If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
People really are in need of a reality check. It disturbs me more and more that people in the UK don't seem to care about freedom of speech like Americans do.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Free speech rights have zero to do with the ability to speak your mind without consequences. All it says is that the government can't mandate what it wants you to say.
(
Last edited by Mike Wuerthele; Apr 30, 2016 at 11:38 AM.
)
SJWs and the Regressive Left are batshit insane, the indoctrination is real. Most of those crybaby intersectionals will be in therapy for months after that event.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Now I think of it, its funny you keep harping on about the regressive left and SJWs (not just because consistent repetition is in itself an attempt to indoctrinate an opinion) when what they are doing is really not so different from what the religious right has been doing for decades.
"We aren't satisfied to just live the way we choose, we want to force everyone else to live by our chosen rules too."
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Now I think of it, its funny you keep harping on about the regressive left and SJWs (not just because consistent repetition is in itself an attempt to indoctrinate an opinion) when what they are doing is really not so different from what the religious right has been doing for decades.
"We aren't satisfied to just live the way we choose, we want to force everyone else to live by our chosen rules too."
I'm not a fan of organized religion, either, but what religious groups go to campus lectures just to start fights and shout down the speakers, on the rare occasion that someone on the political Right is even able to speak at a university, at all? Academia is supposed to be open and inclusive, you know, Liberal.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Free speech rights have zero to do with the ability to speak your mind without consequences. All it says is that the government can't mandate what it wants you to say.
I agree with everything you said, and understand the differences.
What do you think should be done(if anything) if people deny fellow citizens that right, either through nuisances or thuggery? Does the state/government have a duty to protect that right (irrespective of political inclination)? (specifically in public spaces)
It should be noted that the U.S., as far as I know, is the only country with a bill of rights, in which free speech is a right for every individual, which no one, individual, minority, majority or government can take away. It, as all "rights" is a limit on what the majority and/or government can regulate. I am not aware of any other western nation (or otherwise) which affords its citizens this right.
Ironically, i came to notice Milo Yiannopoulos a few weeks ago, and watched the interview with Dave Rubin. I did not know about this dude before, but i found the interview thoroughly entertaining, funny and insightful on the hard questions.
Milo Yiannopoulos and Dave Rubin Talk Donald Trump, Censorship, and Free Speech:
Cheers
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; May 1, 2016 at 03:05 PM.
)
What do you think should be done(if anything) if people deny fellow citizens that right, either through nuisances or thuggery? Does the state/government have a duty to protect that right (irrespective of political inclination)? (specifically in public spaces)
No. Here's the deal, as far as I see it.
Want to be a bigot? Fine, but I am under no obligation to listen to and conform to your point of view. Don't want to be "triggered?" Fine, don't put yourself in a position to be so. I am under no requirement to consider your feelings, but as a decent human being, I attempt to do so, when possible.
Regarding the video, educational venues are about exposing yourself to new ideas, even if you find them distasteful. Don't like what one particular advocate has to say about eating Smurfs over an open flame? Don't go. Picket if you want. However, if the Smurf-eaters come out and beat your ass because you're disrupting the event, then you got what was coming to you. If they beat your ass because you were peacefully protesting, and didn't really bother them, than that's another issue.
However, just because the Smurf-eaters don't like what you have to say, it doesn't mean that they SHOULD beat you down. The problem is, that social interactions seem to break down about here, and the decision to beat somebody verbally or physically because they disagree.
Want to be a bigot? Fine, but I am under no obligation to listen to and conform to your point of view. Don't want to be "triggered?" Fine, don't put yourself in a position to be so. I am under no requirement to consider your feelings, but as a decent human being, I attempt to do so, when possible.
I agree with that.
Have a look at the video the op posted. What I see, is a group creating a nuisance, intimidating the *speaker* and not allowing him/them to speak or the people who want to listen, to listen.(This is beyond political inclinations)
Does the government have a role there? (I have not made up my mind on this issue, but it makes me wonder, what is the point of a "right" if anyone else can take it away?)
