Quote:
Originally Posted by Tashtego
What? So now you argument is about the use of the phrase "bad behavior"? Is undesirable behavior better?
|
You have a problem with BEING QUOTED? Just like a liberal fundie, you use a term and assume that EVERYONE must agree with your parameters in defining it and then you argue about the term rather than the underlying point.
The point is everybody doesn't agree with how others define what is acceptable for people to think or say. And in fact, liberal leftist fundies for example use such slippery language to control what is allowable thought and action, because they are fascist fundamentalists. They've done that with the word "racism" among
many others...lowered the bar to using the label (hell, you're a racist just because they said you are!), then raising the bar of its horrible nature after tagging you with the low-bar label so that you feel the full brunt of its unfair and undeserved impact.
Quote:
You aren't allowing me to use the term "bad behavior" literally because others have twisted it's meaning?
|

I don't care what TERMS you use, the reality is that many people, most of all fundie leftists, are looking to control what you say and think, regardless of what terminology they use to justify it.
Quote:
Non-totalitarian societies define "bad behavior" as well. Civil societies (even the free-est and most democratic ones) have penal codes to deter "bad behavior", and blizzard has a reporting system to do the same.
|
And American leftists are fundies who are all about deterring free thought and action while pretending it's not about control, it's about 'racism' or 'bad behavior' or 'justice,' or etc., etc., etc...
Fuck 'em. They're not interested in a free society, they're interested in controlling society.
Quote:
A professor who suppresses free speech is not a "totalitarian".
|
Yes they are, because they are in fact exercising autocratic powers, which is totalitarian.
Quote:
Blizzard Entertainment defining "bad behavior" and punishing people has nothing to do with totalitarianism.
|
Maybe, maybe not...depends upon how they implement it. It will most assuredly be abused by some for autocratic (i.e. totalitarian) purposes, to try to control others because too many people are snowflakes who think the world must bow to their sensitivities and sensibilities.
Quote:
Just because a school takes federal money doesn't mean that it can't write it's own rules of conduct
|
Again, INCORRECT. If the federal or state funding authority requires a change in an institution's policies they will FORCE that change through the threat of removal of funding, and they already prescribe many policies as a requirement of receiving funds. The Obama administration did this to great (lol, as in retarded) effect with Title IX being the vehicle to force universities to suspend basic constitutional rights of accused students leading to kangaroo courts ejecting students from school with no due process, no right to legal representation, no right to question their accuser, etc..over unsubstantiated sexual allegations.
Quote:
There is no constitutional right to attend a private university.
|
Private or public, you DO NOT cede your constitutional rights merely by enrolling in an institution. Well, that is, as long as you're not living under a Democrat administration using Title IX as a bludgeon to destroy you for unprovable accusations related to consensual sex.
Quote:
A private institution can (entirely legally) limit expression and expel anyone who violates that expression.
|
This is ridiculously stupid.
FIRE: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
You have MANY constitutional rights on campus...private or public, it does not matter.
Quote:
You do not cede your constitutional rights by attending college, but a college has the right to enforce a behavior policy.
|
You just contradicted your previous point.

There are state, federal, and constitutional limits on how institutions run their campus. You should know this.
Quote:
Yes, the federal government can place restrictions on how money is used and can threaten to withhold money as a means of coercion, but these private institutions don't have to take money, they choose to do so.
|
Yes. That's my point. Thanks.