Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on May 25, 2006, 12:47:34 am
-
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/internet23.html
A 17-year-old student who posted on his blog site that he was being bullied and threatened by the Plainfield School District will face an expulsion hearing this week, a local attorney said.
:wtf:
-
Hmmm. "Slightly" retarded indeed. =/
-
I don't normally agree with the ACLU...
-
Now now, there's no need to make the thread-starting post so bloody provocative. There is actually fair reason behind the school district for taking this action. Frankly, if you've got a kid posting s*** on the net about the school, presumably it's within the rights of the school to tell him to shut his yap, and when the kid ignores them, he gets punished. I see no problem with that.
Plus, the kid sounds like a tool, so i'm hoping he gets expelled.
-
Now now, there's no need to make the thread-starting post so bloody provocative. There is actually fair reason behind the school district for taking this action. Frankly, if you've got a kid posting s*** on the net about the school, presumably it's within the rights of the school to tell him to shut his yap, and when the kid ignores them, he gets punished. I see no problem with that.
Plus, the kid sounds like a tool, so i'm hoping he gets expelled.
:wtf:
You realise you just invalidated the whole freedom of speech thing, right?
-
:wtf:
You realise you just invalidated the whole freedom of speech thing, right?
Well, I didn't mean "within the rights" literally, but I could have worded that a little better. Still, my point remains valid, what's so bad about the school getting annoyed at some kid for posting slander on the net, in spite of asking repeatedly for him to stop?
-
:wtf:
You realise you just invalidated the whole freedom of speech thing, right?
Well, I didn't mean "within the rights" literally, but I could have worded that a little better. Still, my point remains valid, what's so bad about the school getting annoyed at some kid for posting slander on the net, in spite of asking repeatedly for him to stop?
Where did you see it was slander? He posted he was threatened and bullied.
-
On May 1, the student posted a letter to Plainfield School District on www.xanga.com , telling off the district, using vulgar words and saying he could put whatever he wanted on his site.
Since we don't know what he wrote on his website that warranted the school's attention, we can't really judge how valid his reasons are for posting a public backlash at the request, but as you can see, his posted letter was obviously somewhat derogatory in nature.
He then went on to post his annoyance at being "bullied and threatened", which I should point out we've not seen or know whether it was indeed bullying or threatening at all. Moreover, we don't know what on the kid's website actually warranted the school's attention, so the district may have been completely justified in asking him to take it down, and punishing him when he not only refused to comply, but insulted the school in a decidedly public manner.
-
That facility is another Columbine in the making.
No the kid won't go berserk - the rest of them will when forced to put up with this **** for years to come.
-
On May 1, the student posted a letter to Plainfield School District on www.xanga.com , telling off the district, using vulgar words and saying he could put whatever he wanted on his site.
Since we don't know what he wrote on his website that warranted the school's attention, we can't really judge how valid his reasons are for posting a public backlash at the request, but as you can see, his posted letter was obviously somewhat derogatory in nature.
He then went on to post his annoyance at being "bullied and threatened", which I should point out we've not seen or know whether it was indeed bullying or threatening at all. Moreover, we don't know what on the kid's website actually warranted the school's attention, so the district may have been completely justified in asking him to take it down, and punishing him when he not only refused to comply, but insulted the school in a decidedly public manner.
Buh?
-
From what i see, He posted on the net, Whether or not the site was blocked, its probably the schools policy that their net access shouldnt be used for personal stuff like blogs or heaven forbid forums. They found out he used it, told him off i imagine, said dont do it again- he did it again. (whether or not it was at school i can tdiscern from the article) and cos he disobeyed them he was expelled, It seems like its not the manner of disobedience, just the act of disregard for teachers "authority" which in turn ended up with a suspension. in turn he blew it out of the water by invoking the "Freedom of speech arguement". Which to be frank if it was the case, back (many) years ago when i was a schoolboy, i would have spent all my lesson time "chattin wid me crew" Or chattin up Miss Thornton my lovely 24 year old student science teacher.
-
Buh?
Could you give me a little more than just 'Buh'? Make a counter-point, prove me wrong, just gimme a little more, man! :rolleyes:
-
From what i see...
