Theater Professor's Firefly Poster Declared Threatening 566
ocean_soul writes "Probably because nothing more threatening was happening and they need to prove their usefulness the school police at University of Wisconsin-Stout decided a Firefly poster with the quote: "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed," was a threat to the safety on campus. Wasn't that a quote about not killing people?"
FSZ's (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely he can hang his poster up in the Free Speech Zone set aside for that purpose. You know, the three square feet way off in the back of the most distant parking lot where you can say whatever you want without fear that anyone will actually hear what you're saying.
-
All free Americans should despise our new so-called "Free Speech Zones". My "Free Speech Zone" used to be called "The United States of America".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I started writing this post, and I thought you made a joke about the FSZ... and I thought I'd just write something witty (which will then get modded down for bad humor). Then I decided to quickly doublecheck, and this Free Speech Zone is actually a real thing. Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone [wikipedia.org]
Then I read a bit more on wikipedia, and I found out that in the US, you're not always allowed to protest, except in your FSZ... which is practically hidden from public view.
don't get confused (Score:3, Interesting)
You are allowed to protest pretty much anywhere if you do so peacefully. At certain big events where there is expected to be disruption and not peaceful protest (like the anti-WTO protests) there are designated free speech zones.
Yes, these free speech zones are far out of the way and not conducive to protest.
You thinking that in the US you cannot protest anywhere else would be equivalent to me looking at the Speaker's Corner article on wikipedia and concluding there is no free speech or protest legally allo
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I had mod points. I'm not sure what people think protests are. Here's a hint: publicity. You go, you hoot, you holler, you sit in, you get in the way. And yep, if you do it during someone's speech you're likely to get arrested for disturbing the peace, etc. But then you, and your cause, are news which is the whole point -- you don't want to interrupt someone's speech, you want your cause to be heard. So you take one for the team and spend a few hours in jail. Don't be an idiot about it -- just
Re: (Score:3)
You are allowed to protest pretty much anywhere if you do so peacefully.
Tell that to the protesters who were barred from going near Wall St about 2 weeks ago (and then in some cases penned in by police barricades and shot with pepper spray).
At certain big events where there is expected to be disruption and not peaceful protest (like the anti-WTO protests) there are designated free speech zones.
No, it's not limited to big events where there is expected to be a disruption. For instance, in 2004, I was outside the Vice-Presidential Debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney. There were no plans by anybody to commit acts of violence, vandalism, or even blocking traffic, just people who wanted to use a political event to engage in pol
Re:don't get confused (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the idea is that they don't want mobs. Too many examples in the past of angry protesting mobs disrupting events; blocking entrances, shouting at people entering the events, etc. Free speech is allowed, disturbing the peace is not. So now the free speech zones seem to be the preemptive approach to avoiding disruption and/or violence. I do agree that many jurisdictions are taking this preemption too far.
Basically we still do have free speech everywhere. But that is not the same thing as being allowed to protest everywhere. You are allowed to walk to the entrance of the NYSE and speak your mind even with unpopular views. However you're not allowed to incite others to violence, or bring a group of people to disrupt traffic and block entrances.
Of course even if this is a legal infraction does that matter? The civil rights marchers went ahead and marched even though it was illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why the freedom of speech is usually followed by the freedom to assemble, so you can't make that silly loophole to free speech.
From the article... (Score:5, Funny)
Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror! (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone send that guy back to kindergarten so he can learn to understand a sentence properly.
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:5, Insightful)
Having watched Firefly, I believe that the quote was saying that the individual would only attempt to kill someone who was in a position to defend themselves and know why that person was attempting to kill them. Even with that more hostile reading of the quote, it is not a threat. The sentiment of the quote could be restated, "I won't blind-side you or backstab you. If I decide that you need to be taken down, you will know I'm coming and will have an opportunity to defend yourself."
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the administration was threatened by that quote, because they clearly aren't in the business of giving people a chance at a fair defense.
If this prof is any good at what he does, he should jump ship, immediately, and find work in an institution that actually fosters learning.
That, or have his students prank the dumb rent-a-cop daily until she checks herself into the nearest psychiatric hospital.
