Jump to content

Mikey4

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mikey4

  1. If you gave the protesters a multiple-choice question -- choose among (a) capitalism, (b) socialism, or (c) communism -- I doubt we see many people picking (a).
  2. That's what I'm thinking. A national, sort-of-organized counter protest of the national, sort-of-organized protest. Wcgw?
  3. That gofundme is up to $459,000, mostly from small (<$100) donations. If they're smart, they'll leverage this into a bigger, organized response with social media presence. https://www.gofundme.com/f/pi-kappa-phi-men-defended-their-flag-throw-em-a-rager
  4. Watched the video. It made my stomach turn, but article was even worse. Makes it sound like the treadmill deal was just the tip of the iceberg. Poor kid.
  5. I was responding to the contention that protesting against Israel is not necessarily anti-semitism. Perhaps not every protester is an anti-semite -- hell, some don't even know what they're protesting -- but it's damn hard to draw a line between wanting to annihilate Israel and wanting to subjugate or annihilate the 7 million Jews who live there. To your point -- Israel was fine with the 67 borders and Palestinian self-governance until attacked. Israel was fine with Palestinian control of Gaza until attacked. Israel has repeatedly offered a two-state solution only to be rebuffed every single time, including by bloody intifada. Don't act like mainstream Israelis are set on annihilation of Palestinians. They want to be left alone.
  6. The problem is that people chant "from the river to the sea," which basically rules out a two-state solution, but do not explain what will happen to the Jewish people who have inhabited that land for 3+ generations now. It sure sounds like a masked call at best for subjugation of Jews, and at worst for genocide.
  7. 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.
  8. I'll take 10-2 We win 8 of 9 vs CSU, UTSA, ULM, Vandy, Florida, Miss. St., Kentucky, Arkansas, and A&M We win 2 of 3 vs Michigan, OU, UGA
  9. You're just watching the wrong meetings. https://youtu.be/mUfOFnIndwY?si=bv0VoqIfojDOV5nN
  10. I'm one of them, so it's not a problem.
  11. 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?"
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Yes, shoes assist in protesting for the reason you mention, and a ban on shoes would burden speech. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.
  23. Exactly why I avoid CR and generally avoid DT as well.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...