Interestingly, you are only correct if you’re comments don’t have the effect of stopping someone from posting.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Interestingly, you are only correct if you’re comments don’t have the effect of stopping someone from posting.[/quote]
If, hypothetically, my comments stop you from posting, no First Amendment privilege has been shattered - merely you haven’t the stomach for a rigorous exchange of ideas.
That isn’t crushing dissent. A private actor sounding out another private actor is not crushing dissent.
Your freedom of speech is not supplied with an entitlement to be heard or supported.
When the government says you will be punished for speaking out against the government - then we have a problem with dissent being stifled. Till that day comes, dissent is alive and well.
[quote]If, hypothetically, my comments stop you from posting, no First Amendment privilege has been shattered - merely you haven’t the stomach for a rigorous exchange of ideas.
That isn’t crushing dissent. A private actor sounding out another private actor is not crushing dissent. [/quote]
Thunder, I know your arguments, and I’m not suggesting otherwise.
However, dissent does not have to be crushed only by the government. The crushing of dissent can take many forms, both formal and informal.
Luckily, you are right, there is no systematic government elimination of first amendmend rights that I’m aware of.
However, the fact you don’t see institutionalized action, does not mean the purpose of the statements made are not in fact meant to silence dissent.
For example, look at Rainjack, he has stated recently that he will hound me until I leave the forums. Would you consider that rigorous debate, or a desire to silence me? If he were to drive me away, I would be silenced, would I not?
When does it cross the line (no, not the line of being institutionalized into policy). What if multiple people were hounding you continously, harrassing you, would that be an attempt by that group to crush dissent?
Do you think that people don’t gang up on party lines and beat on each other in these forums for that express purpose?
Punishment and ostracization are in fact attempts at control. Again, you are right, it isn’t institutionalized in formal government policy, though this control is attempted informally by the administration based on the reprehensible tactics used.
As an example, if a child talks back to you, you can ground the child, or otherwise remove privileges, until the child is coerced into behaving as desired once again. Dissent, or unwanted behavior is corrected. However, as the child gets older, this is less likely to work… 
It’s all about raising the cost of participation. Pretend it doesn’t happen if you want… but realize I’m not talking about squelching dissent only through government enforcement, even if that is the only type you are interested in.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If, hypothetically, my comments stop you from posting, no First Amendment privilege has been shattered - merely you haven’t the stomach for a rigorous exchange of ideas.
That isn’t crushing dissent. A private actor sounding out another private actor is not crushing dissent.
Thunder, I know your arguments, and I’m not suggesting otherwise.
However, dissent does not have to be crushed only by the government. The crushing of dissent can take many forms, both formal and informal.
Luckily, you are right, there is no systematic government elimination of first amendmend rights that I’m aware of.
However, the fact you don’t see institutionalized action, does not mean the purpose of the statements made are not in fact meant to silence dissent.
For example, look at Rainjack, he has stated recently that he will hound me until I leave the forums. Would you consider that rigorous debate, or a desire to silence me? If he were to drive me away, I would be silenced, would I not?
When does it cross the line (no, not the line of being institutionalized into policy). What if multiple people were hounding you continously, harrassing you, would that be an attempt by that group to crush dissent?
Do you think that people don’t gang up on party lines and beat on each other in these forums for that express purpose?
Punishment and ostracization are in fact attempts at control. Again, you are right, it isn’t institutionalized in formal government policy, though this control is attempted informally by the administration based on the reprehensible tactics used.
