The Line Between Free Speech And Glorified Depravity Just Got Erased!

[canpakes]

I believe you. So in this case, the "idea" that the trajectory of Charlie's assassin's bullet is a cause for applause, is something that should be broadcast without reprisal if it were made by a professor. Further, if a professor is afraid of the idea that an assassin's shot is praised, they are not welcome to work at a university or college, perhaps.

On the other hand, if the town baker were to celebrate the accuracy of a deadly shot, or a cop, they can expect the FO in FAFO. But not professors?

You’d probably want to identify who celebrated or applauded that accuracy in the first place. But be careful with your definitions and presuppositions before demanding revenge for your feelings, lest you become the monster that you are supposedly warning against.

[Whiskey]

You’d probably want to identify who celebrated or applauded that accuracy in the first place. But be careful with your definitions and presuppositions before demanding revenge for your feelings, lest you become the monster that you are supposedly warning against.

Je suis Charlie.

Hi, Charlie. Pretty amazing shot, wasn’t that?

The first celebration and applause is identified.

[Molok]

I'm sorry, but right wingers doing some weird purity test on a Mormon discussion board run by a free speech absolutist, all in the name of a grifter who made money bullying children half his age is so preposterous it strikes me as genuinely hilarious.

[I Have Questions]

It’s an interesting philosophical discussion. For instance, had Adolf Hitler been assassinated by a sniper before he came to power, how would that act have been viewed? I guess some people would have been pleased he’d been removed from doing more damage, others aghast that one of their number had been murdered.

From a Mormon perspective, had Joseph Smith not been murdered, where would the Church have gone? Some say he sealed his testimony in blood, which is more powerful than had he just grown old and died naturally.

Was the shot that killed Osama Bin Laden decried or celebrated?

As with everything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You’re not debating the act, you’re articulating how you feel about the act based upon your view of the person murdered.

[Whiskey]

As with everything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You’re not debating the act, you’re articulating how you feel about the act based upon your view of the person murdered.

Thus, the celebration of the assassin's shot. Based on a view of the person murdered, the act is applauded. I believe everyone here is in agreement on that. Any opposed may so manifest it.

[Molok]

As with everything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You’re not debating the act, you’re articulating how you feel about the act based upon your view of the person murdered.

Thus, the celebration of the assassin's shot. Based on a view of the person murdered, the act is applauded. I believe everyone here is in agreement on that. Any opposed may so manifest it.

This probably sounds profound if you're stupid.

[canpakes]

You’d probably want to identify who celebrated or applauded that accuracy in the first place. But be careful with your definitions and presuppositions before demanding revenge for your feelings, lest you become the monster that you are supposedly warning against.

Hi, Charlie. Pretty amazing shot, wasn’t that?

The first celebration and applause is identified.

Can you point it out? This is a test. ; )

[Kishkumen]

I believe you. So in this case, the "idea" that the trajectory of Charlie's assassin's bullet is a cause for applause, is something that should be broadcast without reprisal if it were made by a professor. Further, if a professor is afraid of the idea that an assassin's shot is praised, they are not welcome to work at a university or college, perhaps.

On the other hand, if the town baker were to celebrate the accuracy of a deadly shot, or a cop, they can expect the FO in FAFO. But not professors?

Yes, every idea should be up for discussion. I don't think it is appropriate for professors to engage in the promotion of partisan causes in the classroom. I know I don't.

Here's what I think about tasteless behavior. People should not do it. The consequences for doing tasteless things, however, should be proportional to the offense. Companies are free to fire whomever they like. I don't think it speaks well of a university when it fires professors for their independent ideas and expression, however offensive, but I can see disciplining insensitive professors in some way. At the end of the day, they bear a responsibility to the community, but that should be weighed against the role of the university in providing a place for freedom of thought and expression, as well as other factors.

I don't think there are easy answers.

The best I can do for easy answers is to cite the many statements in the Bible, quite a few of which are in Proverbs, that refer to the mischief of the tongue and the wisdom of verbal restraint. I think we should all consider that before we go on social media, especially in a large forum.

This forum is small. And it is deliberately designed to be a forum that favors unfettered speech. It is far from perfect, but I think it does much better than X and other places. It allows right-wing authoritarian posters and posters on the left to share their views and resort to verbal fisticuffs. My hope is that this relative freedom remains and that no one uses it for unfair advantage, let alone harm. I hope we are all big enough to stick with words in this little corner of the internet.

[Kishkumen]

But be careful with your definitions and presuppositions before demanding revenge for your feelings, lest you become the monster that you are supposedly warning against.

Exactly.

[Kishkumen]

Hi, Charlie. Pretty amazing shot, wasn’t that?

The first celebration and applause is identified.

Uh, no. That is not a celebration. Try harder.