In the Netherlands we've learned that you don't have to respect people but you do have to tolerate them because the alternative is a never ending civil war. It comes with having a diverse society of various cultural and religious backgrounds.
> Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die?
What are the limits of your non-tolerance with regards to someone who is limited to hating you and expressing verbal approval of legal but extreme punishment for people like you?
Answering that question is necessary in order to know if you, and the person you replied to, have the same understanding of the word "tolerance".
For the record, the kind of people who hate you are easily criticized unless they are assassinated, after that they become more or less impervious to criticism.
> Are you trying to get me to say I won't strike first? Because I will.
"Strike first" is the other name of preemptive war - the most fundamental principle of those you desire to strike... Are you really different?
> but some people genuinely just want to hurt others.
If you look closely you may find yourself among them.
> Go troll somewhere else.
Another projection - the troll preemptively yelling "catch the troll".
If you could escape your obsession with extreme violence and converse like a normal person, you'd find out that there are a lot better ways to deal with dumb ideas. Alas, not today.
The straightforward way to read a self-professed Christian—and biblical literalist—characterizing a chapter of the Bible as “affirm[ing] God’s perfect law” is as an endorsement of the laws in that chapter—in this case, condoning the stoning to death of non-celibate gay people.
It doesn't matter what is "straightforward", it matters what is true.
Kirk was being criticised by Ms. Rachel, who used a section of Leviticus ("love thy neighbour") to push back on Kirk's assertion of homosexuality as a sin. Kirk's response to Ms. Rachel was that merely a few sections later, the same Leviticus says that gays should be stoned to death.
That's a way for him to win an argument over the Bible's view on homosexuality, not a way for him to endorse the notion that gays should be stoned to death.
(And most importantly, literalists assert that that laws of Leviticus were repealed by Jesus, so even if he were a literalist Christian, the straightforward interpretation is that he does not endorse stoning gays, since Jesus repealed that law)
"You" should? Who is "you"? Just any guy on the street who decides someone else is wrong?
I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture, and Moses' role in leading the Israelites at that point in time.
For the Israelites, and the Jews living in Israel, Moses' law was the law of the land, the law ordained by God. It wasn't vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. It wasn't no angry mob picking up rocks to stone someone they didn't like.
The stoning of guilty parties that was prescribed, was a state-level execution. It would be the same as any criminal who undergoes arrest, trial by peers, conviction and sentencing.
So if Kirk was saying that God's law prescribed some sentence for some offense, I hope that we can agree that Kirk wasn't encouraging gun-toting vigilantes to go out lynching people in the night without due process or without actual legislation.
Furthermore, we also need to consider the context of these citations in the course of a debate process. Kirk was not a deranged pastor shouting for violence from his bully pulpit. Indeed, many of the debates found him confronting students who were deranged or deluded in many ways, and Kirk would never shy away from meeting them where they were at.
> I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture
I am afraid that people are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture.
It's an open-ended justification for lots of horrible things.
Everybody deserves the right to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the overly enthusiastic adherents want to force everybody to live under their interpretation of the texts.
Failing to recognize this is either willful ignorance or duplicity.
We don't actually know what is true. We can only surmise from the content of his speech. Usually, when one is making assertions about one's own beliefs, one intends to be understood and so the most straightforward interpretation is likely to be the most accurate.
Or are you suggest that he was being deliberately obtuse and cryptic?
From the article, they want to adopt https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/ -- which seems reasonable to me. Some of the other stuff does sound unnecessary.
Although, I will say, when our public schools here allowed walkouts to protest ICE (high schools), I thought it was shameful. Who at the school gets to decide what causes are worthy of allowing the walkouts that people don't get punished for missing school? Which causes are OK for the teachers to push upon students, who decides that?
If I were a parent, I'd be upset that they put my kid in a position to either participate in the walkout or face pressure from other students for "disagreeing" with them or supporting ICE. That's an unfair position for a student to be in because the school is trying to push a particular agenda.
School walkouts typically have nothing to do with the school itself, and certainly do not ask for it to be allowed. It is the kids who walk out. The schools typically treat it like any other unexcused absence.
The Chicago Statement reads: "Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak [and] write… The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University…
[T]he University's fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, [or] immoral… As a corollary to the University's commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe."
Why? Disrupting a speaker to the level that prevents them speaking (or prevents listening) is an action that clearly infringes on rights of others and restricts freedom of speech. Regardless of content.
Speak at the same time, but in a slightly different place? If you really care about your speech (and not silencing the speech of others), that is clearly acceptable.
I'm not silencing you. We both have the freedom to speak at the same time, in the same place. Such as a political speaker and opposing protesters. Both have the freedom.
