Share this page!

Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
Twitter logo
21 Sep, 5 tweets, 1 min read
The former doesn't really worry me.

"The solution to bad speech is more speech" does not inherently include "therefore I must politely listen to this speech". Especially where, as on a college campus, there is disparity in the *literal platform* given to speakers.

1/
Generally I support FIRE, but the conflation of "would not shout down bullshit" with "support for free speech" with "the ability to think, discuss, and speak freely" is just nonsense.

Freedom to criticize, even loudly, is part of freedom of speech.

2/
Freedom to scorn, to condemn, and even to refuse to associate based on someone's speech is part of free speech.

Open debate does not require they follow the rules of Lincoln Douglas debates. Shouting "that's some bullshit you fucking bigot" is the right of every student too.

3/
Violent response to speech is the only viable thing to be concerned about.

All other hand-wringing is advocating that people should self-censor in the name of politeness, but only towards people they disagree with (all other self-censorship is apparently bad).

4/
To those bemoaning this (especially that "they won't grow out of this"):

Good. They shouldn't. Free speech doesn't require demure respect for bigotry, even if that bigotry is genteel and soft-spoken.

5/5

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Actually malicious, no actual malice

Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @apark2453

Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
22 Sep
I do think this is an accurate statement of the intent, but it doesn't make it any less shitty. What they wanted was for the law to exist as a kind of fleet in being, a power which is never "deployed" but the threat of which hampers enemy movement by existing

1/
A fleet in being is especially useful for what is called "sea denial" tactics, tactics which close off movement and attack options for the enemy not by destroying their fleets but by making it too dangerous to attempt.

2/
A good example of this is the German High Seas Fleet in World War I. It made the U.K nervous, for obvious reasons, and multiple times caused the U.K to not undertake actions it otherwise would have. Because while it exists it can strike at opportune times.

3/
Read 7 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
21 Sep
Notably absent from this is “debunking or refuting their justifications” much less “interrogating whether their rhetoric matches their actions”.

Ryan, buddy, this isn’t a math problem you leave as an exercise for the listener.

1/
So let’s take a listen, dudes are juxtaposing a whole lot of discussion about the violent clashes between Antifa and police (episode 1) with the Joey Gibson hour. The closest they got in the first episode to the ideology of Antifa is “they think they’re fighting fascism”

2/
If @ryanjhaas and @MrOlmos are being at all honest about the intent, at minimum this needs a more critical eye to his ideology and actions than that.

Taking “Gibson says it was strange people who the police were harassing wore masks” at face value ain’t it chiefs.

3/
Read 23 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
21 Sep
This is the fucked up part about how pop culture teaches men to pursue women.

In the interest of full disclosure, go back 10-15 years and I’m just as quick to go “hey this was a cute thing that went wrong.”

1/
It takes, primarily, two pernicious forms:

1. Persistence wins.

2. Failure means needing to further prove how much you want her.

I can even detect it in the sad boy music I used to listen to.

2/
Lots of references to how the object of the singer’s affection will eventually realize how much he’s into her or helping her to “understand” his feelings. As if the issue was ever a lack of *obviousness*.

3/
Read 9 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
23 Feb
Why yes it *is* 60 pages. And it starts as it means to go on:

"We're not challenging the outcome of the presidential election, we're challenging the outcome of the election of the 117th Congress".

My dudes, it's the same election.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

1/
I'm going to try to take this seriously-ish, so let's discuss "what it takes to prove a conspiracy" for a quick second. A conspiracy doesn't just mean "did some stuff I don't like" or "acted in ways which support the same outcome and the outcome is bad".

2/ this lawsuit does not depend on any allegations of “electi
Conspiracy requires an agreement (not the inference of an agreement) to commit an illegal act and at least one affirmative step towards doing it. Just keep those elements in your back pocket and we'll see how close Gondor gets.

3/
Read 83 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
22 Feb
“Private” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this argument.

So perhaps let’s try to bear in mind that while we consider letters (etc.) sent to other people to be personal, by default they are not private.

1/
The distinction between public and private life is not the right to dragoon others into confidentiality just because you’d prefer it.

If @mpark6288 wanted to release nearly every text message I’ve ever sent him, that is *his* right.

2/
There’s no elder-sibling-younger-sibling confidentiality, or neighbor-neighbor confidentiality.

Once you have shared information with someone who is not obliged to keep your confidences, their rights include “tell people that shit”.

3/
Read 4 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
3 Feb
Oh goddamn the comments responding to this.

Let's rapid-fire some of these, but to begin with the most basic principle:

A sincerely held belief is protected the same as any other, there is no threshold of legitimacy for either the religion or the tenet.

1/
Yes, it costs more money to abide by constitutional and statutory rights than to disregard them. The fact that the source of his belief comes from Wikipedia rather than the Dead Sea Scrolls is irrelevant.

2/
The precedent that "the courts do not assess the legitimacy of a religious belief, just its sincerity" is long-standing.

People imprisoned by any government *should* take advantage of the right to religious accommodation.

3/
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @apark2453 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @apark2453!

Read all threads by @apark2453

:(