Re: (Score:3)
What is *truly* offensive to me:
We're talking about a quote from a mainstream sci-fi series. A quote. . . posted on the door of a theater professor's door.
Yet, no one would blink twice about Mao Tse Tung quotes/posters (which I've seen, not to mention occasionally repeated by Government officials), Che posters (which are common place in academia), or Holocaust deniers (Google it, these roaches are present at several American academic institutes). There are also a fair number of "academic" North Korea lovers
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about how you were raised. But, I was taught to be kind, respectful and accommodating to women far above and beyond the courtesies you would extend to a man. This mode of operation when interacting with females means they get their side of an issue weighted more heavily than the man on the other side. It's not always fair, but it should be taken into account when trying to understand the situation. And, in my opinion, that is why the distinction was mentioned.
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Because women are different than men?
I think it was because the GGP post referred to the mall cop as a guy, "he", "him", etc.
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:4, Insightful)
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.
No, really. This equality bullshit fad needs to end NOW! Reminds me of the Kurt Vonnegut story "Harrison Bergeron", recently made into a movie, where
The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains
That nicely sums up my opinion of political correctness. If the only way to achieve a stable society is to stoop down to the lowest common denominator, I say ship all the weak, ugly imbeciles off to a damn Mars colony so we can have our nice little utopia, and they can have their real-life Idiocracy. Everyone's happy then, right ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen Firefly (although I've heard good things, mean to check it out) so all I have to go on is the quoted wording. In and of itself, it is clearly not a threat of any kind based upon even the most cursory of examinations. When taking into account the quoted character's personality it may take on new meaning, but that isn't clear from the poster.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't go as far as "only", given this sequence:
The Operative: I want to resolve this like civilized men. I'm not threatening you. I'm unarmed.
Mal: Good. [pulls gun and shoots Operative in the chest, grabs Inara and gets ready to leave]
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:4, Informative)
From the same scene.
The Operative: I have to hope, you know you cannot beat us. Mal: I've got no need to beat you. I just want to go on my way.
and:
Operative: I have a war ship in deep orbit. We locked on to Serenity's pulse becon the moment you entered atmo. I can speak a word and send a missile to that exact location inside of 3 minutes.
The scene you quote is quoted WAY out of context. The conversation took place in a hostage situation. The operative was an assassin that was holding one person hostage with the demand to deliver another person for execution. The violence had already started, and the assassin was not unarmed.
So, the quote "If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed" described the situation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is funny because I understand the poster to be saying exactly what you think it says as well. Except neither the professor nor police chief seem to think it says that at all. The police chief, obviously, sees it as threatening. And the professor? Well, I can not imagine a person who writes this in his e-mail is someone who supports self-defense rights:
I am a committed pacifist and a devotee of non-violence, and I don't appreciate card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons lecturing me about violence.
I really do want to know what the professor thinks the poster's quote means.
Re:Rent-a-cop oversteps his bounds in shock horror (Score:5, Informative)
He thinks it's a quote from a fictional character and being older than 6 doesn't have to 100% agree with the philosophy of said fictional character in order to enjoy the story or think it has some sort of artistic merit.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he thinks it's about a fictional character in a fictional universe? He's a theater professor. He likes the stories. He hung up a TV and/or movie poster. Any movie poster for any movie involving, e.g., guns, is going to be "threatening" by the criteria used in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be very difficult to function as a theatre professor with a complete aversion to fictional violence.
You seem to think that the definition of a pacifist is someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, covers their eyes, and cannot cope with violence.
In fact, of course, a lot of art is created by pacifists, and they are rather more likely to show the reality of violence (nstead of the glorification and romanticism of it that you generally get in Hollywood movies) than to shy away from it.
Why can't people be reasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a twisted way I see how they could have an argument.
If you dig a little deeper (like looking at the case on the FIRE site) the professor then put up a poster against fascism, indicating that fascism can lead to violence and death. Campus police took that one down too and got the dean involved, which is when this guy got a lawyer.
Seriously, Fascism?! Campus police has a problem with a poster against Fascism?!