As an example, if a child talks back to you, you can ground the child, or otherwise remove privileges, until the child is coerced into behaving as desired once again. Dissent, or unwanted behavior is corrected. However, as the child gets older, this is less likely to work…
It’s all about raising the cost of participation. Pretend it doesn’t happen if you want… but realize I’m not talking about squelching dissent only through government enforcement, even if that is the only type you are interested in.[/quote]
Who made this rule that “crushing dissent” means the government acted against an individual directly? That whole “critics against the war are reprehensible” is designed to crush dissent…by putting out the impression to the general public that anyone who speaks out is committing some horrible act of immorality. It is amazing the definitions that come out to justify what is seen by many regardless of how much they try to close their eyes. Micheal Moore may have made millions from that movie, however, he is also called a lunatic at every possible political gathering where his name can be thrown out. “Crushing dissent” doesn’t need an act of government. That is what “politics” are for.
[quote]vroom wrote:
When does it cross the line (no, not the line of being institutionalized into policy). What if multiple people were hounding you continously, harrassing you, would that be an attempt by that group to crush dissent?[/quote]
It doesn’t cross any line until the day that your ability to speak is prohibited.
So long as I can speak, that is all I really care about. Odd thing is, I usually hear from the Left that “free speech doesn’t just mean hearing the stuff you like” - and I have always agreed with that.
If I go post on DemocraticUnderground that I think Bush is one of the top 5 presidents of all time, imagine the onslaught of ‘speech’ I would face. But whether I stick around and argue more or I walk away knowing my ideas won’t be received there is my choice - my ability to speak has not been diminished. No one owes me a podium.
Of course they do - and they do it in the real world. It’s called democracy. Individuals and parties scrap, fight, argue, bicker, and cajole.
And, as far as these forums go, there is plenty of ‘ganging up’ both ways.
But this is a poor analogy - parents have control over their kids. No one can ‘ground you’ or remove your privileges in the real world except people that you have given control to (employers) or those who are naturally the government.
What I don’t get - and take this at face value, Vroom, it is not an attempt to goad you or insult you - is how you can berate and condescend to people here and then be concerned that the ‘cost of participation’ is going up because they aren’t tolerant and respectful enough of dissenting viewpoints.
And seriously, I am not using this as a platform to try and insult you, but if you are so worried about raising the cost of participation, why do you argue the way you do?
I think that most people crying about dissent are simply frustrated that their viewpoint is being challenged or not not taken seriously in a given context. I think that most people who think they have some ideas on politics, etc. get into discussions only to find that people challenge them on what they think and they get frazzled.
Communism is not a noble idea but impractical. It’s an evil idea. It’s wrong and unnatural to try to try to obtain equality of outcome. Safety nets and social programs are one thing, and a thing I fully support. But some of the most noble human virtues and characteristics, hard work, discipline, pride, passion, are irrevocably link to reaping benefitis from your efforts. It is wrong to prevent people from reaping what they sow. It is perhaps inevitable that people rise to positions of power and corruption. Besides the fact of telling people what jobs they should do infringing on intrinsic autonomy. I’m not the big toe of some fucking larger body. I’m my own person.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Try an experiment. Call America anti-Communist, jingoistic, expansionist, militarist, call it racist and governed by business parties which are indistinguishable on the fundamentals, point out that Americans are inclined to equate dissent with lack of patriotism and to discourage dissent accordingly, and most Americans will agree. Tell them America is fascist (for what is fascism, but all of these things together?) and they’ll react as if you just said “fuck.””.
[/quote]
Hmm. I don’t know. A lot of people I know, of all political persuasions, are very upset with the state of the affairs in this country right now precisely because they feel we are becoming to fascist.
[quote]vroom wrote:
For example, look at Rainjack, he has stated recently that he will hound me until I leave the forums. Would you consider that rigorous debate, or a desire to silence me? If he were to drive me away, I would be silenced, would I not?[/quote]
Absolutely not. You would have conceded that you were beaten. I don’t have the power to take any rights from you - assuming you were an American citizen and actually possessed the rights we provide under our constitution.
Wanna talk about institutional? The left has it ingrained in their minds that vocal disagreement with their idiocy is the same thing as trying to silence them.
You don’t have the right to be heard. But you cry like a spolied child if you are not listened to, and told to go elsewhere.
