|
Jack Gladney posted:Why would anyone teach Animal Farm or Nineteen Eighty-Four outside of their very particular historical contexts? To make Orwell seem like an anticommunist reactionary? Why would anyone teach anticommunism in the twenty-first century? Animal Farm is not "anticommunist" its Trotskiist
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
Earwicker posted:Animal Farm is not "anticommunist" its Trotskiist you're contradicting yourself
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
there's more than one way of doing things and I still wonder what it would have been like if anyone other than Big Bad Joe had found Lenin's letter first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone has researched and written an alternative history with that as the theme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Animal Farm is not "anticommunist" its Trotskiist "make Orwell seem" Just like the Animal Farm cartoon that the CIA made in the 70s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:What is it with news websites and videos these days? I don't want to watch a lovely loving video, tell me what the petition said and give me some quotes of why students said they supported it. Most of the time, whenever a headline links me to a video, I just close it without hitting play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:"make Orwell seem" lolwhat
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
nomadologique posted:"do you wan to sign a petition?" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Bloodfart McCoy posted:Most of the time, whenever a headline links me to a video, I just close it without hitting play. same if i wanted to watch tv i'd watch tv
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:lolwhat It was actually the 50s. Sorry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0pys7boNro
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It was actually the 50s. Sorry: here's an article about it. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/books/how-the-cia-played-dirty-tricks-with-culture.html?pagewanted=all
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Do you really need any rights? You can live just fine being told not to blow other men and stuff. I would suggest that you do need a few rights, but only with limits, and definitely not as many as we have now like for example you have the right to life, and to self-determination, unless it's in the state's interest to kill you, or conscript you, or appropriate you for labour. actually that's basically it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:I would suggest that you do need a few rights, but only with limits, and definitely not as many as we have now i can't tell if your posts are meant ironically or not
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:i can't tell if your posts are meant ironically or not i think it's the anime avatar you should keep it in mind when composing your posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
symbolic posted:catering to the millennial market, since they have lovely attention spans and can't read more than two paragraphs without switching to SnapChat or whatever im a millennial and im not gonna sit through whole a loving video theyre going about this rear end backwards
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:I would suggest that you do need a few rights, but only with limits, and definitely not as many as we have now You don't really need self-determination. So basically you only have the right to attempt to breathe for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Animal Farm is not "anticommunist" its Trotskiist No it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Animal Farm is neo-classicist realism
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
animal farm is about talking animals you loving babies, read a real book like the fountainhead smdh
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
"oink oink! I'm a talking pig lets go on magical adventures on our special farm" - a book for babies
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
my life's purpose is based on the one and only philosopher Ayn Rand's magnum opus, Fatlas Smugged
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Fartless Smog
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
im not reading the op so what is the difference between a petition and a "petition"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
The worse ones are the ones who buy into the "Amerikkka sucks" thing so much that they believe that any country outside the States must be some sort of Utopia. I remember seeing a picture of a protester holding a sign about how Palestine is a progressive place where the LGBT community is welcomed. It's actually Israel that is pretty ok with gays, but don't let facts get in the way of narrative
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Fonzarelli posted:God my school seriously did animal farm in fifth grade, year 12 is a hilarious idea. It's really bizarre to see people not care about free speech, but it's apparently a uniquely American value. Pew just did a pretty in-depth international poll about it, and pretty much nobody outside the States thinks freedom of speech is very important. In practice I'm sure that a lot of these countries (European ones especially) are just as permissive, but doesn't it weird you guys out to know that technically you could be breaking the law by speaking certain words? Outside of actively inciting violence or harassment, why should this be a crime? Why should the government have any control over the things you can say? I mean, I get that the rights granted by the US Constitution are effectively conditional (if the government wants to gently caress your poo poo up, it will gently caress your poo poo up regardless of what the law says about it), but it still counts for something to have certain rights explicitly guaranteed in your nation's founding document. At least then, when the government infringes them, they're in the wrong. That probably won't save your rear end in most cases, but at least you have the legal high ground and could potentially sue. It's just really weird to me to not care about that. I'd be interested in hearing a non-American's take on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Wampa Stompa posted:It's really bizarre to see people not care about free speech, but it's apparently a uniquely American value. Pew just did a pretty in-depth international poll about it, and pretty much nobody outside the States thinks freedom of speech is very important. In practice I'm sure that a lot of these countries (European ones especially) are just as permissive, but doesn't it weird you guys out to know that technically you could be breaking the law by speaking certain words? Outside of actively inciting violence or harassment, why should this be a crime? Why should the government have any control over the things you can say? In Canada we have basically the