Basically, what's going on here is that the professor had a poster that could, by a decidedly UNreasonable (but still sane and literate) person be construed to be a threat. Campus police took it down. The guy got upset and replaced it with a new poster which, while DEPICTING comic violence, constituted real political speech and clearly was NOT a threat of any kind. It was phrased as a warning that Fascism can lead to violence. This is where the story should have ended.
Campus police decided that since this guy was a "troublemaker" they would show him by taking down the new poster too and going after his job. This is where campus police went too far. The new poster was NOT a threat, and campus police knew it, or should have known it.
So, the professor got a lawyer.
And, the moral of the story is: Fear the police, they have public opinion, power, and guns on their side.
Re:Why can't people be reasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I've seen some ridiculous communist/fascist loving stuff at University. I've seen people who "admire" Kim Jong-Il, and who "admire" Hitler, and who "admired" Mao.
I have been around various universities pretty much all my life, and I don't think I have ever seen a person who genuinely admired any of the dictators that you mention (except some communist fanatics at the communist government controlled university that I studied when I was young, and these people generally did not belong at a university, and were booted from their positions by the rest of the academic community soon after the revolution). I have seen people who studied Kim Jong-Il, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. I have also seen people who claimed to admire them, in order to shock or create controversy, both in university environments and outside.
These "leaders" killed millions of people in the name of truly evil ideologies, and they are typically tolerated at academic institutions.
If by tolerated you mean discussed and studied, you are right. You see, the thing about academia, the whole purpose of it is to figure out things and understand them, understand where they come from, what caused them, how can we recognize them when they come along next time, etc.
For example, UW Madison had its local paper run an ad by a Holocaust denier, because, "âoeno opinions or assertions can be so offensive that we cannot bring ourselves to hear them.â'
As much as I oppose holocaust deniers, I completely agree with the UWMs reasoning. And I am not the only only one, there is for example this famous quote by Salman Rushdie: âoeWhat is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to existâ. I think he speaks from experience. From an academic point of view, it is impossible to study an opinion or assertion, debate it and argue against it, without hearing it.
Also, UW Madison has *at least* one professor (Erik Olin Wright) who studies the "scientific" ideas of Stalin. A mass murderer by *any* standard. Probably the most prolific mass murderer in history.
Indeed, and that's exactly why we need to study his ideas. We need to understand what did the most prolific mass murderer in history think, how did he justify his actions and so on. If for no other reason, than at least in order to prevent others like him to gain power and attempt to repeat his actions. If you look around the world, there are plenty of people who would very much like to emulate Stalin, and no, most of them (if any) are in academia.
Scary to me that a Firefly poster would be considered the "worrying" document.
I completely agree with you on this. That is completely ridiculous. However, I think that it is not necessarily caused by either liberal or conservative point of view, as many people here argue. I think at the beginning it was simply a stupid business decision. I imagine that the administration on the university probably instructed the cops to be on a look out for certain keywords. I imagine that they are mostly worried that a student will read the poster, misunderstand it, mention it to parents, somebody will call in a reporter, it will be on the news, and bunch of complete idiots will say that someone (it does not matter who) at the university is threatening students, other bunch of complete idiots will believe it, the enrollment will drop, and since most income in state universities these days come from tuition, it will be an economic disaster for the school. I don't agree with that reasoning, I thing it is stupid, but unfortunately, you can see it at various state schools around the country all the time. The rest is just the cop being dumb. No need to spin it into some sort of "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" thing.
Re: (Score:3)
She's not a rent-a-cop or a mall-cop. She's the chief of an actual police department. Many universities have their own police department.
University cops are sometimes real cops (Score:4, Informative)
She's not a rent-a-cop or a mall-cop. She's the chief of an actual police department. Many universities have their own police department.
University of California campus police are real police, state police in fact so they may have wider jurisdiction than the local police department. I recall that every fall quarter, and often in the winter and spring quarters, the same story appeared in the campus paper. A student new to campus ignores instructions from a UC police officer while saying something to the effect of "I don't have to listen to a rent-a-cop", the stories then continues with that student's arrest.