Of course, I assume freedom of speech does not mean you can shout down someone you disagree with, by denying them their right to free speech? (public spaces again)
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; May 3, 2016 at 10:27 AM.
)
In an arena where an asshole is saying things you don't like and you have no course or option for a dialogue I can see some justification for being an awkward pain in the ass.
In the OP video the event clearly had a Q&A session scheduled so stomping your feet and crying and screaming like a toddler throwing a tantrum is completely unwarranted.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
There are countries where you can get the death penalty for being homosexual.
I assume everybody here finds this policy... I'm not even going to bother coming up with words for it. If there are policies which deserve to be shouted down, everyone here would agree that would be one of them.
What do you think shouting this down will accomplish versus calm, rational arguments? Has the world's movement towards rationalism and enlightenment been so precarious there is no other choice?
Regardless of the reason, if it is determined a policy is so vile the only solution is to get so many people to scream about it the powers that be are left with no other choice? I present to you it is then not the speech which moves the politicians, it's the threat of violence.
Facebook stands for free speech? Color me surprised. I always thought it stood for making a metric ****ton of money.
Of course it doesn't. Maybe it's CEO should stop claiming neutrality?
Considering the way age groups are distributed over the political spectrum, it could just be that more younger people using FB than older skew the popularity of different news organizations/articles, or something like that.
FWIW, i honest don't care if they are neutral or not, if they care for free speech or not. And i dont care what they claim in public vs what they do in private.
People really are in need of a reality check. It disturbs me more and more that people in the UK don't seem to care about freedom of speech like Americans do.
I'm a bit confused as to what we are supposed to glean from this video? It doesn't really specify who the speaker is and from what I can gather the topic might have had something to do with "feminism". I think. It's kind of hard to tell what the context is because the focus seemed to be on the girl in the audience acting like she had no sense. In fact, I was at a total loss about what she was even saying because she was just yelling and screaming at the top of her lungs. So what is this all about?
The speakers are all "anti-feminists" for lack of a better term.
Gotcha. Which then begs the question ... why was the young lady even there if she wasn't interested in what they had to say? Even if she thought the speakers were utter and complete fools there was no reason for her to behave so rudely. She only made herself look like an idiot quite frankly. Her energy could have been better spent in more productive endeavors.
There is a growing crowd who think not only are you incorrect, they consider what she did as the "best practice".
The argument to defend her behavior is the event she attended is no better than a Nazi or Klan rally, and shouting them down is how you deal with Nazis or the Klan.
I'm of the opinion this argument is wrong on all counts.
I think people confuse first amendment issues with cultural wars.
The first amendment is about laws protecting the rights of speech. In public universities there should be no laws preventing any kind of speaker, but the costs of bringing in speakers are subject to funding and politics like anything else. Many universities are privately funded, and the distinction between public and private becomes blurred with private donations and politicians being subordinate to corporate interests. In a private university/college setting, nobody is under any obligation to provide a platform for speech. This isn't law, this is the choice of private business.
A lot of people don't seem to understand this, and this applies to private business as well. The reverse of this is true as well - the guy that makes cakes doesn't have to sell his cakes to gay people if he really doesn't want to. Facebook gets to call the shots for use of their platform too.
Beyond this, there is a definite cultural war taking place. There has been political incorrectness for decades, and maybe Tightpants is right that this is growing. However, in addition there is also flat out racism, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, etc. and people with impatience to tolerate and provide a platform for intolerance, just culturally speaking, leaving aside legal rights. This impatience is often not a logical desire to usurp first amendment rights, it is simply impatience and (understandable) emotion.
It is also distracting. If there was not all of these things, people that believe the world is 5000 years old, people that believe that using a condom is a sin, people that believe that Noah's Ark literally happened as described, suppression of voting rights, politics run amuck by corporate greed, etc. - basically all of the stuff that many bitch about in here about pretty frequently, what would there be to be impatient and so called "intolerant of intolerance" about?
The sooner the war is won between modernity and outdated ways of thinking, the better. This should be our focus and where our emotional efforts are focused, not on these little symptomatic issues like political bullshit in universities.
