|
Killer robot posted:But Trump's flavor of right wing populism is pretty well established in Europe already, so I'm not sure how that works. It works by coming out of the brain of someone who didn't know what they were talking about and thought if they kept talking no one would notice.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Like Sharkie said, such speech carries little weight since it lacks the impact of speech targeted at minorities. Like, black people can call white honkies, but there isn't the same history (or capability) of oppression and violence there to back that up. There are a number of factors the contribute to the "effectiveness" of hateful speech, including stuff like power and how accepted by the public those views are (with something like addiction the latter is the main reason it is hurtful). Yeah, I'm not going to call white people honkies just because it doesn't hurt them as much as calling a minority a slur. And regardless of what you might think, poo poo like this does have an effect and talking about it like it doesn't or justifying the effect because it lesser doesn't excuse the behavior. In summation, though, as a white dude... gently caress white dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:The Alt-right "debate" style is trying to drag everyone down to a Middle School level, then beating them with experience. No it isn't. Their style is to harass Respectability Politics types until they crack and get indignant, and they change the subject constantly until they get to say "u mad?". They know literally nothing else. They have no experience with middle-school fights, just harassing adult figures until they get what they want. It's why Milo's favorite target is Ben Shapiro. Milo had a meltdown over losing his verified mark. The man went on a doxing crusade when he lost a twitter popularity poll. Milo would poo poo himself in rage/anxiety if he ever found himself in a game of The Dozens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Counterpoint: Germany gets along quite well and manages to be a free and democratic society, despite some of the strictest hate speech laws on record. But the situation can be hosed. Trump. North Carolina. Kansas/Oklahoma/insert rural hellhole here. Hell, back to Trump, dude has literally stated on several occasions that he wants to crack down on freedom of the press by making libel laws stronger. I am quite happy that America has an unusually strong and absolutist values towards free speech at this moment in time. Cracking the first amendment to better target gross, but comparatively harmless beardos on college campuses is not a smart trade, in my opinion. Also, it is a common conservative tactic to link certain left-leaning political movements to hate speech. BLM = anti-white, anti-police. Pro-Palestinian activists = anti-semitic. Do you think Kansas is going to be more interested in investigating claims of hate speech by BLM, or radical anti-abortionists? Periodiko fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yeah, I'm not going to call white people honkies just because it doesn't hurt them as much as calling a minority a slur. I would say that the difference between a minority using a slur against a white guy versus a white guy doing it to a minority isn't simply a difference in the degree of effect, but rather it's an entirely different thing. If slurs are about power, and they are, then a white guy using slurs is both drawing from and reinforcing an abusive historical power structure as well as asserting his own hierarchical power. The reverse case is nothing of the sort. In fact one could argue that a minority using slurs against a white person is an instance of someone fighting against these historical power structures to claim a share of their own power and self-determination, something that has traditionally been denied them, and is therefore just.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
But there are plenty of German and French goons. Only some of them posting from dystopian anti free speech Faraday cages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:But the situation can be hosed. Trump. North Carolina. Kansas/Oklahoma/insert rural hellhole here. Hell, back to Trump, dude has literally stated on several occasions that he wants to crack down on freedom of the press by making libel laws stronger. I am quite happy that America has an unusually strong and absolutist values towards free speech at this moment in time. Cracking the first amendment to better target gross, but comparatively harmless beardos on college campuses is not a smart trade, in my opinion. Sure, you are arguing from a messed up totalitarian society. Is "free speech" really what is wrong with North Carolina/Kansas/Oklahoma/racist hellhole? We needed big government to break Jim Crow but modern mother hubbards would talk about how soldiers marching children to school sets a bad precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:But is cracker as bad as the N-word? If you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won't even say one of them, that's the worst word!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I would say that the difference between a minority using a slur against a white guy versus a white guy doing it to a minority isn't simply a difference in the degree of effect, but rather it's an entirely different thing. If slurs are about power, and they are, then a white guy using slurs is both drawing from and reinforcing an abusive historical power structure as well as asserting his own hierarchical power. The reverse case is nothing of the sort. Or maybe instead of diving into the academia surrounding the socio/psycho-political ramifications of racial slurs and what ethnic makeup, context, crowd and time of day is required to morally use them we could all just agree that calling people mean racist names is a bad and dumb thing for anyone to do and stop doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:In fact one could argue that a minority using slurs against a white person is an instance of someone fighting against these historical power structures to claim a share of their own power and self-determination, something that has traditionally been denied them, and is therefore just. And how exactly do you plan to legislate this distinction?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Sure, you are arguing from a messed up totalitarian society. Is "free speech" really what is wrong with North Carolina/Kansas/Oklahoma/racist hellhole? A broad interpretation of the 1st amendment has huge implications. On what constitutional principal are you going to construct very broad hate speech laws that cannot be used to construct instruments against valuable free speech? I am NOT arguing from a messed up totalitarian society. I am arguing that these tools you might give to a friendly administration could be quite easily abused with even a mainstream shift to the right. Look at the PATRIOT act. Look at what is mainstream to say about Muslims, or BLM activists. The two leading presidential candidates of the GOP proposed intrusive anti-free speech laws, monitoring and policing Mosques, stronger libel laws against those critical of the president. These are mainstream views. And there are dozens of quite regressive state legislatures and governors that would be happy to have expanded powers to police free speech. The view that BLM was engaging in literally dangerous speech is absolutely mainstream in American discourse. What happens if a 9/11-level terrorist attack happens on US soil? That's not a Man in the High Castle speculation, that's a very real possibility. This is not the time to be deciding that maybe the first amendment shouldn't be interpreted as broadly or strongly as it has. This is the time for the opposite. This is the time for re-affirming the values of a democratic, open society with an absolutist's zeal. I am resisting the urge to quote Chomsky, but this is hardly a regressive position. The entire purpose of constitutional limitations is to act as a bulwark to a "messed up" society. Of course we're not there, yet. That's the point. Maybe we should wait until the orange-haired brownshirt stops running for President before we start questioning the value of strong first amendment protections? Periodiko fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Prepare the freak out A republican governor is going to sign a transgenders right law Good on you Massachusetts https://twitter.com/freedom_mass/status/738127083268919296 https://twitter.com/massachusetnews/status/738115175492915200 Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:If you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won't even say one of them, that's the worst word!  