I also recall that UC Police often responded to emergencies near campus, not just on campus. An armed bank robbery occurred near campus, the UC police were first on the scene and "contained" the robber. A local Sheriff's deputy was shot during a "routine" traffic stop 10+ miles away, the suspect fled into an industrial park. While various SWAT teams from the region maintained a perimeter around the park three K-9 teams searched the complex, one was from the UC police.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cop understood the quote just fine, she just disagrees with the message. Cops don't seem to like the idea that normal people should be able (or really even willing) to defend themselves. Partly because they see that as their job, and partly because they don't want ordinary citizens to be able to defend themselves against cops.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's on a college campus it's a pretty good bet that they're actual commissioned police officers.
Also, assholes like you are a large part of why security officers end up bitter and pedantic.
Yeh, I can't speak for all campuses but mine had real cops -- graduated from police academy, carried guns, could arrest you, etc. They weren't part of a Newark precinct number but were apparently recognized cops in every other way and were recognized as having full arrest authority by the State of NJ.
Though I recall someone saying their school had rent-a-cops that could just "write you up." So I guess it varies.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the clarification of the likely employment status of the officer. I'm not sure if you're supposed to be somehow protecting other non-police force security officers somehow by making the distinction, or dragging down the already sullied name of "police officer" by including this barely literate individual within that group. Either way, I don't think my assessment of their demeanour was unfair; They fail at basic English comprehension. I'm s
Re: (Score:2)
TAT (Score:3, Funny)
"I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you."
Posters are unsafe (Score:4, Funny)
Work too (Score:5, Interesting)
I get the same thing at work. A few friends had a photo op for a school project and the main person decided to do a Shadowrun themed shoot. We dressed up in our gear and I grabbed my fake Katana ($40 at a game convention; yea fake) for some fluff along with my hat and oversized coat over my motorcycle jacket (for bulkiness). Anyway, she took some really good pictures. I printed out one of me with my sheathed sword and posted it in my cube. I got a little "talking to" from my supervisor about appropriate content at work.
I've been talked to a few times about different things. My Zombie t-shirt with the shotgun on the back was one. I'm to the point that I have only one non-work related item up in my cubical. My Zombie calendar. I'm actually surprised it's lasted this long.
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't state where you work or what industry you work in, but there is a totally reasonable understanding in most workplaces that everybody maintain a professional business atmosphere. It might sound ridiculous to most of us, but displaying images of weapons and the shambling undead make some people uncomfortable. Businesses, generally by law, need to maintain a work environment free of those kinds of things.
I'm to the point that I have only one non-work related item up in my cubical.
Again I don't know what your organizational culture is like, but at most places I've worked pe
Replacement Poster (Score:2)
Heh, Prof. Miller should replace the poster with something from Nathan Fillion's work in Almost Porn.
Although the situation pretty much follows the quote dead-on. I mean, the girl had arms, I guess.
Funniest part was watching Fillion act like he doesn't know how to act. OK, maybe not the funniest.
Self-defense is disturbing for feminists (Score:2)
...this kind of stuff presses into their ego in a way that is disempowering.
For me, watching the bitch get it is like watching the bad die at the end of a movie.
Interesting that they're both zealots (Score:3)
On principle I side with the forces of Post Whatever You Damn Please On Your Office Door, but isn't there a certain amount of hilarity in how far removed from reality both of these people are in how they approached this issue?
The public safety officer is hewing to the absolute letter of the law with no interest in exercising any kind of critical thinking or good judgment, and the prof leaps directly to 'OMG I AM A VICTIM YOU ARE TRAMPLING MY RIGHTS' as if they'd shut down a newspaper or burned books rather than removing a piece of Hollywood memorabilia from an office door.
It seems to me that a dry, P. J. O'Rourke or Jon Stewart style response might have been better suited to pointing out the absurdity of the situation, instead of the 'I am being victimized by the man' clarion call, but as other posters have said, this is Madison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets see if I understand this. (Score:2, Insightful)
I read the original exchange [http://thefire.org/article/13592.html], as well as the linked article. From that I get the following:
1. The Campus Police saw a poster on a bulletin board near and removed it due the the reference to killing.
2. They notified Professor Miller that he or someone had posted it and they removed it due to the reference. They asked him to contact them with questions
3. He exploded at them about first amendment rights and called them fascists.
4. They asked to sit down with them and
Re: (Score:2)
Unconstitutional restrictions. Being a public university means that content based restrictions unless containing a direct threat or obscenity are unconstitutional.