If all that is true then I'm inclined to agree. I can appreciate that a student should be free to express their views but given he was apparently breaking school rules to purposefully do these things... it becomes less about his freedom of speach and more about him using that to be a pain in the ass to all concerned. The end of line should therefore be "if you can't follow these simple and reasonable in-school rules then you're no longer welcome here". Failure to enforce the rules could have a much worse consequence for the entire school as other students would think they could do what they liked with inpunity.
-
Buh?
Could you give me a little more than just 'Buh'? Make a counter-point, prove me wrong, just gimme a little more, man! :rolleyes:
Sorry. :p
Anyway, I still don't see where he insulted the school. They say he used vulgar words so it can mean he said stuff like Samuel Jackson.
From what i see...
If all that is true then I'm inclined to agree. I can appreciate that a student should be free to express their views but given he was apparently breaking school rules to purposefully do these things... it becomes less about his freedom of speach and more about him using that to be a pain in the ass to all concerned. The end of line should therefore be "if you can't follow these simple and reasonable in-school rules then you're no longer welcome here". Failure to enforce the rules could have a much worse consequence for the entire school as other students would think they could do what they liked with inpunity.
But the website is not under the schools jurisdiction nor is the school supposed to be the thought police. There is no school rule (unless the US has very different schools :wtf: ) that say "You may not post offensive sentences in a website we do not allow students to go to inside the school.".
-
But we don't know it if was just offensive sentences, it may have been something considerably more offensive or inappropriate, and the article-writer simply omitted that detail because 'Schoolchild Opression' makes better news than 'Schoolchild gets what he deserves'.
-
I got the impression that he was posting this stuff from within the school?
-
But we don't know it if was just offensive sentences, it may have been something considerably more offensive or inappropriate, and the article-writer simply omitted that detail because 'Schoolchild Opression' makes better news than 'Schoolchild gets what he deserves'.
Perhaps and that was partially the point of my "Buh?" reply. You first said you don't know what was posted and then assumed the worse about him just as I assumed the better about him. Of course this could be resolved by searching for the letter :nervous:
Kalfireth, the link says that most schools block those websites, so I assume he posted the content at home.
-
Perhaps and that was partially the point of my "Buh?" reply. You first said you don't know what was posted and then assumed the worse about him just as I assumed the better about him. Of course this could be resolved by searching for the letter :nervous:
But it would be safer to assume the worst, because the last time I checked, School Districts weren't Evil conglomerations of supervillians that seek to opress the weak and turn the US into an Authoritarian Regime. Sarcasm aside, the fact that the school took action points to the student doing something considerably bad, and his actions after being told to take whatever it was down - posting slanderous sentiments on a blog-site - only reinforces my position.
-
I got the impression that he was posting this stuff from within the school?
Same here.
Posted by: Ghostavo
But the website is not under the schools jurisdiction nor is the school supposed to be the thought police. There is no school rule (unless the US has very different schools :wtf: ) that say "You may not post offensive sentences in a website we do not allow students to go to inside the school.".
I understand that, but i raise a point here, what sort of school is it? what kind of area, and what kind of person is this student exactly, If he's actually a well behaved pupil who made a mistake then fair enough, but he may well be the loud obnoxious belligerent arsemonkey every single class in the world has. And we all know how much mouth those types can dish out to teachers. :wtf:
Most schools dont let kids use net access unless its for "legitimate" reasons, ie researching history, media studies etc, Blogs are completely unasssociate from any subject (except IT but even then its a stretch)
-
Perhaps and that was partially the point of my "Buh?" reply. You first said you don't know what was posted and then assumed the worse about him just as I assumed the better about him. Of course this could be resolved by searching for the letter :nervous:
But it would be safer to assume the worst, because the last time I checked, School Districts weren't Evil conglomerations of supervillians that seek to opress the weak and turn the US into an Authoritarian Regime. Sarcasm aside, the fact that the school took action points to the student doing something considerably bad, and his actions after being told to take whatever it was down - posting slanderous sentiments on a blog-site - only reinforces my position.
But again, you don't know if it was slander. Here you are assuming he is guilty until proven innocent.
Curiously, how did the school find out about his letter?
Colonol Dekker, it is the schools responsibility/right to do whatever they can on their grounds, but on the internet it's a whole different story.
-
Colonol Dekker, it is the schools responsibility/right to do whatever they can on their grounds, but on the internet it's a whole different story.
They own the PCs, and regulate access to their equipment. nuff said
-
Colonol Dekker, it is the schools responsibility/right to do whatever they can on their grounds, but on the internet it's a whole different story.
They own the PCs, and regulate access to their equipment. nuff said
And since when is HIS computer at HIS home their grounds?
-
Technically it would Libelous, not slanderous. Slander is verbal, Libel is written. :o
-
Who said he posted from home? on the same side who said he didn't. But you can apply that to the school as well....
btw read below,
I got the impression that he was posting this stuff from within the school?
Same here.
-
Who said he posted from home? on the same side who said he didn't. But you can apply that to the school as well....
btw read below,
I got the impression that he was posting this stuff from within the school?
Same here.
The school is making a complain about his Website not him posting at school and the school has access blocked to those blogs sites... 1+1=??
Furthermore
Meanwhile a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union said school districts must be careful not to discipline students on matters that occur outside school.
-
I stand corrected, "shrugs-carries on working"
-
Maybe things inside of the school really are bad. I mean American High Schools DO suck.....
-
Who the smeg ate my post?!
But again, you don't know if it was slander. Here you are assuming he is guilty until proven innocent.
But he is guilty. Whatever he did, it warranted the attention of the School District, and he's paying for ignoring their requests. We don't know the details to say how guilty he is, but it's pretty damn safe to say that he is indeed guilty as hell.
Curiously, how did the school find out about his letter?
It was made on a public blog site, so chances are someone happened across it an alerted the school to it, or possibly a member of the school-staff frequents the blog-site. Does it really matter how they came across it? I mean, it's not like they're going to bug his internet line. :rolleyes:
-
If the "yoot" in question uses the Xango/Blog thing at home, chances are the fool used it at school, admin checked history/monitored sites accessed, and found the post itself.
But thats besides the point, as you say Mefustae the core dilema is the school asked for this nutbar to desist and he did not. :nod:
-
I'm beginning to get a whole "mountains out of mole-hills" feel about this. It smacks of an angsty teen posting some self-absorbed tripe on the internet, getting called on it and then flailing their hands around shouting and crying about it.
-
Agreed.
-
Aye! any Nays?
-
Frankly, I'm not surprised by any of this - it's the typical reaction of academic institutions to criticism, especially about bullying. They're terrified the status quo will be broken, they'll be forced to act and the lives of their staff complicated ten-fold, and thus result in something far worse than having your students bullied: eployer-employee tensions.
Put simply, this is the typical cowards way out for the institution.
-
In today's Liturature lesson, you will write a 30 page essay on why this school is good, but your still stupid.
The liturature teacher.
Maybe things inside of the school really are bad. I mean American High Schools DO suck.....
Most of them at least. There are a few rays of hope, such as P-CEP, and the private high-schools. And the ones in Texas are O.K. too, I suppose. Man, I wish people/companies like Nike, Apple, Congress, ETC didn't screw America up so much. There would be a fair amount less of 'American <whatever> Sucks' type posts.
-
The kid wants some attention.... nuff said.
-
Maybe things inside of the school really are bad. I mean American High Schools DO suck.....
Most of them at least. There are a few rays of hope, such as P-CEP, and the private high-schools. And the ones in Texas are O.K. too...
:lol::wakka::lol::wakka::lol:
WAAAAAAAH HAAAAA HAAAA HAAAAAA! HAAA HAAA HAA HAAAA! Hee Hee Hee hoo hoo hoo... hm heh heh heh..... whew.
-
And the ones in Texas are O.K. too,
That's the best joke I've heard all week.
-
If he was posting from the school's computers, well, his usage is subject to the terms and conditions at the school.
If nhe was posting from outside the school...then there really was no good reason for the school to step in. I imagine that this is going to get very ugly.