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:No it isn't. Their style is to harass Respectability Politics types until they crack and get indignant, and they change the subject constantly until they get to say "u mad?". They know literally nothing else. They have no experience with middle-school fights, just harassing adult figures until they get what they want. It's why Milo's favorite target is Ben Shapiro. Milo had a meltdown over losing his verified mark. The man went on a doxing crusade when he lost a twitter popularity poll. Milo would poo poo himself in rage/anxiety if he ever found himself in a game of The Dozens. I personally findthe best way is to play them at their own game. Alot of them are vile poo poo heads, but they only like their own vile poo poo. So when they start spotting off their vile opinions I go what I like to become what I call Stalinist Hipster, it tends to horrify them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I personally findthe best way is to play them at their own game. Alot of them are vile poo poo heads, but they only like their own vile poo poo. So when they start spotting off their vile opinions I go what I like to become what I call Stalinist Hipster, it tends to horrify them. Or you can just find their moms email address or fb
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book True Allegiance quote:New York Times bestselling author Ben Shapiro’s new novel asks, how close are we to our country’s collapse—and will we be able to stop it once it begins?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book wow, that doesn't sound like an ejaculation fiction at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Milo would poo poo himself in rage/anxiety if he ever found himself in a game of The Dozens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
quote:a fiery female rancher-turned-militia leader has vowed revenge on the president for his arrogant policies Clitven Bundy
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yeah, I'm not going to call white people honkies just because it doesn't hurt them as much as calling a minority a slur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmzT4OV-w0
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:If you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won't even say one of them, that's the worst word! John Mulaney is the most Nahman Jaden whitebread looking dude but his stand-up rocked, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book "Brett Hawthorne is the youngest general in the United States Army" ... so he's like what, early 50s? A paragon of virility, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book The real question is: how much creepy vore fetish material is gonna be in it? Because judging by the reviews of his last fiction attempts, dude's got a serious oral fixation 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book That was hard to read even by right wing wankfest standards. The only thing missing foolish gay millennials foolishly following Mr. Super Terrorist and his foreign hordes to destroy Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book This book already sounds like its three years to late. Especially what with the rise of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book Weird to see a Jewish guy chased out of his job by twitter nazis end up writing the Turner Diaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:That was hard to read even by right wing wankfest standards. The only thing missing foolish gay millennials foolishly following Mr. Super Terrorist and his foreign hordes to destroy Christmas. I'm in. Pancha Ganapati encourages much more friendship to one's fellow man than modern Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:The real question is: how much creepy vore fetish material is gonna be in it? Because judging by the reviews of his last fiction attempts, dude's got a serious oral fixation You have a link to a review? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
ErIog posted:You have a link to a review? Asking for a friend. I'll have to find it later, but off the top of my head, one of the stories in his anthology was a sci-fi piece about a scientist who accidentally gets shrunk to microscopic size and then eaten by his boss... thus proving global warming is a hoax. I'm not making that up, that's the message of the piece. It's spectacularly hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:The real question is: how much creepy vore fetish material is gonna be in it? Because judging by the reviews of his last fiction attempts, dude's got a serious oral fixation wait what? explain?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:John Mulaney is the most Nahman Jaden whitebread looking dude but his stand-up rocked, yeah. He does look like a guy who's sat in a room and ate saltine crackers all day. Too bad his show was terrible, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Ben Shapiro has announced his new "fiction" book This century was long overdue for its own Turner Diaries!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Just caught Hugh Hewitt on MSNBC and he's hugely bent the knee to Trump. He went on like a five minute rant about how Trump U doesn't mean anything because its just cherry picked nonsense from the NY Times and Hillary has a federal criminal investigation swirling around her! Hayes: Well, when and if something happens with that I guarantee we'll talk about it. Hewitt: Well what about today? Brian Hillary's IT guy pleaded the fifth! I think that's huge! Republican Betsy Woodruff sat there the entire time laughing at Hugh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh shut the gently caress up with this poo poo. This is not a "both sides are equally wrong" situation, Milo is still infinitely more wrong than the woman who tore down some posters. That's not what I mean't at all. What I mean is the unwillingness to even entertain different concepts, ideas or philosophies. Not necessarily milo's (which is...well borderline hate speech), but there's a lot of people with libetarian/republican beliefs that are indeed attacked on site simply due to them having differing opinions. What I'm referring to mainly is the ideas related to economic reform or various other concepts. There's a little shitbag idealogues out there of course, but I do think there's got to be some sort "libetarian" ideas one must entertain and I would imagine there's libertarians who feel very similar