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I generally agree that the calm, rational approach is the right one, it also shouldn't be the only one in your repertoire. And there are times when exploding on someone is the best way to handle a matter. That is especially true if the other side is acting first, and talking after the fact. Had they talked to him before removing the poster, I dare to guess he would have been calmer.
Here's why I can relate: I live in the center of my city. There's a street filled with pubs nearby. Near the weekend, lots of people over there are drunken assholes. Sometimes, on their way home or whatever, they come through my street, and yell, fight or piss in my entrance. If I ever catch one in the act, I've sworn to myself I'll rough him up badly. Because the fact that he got that idea in the first place disqualifies him for any rational discussion, calm or otherwise. And besides, the damage is already done.
While Miller reacted strongly, it seems to me that he was in a similar situation. They had already removed the poster, and their initial notification didn't indicate they were willing to reconsider, only that they'd answer questions. From his perspective, there was no option for a solution in his interest offered, so exploding was the act by which he intended to open up the issue, so the option "put the poster back" was at least on the table.
Could he have done it in a different way? Maybe. Sometimes, stating your thoughts calmly and rationally is the right thing. But sometimes, it also means you're not going to be taken seriously, and your opponent will not look for a compromise solution, but rather for a way to brush you off, exactly because you aren't loud, so you're not a thread, just a nuissance.
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:5, Funny)
"they come through my street, and yell, fight or piss in my entrance."
when I lived in chicago we solved that one. every friday night 2 of my neighbors and I would sit out on the porch with a gardenhose and a trigger nozzle. Nothing stops idiots like having 3 people hose them down as they walk by.
IT took only 3 weeks of this and suddenly we did not have the problem anymore. Which sucked, because it was a lot of fun drinking on the porch and hosing down idiots.
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Tom, mr UID 822, I for one am quite pleased that you're not one of those P.C. apologists. Yes, people aren't always people, sometimes they're just savages, and should be treated as such.
As someone who has spent far too much time in bars, as both a patron and employee, I whole-heartedly agree with you. The latest generation has been so coddled that they believe themselves impervious to criticism and reprimand. Waking up to a good sore knuckle imprint serves to fill in for the lessons their parents failed to teach.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no. Bucket of water means you have to stand there all night. His UID is low enough to suggest at least a passing familiarity of tech - I might suggest an electric fence charger with a couple of excellent grounding wires and some standing water. Urine streams are reasonably conductive. Bonus points for a web cam.
Just a Reminder about Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
You have as many rights in these United States of America as you can afford to hire lawyers to defend.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing the CP did was a fascist crime?
First of all, the CP (Chief of Police, not Child Pornographer) acted on something that she did not understand in the slightest. A thoughtful person seeks to understand what they are acting against before acting. A thoughtless person believes what they presume and acts on it.
But you know, I can see where a chief of police might find the poster threatening. After all, the quote from a movie (a theatrical expression on the door of a theatrical professor?) stipulates th
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so the real problem isn't that the content of the poster was threatening. The problem is that he didn't show the proper deference to authority. Just making sure we're clear on this.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Honorably, as the poster intended, there's nothing wrong with stating that you won't shoot unaware and unarmed opponents.
However, college campuses, like airports, are areas of heightened sensitivity to threats of violence (especially from firearms and explosives). If someone personally identifies with a series of triggers (for lack of a better word) to kill someone with a firearm, law enforcement will likely take issue.
It's common sense. Don't talk about bombs at an airport. Don't talk about s
Re:Lets see if I understand this. (Score:5, Funny)
Pity the fool (Score:2)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I told him... (Score:2)
Just in case you didn't RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)
If I kill you, you'll never know (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the quote sounds all manly and tough, but I think it's also pretty stupid. If I am going to kill you, it's because it's important that you be dead. It's not a test of my masculinity, or some kind of honor thing where I'm going to let Fate or our skills with a weapon decide which of us really deserves to be deceased.
