Post: #1

Political satirist Ami Horowitz tests the waters at Yale University to see if today's Ivy League students would actually sign a petition to repeal the first amendment.

He's able to collect over 50 signatures in under an hour.





They don't even realize they're being trolled...

Post: #2

Total troll, but goes to show how gullible people are, even those high-and-mighty types who study at Ivy League schools and think they are so intelligent and worldly.

At the worst end of the spectrum it goes to show that the future of our country advocates the removal of our most basic rights as people. How backwards we have gone.

Post: #3

These people can vote.

After watching this video (wether its real or not), the govt backing sjw stuff makes more sense, these people are useful idiots, voting to give the government more power. The people signing that guys petition are the same kind of people protesting against police brutality/militarisation, without seeing the direct link between the two.

I live in england and its even worse, people are getting arrested over rude tweets.

Post: #4

"It is not about creating an intellectual space here, it is not! It's about creating a home here."

Holy shit. These "students" have no interest in learning and thinking, considering uncomfortable ideas in order to find the truth. They're from broken or never-formed homes, no father, and they somehow want college to be a protective "home" for them. Useless.

Post: #5

THis is absolutely outrageous.

Wow.















Just. wow.

Post: #6

Not a good video. I commented on this over at Steve Sailer's blog, and I'll repeat what I wrote there because I think it's important to say:

I’m not disagreeing with the premise of this post or the concept behind this video. I don’t doubt a lot of Yalies really believe this.

But this video is so over-edited that it makes me question his thesis and the honesty of his reporting.

There are so many quick cuts here that you don’t know if the students answering him were actually responding to his questions or if he grafted in unrelated answers using those (annoying) MTV-short-attention-span-styled edits. And just when you think you might get an answer, we get the audio pasted over with…jazz music. Huh?

All of this makes his work lose the impact it should have had. We don’t know if this is honest because the format is inherently dishonest.

This is the kind of technological sleight-of-hand in which the mainstream/cable news media specializes. Just Google “NBC edited interview” or “NBC deceptively edited” (no quotes on either) and you’ll see myriad of search results relating to this subject. And that’s just NBC!

If people outside of the mainstream want to make a point, they should avoid using the very methods that earned network news and cable stations such bad reputations.

Post: #7

Regardless, anyone who wants to repeal the 1st amendment should immediately have their voting privileges revoked and/or booted out of the country.

Post: #8

(12-17-2015 12:20 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Not a good video. I commented on this over at Steve Sailer's blog, and I'll repeat what I wrote there because I think it's important to say:

I’m not disagreeing with the premise of this post or the concept behind this video. I don’t doubt a lot of Yalies really believe this.

But this video is so over-edited that it makes me question his thesis and the honesty of his reporting.

There are so many quick cuts here that you don’t know if the students answering him were actually responding to his questions or if he grafted in unrelated answers using those (annoying) MTV-short-attention-span-styled edits. And just when you think you might get an answer, we get the audio pasted over with…jazz music. Huh?

All of this makes his work lose the impact it should have had. We don’t know if this is honest because the format is inherently dishonest.

This is the kind of technological sleight-of-hand in which the mainstream/cable news media specializes. Just Google “NBC edited interview” or “NBC deceptively edited” (no quotes on either) and you’ll see myriad of search results relating to this subject. And that’s just NBC!

If people outside of the mainstream want to make a point, they should avoid using the very methods that earned network news and cable stations such bad reputations.

Completely agree and my thoughts as well.

So many jump cuts and nearly the entire conversation is edited out. We don't know what he actually said.

Post: #9

I've seen lots of people call out the video for the editing too. I'm not a big fan of a lot of these "let's go around asking random people on the streets a loaded question and then release footage of the ones that we've trolled successfully" videos. They can be amusing but as a way of proving a point you're trying to make they are not very convincing.

Post: #10

This does not bode well.

Post: #11

On another note, this low key motivated me to brush up on my amendment knowledge.

-CD

Post: #12

It's a scam, sort of.

Essentially what happened is that he got people's attention by asking them to sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment.

After they stopped (some from shock, some from curiosity or support), he stated that he'd like to keep the amendment mostly as is, but with a caveat that in some cases sensitive speech would be encouraged for the benefit of a cohesive society.

Post: #13

(12-17-2015 10:51 PM)Lucky Wrote:  It's a scam, sort of.

Essentially what happened is that he got people's attention by asking them to sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment.

After they stopped (some from shock, some from curiosity or support), he stated that he'd like to keep the amendment mostly as is, but with a caveat that in some cases sensitive speech would be encouraged for the benefit of a cohesive society.

I don't necessarily see that as a scam. The moment you start to qualify what was an absolute right, that right invariably disappears.

Post: #14

(12-17-2015 10:57 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 10:51 PM)Lucky Wrote:  It's a scam, sort of.

Essentially what happened is that he got people's attention by asking them to sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment.

After they stopped (some from shock, some from curiosity or support), he stated that he'd like to keep the amendment mostly as is, but with a caveat that in some cases sensitive speech would be encouraged for the benefit of a cohesive society.

I don't necessarily see that as a scam. The moment you start to qualify what was an absolute right, that right invariably disappears.

In that case the first amendment should be long gone.