to my democratic-socialist-populist beliefs. In life you have to learn to get along with people that you disagree with. The "TRUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE" is horse poo poo cop-out argument. But if a republican/libetarian minded person who's sincere in their beliefs and not trying to be trigger people? I think that person has every right to be entertained with conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:A broad interpretation of the 1st amendment has huge implications. On what constitutional principal are you going to construct very broad hate speech laws that cannot be used to construct instruments against valuable free speech? I am NOT arguing from a messed up totalitarian society. I am arguing that these tools you might give to a friendly administration could be quite easily abused with even a mainstream shift to the right. It seems like you are combining a fetish for Constitutionalism coupled with American Exceptionalism. That's as American as peanut butter and jelly, so I get you. But so what? If you want to argue that America's democracy is pretty unhealthy and resembles places like Turkey, I'm pretty open to that line of reasoning. But, unhealthy as our Republic is, are we really more like Turkey than Germany? Or developed Commonwealth Countries? You are still buying into a fundamentally conservative line of thinking. But even if we accept your constitutionalism as a given, you are wrong. Flawed though it may be and often is, the federal government secures the individual freedom of citizens via the 14th Amendment. That's why conservative justices have such a hardon against the civil war amendments. And why "constitutional originalism" exists. States are hosed up. We need the federal government to step in and protect individual citizens from the abuse of States. That way shitholes like like Alabama can't discriminate and we'll use force to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Its fine to say "you should give everyone a chance to talk and hear them out." But if I've already listened to Milo and determined that he has nothing to offer except hate and argues in bad faith than I think its perfectly fair to simply stop giving him the legitimacy of being treated like a good faith party and just ripping his signs down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:That's not what I mean't at all. If they can demonstrate that there is a reason to take them seriously. Earnest airings of dumb ideas get taken down so viciously because their faults or limitations have already been well understood. There's no reason to respect most libertarians because they speak from a place of near-total ignorance. If there were stalinists on the internet they'd get the same treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Did the guy even speak at UCLA or was he too intimidated by teenage girls who threw his fliers in the recycling bin?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:This is not the time to be deciding that maybe the first amendment shouldn't be interpreted as broadly or strongly as it has. This is the time for the opposite. This is the time for re-affirming the values of a democratic, open society with an absolutist's zeal. I am resisting the urge to quote Chomsky, but this is hardly a regressive position. The entire purpose of constitutional limitations is to act as a bulwark to a "messed up" society. Of course we're not there, yet. That's the point. Maybe we should wait until the orange-haired brownshirt stops running for President before we start questioning the value of strong first amendment protections? The part that concerns me is that it's very easy to advocate for (relatively) unrestricted free speech when you're not part of a group that might be harmed by it. An obvious example of speech that causes very real, serious harm is widespread racist speech, which can really gently caress with a person who happens to belong to the targeted group. It just feels like a large reason this extremely pro-free-speech attitude exists is because, almost by definition, the mainstream wouldn't be affected by the most harmful types of speech. Like, if you're some wealthy white person you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from allowing unrestricted speech. That being said, I appreciate the argument that any sort of hate speech laws would be made by people from those same demographics. I think it depends upon the situation in this case; at least in America, it is definitely true that many of people who make laws have better views regarding issues like race and sexual orientation than a large portion of the public (not that this makes their views good by any means, but at least better than some random white southerner). I guess the part of the pro-free-speech argument that I just don't buy is the idea that some restriction on, say, bigoted speech is on the same slope as the sort of stuff we see in dystopian fiction. I feel like if we elect a government that decides to start outlawing speech critical of government policies that such a society's problems go beyond just the free speech restrictions themselves. I'm not even really advocating for any specific limitations on free speech; I just disagree with the gut reaction most people seem to have that free speech must never be restricted. Unrestricted free speech definitely causes harm, and I think it's a discussion worth having on a case by case basis as to whether the harm it causes is greater than the harm caused by a particular restriction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The part that concerns me is that it's very easy to advocate for (relatively) unrestricted free speech when you're not part of a group that might be harmed by it. An obvious example of speech that causes very real, serious harm is widespread racist speech, which can really gently caress with a person who happens to belong to the targeted group. It just feels like a large reason this extremely pro-free-speech attitude exists is because, almost by definition, the mainstream wouldn't be affected by the most harmful types of speech. Like, if you're some wealthy white person you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from allowing unrestricted speech. So what I get out of this is that we could allow restrictions on speech, but apply some scrutiny to them. Maybe be a bit strict about it or something. It would be an interesting experiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 03:34
|
|