You have to exercise the rights you have. It is not my responsibility to help you exercise them. Nor am I stripping you of any rights because I actively exercising mine.
The left on this board is very skilled at trying to do that very thing. Disagree with harry ass or the great thinktard and you are a redneck, a Bible thumper, deservning of death, or at the very least a punch in the throat.
You tell me when a line was crossed. You seem to cross it as much as anyone around here.
How many kids do you have, vroom? Talk about what you really know about. You are way wrong, and way out of your league on this one.
Coming from a guy that has the Dodgeball mantra tattooed on his ass - you know full well that it happens on both sides. Youare as guilty of it as anyone - but now you are the one crying about it the loudest. I disagree that it happens.
You are making excuses for the weak. If you think that constituional rights are on the chopping block in these forums - you couldn’t be more wrong.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
For example, look at Rainjack, he has stated recently that he will hound me until I leave the forums. Would you consider that rigorous debate, or a desire to silence me? If he were to drive me away, I would be silenced, would I not?
Absolutely not. You would have conceded that you were beaten. I don’t have the power to take any rights from you - assuming you were an American citizen and actually possessed the rights we provide under our constitution.
Wanna talk about institutional? The left has it ingrained in their minds that vocal disagreement with their idiocy is the same thing as trying to silence them.
You don’t have the right to be heard. But you cry like a spolied child if you are not listened to, and told to go elsewhere.
You have to exercise the rights you have. It is not my responsibility to help you exercise them. Nor am I stripping you of any rights because I actively exercising mine.
When does it cross the line (no, not the line of being institutionalized into policy). What if multiple people were hounding you continously, harrassing you, would that be an attempt by that group to crush dissent?
The left on this board is very skilled at trying to do that very thing. Disagree with harry ass or the great thinktard and you are a redneck, a Bible thumper, deservning of death, or at the very least a punch in the throat.
You tell me when a line was crossed. You seem to cross it as much as anyone around here.
As an example, if a child talks back to you, you can ground the child, or otherwise remove privileges, until the child is coerced into behaving as desired once again. Dissent, or unwanted behavior is corrected. However, as the child gets older, this is less likely to work…
How many kids do you have, vroom? Talk about what you really know about. You are way wrong, and way out of your league on this one.
It’s all about raising the cost of participation. Pretend it doesn’t happen if you want… but realize I’m not talking about squelching dissent only through government enforcement, even if that is the only type you are interested in.
Coming from a guy that has the Dodgeball mantra tattooed on his ass - you know full well that it happens on both sides. Youare as guilty of it as anyone - but now you are the one crying about it the loudest. I disagree that it happens.
You are making excuses for the weak. If you think that constituional rights are on the chopping block in these forums - you couldn’t be more wrong.
[/quote]
HAIRY ASS! I forgot how funny and clever that was. You should be one of those jewish comedians, you’re so clever and funny.
Seriously, grow up.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Seriously, grow up.
[/quote]
Or what? You’re gonna punch me in the throat?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Seriously, grow up.
Or what? You’re gonna punch me in the throat?
[/quote]
Yes. Yes, I will.
(Can anyone tell me when all the right wing-nuts lost all ability to discern between jokes and real life?)
[quote]harris447 wrote:
(Can anyone tell me when all the right wing-nuts lost all ability to discern between jokes and real life?)
[/quote]
Hey - your the one that clarified it in a later post by saying that you meant what you said. If I’m not mistaken, you are the same goober that called for the extermination of rednecks.
Yep - that’s some really funny shit right there.
Why are you copying the thinktard’s MO? It doesn’t work.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
(Can anyone tell me when all the right wing-nuts lost all ability to discern between jokes and real life?)
Hey - your the one that clarified it in a later post by saying that you meant what you said. If I’m not mistaken, you are the same goober that called for the extermination of rednecks.
Yep - that’s some really funny shit right there.
Why are you copying the thinktard’s MO? It doesn’t work.