> In the Senate, bill sponsor Sen. Paul Rose, R-Covington, said speakers promoting racism would not be protected under the measure.
It really shouldn’t be permissible to blatantly misrepresent the content of a bill before the state Senate. There’s absolutely no carveout for racist speakers in the any draft of the bill that I can find.
Hate begets hate. Call for the death of others, and you might take a bullet to the throat and live just long enough to realize why this is happening to you and the irony.
1a and 14a. I guess not all state reps or senators can afford to or bother to be constitutional scholars like federal rep Jamie Raskin and have to advance patently unconstitutional legislation when feelings-exploitative influencers come calling.
I’m sure it sounded like a good idea to attach a bunch of serious penalties to the law, but college kids do a lot of dumb stuff and this now opens them up to civil (and criminal) RICO lawsuits.
“Your campus group tricked me into coming here with plans to retaliate when I left” is serious fucking stuff with a law like this.
this is a horrific reverse engineering of free speach in order to create a hiarchy that puts specific speach, right wing dog whistle hate speach, at the top.
booing is speach.
walkouts are an absolute right.
public platforms must by definition be open to the consequences of saying the wrong things to the wrong people.
2000 years on we are still dealing with the fall out from the closeing of the agora in Athens, when the last of the free philosophers had to flee, to of all places, Persia.
> “Charlie Kirk was someone who encouraged everyone to love others,” Bulso responded.
Except I recall him endorsing the stoning to death of gay people as “God’s perfect law.”
It was the textbook "reap what you sow" moment.
In the Netherlands we've learned that you don't have to respect people but you do have to tolerate them because the alternative is a never ending civil war. It comes with having a diverse society of various cultural and religious backgrounds.
I'm trans. Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die?
> Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die?
What are the limits of your non-tolerance with regards to someone who is limited to hating you and expressing verbal approval of legal but extreme punishment for people like you?
Answering that question is necessary in order to know if you, and the person you replied to, have the same understanding of the word "tolerance".
For the record, the kind of people who hate you are easily criticized unless they are assassinated, after that they become more or less impervious to criticism.
Are you trying to get me to say I won't strike first? Because I will.
I don't want harm to befall anyone, but some people genuinely just want to hurt others. That's not tolerable.
Go troll somewhere else.
> Are you trying to get me to say I won't strike first? Because I will.
"Strike first" is the other name of preemptive war - the most fundamental principle of those you desire to strike... Are you really different?
> but some people genuinely just want to hurt others.
If you look closely you may find yourself among them.
> Go troll somewhere else.
Another projection - the troll preemptively yelling "catch the troll".
If you could escape your obsession with extreme violence and converse like a normal person, you'd find out that there are a lot better ways to deal with dumb ideas. Alas, not today.
I'm not reading that. Thanks, but you're wasting your time. Go troll somewhere else.
"You deserve to die" is not a tolerable opinion.
> "You deserve to die" is not a tolerable opinion.
Go on, word it in the positive. What does a person expressing such an opinion deserve?
Ah, I see. You're just a troll.
[dead]
You recall incorrectly, as he was using that example in the bible as to why you don't follow a literal interpretation.
The straightforward way to read a self-professed Christian—and biblical literalist—characterizing a chapter of the Bible as “affirm[ing] God’s perfect law” is as an endorsement of the laws in that chapter—in this case, condoning the stoning to death of non-celibate gay people.
It doesn't matter what is "straightforward", it matters what is true.
Kirk was being criticised by Ms. Rachel, who used a section of Leviticus ("love thy neighbour") to push back on Kirk's assertion of homosexuality as a sin. Kirk's response to Ms. Rachel was that merely a few sections later, the same Leviticus says that gays should be stoned to death.
That's a way for him to win an argument over the Bible's view on homosexuality, not a way for him to endorse the notion that gays should be stoned to death.
(And most importantly, literalists assert that that laws of Leviticus were repealed by Jesus, so even if he were a literalist Christian, the straightforward interpretation is that he does not endorse stoning gays, since Jesus repealed that law)
He's saying that instead of loving gays as your neighbour you should kill them
"You" should? Who is "you"? Just any guy on the street who decides someone else is wrong?
I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture, and Moses' role in leading the Israelites at that point in time.
For the Israelites, and the Jews living in Israel, Moses' law was the law of the land, the law ordained by God. It wasn't vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. It wasn't no angry mob picking up rocks to stone someone they didn't like.
The stoning of guilty parties that was prescribed, was a state-level execution. It would be the same as any criminal who undergoes arrest, trial by peers, conviction and sentencing.