-
Some important points:
The kid was posting after school, from his home computer, from an account he created on that same computer.
The message (http://www.xanga.com/Heckler3672bro) in question was a critical evaluation of the school's bullying, not a threat. Judge for yourselves (I give him a D for spelling and grammar):
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
you are bully's. I feel threatened by you. if you don't like what you see here then do not come here its that simple. I'm pretty sure when you suspended Sam you brought her to tears, you are a bully and you make me sick. there's nothing you can do about us posting about parties we've been to and how much liquor we had or how much pot was smoked, the police need to do a better job, you are not the police. and how is it that you feel threatened what was said that was so threatening. I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? none of this is posted at school, its all posted from our home computers, and once we step foot into our homes we are not on school property any more. you are just power hungry, don't you ever think? did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied. In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. we voiced our opinions. you are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Monday, May 01, 2006
dear plainfield school district 202:
i know you read this. and you suck. suspend me or what ever you would like to do. but this is my ****in web site and i can put what ever i want on it. kinda goes with the first amendment. by suspending kyle again for his xanga you guys are pathetic and totally irrational. first amendment you ****s. freedom of speech. and who the **** are you to say what some one can do from there own personal computer. one more thing kiss my ass.
edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me)
(http://homepages.wmich.edu/~r4oleary/Miller%20Lite%20Logo2.JPG)
Slashdot FTW. :)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/25/0310255
-
Perhaps and that was partially the point of my "Buh?" reply. You first said you don't know what was posted and then assumed the worse about him just as I assumed the better about him. Of course this could be resolved by searching for the letter :nervous:
But it would be safer to assume the worst, because the last time I checked, School Districts weren't Evil conglomerations of supervillians that seek to opress the weak and turn the US into an Authoritarian Regime. Sarcasm aside, the fact that the school took action points to the student doing something considerably bad, and his actions after being told to take whatever it was down - posting slanderous sentiments on a blog-site - only reinforces my position.
Be honest, how many school districts have you been involved with... upper levels I mean. My tally is three, and all of them are as evil and soul sucking as any bank. From what I can see it's some mid-level control freak, who's probably ultra-convervative. If they expell that kid I'm pissed.
-
Be honest, how many school districts have you been involved with... upper levels I mean. My tally is three, and all of them are as evil and soul sucking as any bank
Is a battle that you loose before it starts, some schools are usually so evil that it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, you will be guilty...it's really strange to see that the school admit is wrong until you have solid evidence.
I remember once we were assignated the task of making a magazine, we asked and were prohibited to publish an article makin a critic evaluation about school's matters, not even if the article was well-read and review first by the school superior, it was just considered as "offensive bulliying material", though even the material doesn't named or reference directly or inderectly anyone.
If they expell that kid I'm pissed.
If you're pissed you can write a critical evaluation about the school, oh! no I forgot, you can't, or they will silence you too...
-
From the "letter", the kid sounds like even more of a tool. He decided against sorting it out internally and privately, and the school called him on it. I'm really hoping the little bastard gets expelled now.
-
The messages don't seem like libel. Neither of them.
I'm still unsure why the school would bother to expel him for something he did outside of the school. In fact, he phrases it perfectly fine (apart from grammar :p )
there's nothing you can do about us posting about parties we've been to and how much liquor we had or how much pot was smoked, the police need to do a better job, you are not the police.
-
He's pretty much got an ironclad defense against libel, since the school is in fact attempting to bully him into submission...
He posted about the school, after he left, while not on school property. There is zero rationale here for the school getting involved. This is barely even offensive by the standards of, say, Livejournal posts about schools.
And why in God's name is the school even looking at his website, which they supposedly blocked!?
-
He's pretty much got an ironclad defense against libel, since the school is in fact attempting to bully him into submission...
He posted about the school, after he left, while not on school property. There is zero rationale here for the school getting involved. This is barely even offensive by the standards of, say, Livejournal posts about schools.
And why in God's name is the school even looking at his website, which they supposedly blocked!?