[/quote]
Wow, you’re not bright. My “clarification” was sarcasm that everyone else seemed to understand except for two people, you being one of them.
Also, can you please post where I said that “rednecks should be exterminated”?
And, have you noticed that “thinktard” isn’t catching on?
Rainjack,
Nice to see you can actually participate in a conversation rationally… at least for short periods of time.
–
[quote]What I don’t get - and take this at face value, Vroom, it is not an attempt to goad you or insult you - is how you can berate and condescend to people here and then be concerned that the ‘cost of participation’ is going up because they aren’t tolerant and respectful enough of dissenting viewpoints.
And seriously, I am not using this as a platform to try and insult you, but if you are so worried about raising the cost of participation, why do you argue the way you do?[/quote]
Again, realize that I agreed that it isn’t an institutionalized elimination of rights – so let’s not try to paint me into that corner falsely (paying attention Rainjack?).
So, when we go back and forth in these debates, I’m not overly concerned about it. I’m not complaining that I don’t have the right of free speech or any other silly corners which are also oft painted.
However, when the government itself starts to use such tactics, calling those that are reasonably dissenting, such as Murtah, reprehensible, an interesting line is being crossed.
Counter to Rainjack’s explanation above, driving someone from the forum does not imply that they were wrong, or that they lost. Driving people away from the forums silences those viewpoints.
It eliminates a voice that may just have worthwhile things to say.
If I’m not mistaken, when I arrived on these parts, the left was vastly underrepresented, and I was given enough abuse that I thought about just leaving the site a few times. Instead, I gave it back.
Similarly to the argument about whether entertainment becomes news, the effect is what determines whether or not something is happening. If the left were not willing to participate on T-Nation while I’m sure the right would be happy about it, it would be in effect a non-state silencing of opinion.
If the left, or the right, it works both ways, are driven from communities of discussion, then all you have is a bunch of like minded people patting themselves on the back. I suppose that is great, but it doesn’t lead to anything useful, which all our back and forth argumentation actually does.
Perhaps nobody else cares about these things.
I do know that my views on gun control have absolutely been shaped by the arguments with fanatics on here. I agree that any steps taken should not impact on the law abiding. In fact, my entire philosophy of law and regulation has been impacted by this maxim.
When I was younger, my view of birth control was who cares, it’s not my business. Now I worry about the age of the fetus and whether or not it has developed senses and the ability to suffer. Not as far as the right would like, but further than before.
Similarly, I’m willing to admit that the situation in Iraq has possible positive outcomes, and I’m hopeful that we are able to realize them. I don’t, of course, believe the war was started in an appropriate manner, but that is a different issue.
Why does everyone else argue things on here? Is it just to be heard? Or do people actually think about the issues raised and incorporate them slowly into their world views?
I think it is very slow, but when people are forced to confront and argue widely divergent opinion, that it helps them (me) understand the issues better and solidify viewpoints.
Some people, not mentioning names but they know who they are, are not interested in actually discussing issues, but only in browbeating anyone that does not have their own view of the situation. That’s too bad.
To finally answer your question, when confronted with combative posts all the time, I know I fight right back, and I suspect most of us here do. Sometimes it becomes a habit and you start fighting all the time.
So, it’s always in flux. Why do you post the way you do?
Vroom,
Just a quick reply.
I am not sure exactly how I post, but I have no gripes about my voice being drowned out or anything. I rather like a robust discussion, so long as the participants bring a minimum level of plausibility to their arguments and respect for reasonable ideas.
Aye, there’s the rub!
[quote]vroom wrote:
so long as the participants bring a minimum level of plausibility to their arguments and respect for reasonable ideas.
Aye, there’s the rub![/quote]
You and Thunderbolt are gonna rub each other?
(Not that there’s anything…actually,m there’s a lot wrong with that.)
Ewww, hopefully somebody recognized Shakespeare out there…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
If, hypothetically, my comments stop you from posting, no First Amendment privilege has been shattered - merely you haven’t the stomach for a rigorous exchange of ideas.
