45. "the only difference is one is an imagined threat and one is a real one" In response to In response to 44 Sat May-28-16 02:03 PM by rob
>I'm simply talking about the free expression of opinions and >ideas, and the trending strategy used to quell those with >opposing ideas.
but those ideas ARE being freely expressed. these activists are trying to interrupt the repetition of memes. i don't think they've been particularly successful, but CERTAINLY don't believe they're violating anyone's right to free speech.
I'm 100% with anyone who says "it's dumb to throw bottles at cops providing security in san diego."
but it's just wrong to take it further and buy into this narrative that hitting pause on a donald trump speech (a speech where he isn't even going to use complete sentences, in a campaign where everyone will be exposed to days worth of his voice backed by billions of media money) is at all equivalent to the silencing and intolerance others have felt.
>I'm well aware that those with power can strong arm their way >into getting what they want. While problematic in its own >right, this isn't that.
that strong arming is this and more, though. they're not different species.
>To relate your teaching contract example to what I'm >attempting to get at, it's like if you arranged a forum to >discuss the your beef with the religious items in the >contract. >But the other side just keeps pulling the fire alarm so it >won't ever take place. Or you are threatened with your job for >participating (this one fits with the anti-union part)
i have had contracts in the past where i would have been fired for arranging a forum. you don't need to pull a fire alarm when you own the building. the interpretation of the contract is that to discuss your beef, you've violated the contract. i chose to make that compromise when i signed, and i have to reckon with it in my own way, but silence is still institutionalized in this country.