You seem to forget that if it's a private school, then it can do basically whatever it wants. The students agree to whatever the school feels is appropriate by simply going there. I've seen articles about private schools that have expelled students for simply having blogs, regardless of where they're being maintained. I've seen articles about private schools that have expelled students for "immoral conduct harmful to the reputation of the school", which basically boils down to "student or relative is suspected of not being heterosexual". I've seen students expelled and charged with terrorism in a federal court for calling a teacher an asshole in a blog. The world's gone to hell in a handbasket, and we can't do anything about it.
-
Since it is a school district, I assume it's public no? :confused:
-
My opinion:
It's a goddamn webpost. He says he doesn't like a school that he posts ON HIS OWN WEBPAGE does NOT mean he has to get expelled. First amendment, people!
-
And the ones in Texas are O.K. too, I suppose
Notice how I didn't mention what part I thought was good. ;)
-
And the ones in Texas are O.K. too, I suppose
Notice how I didn't mention what part I thought was good. ;)
Except for their universities, Texas schools rank as amoung the worst in the US.....which is saying quite a lot.
-
From the "letter", the kid sounds like even more of a tool. He decided against sorting it out internally and privately, and the school called him on it. I'm really hoping the little bastard gets expelled now.
Huh? This wouldn't even be an issue had the school [district] not made it one in the first place. Just because he didn't state his case very eloquently doesn't mean he's automatically in the wrong. :rolleyes: Furthermore, it seems the truth to his allegations is now immaterial; by threatening him with expulsion for performing a perfectly legal activity outside of school, they've bullied him by any definition.
-
And the ones in Texas are O.K. too, I suppose
Notice how I didn't mention what part I thought was good. ;)
Except for their universities, Texas schools rank as amoung the worst in the US.....which is saying quite a lot.
At least academically...
-
From the "letter", the kid sounds like even more of a tool. He decided against sorting it out internally and privately, and the school called him on it. I'm really hoping the little bastard gets expelled now.
Huh? This wouldn't even be an issue had the school [district] not made it one in the first place. Just because he didn't state his case very eloquently doesn't mean he's automatically in the wrong. :rolleyes: Furthermore, it seems the truth to his allegations is now immaterial; by threatening him with expulsion for performing a perfectly legal activity outside of school, they've bullied him by any definition.
Once again i'll point out that we don't know what exactly was on the kid's website that warranted the school's attention, so no judgements can be made on whether the school was right or wrong to "bully" [I use that term loosely, as we don't know what exactly they did] the owner of said website.
The fact is that that, along with insults and grammar that would make Bobb blush, the kid dares the school to take action against him in his "letter", so I don't understand how anyone can shed tears over the school calling his bluff. I mean, hell, i'm all for freedom of speech, but i'm also for the freedom of making sure little s***s like this kid get their comeupance for acting like brats.
I am certain that every single person on HLP wouldn't hesitate to smack this kid upside the face if they were the subject of his inane rantings, so I fail to comprehend why so many jump to defend the "rights" of someone who shouldn't have them in the first place.
-
Ever heard of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."?
Also, check Goober's post, as there is a link to his blog.
-
Ever heard of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."?
Keep in mind that I subscribe to the school of thought that rights should not be given, but earned. Y'know, Starship Troopers style, where rights are earned through service to the state, not simply bestowed upon everyone to use and abuse.
-
Ever heard of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."?
Keep in mind that I subscribe to the school of thought that rights should not be given, but earned. Y'know, Starship Troopers style, where rights are earned through service to the state, not simply bestowed upon everyone to use and abuse.
You do know Starship Troopers "style" policies as you say are borderline... fascist?
-
While the movie was definitely a fascist take on the universe, considerably Nazi-esque to be more precise, the book was more anti-communism than pro-facist.
Still, is the idea that rights and freedoms should be earned through individual sacrifice such an undesirable view? Personally, I believe it would lead to a better, considerably more coherant society where those that shouldn't have a voice, quite simply, don't.
-
While the movie was definitely a fascist take on the universe, considerably Nazi-esque to be more precise, the book was more anti-communism than pro-facist.
Still, is the idea that rights and freedoms should be earned through individual sacrifice such an undesirable view? Personally, I believe it would lead to a better, considerably more coherant society where those that shouldn't have a voice, quite simply, don't.
Democracy is good because everyone is heard and bad because everyone is heard.
Besides, such a plutocracy doesn't really choose who is best to have a voice. One can be a total idiot and still go through such services and get a voice while one can be Stephen Hawking and not be able to do such services.
Going back to the topic at hand, I assume the US at least pretends to be a democracy, so shouldn't that view prevail in such matters until there is a regime change? :p
-
Democracy is good because everyone is heard and bad because everyone is heard.
Democracy just plain doesn't work, it's as simple as that. It's definitely a better concept than communism in that it kind of works in practice, but - just as Communism before it - western Democracy is slowly collapsing.
Besides, such a plutocracy doesn't really choose who is best to have a voice. One can be a total idiot and still go through such services and get a voice while one can be Stephen Hawking and not be able to do such services.
Sure, it has its flaws, but so does any other system, especially democracy. One plus is that politicians would actually be individuals of substance, rather than those with the largest net-worth or best connections.
Going back to the topic at hand, I assume the US at least pretends to be a democracy, so shouldn't that view prevail in such matters until there is a regime change?
Why should a view of equality and freedom be propagated in a nation ruled by inequality and social oppression?
-
Mefustae: Let's say you lived in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iraq. If rights can only be earned by service to the state, then it must mean that you serve the state in implementing one or more of its policies. So would you still earn your rights if it meant aiding the state in the genocide of Jews, hunting down of political dissidents, or gassing Kurds? One of the great concepts behind the idea of universal rights is that a corrupt or morally-bankrupt state cannot stifle its opponents.
What you're on about is not "individual sacrifice", because individual sacrifice needs to be judged to be so by some authority. When that authority is the state, it gives the state tremendous power over what an individual can and can't do. That's utterly authoritarian, and can't be described as anything but fascist.
-
Democracy just plain doesn't work, it's as simple as that. It's definitely a better concept than communism in that it kind of works in practice, but - just as Communism before it - western Democracy is slowly collapsing.
Every system of government collapses eventually.
Sure, it has its flaws, but so does any other system, especially democracy. One plus is that politicians would actually be individuals of substance, rather than those with the largest net-worth or best connections.
Idiots would still be idiots, and geniuses would still be geniuses. The last two candidates in the US for presidency "served their country", and I wouldn't call either individuals of substance.
Why should a view of equality be propagated in a nation ruled by inequality?
If it's already ruled by inequality, then the first step to reverse it would be to propagate such views of equality. If it isn't, then it is its duty to propagate them. :p
-
Mefustae: Let's say you lived in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iraq. If rights can only be earned by service to the state, then it must mean that you serve the state in implementing one or more of its policies. So would you still earn your rights if it meant aiding the state in the genocide of Jews, hunting down of political dissidents, or gassing Kurds? One of the great concepts behind the idea of universal rights is that a corrupt or morally-bankrupt state cannot stifle its opponents.
What you're on about is not "individual sacrifice", because individual sacrifice needs to be judged to be so by some authority. When that authority is the state, it gives the state tremendous power over what an individual can and can't do. That's utterly authoritarian, and can't be described as anything but fascist.
It's quite curious you included Iraq in there.
It's quite easy to see those options as wrong, because society has already judged those actions to be wrong. Without a doubt, I would never willingly aid in the genocide of Jews, gas Kurds, or... well, being truthful i'd have no problem hunting down political dissidents [however that's another story]. But, from inside a nation commiting this atrocities, I would likely have no idea of the scope of what I would be contributing to, and thus... yes, I would. I would likely have done those things to earn my rights and freedoms. And I believe you would too.
As for a "morally-bankrupt state" being somehow unable to "stifle its opponents" ...Say what? I would have thought that a corrupt state would find it somewhat easy to silence opponents, namely locally, while a state of total freedom would find it incredibly hard to stifle opponents given the massive restrictions universal rights to the population places upon a given government.
Now, it's worth mentioning that i'm not implying those unwilling to make individual sacrafices to become part of the state are not part of the nation, but they simply don't enjoy the rights and freedoms, such as running for office, as those who would otherwise sacrafice for the advancement of the state. We're not talking about absolute power centred among the ruling elite, but rather a social filter to keep the nutters, cowards and Texans in check.
@Ghost: Touche, on all accounts. :)
EDIT: I'd just like to point out that Godwin's Law has once again been proven.
-
I'm not even going to TOUCH your "Democracy Sux" rant, Mefustae, but I would just like to say: You strike me as more of a tool than that kid. Sorry, but it's the truth.
-
Fair enough, i'll take that in stride. But it's worth noting I don't actually think the core ideals of Democracy "sux" as you so eloquently put it (:p). Indeed, it is merely the perversion of those ideals in modern, western Democracies [i'm not simply America-bashing here, i'm West-bashing] that I truly loathe.
-
Fair enough, i'll take that in stride. But it's worth noting I don't actually think the core ideals of Democracy "sux" as you so eloquently put it (:p). Indeed, it is merely the perversion of those ideals in modern, western Democracies [i'm not simply America-bashing here, i'm West-bashing] that I truly loathe.
Truth be told, I just skimmed your post and condensed what I could understand of it into something easy to type :p
-
I did wonder. I've never said democracy is wrong, just that it doesn't work in its current form. :rolleyes:
-
I did wonder. I've never said democracy is wrong, just that it doesn't work in its current form. :rolleyes:
Democracy just plain doesn't work, it's as simple as that
That would be the line that led me astray :p
-
It's 3:00 in the morning, you'll forgive me for being slightly contradictory here and there! :p
-
While the movie was definitely a fascist take on the universe, considerably Nazi-esque to be more precise, the book was more anti-communism than pro-facist.
Still, is the idea that rights and freedoms should be earned through individual sacrifice such an undesirable view? Personally, I believe it would lead to a better, considerably more coherant society where those that shouldn't have a voice, quite simply, don't.
I so love when people try to subvert my idols for their own gains.
Read the novel again - they never pulled this ****.
Everyone has the right to earn their citizenships - the only reason you may not take the test is if you're mentally incapable of doing so.
Citizenship however doesn't equal freedom - it equals responsibility, and the power to go with it. Citizens are granted the power to decide for everyone by casting their own vote on issues. Everyone can attain this power provided they also accept the responsibility to go with it, which is putting the life and wellbeing of everyone else before your own.
However non-citizens aren't slaves or restricted either. It's power you gain with Citizenship, not freedom.
They have the rights for freedom more than anyone else in our history....with the aft forgotten ammendment, that in a JUST society your freedom may never become other people's restriction.
They can, and often ARE saying whatever they want to about the goverment.
What Heinlein DID dispute, is the LIBERAL BELIEF in INHERENT GOODNESS.
Liberal thinking assumes that humans are inherently good and just, and therefore wihtout restrictions to warp them, they're bound to live a happy life in a just society.
He claims, that this assumtions is entierly FALSE (which I strongly agree with), that humans must be thought what goodness is for the sake of society.
He never said, that it would be the state's bussiness to do so, or that there is a ONE TRUE MORAL CODE to adhere to.
He actually says counter-wise, that from scientific point of view morality is bull****; a code handed down accepted out adherence to customs without any (scientifically) prooven beneficial effect or understood mechanism. So he also dethrones CONSERVATIVISM.
What his rhetorics boils down to is the need for POWER to be equally weighted with RESPONIBILITY for society to function as a whole. The need for accountability, and especially among those in power.
So if you want to bring up Heinleinen rhetorics, start your purged at the top of the ladder, where the power and the hypocrisy are at their strongest.
Only regulate the others if you managed to clear that stable, which is probably the reason why Heinlein's utopia won't come to pass until another psychological innovations takes over modern societies like the idea INDIVIDUALITY did during the Middle Ages.
-
As for a "morally-bankrupt state" being somehow unable to "stifle its opponents" ...Say what? I would have thought that a corrupt state would find it somewhat easy to silence opponents, namely locally, while a state of total freedom would find it incredibly hard to stifle opponents given the massive restrictions universal rights to the population places upon a given government.