If I kill you, I'm going to sneak up on you, and you'll have no idea what's happening until you no longer know that anything is happening. It won't be "honorable", just necessary. If it's not necessary, I won't do it.
The real civility and honor comes BEFORE the killing part, where I try to settle our differences like adult human beings, with language. If you have any honor, we'll settle it then. If we don't find an honorable way to settle it, I won't be looking for an honorable solution, just a solution.
Re:If I kill you, you'll never know (Score:4, Interesting)
I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot and kill him.
- Autobiography of Mark Twain
If in doubt (Score:2)
Context (Score:5, Insightful)
I aim to misbehave (Score:3)
Way better quote:
Mal: This report is maybe twelve years old. Parliament buried it, and it stayed buried till River dug it up. This is what they feared she knew. And they were right to fear because there's a whole universe of folk who are gonna know it, too. They're gonna see it. Somebody has to speak for these people. You all got on this boat for different reasons, but you all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make peoplebetter. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave.
. . .
Jayne: Shepherd Book used to tell me, "If you can't do somethin' smart... do somethin' right."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Eric Cartman? Is that you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it was more because some emo pussies got killed or seriously injured in a stunningly immature and irresponsible hazing ritual, after which rich spoiled brats ran shrieking to their daddies to protect them from the consequences of their inexcusable behavior.
Maybe that part doesn't compute for you because you are just another spoiled brat with a big fat mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compromise?
So, was Pelosi and the Democrats compromising when they forced ObamaCare on everyone? [heritage.org]
So the head of the Teamsters Union was compromising when he said "Take those SOB's out"?
There's tons more...if one cares to look just a smidge. Sorry, I just can't believe you meant what you said. Must have mis-stated it...or you're living in a rose-colored glasses induced world there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"ObamaCare" was very definitely an example of them compromising. A few years ago, the exact same scheme would've been considered a Republican idea, and they even piled some extra compromises on top of it. In fact, all the compromising is probably what's going to kill it; they should really have just passed a proper single-payer scheme like other countries have, but in the US that's considered too far-left for the Democrats.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.
Secondly, let's consider a scenario: Group A wants independent states and a small Federal government, so they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. Group B wants to increase Federal government size and power by increasing spending and eventually taxes.
What's the compromise? No increase in s
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, what I don't even
What are you saying here?
Re: (Score:3)
That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.
This is one reason why the right hates education. Anyone who can subtract the sales price from the amount invested can understand what a capital gain is, and can understand that tax was paid on the original investment but has not been paid on the gain. So the right would prefer a populace that can't subtract.
In other words, the capital gain is income, and should be taxed like income. And if you can't understand that, I can see why you'd vote for a tea party candidate. After all you wouldn't want anyo
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
The above comment was presumably brought to us by the "project your side's malevolent activities onto your opponent, get moderated Insightful" school of political thought? Because US politics didn't used to be nearly as far to the right as it was, and the way it got there was through the use of exactly the same tactics by the right that you're accusing the left wing of using - they deliberately drove ideas further and further to the right into the political mainstream, redefining what counted as centrist and far-left as they did so. We know this from statements by members of the right wing saying that this is what they were doing.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're a little confused, or haven't been paying attention. To a right winger, anyone who thinks pollutants should be regulated is a "tree hugging hippie" and global warming is a left-wing conspiracy, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and the poor are all poor because they're barely human,creationism should be taught in schools and think "God helps those who help themselves" is in .the bible (it isn't) and it's your God-given right to never pay taxes ("Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's").
Libertarians can lean to the left or the right. Me, I'm probably more left leaning; you should be able to do whatever you want so long as you don't victimize me, but then I consider paying someone shit for an honest day's work is victimizing him. I'm all for a European-style health care system; our own is simply retarded.
That said, it's just wrong to supress this guy's speech. You should have the right to say anything you want no matter how offensive, but if you slander me I have the right to sue.
You have the right to bare arms, but you don't have the right to point one at me.
Youe rights end where mine begin (and no, I agree that you don't have the right to not be offended).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know. Do you? I mean, do you actually have any evidence that anyone actually tried to do what you've just accused some random, faceless group of actually perpetrating, or are you just rambling incoherently?