That isn’t crushing dissent. A private actor sounding out another private actor is not crushing dissent.
Thunder, I know your arguments, and I’m not suggesting otherwise.
However, dissent does not have to be crushed only by the government. The crushing of dissent can take many forms, both formal and informal.
Luckily, you are right, there is no systematic government elimination of first amendmend rights that I’m aware of.
However, the fact you don’t see institutionalized action, does not mean the purpose of the statements made are not in fact meant to silence dissent.
For example, look at Rainjack, he has stated recently that he will hound me until I leave the forums. Would you consider that rigorous debate, or a desire to silence me? If he were to drive me away, I would be silenced, would I not?
When does it cross the line (no, not the line of being institutionalized into policy). What if multiple people were hounding you continously, harrassing you, would that be an attempt by that group to crush dissent?
Do you think that people don’t gang up on party lines and beat on each other in these forums for that express purpose?
Punishment and ostracization are in fact attempts at control. Again, you are right, it isn’t institutionalized in formal government policy, though this control is attempted informally by the administration based on the reprehensible tactics used.
As an example, if a child talks back to you, you can ground the child, or otherwise remove privileges, until the child is coerced into behaving as desired once again. Dissent, or unwanted behavior is corrected. However, as the child gets older, this is less likely to work…
It’s all about raising the cost of participation. Pretend it doesn’t happen if you want… but realize I’m not talking about squelching dissent only through government enforcement, even if that is the only type you are interested in.
Who made this rule that “crushing dissent” means the government acted against an individual directly? That whole “critics against the war are reprehensible” is designed to crush dissent…by putting out the impression to the general public that anyone who speaks out is committing some horrible act of immorality.[/quote]
Im not exactly a huge fan of this administration but you, and the article originally cited, are completely mischaracterizing what Cheney said. He did not say “critics against the war are reprehensible.”
Speaking of a few specific, high level politicians who are making claims that the administration basically lied about pre-war intelligence, Cheney said, “[they are making] one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.” That is completely different than what you are all trying to make it out to be…and I think you know it.
So how come you all arent getting pissed off when conservative lecturers are shouted down at college campuses (dont even try to claim that it doesnt happen either). This is what cracks me up and ties in with the point I was trying to make earlier. Ever heard the expression that people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones?
Look, a bunch of Senators are telling the world that Bush and Co. are a bunch of liers (which is their right) and Bush and Co. are telling the world that those Senators are full of shit (which is their right). Cheney’s comments didnt even come close to “crushing dissent.” No one in the adminsistration has ever claimed that war critics are reprehensible.
Maybe the broader question is why read and post on this site?
I remember when you first started posting on this site Vroom? How do you think it’s changed? Not an insult, just a question.
I seem to remember it was more centered on the Iron game when all of the forums were lumped together. That made the discussions, in my opinion, a little more genuine. The real fringe loonies got beaten down by the regulars. Not necessarily the lefties but the guys who acted like assholes got dismissed pretty quick. I don’t see that much anymore.
Too be honest there are a lot more posters who seem out there these days. Lot’s of hate and lot’s of anger. I just don’t take it seriously and look on any of these discussions as pure entertainment when I have a few minutes to kill. Some of the posters lately seem like they have a vendetta to be heard at all costs and fuck everyone else. That kills the entertainment value for many. There is the rub in my opinion.
This site that we all like so much is a commercial venture. The purpose, I would assume ,is to attract potential buyers and customers who use supplements. The articles, information and forums are designed to provide a venue to market the company and the products. I don’t think it’s a good idea to yell at the customers in someone else’s store, particularly if they let you hang out for free and shoot the breeze.
Perhaps a no flames policy or guideline would bring back some of the commraderie we all enjoyed. Maybe some self restraint or self respect. All those people who say they don’t post anymore or you just don’t hear from were potential customers.