This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Graylight · 51-55, F
Can you prove any of what you just typed?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Graylight · 51-55, F
@AgapeLove Okay, a few things here. The fact that Marx is assigned reading (and the article has been corrected to point out flaws in the algorithm) isn't an indication that universities are promoting that social theory. It's a lot like the returns that come with 'Hitler.' Studying a topic isn't the same thing as promoting it. There's nothing "radical" about comparison study.
As to anti-free speech, the quoted statistic came from a congressman during a debate. When it was investigated, it was found to be misleading.
According to Sasse, 40 percent of Americans under age 35 said the First Amendment was “dangerous.” But Pew didn’t even mention the First Amendment or the word “dangerous.” Had it mentioned either, the poll results might have turned out differently.
For the full discussion of how polls can be poorly interpreted, check out: [i]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/04/12/do-40-percent-of-young-americans-think-free-speech-is-dangerous/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ac8206158ed4[/i]
I only finally suggest that it's not necessarily a bad thing that people today are more sensitive to minorities and the microaggressions that language is full of. Do we sometimes go too far? Of course. But progression of the human species is the goal here, and inclusive speech is part of that.
As to anti-free speech, the quoted statistic came from a congressman during a debate. When it was investigated, it was found to be misleading.
According to Sasse, 40 percent of Americans under age 35 said the First Amendment was “dangerous.” But Pew didn’t even mention the First Amendment or the word “dangerous.” Had it mentioned either, the poll results might have turned out differently.
For the full discussion of how polls can be poorly interpreted, check out: [i]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/04/12/do-40-percent-of-young-americans-think-free-speech-is-dangerous/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ac8206158ed4[/i]
I only finally suggest that it's not necessarily a bad thing that people today are more sensitive to minorities and the microaggressions that language is full of. Do we sometimes go too far? Of course. But progression of the human species is the goal here, and inclusive speech is part of that.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Graylight · 51-55, F
@whynottalk No, no and no.
There's not a single Democratic policy calling for open borders, no push against the 1st Amendment and regulation is not the same as a ban on the right to bear arms.
Democrats want humane treatment and sane regulation at the borders. The right to bear arms is just that, but every right comes with some regulation. And if Democrats were really against free speech (as, say, Trump seems to be) then inane and ignorant posts like the one you just crafted would be prohibited.
There's not a single Democratic policy calling for open borders, no push against the 1st Amendment and regulation is not the same as a ban on the right to bear arms.
Democrats want humane treatment and sane regulation at the borders. The right to bear arms is just that, but every right comes with some regulation. And if Democrats were really against free speech (as, say, Trump seems to be) then inane and ignorant posts like the one you just crafted would be prohibited.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Graylight · 51-55, F
@whynottalk What an open, enlightened point of view.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Graylight · 51-55, F
@whynottalk Yes, I'm sure it's admired by cave dwellers everywhere.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment