rEvolutionist wrote:Forty Two wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:I doubt they actually feel unsafe. It's probably just a tactic to shut down support for Trump.
Of course they don't feel unsafe. And, who gives a flying fuck if they did?
They are using "unsafe" in place of "offended" or "don't like that."
No, I'm saying they probably don't feel any of that. They see Trump as dangerous and they are taking a stand.
Taking a stand. LOL.
That's like Trump supporters taking a stand against Hillary supporters by reporting "Hillary 2016" to college administrators, and seeking to have the administration silence that point of view, but not their own.
rEvolutionist wrote:
I mean, I don't know for sure. They could be little petals. I guess it's hard to understand how anyone could feel unsafe or offended by chalk on a footpath. I'm assuming they are making a political statement, not a personal statement.
Assuming that, then they are liars, who claim to be "unsafe" when they are not.
rEvolutionist wrote:
They are little fascists who want to foment administrative investigations and they hope prosecutions against students that support a candidate they don't like. And, these days, college students really don't think it's free speech to say what Donald Trump says, and by extension to say one supports Donald Trump.
That's the shit we're facing here in the US.
You seem resistant to believe it. And, maybe it's not an issue in Oz. But, it sure as shit is an issue here.
It depends on what you are talking about. If they are being delicate little petals, then yeah, we don't seem to have as much of that in Oz as there. But if we are talking about political action, then that is a different thing. I view Trump differently from you. You adhere to ideological free speech (Hitler deserves his free speech). I tend to adhere to the principle: Those who turn a blind eye to evil give it approval to happen (paraphrase).
No, that isn't an accurate description of my position. Hitler deserves his free speech, of course, but free speech does not mean freedom from counter-speech or protest. It's just fine to protest Hitler or Ghandi or Dawkins or the Pope. What isn't fine is the use of state or educational institution power to silence political speech based on the content of that speech.
If these little petals were out in force, chalking sidewalks themselves, marching, carrying signs, etc. -- fine. That is their freedom too. But, it is not appropriate for authorities to be investigating with a view to prosecuting political opinions, even if those opinions are seen by some to be hateful or xenophobic.
What bothers me, personally, about these little petals is that they really believe that contrary opinions, speech they don't like or consider hateful or xenophobic, is not protected speech. It's bizarre to me. They do not have a sense of objectivity, and are unable to remove their personal feelings from the analysis of whether the actions of the government or school authorities should be content neutral.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
