Dan Carlin on the Rubin Report

[C-Mag]

Were you able to decipher the origins of that exchange? I thought perhaps it related to that new anti-riot law that AZ is considering.

I think that's what it was, which made the exchange all the more depressing. Dan seemed to have taken the position that the Berkeley riot was a "safety valve" for the democracy and that we suppress those "protests" out our peril.

Twitter fights are hard to decipher, and even less fun to engage in, but I got the same take on what they were on about.

Dan is still carrying on with his arguments and thoughts about protest like in the Very Velvet Fist CS episode from 5 or 6 years ago now. Protests are a safety valve, proxies for actual street violence. When the state cracks down on assembly and political speech with violence, the pressure has to find a different release.

In 2016-17, astroturfed Soros "rallies" designed to be violent for violence's sake, and where there is, by design, NO state intervention to prevent the violence, that whole "pressure valve" stuff collapses.

Dan doesn't get it, Darryl does. Both have missed the mark (in distinctly different ways) on how the state should be involved in protecting liberty, life, and property, all at the same time, IMNSHO.

Dan's Twitter reliance on "fascist" as an argument belies both the shittyness of Twitter, and the shittyness of his argument, in light of the treatment of Milo by the state and its owners in Berkeley and the treatment of Milo by the GOP and the MSM.

I bet Darryl would give a more nuanced argument if he took advantage of his own forum and got off the sinking Twitter ship.

Dan, I don't know anymore. Maybe he's where he wants to be.

+1

Nice post Fife

[de officiis]

You're telling me that you guys actually support this?

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/ ... -protests/

Looks like the end of the 1st to me.

In my humble and perhaps uninformed opinion, it could very well represent an unconstitutional infringement of the first amendment right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Got into it till 50 minutes. it was okay.

[Martin Hash]

Twitter is so goddamned superficial: it's only for debate cowards.

[TheReal_ND]

And trolling. Especially trolling.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

You're telling me that you guys actually support this?

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/ ... -protests/

Looks like the end of the 1st to me.

In my humble and perhaps uninformed opinion, it could very well represent an unconstitutional infringement of the first amendment right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances.

So, if your groups' grievance is that you don't want someone to speak to an audience, and that objective is achieved, are you still protected by the constitution to split infinitives, skulls, and unoffending over-priced coffee-shop windows afterwards?
To the streets, everyone! Arizona may become an unsanctuary state! Let's all gather at Starbuck's!
This law, as presented in the article referenced, cannot stand serious SCOTUS scrutiny, but it may incite a riot--hey, isn't there a law against that?

[SuburbanFarmer]

You're telling me that you guys actually support this?

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/ ... -protests/

Looks like the end of the 1st to me.

In my humble and perhaps uninformed opinion, it could very well represent an unconstitutional infringement of the first amendment right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances.

So, if your groups' grievance is that you don't want someone to speak to an audience, and that objective is achieved, are you still protected by the constitution to split infinitives, skulls, and unoffending over-priced coffee-shop windows afterwards?
To the streets, everyone! Arizona may become an unsanctuary state! Let's all gather at Starbuck's!
This law, as presented in the article referenced, cannot stand serious SCOTUS scrutiny, but it may incite a riot--hey, isn't there a law against that?

No, you are prone to arrest and prosecution after the crime is committed. This appears to be legalizing mass arrest at the moment a protest begins. Read it.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

No, you are prone to arrest and prosecution after the crime is committed. This appears to be legalizing mass arrest at the moment a protest begins. Read it.

I did read it. I'd be very concerned if "arrest and prosecution" preceded a protest--very--but the idea presented in the article Dan tweeted, and you subsequently cited, is that peaceably assembled protesters are going to be arrested because someone "on the other side" will throw a rock. It wouldn't pass the smell-test of Hitler's noseless dog.

[Speaker to Animals]

Fake news.

[SuburbanFarmer]

No, you are prone to arrest and prosecution after the crime is committed. This appears to be legalizing mass arrest at the moment a protest begins. Read it.

I did read it. I'd be very concerned if "arrest and prosecution" preceded a protest--very--but the idea presented in the article Dan tweeted, and you subsequently cited, is that peaceably assembled protesters are going to be arrested because someone "on the other side" will throw a rock. It wouldn't pass the smell-test of Hitler's noseless dog.

Farley, however, said the legislation does far more than simply going after those who might incite people to riot, something which actually already is a crime. And he warned Republicans that such a broad law could end up being used against some of their allies.

For example, he said, a “Tea Party’’ group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration.

“And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car,’’ Farley said.

“And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes,’’ he said. “That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.’’

Text of the bill: https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/GetDocumentPdf/446080

Effectively bringing up the protest organizers on racketeering charges.