A state which grants the same rights to all its citizens cannot legally stifle its opponents. A corrupt state which grants privileges of voting and free speech can use them as just another tool - i.e. granting them only to its supporters - to ensure its own perpetuity.
Oh, and it's quite curious to see you didn't refute my point about this being fascist.
-
Just as a curiousity, does the society described in Starship Troopers give any rights or redress to non 'citizens'? Because a casual examination could lead to a person to believe that the state determining who to vote by determining what constitutes 'taking responsibility', is a system that essentially allows brainwashing and supresses the very possibility of reformation. To service the state entails accepting it as it is, and thus prevents people with genuine political and ideological differences from changing anything. For example, if you took Stalinist Russia and awarded voting rights solely to those serving in the army, building vast government projects, guarding the gulags, etc, it wouldn't be anything more than a facade of democracy, as the actions entailed to gain those rights invariably would require strengthening the government. The converse would be also that it removes governmental responsibility altogether; if the government is dependent on the actions of its people, it can blame failure on non-participation and accept credit for success simply by dint of this system existing.
-
You seem to forget that if it's a private school, then it can do basically whatever it wants.
It isn't. Post irrelevant.
-
Just as a curiousity, does the society described in Starship Troopers give any rights or redress to non 'citizens'? Because a casual examination could lead to a person to believe that the state determining who to vote by determining what constitutes 'taking responsibility', is a system that essentially allows brainwashing and supresses the very possibility of reformation. To service the state entails accepting it as it is, and thus prevents people with genuine political and ideological differences from changing anything. For example, if you took Stalinist Russia and awarded voting rights solely to those serving in the army, building vast government projects, guarding the gulags, etc, it wouldn't be anything more than a facade of democracy, as the actions entailed to gain those rights invariably would require strengthening the government. The converse would be also that it removes governmental responsibility altogether; if the government is dependent on the actions of its people, it can blame failure on non-participation and accept credit for success simply by dint of this system existing.
The redress non-citizens had all the civil rights, BUT the right to vote.
Also anyone IN the millitary is FORBIDDEN from both VOTING and holding government/parliament position.
So you have to spend your term, and only then are your permitted to vote - but if you fell in love with playing soldier, you will only get to excercise your right once you retire.
Also, the state doesn't brainwash you - or at least you're not required to accept anything as is. The only brainwashing that you may be subjected to is the civics class, which must be held by a citizen.
That's the only class where redshirts come into contact with direct government propaganda - or a citizens interpretation of it.
Even in the army you always have the right to discuss the validity of anything.
This doesn't entitle you though to not to carry out orders....you merely have to know when you can complein and when it's time to shut up and do your job. Which kinda makes sense when the lives of others depend on you doing so. However, YOU CAN ALWAYS RESIGN; serving is voluntary.
Mind though, that the majority of people aren't even in the army or navy during their civil service. There is simply no need. As the recruiting officier puts it: "We had to find the meanest, dirtiest, dangerous jobs imaginable just to make you remember that you earned your citizenship and make you apreciate it."
-
FYI: brainwashing is the simple act of taking in 'recruits' - in any vocation - and forcing in the idea that the system they work in is correct and just.
FYI2: what rights do non-citizens have to appeal against abuse by citizens or those in power? A selective franchise is built to support itself by a pseudo-caste system, after all.
I don't see how any situation that require an explicit acceptance of the current form and system of government in order to have the right to vote, can be anything beyond dystopian and totalitarian; surely the most important thing to bear in mind is that the state defines responsibility, and thus controls the franchise in a manner that reinforces itself. Moreso, it's pretty evident in modern society alone that this type of selective franchise is fatally flawed; unless the likes of military or civil service are unpaid, then there are motives beyond a desire for responsibility or patriotism. Indeed, part of the problem such a system poses is that the state defines what is and what is not a patriotic, responsible vocation or act.
The simple and obvious truth is, of course, that any form of selective franchise allows the government to manipulate itself into continuous power; even if the actual party or parties can be voted out, the system is setup to inherently preserve the ideology, like a 2-party system between Fascists and Nazis. Essentially it forces people to do what the government wants them to - serve - in order to have the right to tell the government want to do. And part 1, influences part 2.