This isn't about what's legal, it's about what's right.
I'm not debating whether a private institution can pick and choose who they want to speak. The question is if one disagrees with who the university has chosen, is the appropriate response to shout them down.
It is not. You respond with better ideas, not volume. This is a moral principle, not a legal one.
Aaaaaaand... yeah I'm getting my ****ing undies in a bundle about it because the moral principle I state above is the fundamental building block of progress. I don't care how goddamn tiny the cracks are.
While an argument can be made I just shouted, I by no means desired to shout you down. It is in fact the opposite. I desire whatever challenge to my position you may have.
There is a growing crowd who think not only are you incorrect, they consider what she did as the "best practice".
The argument to defend her behavior is the event she attended is no better than a Nazi or Klan rally, and shouting them down is how you deal with Nazis or the Klan.
I'm of the opinion this argument is wrong on all counts.
Well I have no issue with people challenging a Klan rally with a "counter" rally. That's totally appropriate IMO. But this seems like a very different situation. In this instance there was an invited speaker. To interrupt her presentation and act like you don't have a lick of sense isn't how you deal with it. Challenging her presentation on an intellectual basis during the Q & A session would have been a more productive move.
I'll give you an example from my college days. I was part of a program that was focused on developing minority students and providing corporate internships. There were chapters across the country and one summer we had a conference at the University of North Carolina. Long story short ... the head of this organization was a conservative black Republican and he decided to invite a speaker ... an attorney who was also a conservative black Republican ... to be the keynote speaker. I don't even recall what he spoke about. It was some boilerplate corporate mumbo jumbo. What I do recall is that I and a bunch of other students lit into his ass because per his bio on the conference itinerary he represented Jonas Savimbi who was the head of the UNITA party in Angola. This was during the time when apartheid was still in place in South Africa ... and Mr. Savimbi's movement was supported by that government. Needless to say, we felt he was on the wrong side of that issue and we challenged him on that. But no one shouted him down. No one yelled and screamed. But no one asked him a single question about what he actually spoke about. The Q&A session went straight political right out of the gate. And it certainly wasn't planned that way. We all spontaneously went there as a result of reading his bio right before the speech. Funny thing is it even made the local paper in Raleigh how we roasted the dude. The young lady certainly can learn a thing or two about how to go about expressing her displeasure. Just saying ...
You know what? If the biggest problem in your life is what someone else *SAYS*, their WORDS, believe me, you got it easy!
And if one is so hyper sensitive about words, that they sanction government and laws to stop you from saying something, maybe their the ones with the issue and problem who should be restricted in what they are attempting to do.
These "social justice warriors" seem to have serious developmental issues, and seem more like children in the way they choose to react. Tantrums, bullying, nuisances..... about WORDS.
FTR, i dont even know what/where 'trending topics' are, but i'm assuming it's like 'hot news' or something such. Quite frankly I dont care if they censure or promote whatever.... but i would call them out on their *claim* of being unbiased. (He's just doing what's good for business by lying about how unbiased his company is, why would he want to alienate ~50% of the population by admitting his employees/processes promote one side of the political spectrum?)
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; May 14, 2016 at 02:14 PM.
)
The speakers are all "anti-feminists" for lack of a better term.
Christina Hoff Sommers is a real, dyed-in-the-wool 2nd wave feminist (the same as my partners), and she has been for her entire professional life. What we're seeing now, within the 3rd wave/"intersectional" movement is idiocy, or "madness" as she calls it, not feminism.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
One more thing about Milo's "challenge" to Zuck...
So, Facebook not allowing "faggot" in page titles. This is a problem?
As a slur, no. As part of the title of a very specific thing (his speaking tour), yes.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It would take a moment of an active news curator's time (they employ several of those, as the whole Crowder vs Facebook situation has revealed). It's not handled strictly via software, Facebook diligently manicures everything its users see, for various reasons.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
He created the feeds and they were pulled, repeatedly. Even when he used alternative words like "F@ggot" or "F*ggot".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Christina Hoff Sommers is a real, dyed-in-the-wool 2nd wave feminist (the same as my partners), and she has been for her entire professional life. What we're seeing now, within the 3rd wave/"intersectional" movement is idiocy, or "madness" as she calls it, not feminism.