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with you.
Many among us are not in the least trying to make our founding fathers visions a reality. One of the first lines of attack against their vision is they attempt to re-define dictionary words through intentional misuse so that the words of the fathers become distorted. I see it all the time when people read "protect the general welfare of the states" as an excuse for the individual welfare system and other intrusions into state affairs. The intentional re-interpretation of the word militia to Nerf the right to keep and bare arms (the bare part is so ignored now). The next line of attack is to increase the power of the federal government to work outside of constitutional constraints. At the turn of the 20th century the constitution was sufficiently in-tact that a constitutional amendment has to be passed for prohibition to pass. Not long after no such thing had to be done to outlaw scores of drugs and regulate the ones that weren't outlawed, they did this various US Code circumventions and one president in particular threatening to "court pack" the supreme court to get his way. Would it take an amendment to outlaw anything today? Hardly. The only reason we still have guns is arms are very specifically protected, but they're chewing away at the edges of that. Even with that protected why can't I wear a sword? Is a sword not a protected arm?
When did the 9th and 10th amendments get repealed? I never got that memo.
Wickard v. Filburn was the worst Supreme Court decision ever. It needs to be revisited TODAY even though all those involved are now dead. This decision, though outright wrong enabled the federal government to creep into every facet of our lives in the guise of regulating interstate commerce. Nobody in the federal government wants to do that, and I don't know any way to get the decision overturned or repealed, the repercussions would be massive.
You are correct about us not being of one mind, but there are many of us that not only aren't trying, but actively circumventing the intent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"How many times have they tried to ban fraternties and sororities because some emo pussies might get their feelings hurt if they don't get a bid?"
Frats are still there. QQ moar.
"How many times have they tried to silence *any* dissent outside of the most batshit crazy Che-Guevara-t-shirt-wearing hippies screaming about oppressive capitalism?"
Zero times?
"How many times have they taken liberal stances on matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing, etc.)?"
Who is "they?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
"Threatening" behavior on campus (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though I don't agree with his liberal bashing, he is right about the offending part.
Its not just people's interpretation of offending behavior, it their interpretation of threatening behavior. I knew a professor who did computer vision research and had a round bulls-eye target (*not* a silhouette target, ie it was the type of target you would find in the Olympics not on a police or military range) shot full of holes on his wall. This target was used in a computer vision project and the professor would occasionally glance at it while thinking of algorithms to apply to its image. He joked he'll have to complete the project quickly because someone will invariably walk by in the hallway and see the target on his *interior office wall* and file a complaint saying the target created a threatening environment. He was serious, he was quite confident he will eventually be asked to take it down.
Re:How about flashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I flash you, your mom, daughter or wife, they aren't hurt, are they?
Actually... probably not.
Does it make me old that I can remember a time when things like flashing, mooning, public urination, and streaking, were seen as being disorderly, but not thought of as psychologically damaging? Now a mooning can make you a registered sex offender.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually, when some right-wing guy brings up the `get a pair' taunt during some argument about some symbol/statement/law that offends somebody, I usually use the following to make them get the point.
1) Mosque at ground zero. If the Muslims have money to set up a mosque there, why is it your concern? You should just swallow your feelings, right?
2) Mapplethorpe Exhibit. Jesus in a jar of urine. You should just man up, right?
3) Gay parade in SF. Everybody should just STFU, right?
You get the picture. There are lots of such examples you can bring up.
Re: (Score:3)
As the bulk of humanity has this capability and psychopaths are by definition uncommon at least, this is horseshit.
Add to this the fact that you cannot in any meaningful or intelligent manner correlate the occurrence of a reduced amygdala and someone's ability to not be emotionally distraught by a perceived insult (yet another layer of uncertainty) and you're pulling this one out of your ass.
Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists (Score:5, Insightful)
Because slamming one side automatically means he's vouching for the other side, right?
Because there are only two real options in your country, both just as bad?
