White racists will always clearly go with the party which panders less to non-whites and focuses less on minority issues. In recent decades, that's the GOP.

The race of the candidates will of course play a role in the decision-making of racist voters, but you're pretending like a white vs white presidential race is wide open when it comes to the support from David Duke and co, while it clearly isnt. In contemporary american politics, white racists will prefer each and every conceivable GOP candidate over each and every conceivable Democratic candidate.

So yes, the degree of enthusiasm David Duke had for Trump does reflect badly on Trump. But his endorsement is FAR from proving that Trump is a racist, and it is a long way from proving Duffman's talking point (which you supported) that "the right has most of the racist folks and thus the left does indeed have a legitimate claim to unilateral authority over defining racism".

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=79503433&f=119&p=543375695
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=79503433&f=119&p=543375638

They will just argue that the EO is protecting racists and bigots and just pretends to be in the name of free speech. "Weaponizing free speech to promote racism and bigotry", that's what they will call it.
They will frame this legal battle as the fight of the noble, enlightened, woke colleges against the evil, racist Trump administration. The liberal media will happily jump in and provide cover. And they will surely be cheered by their far-left-leaning student body for such a step.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 2 2019 04:07pm

naw.
It would be like trying to run a marathon on stilts. Nobody would want to be the one that falls on their face when their framing falls apart. Its simply not a tenable narrative, you can't be explicitly and openly crusading against free expression and expect support.

I think you'd be surprised. They have dreamt about curtailing free speech for a long long time, and right now, we have a lot of energy and enthusiasm on the left, an unpopular GOP president with tons of ethics and conduct issues, a public that is increasingly embracing socialism and far-left ideas, and a media which is more overwhelmingly on their side than ever before.

I personally believe that those on the left will think the time has come to slip the mask and go for it.

There's a reason I said that whether Trump is actually sending them coded messages is another question.

If you are being supported by David Duke and there's not an obvious reason for them to hate the other candidate you should probably look at your message and ask why you're being supported by those people.

Your first sentence also doesn't accurately describe the situation. Maybe in another 50 years it will, but we're still only a generation or less removed from The Southern Strategy.

people still acting like the constant dog whistles, his double standards and hesitance to condemn terrorism committed by white nationalists / supremacists, lack of clear messaging disavowing that kind of support, fear- and hatemongering against mexicans and muslims, discrimination against black renters, his racially charged rhetoric against the central park five even after they were proven innocent by DNA evidence, his birtherism... that all of that proves nothing, just because he hasn't said the n-word on national tv (and even for that they would find excuses and rationalisations).

if you don't want to see it, fair enough - may you find bliss in ignorance - just please don't act like it doesn't exist. but if you genuinely aren't able to see it, you might have a different problem...

In the first link, the line that stands out the most to me is the following:



That seems really vague to me, especially since many people consider no-platforming to be an infringement of free speech. However, no-platforming in and of itself is a form of protest and similarly protected. How would such a piece of legislation reconcile the two?

What do you consider to be "no-platforming"?
If its a college either denying free expression on its campus or permitting the suppression of free expression on its campus, its censorship and a violation of the first amendment.

You can't just call anything a protest to make it permissible. Not everything is a form of expression. People having the right to express their views in orderly and peaceful demonstration is a protected form of speech. Pinning someone you don't like to a table and carving your manifesto into the flesh of their back with a box-cutter is not a protected form of expression. If "no-platforming" involves infringing on someone else's rights, its not a protected form of speech. Its one thing to picket and protest to express your opposition to a speaker, its another thing to attempt to suppress that speaker and stop them from talking.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Mar 2 2019 07:31pm

I consider no-platforming to be non-violent actions taken, such as filling an auditorium, co-opting a speech, blocking a doorway, etc., to disallow a speaker from being unabated.

Certainly not calling "anything a protest to make it permissible", and neither am I saying that "everything is a form of expression".