So if Kirk was saying that God's law prescribed some sentence for some offense, I hope that we can agree that Kirk wasn't encouraging gun-toting vigilantes to go out lynching people in the night without due process or without actual legislation.
Furthermore, we also need to consider the context of these citations in the course of a debate process. Kirk was not a deranged pastor shouting for violence from his bully pulpit. Indeed, many of the debates found him confronting students who were deranged or deluded in many ways, and Kirk would never shy away from meeting them where they were at.
> I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture
I am afraid that people are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture.
It's an open-ended justification for lots of horrible things.
Everybody deserves the right to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the overly enthusiastic adherents want to force everybody to live under their interpretation of the texts.
Failing to recognize this is either willful ignorance or duplicity.
[dead]
[dead]
We don't actually know what is true. We can only surmise from the content of his speech. Usually, when one is making assertions about one's own beliefs, one intends to be understood and so the most straightforward interpretation is likely to be the most accurate.
Or are you suggest that he was being deliberately obtuse and cryptic?
> The Charlie Kirk Act, named for the late conservative activist, addresses free speech on college campuses.
> The act would bring disciplinary action against students and faculty members that who disrupt a guest speaker by protesting or staging a walkout.
It reads like a bad joke but this is what people vote for.
From the article, they want to adopt https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/ -- which seems reasonable to me. Some of the other stuff does sound unnecessary.
Although, I will say, when our public schools here allowed walkouts to protest ICE (high schools), I thought it was shameful. Who at the school gets to decide what causes are worthy of allowing the walkouts that people don't get punished for missing school? Which causes are OK for the teachers to push upon students, who decides that?
If I were a parent, I'd be upset that they put my kid in a position to either participate in the walkout or face pressure from other students for "disagreeing" with them or supporting ICE. That's an unfair position for a student to be in because the school is trying to push a particular agenda.
School walkouts typically have nothing to do with the school itself, and certainly do not ask for it to be allowed. It is the kids who walk out. The schools typically treat it like any other unexcused absence.
The "allowed" aspect that you're ignoring is about punishment. Some walkouts are punished while others aren't, based on ideology.
More likely based in scale, in the sense of "they can't punish all of us."
The Chicago Statement reads: "Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak [and] write… The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University…
[T]he University's fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, [or] immoral… As a corollary to the University's commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe."
It's interesting which institutions or faculty groups have endorsed this or statements said to be substantially similar: https://fire.org/research-learn/chicago-statement-university...
Related debates here include the contrast between American support of more absolute freedom of speech and European support for broader limitations on speech (wehrhafte Demokratie, streitbare Demokratie), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
[dead]
Why? Disrupting a speaker to the level that prevents them speaking (or prevents listening) is an action that clearly infringes on rights of others and restricts freedom of speech. Regardless of content.
You have the freedom to speak, I have the freedom to also speak at the same time. I ALSO have the freedom to not listen.
Speak at the same time, but in a slightly different place? If you really care about your speech (and not silencing the speech of others), that is clearly acceptable.
I'm not silencing you. We both have the freedom to speak at the same time, in the same place. Such as a political speaker and opposing protesters. Both have the freedom.
> In the Senate, bill sponsor Sen. Paul Rose, R-Covington, said speakers promoting racism would not be protected under the measure.
It really shouldn’t be permissible to blatantly misrepresent the content of a bill before the state Senate. There’s absolutely no carveout for racist speakers in the any draft of the bill that I can find.
Hate begets hate. Call for the death of others, and you might take a bullet to the throat and live just long enough to realize why this is happening to you and the irony.
i wonder how long until this struck down as unconstitutional
1a and 14a. I guess not all state reps or senators can afford to or bother to be constitutional scholars like federal rep Jamie Raskin and have to advance patently unconstitutional legislation when feelings-exploitative influencers come calling.
Original title: Tennessee’s Charlie Kirk Act bans student walkouts, protects conservative speakers
I’m sure it sounded like a good idea to attach a bunch of serious penalties to the law, but college kids do a lot of dumb stuff and this now opens them up to civil (and criminal) RICO lawsuits.
“Your campus group tricked me into coming here with plans to retaliate when I left” is serious fucking stuff with a law like this.
this is a horrific reverse engineering of free speach in order to create a hiarchy that puts specific speach, right wing dog whistle hate speach, at the top. booing is speach. walkouts are an absolute right. public platforms must by definition be open to the consequences of saying the wrong things to the wrong people. 2000 years on we are still dealing with the fall out from the closeing of the agora in Athens, when the last of the free philosophers had to flee, to of all places, Persia.
[dead]
[flagged]