exact same speech rights, we just don't wring our hands over oppressing some literal Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:im not reading the op so what is the difference between a petition and a "petition"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:In Canada we have basically the exact same speech rights, we just don't wring our hands over oppressing some literal Nazis. Right, and I get that, but most Americans think that it's sort of hosed up on principle that a government is able to limit its citizens' speech like that. I mean, it's pretty apparent that Neo-Nazis are repugnant and nobody in their right mind will defend their platform, but why should the government have the right to silence them? They're not actually harming anyone (if their speech were harmful, it would already be covered under existing harassment laws, and these groups are usually very careful to toe the line), and allowing the government to silence certain forms of discourse, even in order to promote progressive/democratic goals, seems like a very dangerous precedent (maybe somewhat less so in a proper parliamentary system, but still). Is the prosecution of these Neo-Nazis in Canada based on specific hate speech utterances (e.g., "On 21. October you gave a speech in which you said, 'Kikes and niggers are subhuman.'") or is it a classification thing like the U.S. has for gangs (e.g., "The Aryan Brotherhood is a known hate organization, so it is illegal to publicly represent it or distribute materials promoting it.")? Either way, lacking explicit protection for free speech seems like it leaves the door open for persecuting all sorts of unpopular opinions, and I think it's profoundly dangerous to allow individuals in political power to determine which positions are unacceptable and ought to be legally prohibited. I can absolutely sympathize with people who are revolted by groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, but if they are to be prosecuted, it should be done on the grounds of harassment. If their actions don't qualify as harassment, then no actual harm is being done, and their speech should not qualify as a crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
repealing the first amendment is not the "logical conclusion" to loudmouth idiots being loud on a private school campus the stunt doesn't even make sense
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Wampa Stompa posted:but doesn't it weird you guys out to know that technically you could be breaking the law by speaking certain words? No not really. quote:Why should the government have any control over the things you can say? There is speech that is illegal in the United States as well, ranging from threats to harassment to obscenity. Where we draw the line is basically when speech causes "harm", and different countries define what "harm" is differently, generally because of the different cultural and historical contexts in their respective societies. Americans would probably consider Neo-Nazi groups and speech to be a lot more "harmful", for example, if the US had actually been under a Nazi government at some point in its history. This is the reason for the strong anti-Nazi laws you see in places like Germany and France, they originated as part of de-nazification. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
im gaye posted:repealing the first amendment is not the "logical conclusion" to loudmouth idiots being loud on a private school campus The first amendment also doesn't prohibit universities from restricting speech, it only prohibits congress from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:No not really. Right. Obscenity has largely vanished as an acceptable legal concept in the US (outside of child and animal pornography), though, which just leaves harassment, which usually has its own legislation prohibiting it. The de-nazification thing makes sense, though; I was aware of Germany's rather stringent laws about owning Nazi paraphernalia, but I hadn't realized that they were immediately post-war measures. As a temporary measure, I can understand passing a law of that sort, and if the entire government of the nation was reformulated in the immediate aftermath of WWII, it makes sense that those laws stuck around. At this point, I think that that sort of legislation creates more problems than it solves, but I know that there are still lingering issues with right wing extremism, so it's a tricky subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Wampa Stompa posted:At this point, I think that that sort of legislation creates more problems than it solves, but I know that there are still lingering issues with right wing extremism, so it's a tricky subject. well modern Germany is a functional democracy, if enough of the people who live there see these laws as "creating more problems than they solve" then they are fully capable of getting rid of them or voting in a government that would get rid of them. but yes neonazis are still a big problem in some places there. right now I'm not sure what major problems are being caused by those laws, but then I don't live there. in the case of Germany it also has to do with how the government was reformulated. in both West and East Germany a lot of the people who were put in power in minor positions after the war (e.g. mayor or police chief in a small town) were low ranking former Nazis because there was simply no one else in Germany at that time with the experience and skills to do those jobs, so it was especially important to try to make sure they had been "denazified" in terms of prohibitons on speech in other countries I have a lot more problems with the laws in places like Saudi Arabia or Russia, but even those don't "weird me out" so much as just make me reluctant to spend time in such places. quote:Obscenity has largely vanished as an acceptable legal concept in the US (outside of child and animal pornography) Not really, if you put a bumper sticker with a huge photo of a penis on the back of your car (or one saying "gently caress the police" or in some towns, any swear words at all), you are going to be getting a lot of attention from the police. Sure you might eventually be able to defend yourself in court, but maybe not because there are a ton of municipal level laws against that sort of thing and if you don't have the money to make a big constitional stink about it, tough poo poo. To a large section of American culture, nudity is considered as "harmful" as hate speech is in other countries. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Wampa Stompa posted:Right, and I get that, but most Americans think that it's sort of hosed up on principle that a government is able to limit its citizens' speech like that. I mean, it's pretty apparent that Neo-Nazis are repugnant and nobody in their right mind will defend their platform, but why should the government have the right to silence them? They're not actually harming anyone (if their speech were harmful, it would already be covered under existing harassment laws, and these groups are usually very careful to toe the line), and allowing the government to silence certain forms of discourse, even in order to promote progressive/democratic goals, seems like a very dangerous precedent (maybe somewhat less so in a proper parliamentary system, but still). Is the prosecution of these Neo-Nazis in Canada based on specific hate speech utterances (e.g., "On 21. October you gave a speech in which you said, 'Kikes and niggers are subhuman.'") or is it a classification thing like the U.S. has for gangs (e.g., "The Aryan Brotherhood is a known hate organization, so it is illegal to publicly represent it or distribute materials promoting it.")? I can't remember the guy specifically, but a writer was extradited to Germany for saying a lot of typical Nazi poo poo and the Germans put him away iirc. Nobody has been hosed with for speaking out against the government or anything like that. It don't think it's anything like a slippery slope because it's a pretty clear line what's acceptable or not. ("Hate Speech" I think.) Meanwhile, you guys protect free speech but...   It doesn't seem like it prevents the slippery slope. Basically the first amendment is the ultimate "feel good" piece of paper, but that's ultimately all it is. Nobody needs a piece of paper to tell you limiting legitimate speech is wrong. Even if there is one, it goes out the window the moment it's inconvenient. SlipUp fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:well modern Germany is a functional democracy, if enough of the people who live there see these laws as "creating more problems than they solve" then they are fully capable of getting rid of them or voting in a government that would get rid of them. but yes neonazis are still a big problem in some places there. right now I'm not sure what major problems are being caused by those laws, but then I don't live there. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I knew that many, many Nazis were never properly purged, and it follows that they'd retain positions of authority, especially at the local level. Thanks for the detailed response. I'm more confused by nations like Canada than I am by backwards countries like Russia/SA; free speech just seems like it would be part and parcel with the rest of the Enlightenment ideals that modern western nations have adopted, so it just strikes me as sort of strange that they don't place the same emphasis on it as they do with the rest of the package. My perception is obviously biased from having grown up understanding the 1st amendment to be a vitally important part of the Bill of Rights. It's evidently completely possible for nations to get by well without an explicit analogue, though. Earwicker posted:Not really, if you put a bumper sticker with a huge photo of a penis on the back of your car (or one saying "gently caress the police" or in some towns, any swear words at all), you are going to be getting a lot of attention from the police. Sure you might eventually be able to defend yourself in court, but maybe not because there are a ton of municipal level laws against that sort of thing and if you don't have the money to make a big constitional stink about it, tough poo poo. To a large section of American culture, nudity is considered as "harmful" as hate speech is in other countries. Good points. And you're right; de facto, in most of those situations you'd be completely hosed unless you're independently wealthy or the ACLU steps in. Functionally the first amendment wouldn't make too much difference in these cases, but all the same I think it's preferable to have it in place, even if just to make you feel better as you get hosed over by the long arm of the law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Meanwhile, you guys protect free speech but... Exactly! The US more than most countries really only offers "rights" if your actions are completely unobtrusive or if you have the political/financial power to defend them yourself, otherwise you're hosed. Carlin summed it up well George Carlin posted:In 1942, there were a 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had, “right this way” – into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took ’em away. And rights aren’t rights if someone can take ’em away. They’re privileges, that’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges I still think there's real value in having these "feel good" principles. Over time, regardless of how little they apply to each generation of citizens, they become key parts of the national identity. I mean, look at the Pew Poll; despite all the bullshit which has effectively limited free speech during the current population's lifetimes (those absurd "free speech zones" not least among them), 71% of Americans still strongly support it. These principles provide something for a nation to aspire to, if nothing else, and maybe later on down the line they can inspire citizens to demand they be applied more consistently. Maybe I'm too idealistic about it, but I think that's a good thing, and that the US' strong tradition of at least nominally defending these principles (regardless of how rampantly it undermines them in practice) is a mark in the country's favor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Nobody needs a piece of paper saying what is a law. Just do what is proper, idiot!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Wampa Stompa posted:Exactly! The US more than most countries really only offers "rights" if your actions are completely unobtrusive or if you have the political/financial power to defend them yourself, This doesn't seem remotely true in the context of how Europe handles free speech
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Wampa Stompa posted:Exactly! The US more than most countries really only offers "rights" if your actions are completely unobtrusive or if you have the political/financial power to defend them yourself, otherwise you're hosed. Carlin summed it up well Would you agree then that the first amendment is essentially a really good piece of propaganda? (I like that you brought up Carlin, I was gonna do it myself haha.) Maoist Pussy posted:Nobody needs a piece of paper saying what is a law. Just do what is proper, idiot! Justin Trudeau is a bitchmade fucboi. *Waits for the thought police* *Dies of old age* We do have some speech protection buried in our code somewhere. (I am doing zero research on this so I'm not going to bother looking it up, but we have much more limitations than you guys. My above statement could be construed as hate speech but it won't be.) First they came for the Nazis and I didn't speak out. Then... Well everything was kinda nicer honestly. (Your statement is actually pretty accurately Canadian.) SlipUp fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
You don't sacrifice liberty for safety ya'll. Mental or physical or societal safety or any combination thereof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:39
|
|