I couldn't really hear what any of them were saying so I just assumed they were all like Milo.
The way I see it, is we have a sort of verbal arms race to the bottom. Better ideas resulting in progress is the way it should be for sure, but when you have people who have learned to use deceit to further a genuinely regressive agenda, better ideas and progress don't work. They often choose to wander about trying to shout about their own ideals and if you let them do so unchecked, the danger is that those ideals will spread so sometimes the only way is to shout them down. Its a fine line between free speech, shouting down others and the right to protest sometimes.
All that said, in this instance where a Q&A is clearly mandated by the organisers giving everyone designated time to air their ideas and comments publicly, there is clearly no need to behave like a two-year-old and throw a temper tantrum.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
What is your evidence for this? Give me an example where it hasn't worked.
Its exactly like trying to argue with Creationists. No amount of reason and evidence and logic ever gets through. Climate change is another good example.
In this case Milo knows the things he is saying are wrong but he doesn't care because he's not interested in women and saying obnoxious things even if he know they are false is exactly the MO of most regular contributors to Fox News, Breitbart etc.
You can't debate with people who are too stupid to understand or who already know they are wrong but are spreading the same message anyway.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
What exactly is Milo saying that's wrong? He's a dickhead and an instigator, but he's rarely just outright wrong.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What exactly is Milo saying that's wrong? He's a dickhead and an instigator, but he's rarely just outright wrong.
You know what though? This dude(Milo), as far out there as he is, is IMHO no where close to being as batsh*t crazy or outrageous and rude as climate alarmists, third wave feminists, occupy wall st. idiots, etc.... and he's far more entertaining as well.
Creationism is beating out better ideas and progress?
Since when? How often do you hear people bring up intelligent design over evolution?
No, no. Creationism never actually beats common sense to a sensible and impartial audience to such a debate, but if you are a creationist, then common sense, better ideas and progress will not work on you or wouldn't be a creationist. I gather some of them eventually work it out for themselves, but it seems like it has to at least start with a monologue. These people are deliberately indoctrinated against learning from others who don't agree with them.
The funny thing about this particular case is that most evolution deniers or ID advocates actually do believe in evolution, they just don't realise it. If you believe that physiological traits can be passed down to your offspring, and that sometimes offspring have traits that no parent or ancestor has ever had before, then you pretty much believe in evolution. You probably just don't understand it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
What exactly is Milo saying that's wrong? He's a dickhead and an instigator, but he's rarely just outright wrong.
Actually as much as I hate to admit it, he does say a lot of things that are right. Or at least things that could be right. I think he's just generally wrong overall. Not in factual terms, he's just wrong. He really seems to dislike women and I think thats wrong if you want something more tangible.
Also as someone who is English-educated, but religious enough to laugh derisively at atheists, he loses major intellectual points for that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I see. I'm not sure what I'm seeing, but I see it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In Men in Black, there was a line like "a person is smart... people are stupid animals".
Well, atheism is fine... atheists are pompous, self-absorbed jackasses.
Yes, many of us are and I imagine to non-atheists that almost all us could sound that way, but Milo is way more pompous and self-absorbed than any atheist I could name and its the ism I think he's laughing at so I assume he must be fairly strongly religious. Which is pretty laughable itself given most religions opinions on homosexuality.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
May 20, 2016, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
The funny thing about this particular case is that most evolution deniers or ID advocates actually do believe in evolution, they just don't realise it. If you believe that physiological traits can be passed down to your offspring, and that sometimes offspring have traits that no parent or ancestor has ever had before, then you pretty much believe in evolution. You probably just don't understand it.
No, that's micro-evolution, which is different from macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is slight variations in size or color that a species makes to adapt to its environment. Macro-evolution is species changing into other species. From a creationist's point of view.
Top