax said:

     

    Rules attached for you to look over 

     

    Guess it's the capitalist in me but the university should go ahead and "grid off " spaces on the lawn like they do for tailgaters during football season and charge like $100 or whatever for a day pass. Whoever applies and gets the pass, make them sign a form acknowledging the rules and leave them be unless they start to break said rules

    GMCCo_mXwAARWQt.jpg

    Thanks for posting the full set of rules.  The only thing that's vague (and could be read as violating the new Texas law) is the "no coming to campus without authorization."  The law makes it clear -- EVERYONE is "authorized" to be on the public spaces of all state university campuses.  It may be enforceable to issue trespass warnings and prohibitions against certain individuals based on specific events, but then the rule should say "coming on to campus when entry has been legally prohibited."

    1) there are still ways to handle violations of said rules.  Foremost, only take action against the actual INDIVIDUALS violating said rules.  If it's Jane's tent, then clear out Jane and her tent.  If Jim is wearing a mask and refuses to remove it, remove Jim.  You don't get to "punish" the entire group for individual violations.

    2) they can't charge or require "permits" (the statute our governor was so excited to sign....when he thought it was only to protect right-wing speech....says exactly that).  I think there CAN be a "permit" or "pre-clearance" process that is voluntary, and that the university can ask people to follow in order to help protect the university, the free speech process, and the demonstrators (e.g., if the subject of a demonstration is likely to draw a counter-demonstration, and maybe have a heightened risk of violence, it's good to give UT a heads-up so they can be on guard against shenanigans that could harm any protestors).

    None of this shit is in play, though.  UT is going full-on heavy handed jackboots because that's the message the university wants to send.....when the message is not one the governor favors.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 8 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

    The University of Texas has articulated a list of other rules besides no overnight camping.  Including no tents.  And no masks.  Whether those are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions will likely determine, in a court, the lawfulness of removing/arresting any of these individuals who are violating these rules.

    Got it -- had not seen the strict "no tents, no masks" rules.  And yes, the challenge would have to be to those rules in particular.

    The no masks/no concealing your identity is an interesting discussion.  I am surprised that our current leadership would put that in place, being that it would put some of their preferred groups at risk.  But then, I strongly suspect the policy will only be enforced when the State doesn't like the content of the speech.  That is, the rules are pretextual, and not applied in a content-neutral fashion.  We shall see.

    • Rage+1 1
  14. 14 minutes ago, lucious leftfoot said:

    Too bad the people disagree. They need to check in with some of the posters here. 
     

    IMG-1718.jpg

    To me, this reads that inflation is underreported on the things people actually need. Because unemployment levels are good. GDP is increasing. What else explains the dissatisfaction ?

    What explains it?

    A constant bombardment of "WORST ECONOMY EVER!  BIDENOMICS!"  from the entire right-wing media sphere.  Human beings will believe anything if it is relentlessly pounded into their heads.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. Just now, Frank Drebin said:

     

     

    They are correct.

    You know who said so?  The Legislature and the Governor.  We the Motherfucking People.  It is a public space, they are allowed - by both a statute and the First Amendment - to peacefully assemble and express their views there, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions like a curfew (no overnight camping).  That's the whole fucking point.  It IS "our lawn."  All of us. Which includes them.

    • Hook 'Em 8
×
×
  • Create New...