Wake up and realize that what you think is "liberal" and "conservatives" are just two sides of the same superficially democratic machine, and it's only real purpose is to keep itself in power. You only have one party, thinly veiled as two. Any American who gets into a con vs lib argument is just a zombie doing exactly what the system wants them to do. It's very sad and pathetic watching this from the outside, seeing everything you people believe in as a lie. I guess being immersed in it since childhood makes it easier to believe. It's kind of like watching a documentary about cargo cults... it's hard to believe people living in such ignorance exist... but there they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod this guy up!
Democrats and Republicans are like Firebirds and Camaros. They have the same power train, almost all the parts are interchangeable among the same year model, they do the same exact thing, but they were different badges while doing it and they each have their own dedicated group of supporters that argues why their version is better and the other has flaws.
Meanwhile they're completely ignoring every other manufacturer out and using their arguing not to fight each other, but hoping that argume
Re: (Score:3)
There's an important difference between Democrats / Republicans and Firebirds / Camaros though: The cars might actually take you someplace you want to go.
Re:Blame it on Liberals and Communists (Score:5, Insightful)
When using proper definitions - not the modern twisted ones, you can be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
A liberal believes in freedom.
A conservative believes in not wasting.
I'm both, I believe in freedom and not having my freedom trampled in the name of having my income taken to waste on unnecessary overhead.
The modern definition of liberal is one who wishes to impede financial freedom, discriminates against traditional values, impose socialism, and destroy "conservatives".
The modern definition of conservative is one who wishes to impede personal freedom, discriminate against non-traditional values, impose government supported capitalism and destroy "liberals".
This has nothing to do with the political parties each associates themselves with which is actually just one party disguising itself as two. Until Americans realize this we are on the same path of self-destruction.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually pretty true. Madison is similar to the PCU depicted in the movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, folks: divide and conquer.
That sounds threatening.
Re:Come on, Jake, it's Wisconsin (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble with "libertarians" is some have a funny definition of "liberty", thinking that taxes and regulations infringe on their freedoms, when your refusal to pay your fair share and your pollution infringe on my own rights.
You don't have the right to dirty my air and rivers. You should have the right to smoke crack with your hired bitch; it's your right to destroy your life any way you deem fit. Smoke your crack, but don't burglarize my house to pay for your habit.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF!? With nothing but minimalistic protections such as adblock and noscript I get nothing but I blank page trying to view the linked site. Seriously, what are they trying to pull here?
They're trying to make sure readers don't steal bandwidth by preventing the display of the ads that pay for the site?
You should probably get used to seeing it, websites are doing it more and more often. I'm surprised Slashdot's comments section doesn't die if you block it's advertisement code.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, that's their problem. They could just insert static ads at their pages, but no, they want tracking devices too.
Anyway, I don't need their site, what is evidenced by me not having RTFA and not suffering any inconvenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A blank page? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're trying to make sure readers don't steal bandwidth
And I thought we had gone too far when we called illegal copying "stealing".
Dude, nobody has stolen their bandwidth. Look, it's still there! Look!
I'm surprised Slashdot's comments section doesn't die if you block it's advertisement code.
On the contrary, if your karma is high enough, you even get an option to disable advertisement. Some sites still understand that without readers, they're nothing but a guy wanking in the basement.
Basically, if you want to be paid for your content, put up a paywall. Ads are not payment. Putting them on your site is a bet, not a price ticket. You play a bit of lottery, every ad is a ticket that may or may not yield you some cash. If your business model is based on ads, then you're a professional gambler, nothing more. Sure, with large enough numbers, statistics usually level out in your favour, but never forget that there's no guarantee - getting 100 million page views with zero ad clicks may be a statistical anomaly, but it could happen. If that means you starve, then you've bet the farm on an unreliable business model.
Short version: Your problem, not mine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Chuck Norris sucks cock for cab fare and then walks home.
I'm SORRY! IM SORRY!
You may mod me down! BUT I HATE CHUCK NORRIS JOKES!
Re: (Score:3)
Cops are not the arbiters of good taste. If the campus police chief determined that the poster could be threatening to some, then take that issue up the chain of command. That would be (I assume) the school's administration. Seizing property would only be justified by an immediate threat. Which I doubt this poster was.
Next item: Miller was called into a meeting with Walter, the campus police chief. Now that's not the normal enforcement procedure I'd expect. Police are there to secure dangerous situations (